231–240 of 907 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And good lock unlocking anything over 5 years old because the updated website doesn't support what you've got. Been there, it sucks.
To be fair, for "anything over 5 years old" you can probably find a privilege escalation exploit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have had worse experiences on each and every count with various Windows installs on various laptops, and yet it is the "de facto" desktop OS.
That is simply not true. I have tried to get so many people on Linux, just for it to fail when they try to do something simple, enough times in a row for them to want to go back to Windows. I really wish it was seamless and good, but it just isn't (and frankly it's a bit embarrassing it isn't given desktop environments for GNU Linux have been in development for 20+ years).
For example the laptop I had from my previous employer (a pretty beefy Dell) was failing to go to sleep, I had to unplug the charger and the HDMI cable on my desk each night, otherwise every second night it was keeping my monitor lit on the lock screen; when low on battery it clocked the CPU down so much that the whole system froze to a grinding stop not even the mouse pointer was moving, and even after putting it back on the charger it remained similarly unusable for a good 10 mins..
Like I have been using Linux since the Xorg config days when you could easily get a black screen if you misconfigured something, but at least those issues are deterministic and once you get to a working state, it usually stays there. Also, Linux has made very good progress in the last decade and it has hands down the best hardware support nowadays (makes sense given that the vast vast majority of servers run Linux, so hardware companies employ a bunch of kernel devs to make their hardware decently supported).
Back in the 2007 or when it came out in Sweden I bought the iPhone and started developing for it. This was cool, new and exciting and it was fine as long as my company was paying the $100 fee every year. But then I switched jobs and worked at a company which produced mostly open source code. Suddenly I would have to pay $100 every year just to be able to put my own software on the phone ... This is why I switched to…
This situation would have been avoided if we, as community of engineers, had insisted on full and uncompromised open source (Stallmanist or GPL way) right from the start instead of going the ESR way of half-hearted open source where it's technically open but corporates get to have a free lunch and make abuses. Like most coders, I also prefer the permissive MIT/Apache/BSD licensing for most software projects but incid…
Of course, Stallman strongly eschews the ambiguity and misdirection inherent in the phrase open source, and in this particular instance the considered use of 'free' or 'freedom' is precisely what we're now all upset about the impending loss of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, with a caveat. The vast number of consumers don't even know Linux/BSD or any the alternatives exist. I have zero faith in a Linux smartphone. What will happen is that there will be some GNU/FSF thing with specs that are 15 years out date and you will have to install Linux via a serial console using Trisquel and the only applications available will the Mahjong (yes I am being hypobolic).
Clearly hyperbole! We'll also have TuxPaint, SuperTuxKart (CPU rendering only, because the toolchain doesn't support Android's HAL), and a couple of (long-abandoned) LibreOffice forks that crudely adapt different subsets of the interface for a touch device.
I realised a few years ago when one of my friends didn't know what the browser was on her phone, that any notion of people caring about the OS outside of branding is pretty much non-existent.
Back in the 2007 or when it came out in Sweden I bought the iPhone and started developing for it. This was cool, new and exciting and it was fine as long as my company was paying the $100 fee every year. But then I switched jobs and worked at a company which produced mostly open source code. Suddenly I would have to pay $100 every year just to be able to put my own software on the phone ... This is why I switched to…
This situation would have been avoided if we, as community of engineers, had insisted on full and uncompromised open source (Stallmanist or GPL way) right from the start instead of going the ESR way of half-hearted open source where it's technically open but corporates get to have a free lunch and make abuses. Like most coders, I also prefer the permissive MIT/Apache/BSD licensing for most software projects but incid…
Anyone who is already running a rooted Android or otherwise customized OS isn't affected by this, only developers who want to distribute their app to users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know it's been tried before (eg by Mozilla), but perhaps now the time is right for a web apps-only OS. Many developers would need some help to get offline functionality and updates right though.. And it would be really nice if these apps didn't require parsing megabytes of JavaScript libraries on startup. One can dream! :-)
My TV runs one, it isn't taking the world by storm. https://webostv.developer.lge.com/discover
Making a guess: nope. Same underpowered SoC, in order to save $5.
Before buying a smartphone I tried to find an inexpensive model that supports open source OS, but I couldn't. What open OS support is ether expensive Pixels, or outdated models. The solution, I think, would be a regulation that forbids manufacturers of any chip or device CPU from making obstacles to reprogramming the device (using fuses, digital signatures, encryption etc). So if you buy a device with CPU and writabl…
Looks like GrapheneOS will be available on another "major Android OEM” soon [1]. Regulation should prevent Google from subsidising manufacturers to use Android. Arguably the recent antitrust legislation [2] applies in this case because they're effectively paying manufacturers to place that horrendous and impossible to remove search bar on the home screen. [1] https://www.androidauthority.com/graphene-os-major-android…
I get that this is in the name of security hardening. And you can make a build that has limited root access and is officially supported. But GrapheneOS isn't the end-all solution to computing freedom. Although hopefully on those devices you will be able to install custom OSes (root capable build of Graphene or otherwise).
Before buying a smartphone I tried to find an inexpensive model that supports open source OS, but I couldn't. What open OS support is ether expensive Pixels, or outdated models. The solution, I think, would be a regulation that forbids manufacturers of any chip or device CPU from making obstacles to reprogramming the device (using fuses, digital signatures, encryption etc). So if you buy a device with CPU and writabl…
Looks like GrapheneOS will be available on another "major Android OEM” soon [1]. Regulation should prevent Google from subsidising manufacturers to use Android. Arguably the recent antitrust legislation [2] applies in this case because they're effectively paying manufacturers to place that horrendous and impossible to remove search bar on the home screen. [1] https://www.androidauthority.com/graphene-os-major-android…
I'm secretly hoping that this will be Framework or Nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This is why I switched to Android, just for Google now to pull the rug from under my feet again 1) You can continue to install unsigned APKs via adb with the upcoming update. 2) Signing APKs for sideloading requires a Google development account which is a one time fee of $25, no yearly fees. So still a free sideloading option available, and if you want to avoid adb it is a one time cost that is 1/4 the annual rate o…
First they came for F-droid...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the place where I think lawmakers needs to be involved. Bearing in mind that laws aren't engineering specs, being able to pay for things and use a bank are about as close to fundamental rights as anything is for participants in society. If you have to buy a second device to use Netflix, so be it, but we need laws that guarantee people can make digital payments without Apple or Google's permission. There are s…
> Security is important The argument that this is actually a security benefit is a farce. It doesn't do anything. If the device is compromised then it's going to capture your password and send it to the attacker without attempting any attestation. So the only time the attestation is attempted is when the device isn't compromised.
It's clearly not about real security. It is about control. You follow the rules and get Google's blessing or no SafetyNet for you. These rules include things like ensuring that the user can't access their own data without the controlling app's permission.