101–110 of 668 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Income shouldn't be a barrier to having technology that you own completely, a concept that until recently was common.
Technology was also a hell of a lot less complicated until recently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Buy a PinePhone. It might very well be more open and trustworthy than some laptops or desktops.
The PinePhone is definitely more open and trustworthy, but it also feels pretty useless for the time being. Its Allwinner A64 processor is antiquated, about like a lower-end Android phone from half a decade ago and with only 2–3GB of RAM, but the Phosh software stack isn’t optimized well for these limitations and the device moves at a crawl. Just opening the screen to turn the wifi on or off takes over five seconds.…
For $150 it's quite a good deal. Plus, the software stacks are quickly improving, especially Mobian.
The author didn't define what owning means, but my guess is that, the computer must not run code without his approval, and must be able to run any code he wants. Nowadays, you can only truly own an emulator.
I want the search index of the early google age where it was less monetized and more accurate. I want real information not force fed crap that is essentially information fast food causing type-2 terminal stupididty. I want information without the built in addiction.
You now have a computer that is 10,000 times faster than one you had 30 yrs ago at half the price. Oh and it fits in your pocket. A lot of time and money went into creating that. Those people need to get paid. And yes you pay for it with some loss of privacy.
The reason why this product doesn't existing on the market is because because NOBODY (except the odd 4000 people on HN) wants this product. Most people don't even use a VPN or know what TOR is. If you don't want it, then design and fab your own chips and write your own software from scratch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He wants a computer with specific features, but doesn't want pay for the models that offer those features because they are too expensive? Correct. He wants a computer with less complexity and less spying "features", and the market is failing hard at that. > reality has constraints No, these are entirely artificial restrictions. Companies invested very significant efforts to implement DRM, management engine, AMT, al…
Surveillance is profitable for the computer manufacturers. The “barebones” version therefore costs more. SmartTV’s, cellphones, etc don’t make a lot per person but it’s enough you need to go up market to find any real privacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess they mean the freedom (or lack thereof) of the software license that comes with your OS, ie. 'you should be able to hit the software with a metaphorical hammer', which technically isn't possible with the Windows 10 license.
I also think selecting parts is limited by the fact that there are so few manufacturers. Processors these days mostly come down to AMD or Intel and nothing there is transparent or audit-able. "trusted computing" and backdoors make even your hardware suspect.
For example, for $4k, you can get this with specs roughly equivalent to a normal developer machine: https://www.raptorcs.com/content/BK1SD1/intro.html
I have a similar feeling, but with modern smartphones. Owning my computer is still relatively possible. I can build a computer from parts which I can choose, and have a choice in which operating system to install on them. Laptops are slightly more closed, but even on those I can choose the OS myself. Modern smartphones however, seem like walled gardens in which I have no control at all. I cannot choose any of the par…
I agree with this so much. It would be so convenient if I could just flash Arch Linux or something onto a modern smartphone and be able to use all the applications and settings and data I use on my desktop, but on my mobile phone. Android is markedly better than iOS when it comes to customization, but it's a far cry from a (real) Linux distribution. I've started getting OS-level push notification ads from Google News…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The (not cost effective) solution is to carry both. Shut off the 'normal' smart phone when you don't need it (for banking or what have you). Use the web version of Whatsapp ( https://web.whatsapp.com/ ) if you must use it. You could even consider having a WhatsApp specific phone if you have an older model that you've upgraded from that contains no other data. That was my solution anyway.
That is the solution I am considering at the moment as well. Its not the prettiest, but it will likely work as a stopgap measure.
You'll need a external battery pack though for longer days away from home.
> Will this ever end? It remains an interesting question. Is there any way to reclaim the autonomy and ethos of freedom from the earlier part of the digital era? I'm not sure how that would look. I don't mean in terms of a set of hardware and software solutions. I mean technology that's actually for the end users, available to everyone with curiosity as the only barrier to entry. It sounds like a utopian delusion eve…
https://www.cnet.com/news/windows-95-remains-most-popular-op...