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

We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

hugotunius.se

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 1001 posts

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#181

Post by kg »

judge2020 wrote: post #155
echelon wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom > Privacy > Security Never give up your freedom. If you have to give up your privacy to ensure your freedom, so be it. If you have to give up your security to ensure your privacy, so be it. This goes for governments and phones.

> This goes for governments and phones. Apple does not have the ability to throw me in prison or take away my freedoms. Only to not grant me extra freedoms subsidized by their R&D budget.

Technically for US residents Apple can throw you in prison for attempting to maintain and use your freedoms, thanks to the anti-circumvention parts of the DMCA.

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#182

Post by rs186 »

immibis wrote: post #159
bsder wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The primary problem is that we can't build a phone and run it on a cellular carrier network. This is where legislation is needed. Apple and Google are still a problem, but they are a secondary problem.

I don't think the cellular network is the problem at all - everything except SMS and PSTN calls works on wifi. The problem is the apps. Netflix only runs on a verified bona fide electrified six car Google- or Apple-approved device; so do most financial apps (EU law requires them to) and basically everything else where the app developers are trying to get money off you (which is most apps). Some apps will refuse to pl…

In the US at least, you could already have a lot of trouble with Wi-Fi calling when using unlocked Android phones. And it is basically nonexistent if you use a phone purchased outsiden US.

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#183

Post by throwaway31131 »

tzury wrote: post #84

We need both options to coexist: 1. Open, hackable hardware for those who want full control and for driving innovation 2. Locked-down, managed devices for vulnerable users who benefit from protection This concept of "I should run any code on hardware I own" is completely wrong as a universal principle. Yes, we absolutely should be able to run any code we want on open hardware we own - that option must exist. But we s…

> The problem isn't that locked-down devices exist - it's that we don't have enough truly open alternatives for those who want them.

Not for lack of trying. See for yourself

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-source_mobile_p...

The list is not short.

Plenty of companies have attempted this over the years but it’s not obvious that a big enough customer base exists to support the tremendous number of engineering hours it takes to make a phone. Making a decent smart phone is really hard. And the operations needed to support production isn’t cheap either.

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#184

Post by bccdee »

> Forcing Apple to change core tenets of iOS by legislative means would undermine what made the iPhone successful.

Even if this is true… so what? Perhaps the App Store monopoly has helped make the iPhone successful, but that doesn't make it a good thing.

> If you want to play Playstation games on your PS5 you must suffer Sony’s restrictions, but if you want to convert your PS5 into an emulator running Linux that should be possible.

Why? What if Sony's restrictions are bad? Why are we ceding corporations the right to treat us however they want, so long as we're using their software?

You shouldn't have to flash a new OS onto your hardware in order for it to respect you as its user & owner. You shouldn't need to be tech-savvy, either. The happy path for the median user should be privacy and freedom.

Free/libre alternatives to consumer software are always going to be second-class, because respecting users is at odds with making money off them. If we people to be treated well by tech, it's not enough to provide an alternative ecosystem. We have to deny corporations the option to treat users badly in the first place.

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#185

Post by flomo »

echelon wrote: post #147
flomo wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind one of these third parties would almost certainly be Meta (because users want their stuff), and that would almost certainly be a privacy downgrade.

Freedom > Privacy > Security Never give up your freedom. If you have to give up your privacy to ensure your freedom, so be it. If you have to give up your security to ensure your privacy, so be it. This goes for governments and phones.

Always fun to interact with some internet Thomas Jefferson giving freedom speeches from his mother's basement.

Reality is that people pay a lot of money because they 'trust' Apple (and to a lesser extent Google), but Meta is the sleaziest one of them all. (And I don't use their shit either.) But people want Whatapp and Instagram, and so you are telling them now they have sell-out and go to the "Meta App Store" to talk to their friends. That fucking sucks. And I think you agree with that.

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#186

Post by josephcsible »

tzury wrote: post #84

We need both options to coexist: 1. Open, hackable hardware for those who want full control and for driving innovation 2. Locked-down, managed devices for vulnerable users who benefit from protection This concept of "I should run any code on hardware I own" is completely wrong as a universal principle. Yes, we absolutely should be able to run any code we want on open hardware we own - that option must exist. But we s…

No, we need to only have option 1, because if option 2 exists, things like banking apps will all only run on it and will refuse to work on option 1.

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#188

Post by AtlasBarfed »

ACCount37 wrote: post #83
AtlasBarfed wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of the real canaries I watch on "real AI" for programming. It should be able to make an OS. It should be able to write drivers. It should be able to port code to new platforms. It should be able to transpile compiled binaries (which are just languages of a different language) across architectures. Sure seems we are very far from that, but really these are breadth-based knowledge with extensive examples /…

AI kicks ass at a lot of "routine reverse engineering" tasks already. You can feed it assembly listings, or bytecode that the decompiler couldn't handle, and get back solid results. And corporate AIs don't really have a fuck to give, at least not yet. You can sic Claude on obvious decompiler outputs, or a repo of questionable sources with a "VERY BIG CORPO - PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL" in every single file, and it'…

That's one of the boil-ups. Why would lack of Linux compatibility for hardware be a thing? If AI can write the drivers in 1/10th the effort/time, it should be a game changer for open source.

I haven't heard much from the major projects yet, but I'm not ear-to-the-ground.

I guess that is what is disappointing. It's all (to quote n-gage) webshit you see being used for this, and corpo-code so far, to your point.

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#189

Post by llukas »

throwaway31131 wrote: post #183
tzury wrote: post #84

We need both options to coexist: 1. Open, hackable hardware for those who want full control and for driving innovation 2. Locked-down, managed devices for vulnerable users who benefit from protection This concept of "I should run any code on hardware I own" is completely wrong as a universal principle. Yes, we absolutely should be able to run any code we want on open hardware we own - that option must exist. But we s…

> The problem isn't that locked-down devices exist - it's that we don't have enough truly open alternatives for those who want them. Not for lack of trying. See for yourself https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-source_mobile_p... The list is not short. Plenty of companies have attempted this over the years but it’s not obvious that a big enough customer base exists to support the tremendous number of engineer…

Government maybe rather than legislating big companies stores could not back up smaller open HW/SW vendors? It seems we gave up increasing competition on HW and what is left is app store level...

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#190

Post by bccdee »

SchemaLoad wrote: post #149
hoppp wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eu has the Digital Markets Act and what google is doing is illegal in Eu. Gatekeepers must allow people to side-load software by regulation. Makes me think that google did this now since trump has been criticizing the DMA, so now they feel empowered by their leader to break the law

Google does still let you sideload though. The publisher has to submit ID but other than that, there are no restrictions.

Apple also permits people who follow an application process to sideload software. That's still illegal. I'm not sure what the details are of this EU law, but it's entirely possible that Google will be noncompliant here.
Post reply on HN