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

Google shifting to “upstream first” Linux kernel approach for Android features

phoronix.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–116 of 116 posts

Re: Google shifting to “upstream first” Linux kernel approach for Android features

#111

Post by atq2119 »

pjmlp wrote: post #96
fouric wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis Freedom to do what you want with the device you purchased is a right that is not to be infringed upon, especially not for the reason "the users might hurt themselves". Setting up a technically nontrivial flow to unlock the bootloader (e.g. connect the device to a machine with an SSH client, approve S…

As it is a right for a manufactures to sell their devices configured as whatever they feel like. The consumer has the right to buy from companies that sell products that actually fit their purposes, like I don't know, a computer, instead of trying to replace the firmware in a toaster.

As a society we have already decided that manufacturers can't just configure the devices they sell however they feel like. One of the most obvious restrictions is on how they configure any radios. fouric is merely arguing that there should be another, and you're not responding to their points.

As such, your comments in this discussion, and this one in particular, do not appear to be in good faith.

Re: Google shifting to “upstream first” Linux kernel approach for Android features

#112

Post by pjmlp »

atq2119 wrote: post #111
pjmlp wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As it is a right for a manufactures to sell their devices configured as whatever they feel like. The consumer has the right to buy from companies that sell products that actually fit their purposes, like I don't know, a computer, instead of trying to replace the firmware in a toaster.

As a society we have already decided that manufacturers can't just configure the devices they sell however they feel like. One of the most obvious restrictions is on how they configure any radios. fouric is merely arguing that there should be another, and you're not responding to their points. As such, your comments in this discussion, and this one in particular, do not appear to be in good faith.

Good example.

Hence why radios are kind of locked down to makers that could make use of illegal radio frequencies, some of which could even be damaging to human health.

My faith is that not everything with a CPU has to be open to install Linux on it.

Re: Google shifting to “upstream first” Linux kernel approach for Android features

#113

Post by bsdubernerd »

summm wrote: post #103
bsdubernerd wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish I could upvote you more. There's nothing about "freedom" in this post, it's all about developer's convenience. It's easier to keep local changes and push them later if the upstream is not changing much. If your upstream is a moving target, doing anything but upstream-first is only making it worse for yourself in the long run. Nothing to add regarding bootloader locking and safetynet on top. I don't want multip…

Instead of replacing your phone, have you thought about replacing your bank? Is there any competition that does not force this bullshit onto it's customers?

Yes. I couldn't. The alternatives were worse. I need remote banking (travelling too frequently). No alternative allowed plain login without a second factor.

I've seen other banks here _charging_ for the hardware OTP dongle separately. The yearly price of the dongle was more expensive than simply getting another crap phone and installing the app.

Re: Google shifting to “upstream first” Linux kernel approach for Android features

#114

Post by voidnullnil »

BrightGlow wrote: post #83
MildlySerious wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still, what's the point in telling someone "to vote with their wallet" instead of complaining? Why not both? Where, if not on HN, should we voice our opinion that tech is going down some path we aren't excited about? Avoiding Google/FB/Amazon/Microsoft or whatever your megacorp of choice is is becoming increasingly hard, and it absolutely deserves being talked about. As do any other things in which our choices and fr…

The general problem I have (personally) with these type of complaints is that there is no real way for any of these companies to act on it further. In the case of Google, they already have acted on it. It's just noise to them at this point. If you believe something else is being snuffed out, it would help to mention what it is so people can help you. Because making that statement without context doesn't really stand…

False. You just want to meta-complain. c0l0 has pointed out how Google(R) MoronNet(TM) in practice usually negates any benefit gained from how virtuous their kernel maintenance process is.

Re: Google shifting to “upstream first” Linux kernel approach for Android features

#115

Post by voidnullnil »

obmelvin wrote: post #73
jjulius wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP said " Most Android devices". You then singled out a specific subset of phones that are only a small portion of the market to claim that OP's comment is "weird". OP's comment is accurate because Pixels are not "most Android phones". You also don't know whether or not OP already owns a Pixel, so I'd say it's "weird" to tell them not to complain without knowing whether or not they have already voted with their walle…

Most people with most android devices don't remotely care about this. If you do care, it is reasonable to buy a specific device.

False.

1. Anti-user mechanisms (SafetyNet) annoy users.

2. Even though SafetyNet may not be as annoying as something like UAC, it still has deep reaching effects[1] since now the standards are proprietary and nobody can make an actual good UI alternative to the garbage dog-slow banking app.

The irony is your stale rhetoric only applies the other way: Users who were saved by "risk analysis" and firewall type systems don't know they were saved and don't care.

1. I assume this attestation is checked on the app's server - I assume Google signs their attestation that your device is "good" and this is verifiable by the server of the banking app. Otherwise the in app checks could just be nopped.

Re: Google shifting to “upstream first” Linux kernel approach for Android features

#116

Post by seniorivn »

NoThisIsMe wrote: post #61
seniorivn wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's not how it should be, that's how it is. The only way cheaper devices are so cheap is by cutting all the corners they can, and turns out one of the corners people don't care to be cut is their privacy and security

Is locking the bootloader cutting corners though? Sounds like an extra step to me.

locking bootloader is a way to prevent you from undercutting their spyware. if there is a spyware, than it is a part of their business model, and every user that got away is a drop in revenue. But their targeted users don't mind to be spied on.
Post reply on HN