691–700 of 907 posts
It's a lost cause. We need to focus on pmOS: https://postmarketos.org/ With both Android and Chromium, we're ultimately at Google's mercy. btw, does anyone know if Huawei is following along with this in their fork?
> btw, does anyone know if Huawei is following along with this in their fork? They are moving to their own completely proprietary OS called HarmonyOS NEXT.
I'm going to say something that probably will get me down votes: Why do we have to beg Google to keep Android open? Seriously. So many open source projects have risen out of real and concrete needs and successfully made their way into our every day lives. A new platform needs to rise that breaks out completely from Google. I've given PostmarketOS a go (with a PinePhone) and while today I can't say it isn't a daily dr…
Answer: bank/financial apps, enterprise apps, government apps and copyrighted media (music, video, games, books, ...). Those are the players that demand excessive control over end-user devices, and thus the ultimate driver behind the problem we're discussing. It's not that a new mobile platform couldn't possibly succeed. It's an open platform that cannot, because aforementioned players don't want it, and without them…
Stallman was right.
> Stallman was right. Stallman did not find an economic model that works within our business/legal environment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are contradicting yourself in your comment.
I don't think you read my comment. Trying to get me on an "erm well akshually" level semantic argument means you're wrong, you know you're wrong, and now you're just being annoying. Both of us can agree that the 7 day limitation is far too stringent to be a legitimate solution. So we will go ahead and pretend it does not exist, because for all intents and purposes, it doesn't.
> That 100 dollars is just the fee to even make an app. Even if your iPhone never has an Internet connection. And even if you literally load the app via USB to your iPhone only.
Someone reading this would get completely the wrong information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Answer: bank/financial apps, enterprise apps, government apps and copyrighted media (music, video, games, books, ...). Those are the players that demand excessive control over end-user devices, and thus the ultimate driver behind the problem we're discussing. It's not that a new mobile platform couldn't possibly succeed. It's an open platform that cannot, because aforementioned players don't want it, and without them…
Bank apps: Use an ATM, or a second phone. Enterprise apps: Use a second phone, preferably paid for by work. Government apps: Use a second phone, or refuse to use it (since there's likely elderly whom are not on board yet). Copyrighted media: Piracy.
This is likely the result of one of the most idiotic and bad rulings to come out of recent tech lawsuits. It's so painfully brain damaged and yet somehow has seemed to largely fly under the radar. Google was found to have a monopoly on android with the play store (even though you can side load other stores), Apple was found to not have a monopoly with the app store. OK. But that is not the really bad part, the really…
I'm going to say something that probably will get me down votes: Why do we have to beg Google to keep Android open? Seriously. So many open source projects have risen out of real and concrete needs and successfully made their way into our every day lives. A new platform needs to rise that breaks out completely from Google. I've given PostmarketOS a go (with a PinePhone) and while today I can't say it isn't a daily dr…
It's better to have a billion dollar corp footing the bill for the massive amount of work it takes to maintain Android. If it comes to needing a fork so be it, but if they can be convinced (or strongarmed) to be more supportive of an open ecosystem and FOSS Android projects, everyone wins.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a "weakly held strong opinion" on this subject. I think open source has been a disaster for the state of software for normal people. On the one hand exploited developers making peanuts or nothing for their hard work. On the other hand exploited users losing control of their devices and social networks. The era when people paid an affordable fee for software they could use however they wanted was much better. B…
> The era when people paid an affordable fee for software they could use however they wanted was much better. But it got squeezed out by free software on the one side and serf-ware on the other. Charging for free and open-source software is not only possible, but encouraged Stallman himself.
More generally, they want to have a contract for services with someone. That's what's really meant by "support". Not merely being able to call tech support, but having people backing their services. The really big places have their own engineers, and the really small places can't afford it, but the middle-sized places would rather pay you to support them as needed, than hire someone on their side dedicated to managing your product.
The illusion of support can also sell just as well as actual support. Just see Oracle vs Postgres...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AFAIK GPLv3 requires to allow user to run modified software (so essentially device must be unlockable). Android is not GPLv3, unfortunately.
Many Android devices are unlockable, you can run your own software, and yet we still have a problem. This problem exists irrespective of what you can technically do with the hardware due to the vote by corporations to favour device "security" over user freedom. A phone is useless to most people without the apps they depend on.
I'm going to say something that probably will get me down votes: Why do we have to beg Google to keep Android open? Seriously. So many open source projects have risen out of real and concrete needs and successfully made their way into our every day lives. A new platform needs to rise that breaks out completely from Google. I've given PostmarketOS a go (with a PinePhone) and while today I can't say it isn't a daily dr…
In my grad school days in the mid-90s I set up Linux because it let me write programs in a modern way, accessing all the available memory without jumping through hoops, etc. I would still switch to Windows for playing games, using Quicken, checking Usenet and email and browsing the web.
AOL not even being available on Windows and modem drivers for cheap-er hardware being Windows-only meant I had to switch back and forth (download on Windows, copy to a floppy, reboot, etc.). This sounds crazy today, but it worked "somewhat OK" for me to keep experimenting.
If we could somehow provide a similar environment for the phone, even jumping through hoops, this will enable enthusiasts to start seriously tinkering with their devices. But this is not easy -- both the hardware and the Android today place way more restrictions than much-vilified Microsoft and Intel did 30 years ago. And Microsoft tried very hard to snuff Linux out, wiping boot sectors and partition tables giving half a chance; Google will be much more successful killing any dual-boot attempts now. My 2c.