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

841–850 of 1001 posts

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

#841

Post by tim333 »

Aerroon wrote: post #250
divan wrote: post #31

> It should be possible to run Android on an iPhone and manufacturers should be required by law to provide enough technical support and documentation to make the development of new operating systems possible As someone who enjoyed Linux phones like the Nokia N900/950 and would love to see those hacker-spirited devices again, statements like this sound more than naïve to me. I can acknowledge my own interests here (ha…

>“Hardware I own” sounds like you bought a pan and demand the right to cook any food you want. Because I did. How come I can do what I want with my computer, but not my phone? Why are phones so inferior in this area? My phone is more powerful than many of the computers I've had in the past, yet I need to jump through a million hoops to use it as a software development platform. Why?

>How come I can do what I want with my computer, but not my phone?

It kind of started because phones interact with phone networks and the network companies didn't want hacked software mucking up their networks. I realise the baseband part is separate from the rest of the phone but it's always been that way with every cell phone I've had over 30 years, that they are part locked down.

Whereas none of the regular computers and laptops have been especially locked down.

It would be cool if you could just connect your laptop to a radio and connect to cell networks but I don't think any of them allow that?

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

#842

Post by inetknght »

Liftyee wrote: post #61

As other comments have pointed out, this statement (one I 100% support, BTW) is a little naive. I can see how it might be unreasonable to expect companies to publish documentation, build infrastructure, etc. to support running your own code on the hardware you own (which 99% of people will never need to do). However, I strongly believe that - should one choose to do so - you should not be stopped from jailbreaking, c…

> I can see how it might be unreasonable to expect companies to publish documentation, build infrastructure, etc. to support running your own code on the hardware you own (which 99% of people will never need to do).

Did you know that television schematics used to come with the documentation for the TV? Discussed not-too-recently on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26996413

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

#843

Post by wildredkraut »

Seems like >=2026 will be the year I'll start buying stuff again that has been replaced by mobile phones during all the years (Camera, Mp3Player, etc.) With this coming, buying a flagship mobile phone simply doesn't worth for me anymore. Currently i own a S24Ultra, my next mobile phone will probably be the cheapest Chinese crap I can get, just for the mobile things i "have" to use it.

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

#844

Post by vannevar »

Capital doesn't want you to own anything, it wants you to rent everything. In the absence of any pressure to the contrary, it will continue to turn everything into a rental or a license. Because it's a feedback loop, the more capital accumulates, the more market (and political) power it exerts and the faster it accumulates.

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

#845

Post by vannevar »

shawabawa3 wrote: post #650
kristov wrote: post #641

I think the conversation needs to change from "can't run software of our choice" to "can't participate in society without an apple or google account". I have been living with a de-googled android phone for a number of years, and it is getting harder and harder, while at the same time operating without certain "apps" is becoming more difficult. For example, by bank (abn amro) still allows online banking on desktop via…

> If you decide you don't want a relationship with either of those companies you will be extremely disadvantaged. Even more worrying is the inverse of this - if Google and/or Apple decide for whatever reason they don't want a relationship with you (aka they ban you for no reason) - you are completely screwed

Say, if you're blacklisted by a fascist government, for example. Tim Cook's pledge of loyalty was disturbing on many levels.

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

#846

Post by bigstrat2003 »

mothballed wrote: post #710
kristov wrote: post #641

I think the conversation needs to change from "can't run software of our choice" to "can't participate in society without an apple or google account". I have been living with a de-googled android phone for a number of years, and it is getting harder and harder, while at the same time operating without certain "apps" is becoming more difficult. For example, by bank (abn amro) still allows online banking on desktop via…

I don't own a phone, but the most shocking revelation came when my child's school required us to use an app to specify how our children will be picked up or ride the bus. So far I've been able to avoid using apps for pretty much anything, but when the school says "use an app or you won't get your kids" and then also say they will call CPS and have your kids seized if you don't get them in time, that puts you in a rea…

That's pretty fucked. It should be utterly illegal to put parents in a triple bind like that. You have my sympathies.

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

#847

Post by bccdee »

kylecazar wrote: post #658
bccdee wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an oddly legalistic line to draw. What if they start licensing the hardware too? Surely if we care about users being respected by technology, the line between software and hardware or between ownership and licensing is immaterial. These are all excuses to deny users the opportunity to do things they should be entitled to do, like installing arbitrary applications.

Well, the line is drawn by the fact that hardware and software have intrinsic differences. It sounds like we're on the same page about hardware -- with the software, should we not be bound by licenses in client/server services (phones, consoles)? You are using someone else's service with others, for some collective benefit like playing a game, and being bound to constraints on that software doesn't seem that offensiv…

> Well, the line is drawn by the fact that hardware and software have intrinsic differences.

Do they? Is microcode hardware, or software? If I open up the plugboard on my IBM 407 and rewire the connections, am I updating software or reconfiguring hardware? I think this is a false dichotomy. Software or hardware, kernel or userspace, these are all just parts of a machine. I care about the holistic behaviour of that machine, not about which specific parts do which specific things.

> But, you should be able to wipe those clients if you don't care about them and play tux racer on Arch.

I don't need to play tux racer. I need to use my bank.

> I think these companies do have a right to dictate software requirements for client code accessing their servers.

They're not just dictating the requirements of the client code, they're dictating requirements for the entire execution environment. Following your logic to its conclusion, if I'm going to do banking from my phone (and that's a foregone conclusion), I have to have to cede that bank the right to veto any other piece of software from my phone.

I could buy a second phone, because I'm a relatively affluent software developer, but most people have neither the money nor the energy to buy a special phone for banking. They'll just let the bank control their phone. I consider this is an unacceptable abridgement of their freedom.

I have no problem with Valve anti-cheat, so long as it's reasonably permissive. Valve anti-cheat won't stop me from installing my own software. I'm not drawing a hard technical line here; there's a grey area of reasonable integrity provisions. Sideloading restrictions in Android cross well beyond that grey into the black.

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

#848

Post by Aachen »

daft_pink wrote: post #768
Aachen wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There’s something in the reality that it’s the app developers not the user that are being restricted by Apple. Reading this comment as a user and developer in one person, it's so weird to see this disjointed picture of developers and users. You should have rights and feel unrestricted as a user but I shouldn't? Have you considered that being a developer is about the same as being a writer instead of a reader? We're…

The fact that I go to McDonald’s and they play a recording every time asking me for an app code. Or I go to Petsmart and they give me all kinds of discounts for installing their app. Or Reddit barely works unless you install their stupid app. There is clearly some invasive behavior happening with apps on phones that doesn’t seem to happen on computers the companies are so insanely motivated to get you to install thei…

> The difference is I bought the device so I don’t care if you feel restricted as a developer.

I don't see how that logically follows. I bought my device, too. How does that consequence developer-me not being allowed to make software?

If you think I'm behind one of these obnoxious corporations, no sir the 180° opposite. I haven't made a mobile app in my life that I haven't also published the source code of, nor made a dime off of them, salaried or otherwise. Desktop or mobile is all the same ethos, if I'm reading correctly that you seem to expect the worst just because I code things up for my own device and whoever else wants to use it?

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

#849

Post by carlosjobim »

mikewarot wrote: post #794
carlosjobim wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your opinion is not "a gentle reminder", "a friendly reminder" or "a public service announcement". It's just your opinion and nothing more.

Ok, so I've trigged quite a reaction with my phrasing. I'm very sorry about that. Put yourself in my place... Computer Security is a solved problem, and has been for decades, yet we find ourselves in an infinite loop of crises that result in ignorance of solutions. Maybe 5% of all discourse here on HN is about a problem we don't have to have. How would you push the world to resolution?

You put me on the spot, because I don't understand the subject matter in such depth. I hope somebody who does chimes in. All I can think about is when a man's paycheck depends on not understanding the issue... Many people make a lot of money from cyber security, so would they want the problem to be completely solved?

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

#850

Post by fauigerzigerk »

bluesign wrote: post #820
fsflover wrote: post #681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not sure where is the logical correct threshold making it wrong This can't be more clear: Forcing to use the duopoly is against the competition and is totally wrong.

I meant a bit like: Let's say you have 2 mobile phone operators in your country ( duopoly ) we are ok that for example using SMS for banking interaction ( second factor etc ) I think this is a process; and somehow slowly people accepting those levels, and in a society it becomes normal ( to have whatsapp for friend group, to have facebook for family photos etc etc ) and you are being left out eventually if you are ou…

I think if we accept that market concentration for essential services cannot alawys be avoided, there must be an obligation for these companies to provide those services to everyone.

The difficult part is how to guarantee this right without opening the floodgates for all sorts of scammers and organised criminals.

We need some sort of due process proportional in cost to the effects of account terminations (or rejections) on people's lives.

Post reply on HN