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

231–240 of 1001 posts

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

#231

Post by narrator »

idle_zealot wrote: post #4

This makes the point that the real battle we should be fighting is not for control of Android/iOS, but the ability to run other operating systems on phones. That would be great, but as the author acknowledges, building those alternatives is basically impossible. Even assuming that building a solid alternative is feasible, though, I don't think their point stands. Generally I'm not keen on legislatively forcing a deve…

Well there's Huawei's Harmony OS. Can someone who knows what's going on with that report in? Is it anything close to an open platform?

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

#232

Post by positron26 »

nik282000 wrote: post #193
positron26 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> more stress tested and vetted by more people Grandma and grandpa aren't reading the source code and certainly not up at a professional level. This is one of the core misconceptions of the "free/libre" formulation of OSS.

> Grandma and grandpa aren't reading the source code and certainly not up at a professional level. This is one of the core misconceptions of the anti "free/libre" formulation of OSS. Most users don't need to read the entire Debian source to know that it is safe to use. You are free to look up who maintains any part of the project and look at the history of changes that have been made. A lot of projects have nice, eas…

> A lot of projects have nice, easy to read notes along with the actual code

This alone doesn't improve the quality of the source.

> Paranoid

Nothing to do with it. Please be logical. Having millions of people who can't program trust maintainers doesn't make those maintainers do better work.

The whole idea of more eyeballs is an appeal to a vision of crowdsourcing that was a new idea in the early internet. What we found out is that complacency sets in, the notes eventually don't mean anything, and most source code is not read.

This vision of more programmers spending more time reading other people's programs is wholly born from within programmer communities, from programmers talking to other programmers, forgetting that the average user will never program and not because they lack access. It's a romanticized ideal that is only even a plausible idea in a room full of programmers.

Until you focus on how the non-programmer is going to meaningfully improve the review and production of the open technologies, you will never have a scalable or equitable solution.

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

#233

Post by bfdm »

fastaguy88 wrote: post #207
zmmmmm wrote: post #165

> In this context this would mean having the ability and documentation to build or install alternative operating systems on this hardware It doesn't work. Everything from banks to Netflix and others are slowly edging out anything where they can't fully verify the chain of control to an entity they can have a legal or contractual relationship with. To be clear, this is fundamental, not incidental. You can't run your o…

Really not a libertarian, but why shouldn’t Netflix have the right to choose who they distribute content to? They negotiated conditions with the creators, why shouldn’t they be able to specify the DRM? No one is forcing you to subscribe to Netflix. Or even to buy an iPad.

Because it's bad for consumers to lose choices, even if they don't normally exercise those choices. The choice is the distributed power we have against the consolidated corporate power. We can choose not to let them restrict those choices, for example with interoperability regulations.

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

#236

Post by chongli »

OmarAssadi wrote: post #222
cm2012 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are dozens of sources of online streaming entertainment, and its not exactly a vital good.

Sure, Netflix may not be as important as, say, housing, food, or whatever else, but I think there is something to be said about the cultural importance of [at the very least some] film and television. There's a lot of media worth studying, analyzing, and preserving. And in that sense, between the constant churn of catalog items, exclusive content, and the egregious DRM, I think these sorts of streaming services are,…

Doesn't your second paragraph run against the grain of your first? If streaming services like Netflix are harmful then we should avoid using them. Thus it should not be important for our freedom-preserving computers to be able to access Netflix.

Now, if you want to do an in-depth study of film and television material as a whole, you're actually better off avoiding Netflix and making use of archives such as public libraries, university libraries, and the Internet Archive.

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

#237

Post by johncolanduoni »

fellowmartian wrote: post #98
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…

I think this is a false dichotomy. Open hardware with open source software would be more protected simply by being more stress tested and vetted by more people. If you need even more protection you can employ zero-knowledge proofs and other trustless technologies. I have long been dreaming about some kind of hardware/software co-op creating non-enshittifying versions of thermostats, electric kettles, EV chargers, sol…

The issue here is rarely whether the security features themselves are circumventable. It’s that at some point this turns into trusting users not to give malware apps permissions (whether that’s a dialog, a system wide setting, adding a third-party app store, etc.). Almost no users can usefully evaluate whether a particular bit of digital trust is a good or bad idea, so people will constantly get scammed in practice. If you’re thinking about ZNP as a solution, you’re not trying to solve the actual security problems of normal users.

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

#238

Post by pishpash »

Almondsetat wrote: post #96
paulryanrogers wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that even the 'safe' devices should at least be open enough to delegate trust to someone besides the original manufacturer. Otherwise it just becomes ewaste once the manufacturer stops support. (Too often they ship vulnerable and outdated software then never fix it.)

If the user cannot be trusted to maintain the hardware and software, then the only responsible thing is to rely on the manufacturer to do so. In those cases, if the support is dropped you buy the newest device.

Did they ask? Some users can be trusted. Is there even a certification program?

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

#239

Post by hellisothers »

Realistically there would be a non-zero cost to allowing this, tech support, or compliance issues, or even PR issues when somebody’s modified hardware does something bad. So few people actually care or want this, it doesn’t feel like a fight worth having as a unilateral mission.

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

#240

Post by kuschku »

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.

Google has to approve the publisher (so Google can ban any developer, also no more apps from countries the US sanctions, e.g. Iran or Venezuela) and only one person can publish the same namespace (so no more fdroid).
Post reply on HN