Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Samsung kills the cameras on the Galaxy Z Fold 3 if you unlock the bootloader

xda-developers.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 204 posts

Re: Samsung kills the cameras on the Galaxy Z Fold 3 if you unlock the bootloader

#181

Post by southerntofu »

Abishek_Muthian wrote: post #171
afiori wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution is always the same, focus on a stellar UX.

Stellar UX are always welcomed, But the network effects of a chat application are too high of a variable for to just rely on stellar UX to be successful. Case in point: There was a chat app called Hike[1] in India run by the son of the leading Telecom Billionaire. It had more features(free SMS, Stickers) and arguably better UX than WhatsApp according to its users(100M). But it could never gain over WhatsApp's initial…

That's a very good example of why net-neutrality and anti-monopoly principles are important. Thanks for bringing it up

Re: Samsung kills the cameras on the Galaxy Z Fold 3 if you unlock the bootloader

#182

Post by southerntofu »

afiori wrote: post #148
Abishek_Muthian wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One has to already bend heaven and earth to bring people who don't care about Privacy from WhatsApp, Messenger to Signal. Only reason someone is able to do that now is because WhatsApp, Messenger gets into some legal trouble and the media advertises Signal. Preaching about significance of interoperable protocol and suggesting apps which use them is beyond the capacity of even those media.

The solution is always the same, focus on a stellar UX.

You may be interested to learn that stellar UX is an important point for the snikket.org family of XMPP clients, despite not being there yet. There's an upcoming UX study if you'd like to take part: https://snikket.org/blog/simply-secure-collaboration/

Re: Samsung kills the cameras on the Galaxy Z Fold 3 if you unlock the bootloader

#183

Post by southerntofu »

autoexec wrote: post #149
jankotek wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had run LineageOS for some time. It works, but FDroid is missing too many apps, even opensource like Signal. I have to update apks manually every few months.

FDroid has Silence and Jami which is what I switched to after signal started collecting and permanently storing user data in the cloud.

Silence is great but needs more contributors. Advertise it to your privacy-friendly friends and Android devs you know :)

Anecdote i learned recently about Silence: it's maintained by a jurist who works for a pro-privacy non-profit in France (La Quadrature Du Net)

Re: Samsung kills the cameras on the Galaxy Z Fold 3 if you unlock the bootloader

#184

Post by southerntofu »

fomine3 wrote: post #169
foresto wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe GrapheneOS?

Looks great, thanks. It's good that it also support with Google Play Services for who needs, despite it's privacy oriented ROM.

Just nitpicking, but it's technically possible to install Google Play Services on any ROM, to my knowledge. What makes GrapheneOS apart is they apparently found a safe way to prevent it from gaining control of your entire phone.

Re: Samsung kills the cameras on the Galaxy Z Fold 3 if you unlock the bootloader

#185

Post by rakshazi »

Abishek_Muthian wrote: post #170
scns wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://e.foundation sells devices with /e/ preinstalled

True I limited my comment to LineageOS as I've personally tried /e/OS only for a small period. Having it pre-burned on a device does alleviate a major problem, but is there any other reason to choose /e/ over LineageOS?

if you are "non-technical" user - yes. but if you can install LineageOS (or any other custom rom you prefer) - no.

Re: Samsung kills the cameras on the Galaxy Z Fold 3 if you unlock the bootloader

#186

Post by rakshazi »

SahAssar wrote: post #159
agilob wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Signal team fought a long war against any forks or unauthorised builds of Signal. There are (or were) FDroid repositories with Signal compatible builds, but Moxie stated that any such build will be considered malware. Signal team was making such builds increasingly difficult to produce. Official F-Droid repo doesn't allow proprietary dependencies on which Signal depends for some messages (push?)

Signal is open-source in the "look at it, but don't even try to tun it" way. I'd rather support a protocol that supports federation and encourages alternative clients.

https://matrix.org is a good one

Re: Samsung kills the cameras on the Galaxy Z Fold 3 if you unlock the bootloader

#187

Post by Abishek_Muthian »

southerntofu wrote: post #180
Abishek_Muthian wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it's a shame that Signal is not on F-Droid, but there's a self updating apk available[1] for side-loading which doesn't use Google Push Notifications if not available and as for why it's not there on F-Droid here's their official response[1], Which IMO makes some reasonable (against forks using their servers) and unreasonable (against normalizing side-loading) justifications. [1] https://community.signalusers.org…

> some reasonable (against forks using their servers) (...) justifications How is that reasonable in a centralized client-server model? That's precisely what we find unreasonable with Twitter and others shutting down or making life hard for 3rd party clients. Why would it be more acceptable from a free-software service? The network effect says a centralized protocol like Signal has "zero" value without reusing the sa…

You are asking some very pertinent questions.

The reason why I felt there's some reason to Signal's stand on forks was because forks not standing up Them having their own F-Droid repository is to the quality standards, not adhering to feature parity while consuming their resources might not go well with their funders.

Signal having its own repo on F-Droid is the viable solution for them but they don't seem have any intention of doing it.

I don't agree with Moxie's reasoning against federated technologies, TBH I prefer email over any real-time communication due to its federated nature.

Re: Samsung kills the cameras on the Galaxy Z Fold 3 if you unlock the bootloader

#188

Post by Abishek_Muthian »

southerntofu wrote: post #181
Abishek_Muthian wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stellar UX are always welcomed, But the network effects of a chat application are too high of a variable for to just rely on stellar UX to be successful. Case in point: There was a chat app called Hike[1] in India run by the son of the leading Telecom Billionaire. It had more features(free SMS, Stickers) and arguably better UX than WhatsApp according to its users(100M). But it could never gain over WhatsApp's initial…

That's a very good example of why net-neutrality and anti-monopoly principles are important. Thanks for bringing it up

Thanks, It's indeed a good example for how oligopoly in telecom stifle innovation and how not even well-funded startups can survive in it.

Monopoly or Duopoly is a straight death sentence to innovation.

Re: Samsung kills the cameras on the Galaxy Z Fold 3 if you unlock the bootloader

#189

Post by devney »

falcolas wrote: post #82
bluGill wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That depends on the trap and how you set it. If you dig a hole for a house and someone falls in you are not liable.

As always, intent is king. If you make a hole intended to be a trap for trespassers, you likely will be liable. If the hole has a different, legitimate purpose, then you're likely not liable if you've marked the hole properly. https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/liabili...

Not really related to the discussion at hand but I often wonder if that's the right way to make laws? "Intent is king" is the watchword of modern American jurisprudence but I ask you: If you killed 3 people, are they less dead if it was an accident? If people knew they would be punished for consequences instead of intent, would people be more careful about considering the consequences of their actions? Would that make for, just in general, a more observant, more considerate, more intelligent populace, with less collateral damage? By extension, might that result in more just/fair laws just in general?

I'm fairly confident this "intent" thing is absolutely the wrong way to build a society. I would love if someone would engage with this idea and offer criticisms for/against but so far nobody has.

Re: Samsung kills the cameras on the Galaxy Z Fold 3 if you unlock the bootloader

#190

Post by southerntofu »

Abishek_Muthian wrote: post #188
southerntofu wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very good example of why net-neutrality and anti-monopoly principles are important. Thanks for bringing it up

Thanks, It's indeed a good example for how oligopoly in telecom stifle innovation and how not even well-funded startups can survive in it. Monopoly or Duopoly is a straight death sentence to innovation.

> Monopoly or Duopoly

Yeah or any kind of cartel, really. It's hard enough for a small coop to fight economies of scale, but in many areas you're facing an actual mafia.

Somewhat off-topic, but what's the situation with DIY non-profit ISPs in India? If you're not familiar with the topic, you can look up NYCMesh (New York), Guifi (Spain), Freifunk (Germany), FFDN Federation (France) or Rhizomatica (Mexico). Another interesting development in the telecoms field is https://jmp.chat/ promoting and developing free-software for cellphoneXMPP/SIP interoperability.

Post reply on HN