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

Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones

thenewleafjournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 245 posts

Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones

#181

Post by josephcsible »

_rdvw wrote: post #171

I'm biased as a maintainer of my own OS, but there are severe issues with /e/OS: https://divestos.org/misc/e.txt And it is honestly sad to see, because they could be a real viable option and instead choose to largely ignore or hand-wave away these issues.

> - Enables Safetynet checks by default which downloads and executes obfuscated proprietary code from Google

> - Includes proprietary Google Widevine DRM on nearly all devices

While proprietary code, obfuscation, and DRM are all evil, if /e/OS didn't support these things, then a lot of very popular apps wouldn't work on it, which would make it a lot less viable as a platform. Refusing to do those things wouldn't result in any less of those evil technologies. It would just result in less /e/OS adoption.

Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones

#182

Post by HidyBush »

josephcsible wrote: post #179
HidyBush wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This could be easily solved if manufacturers simply allowed for using a unique password to unlock the bootloader. Want to install a custom ROM? Simple! Put the phone in recovery mode, insert the unique manufacturer-provided password, unlock the bootloader, flash the new ROM, go back to recovery, change the password to one of your choosing, lock the bootloader again, add the ROM's official private key to enable safe b…

So if you forget your password, your expensive device is instantly and permanently bricked and becomes e-waste?

No, the password is only to lock-unlock the bootloader. If you forget it you won't be able to install a new ROM but you will still be capable of upading your OS or factory resetting it

Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones

#183

Post by Bud »

unethical_ban wrote: post #72
Bud wrote: post #46

Really embarrassing level of blatant copying of iOS icons and design language, here.

I welcome you to defend why it's embarrassing.

It's embarrassing, a priori.

There's so much here that is embarrassing that we'd have to have about five beers to even cover it on a surface level. So much that was just lazily copied verbatim rather than anyone TRYING to do something original, or even do just a slight, semi-creative variation.

Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones

#184

Post by josephcsible »

HidyBush wrote: post #182
josephcsible wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if you forget your password, your expensive device is instantly and permanently bricked and becomes e-waste?

No, the password is only to lock-unlock the bootloader. If you forget it you won't be able to install a new ROM but you will still be capable of upading your OS or factory resetting it

Forgetting a password shouldn't cause permanent loss of functionality of hardware.

Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones

#186

Post by HidyBush »

josephcsible wrote: post #184
HidyBush wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the password is only to lock-unlock the bootloader. If you forget it you won't be able to install a new ROM but you will still be capable of upading your OS or factory resetting it

Forgetting a password shouldn't cause permanent loss of functionality of hardware.

I'm not understanding your argument. You say that unlocking a bootloader is dangerous, so what's your solution? You can't have non-unlockable bootloaders because that would mean a loss of hardware functionality, which you just suggested you consider unacceptable. You can't have easily unlockable bootloaders because that would be dangerous. So now what?

I proposed a very reasonable solution that gives the user control AND responsibility of their own device. If you don't want the responibility (and the control) then stick with your manufacturer's locked bootloader and never touch it.

I don't know about you but I would really like if my work phone had a company-set bootloader lock just like my work laptop has a company-set BIOS lock in case someone steals it or gets lost. There are plenty of professional and personal reasons why my solution would make a lot of sense in my opinion.

Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones

#188

Post by josephcsible »

HidyBush wrote: post #186
josephcsible wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forgetting a password shouldn't cause permanent loss of functionality of hardware.

I'm not understanding your argument. You say that unlocking a bootloader is dangerous, so what's your solution? You can't have non-unlockable bootloaders because that would mean a loss of hardware functionality, which you just suggested you consider unacceptable. You can't have easily unlockable bootloaders because that would be dangerous. So now what? I proposed a very reasonable solution that gives the user control…

> You say that unlocking a bootloader is dangerous

I didn't say that. In fact, I believe the opposite.

> You can't have easily unlockable bootloaders because that would be dangerous.

I do want easily unlockable bootloaders.

Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones

#190

Post by rgmerk »

josephcsible wrote: post #178
rgmerk wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And guess what? In some jurisdictions, including some US states, possession and sale of some types of knives is banned or controlled, because they are used by criminals and thugs for larceny and assault. You're also not permitted to upload whatever firmware you like to your car's engine if you want to run it on the street. Note also that I didn't argue that uploading alternate firmware to phones should be banned. I'm…

Laws against custom engine firmware and knives are unjust themselves, so they shouldn't be used to justify other things.

I hate to have to make this argument, but here goes...

...where do you draw the line? An M240 machine gun? A Stinger missile? A PFOS factory? A Special Atomic Demolition Munition?

We regulate private possession of dangerous items all the time, and pretty much everybody draws the line somewhere despite vigorous dispute where that line should be drawn in specific cases.

Post reply on HN