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

Keep Android Open

f-droid.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 764 posts

Re: Keep Android Open

#561

Post by palata »

maxloh wrote: post #505
palata wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the Android SDK? I don't think that this is open source, is it? As a developer, when you download an Android SDK you have accept a licence that is not open source, right?

Yeah. It is [1]. Surprisingly, Android Studio is open source too [2]. [1]: https://android.googlesource.com/platform/sdk/+/refs/heads/m... [2]: https://android.googlesource.com/platform/tools/base/+/studi...

Oh is it Apache 2? That's what I see looking at a random file [1] but there is no global LICENSE file.

And I didn't expect Android-Studio to be open source!

[1]: https://android.googlesource.com/platform/sdk/+/refs/heads/m...

Re: Keep Android Open

#562

Post by palata »

microtonal wrote: post #540
necovek wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It comes from a history of using mostly trusted application sources like Debian/Ubuntu package archives with manual review being the norm. And few supply chain attacks. But both Flatpak and Snap offer this new model from the two biggest desktop players in the Linux world: Red Hat and Canonical. As the sibling comment said though, being an administrator for your own computer (including a phone) does not mean that you…

It comes from a history of using mostly trusted application sources like Debian/Ubuntu package archives with manual review being the norm. And few supply chain attacks. What most of these people do not seem to get is that proper sandboxing does not only protect against attacks from the inside (rogue developer, supply chain attack), but also from the outside. Most desktop apps probably have a good number of security v…

Agreed. I want to "own my device" as in "being able to install the system I want on it". Not as in "I want it to behave exactly like Desktop Linux", or whatever it is that people complain about AOSP.

On my Desktop I love Linux. But on my smartphone, I want AOSP.

Re: Keep Android Open

#563

Post by IshKebab »

skue wrote: post #551

How do Google and Apple plan to deal with the immense influx of personal apps that AI will help non developers build? Recently, I was thinking that AI might force Apple to open their devices, because if Apple’s competitor allows sideloading, then the creatives and builders most likely to build their own apps will migrate to the platform providing less friction to getting custom apps onto their device. But apparently…

AI is not yet at the point where non-developers could use it to build useful apps. I've tried. It gave me a good start that saved me a ton of time setting things up but the result was buggy and had a lot of bad code, so I still had to read and understand it all and fix the issues.

Re: Keep Android Open

#564

Post by palata »

magicalhippo wrote: post #485
palata wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We really need to get past the 90s-minded paradigm of everything having access to everything else all the time I do agree with that, and I strongly believe that the iOS and Android security model is way ahead of Desktop Linux. But what I observe is that nobody seems to care about the security model. A recurrent complaint I see against anything AOSP-based (including Android) is that people "want to be root".

> A recurrent complaint I see against anything AOSP-based (including Android) is that people "want to be root". I want to be able to do what I want with my PC or phone. I don't want every app on my PC or phone to be able to do whatever they want, without me agreeing first.

I want to be able to install what I want on the hardware I own. And I should be able to leverage the hardware to its full capacity. Preventing me from adding custom keys and relocking the bootloader should be forbidden, because I own that hardware.

But that does not mean that I should be able to do whatever I want with any OS I install. If I am not happy with Android, I can install LineageOS and modify it the way I want.

I am obviously not a big fan of Google, but I do believe that AOSP is actually a good deal (a lot better than iOS which is proprietary). Google is doing a lot of work on AOSP. That I cannot unlock/relock the bootloader on some devices is not Google's fault.

Re: Keep Android Open

#565

Post by direwolf20 »

fragmede wrote: post #500
greatgib wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even restricting the mitigation to "students and hobbyists" is bad. I should have the right to have parents, friends or anyone use a "free" store that is not under control of Google if the user and app developer wish so. But also, somehow there should be something done to avoid the monopoly forcing to use the Google services. Like major institutions like bank, gov and co being forced to provide alternatives like a we…

But unfortunately, it turns out that some people you interact with aren't actually your friend. That guy that seems totally legit and just wants your sister to install his fun little game/app that he wrote is actually trying to get her to install an app that's going to track your location and read all your messages and copy all your photos. To keep her safe from the "actually" bad people, of course.

Let's ban passwords because you could give me your password

Re: Keep Android Open

#566

Post by direwolf20 »

sulam wrote: post #510
greatgib wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even restricting the mitigation to "students and hobbyists" is bad. I should have the right to have parents, friends or anyone use a "free" store that is not under control of Google if the user and app developer wish so. But also, somehow there should be something done to avoid the monopoly forcing to use the Google services. Like major institutions like bank, gov and co being forced to provide alternatives like a we…

I'm far from a Google apologist, but at the end of the day don't they have the right to write software however they want it? You have the right to build things the way you want to, fork Android, etc etc. If you're trying to say you have the right to tell Google what the code their employees write can do, well, I don't really agree with that. Sounds coercive, honestly. I wouldn't want them to do that to you and I don'…

No they don't. They couldn't legally write software to hack into the Pentagon and launch nukes at North Korea. They couldn't legally write software that live streams your camera to them without your actual consent.

Re: Keep Android Open

#567

Post by palata »

Crespyl wrote: post #255
palata wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We really need to get past the 90s-minded paradigm of everything having access to everything else all the time I do agree with that, and I strongly believe that the iOS and Android security model is way ahead of Desktop Linux. But what I observe is that nobody seems to care about the security model. A recurrent complaint I see against anything AOSP-based (including Android) is that people "want to be root".

Allowing the owner of the device root access doesn't necessarily break the security model. It just means that the user can grant additional privileges to specific apps the owner has decided to trust. Every other app still has to abide by the restrictions. The fact that Android complains and tells any app that asks whether the owner actually, you know, owns the device they paid for is an implementation detail. A Linux…

IMHO, I should be able install the OS I want on the hardware I paid for. What should be illegal is to technically prevent me from installing a different OS, because I paid for that hardware and I should own it.

But that does not mean that all OSes should be open source. I think it's fine for iOS to be proprietary, but there should be enough information for someone to write an entire alternative OS that runs on iPhone. I think it should be illegal to prevent that (is it called tivoisation?).

All that to say, I don't believe that having root on my Android system is a right. But being able to install a system that gives me root should be one. If that system exists, that is.

Re: Keep Android Open

#568

Post by direwolf20 »

tux1968 wrote: post #108
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why not? It's their operating system It's my phone.

Of course it's your phone, but the whole point of using Android is that it makes a lot of choices for you. It forces a billion things on you, and this is really no different than any of the others. Everything from UI colors, to the way every feature actually works. For instance, should you be able to text message one million people at a time? You might want to, but Android doesn't offer that feature. Do you want to i…

Google makes it mandatory for your girlfriend's phone to have spyware on it. The spyware is made by Google. It doesn't protect you from spyware.

While we're talking about that, have you heard of Bright Data SDK? A lot of apps on the Play Store include it to monetize. What does it do? It uses your phone as a botnet node while the app is open, and pays the app developer. How is Google protecting you from spyware, again?

Re: Keep Android Open

#569

Post by direwolf20 »

tux1968 wrote: post #512
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, I don't think you have the inerhent right to install any apk you desire, if their OS is designed to prohibit it. You should be free to try to alter their OS any way you want, but they should not have to make it easy. > And the argument is the same lower down the stack. You shouldn't be able to tell someone how to design their firmware. Earlier, you claimed, > They should be able to install any software they wan…

I want maximum freedom, for everyone. That includes developers. We should be free to produce the software as we see fit. If that means we think that our users are best served by having devices that are locked down against scammers etc, then we should be free to produce locked down devices like that. And as users we should be free to buy only devices that respect maximum capabilities and customization. There is a tens…

There's a very easy way to achieve maximum freedom: punish people who take away other people's freedom. To achieve maximum freedom, the one freedom people must never be allowed to have is the freedom to take away other people's freedom. Google must be punished for every software module they wrote whose sole purpose is to make you less free.

Re: Keep Android Open

#570

Post by direwolf20 »

fsflover wrote: post #548
notorandit wrote: post #9

We ("you") have no power to keep android open. Unfortunately it is in the hands of a company that is building it for profit, in a way or the other. It's been our choice to drink this glass of wishful thinking while giving that company a solid dominant position in the market. We ("you") can only make choices that will overturn that trend. Fully opensource hardware with fully opensource software? Maybe, but also this i…

> Fully opensource hardware with fully opensource software? Maybe, but also this is wishful thinking. My smartphone runs an FSF-endorsed OS, PureOS. This is reality. It's not open hardware, but it's a long way from Android in the right direction. You can also get a Precursor, which is open hardware.

A Precursor costs about 1000$ and only does cryptography, not Flappy Bird. Most of these supposedly open alternatives make no economic sense.
Post reply on HN