111–120 of 202 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm a broken record at this point, but I'll say it again until I'm convinced I'm wrong -- FirefoxOS did great but was tragically mishandled. I'm 100% a FFOS stan ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_(person)#%22Stan%22_fans ) but it absolutely could have (and did) work -- they just fumbled the execution and 0 executives took responsibility (as per usual). While I appreciate Mozilla's recent exploits like the IoT Gatew…
I installed FFOS on my Nexus 4, and everything I needed from a phone, TOTP/SMS/Calling/Internet just worked. I even added SSH, nginx, and ran a webserver off it. I'm hoping for KDE Connect to come through. I want seemless integration from a mobile device to a desktop. A girl can dream
Someone posted these up and comers today that look somewhat polished now (versus when I've looked at them in the past):
- Ubuntu Touch[0] seemed like vaporware years ago but seems to be making progress
- Purism is making the Librem phone[1] and it's running F/OSS linux (debian?) underneath, and for some reason they're building their own thing, but it might be awesome as well.
I just want someone to hurry up and add some competition to the landscape already.
This happened to me today! I was using my phone and then it went all weird with no haptic feedback when typing. I finally figured out that battery saver was on and disabled it... This really bothers me... I am starting to think we need a truly open source phone. That is hardware and software. like GNU/phone or something. We must have full control over our hardware and software! Viva La Gnu! (no clue what this actuall…
I agree with you however. We must be able to have more control over something that has become so personal.
https://www.techradar.com/news/canonicals-dream-for-an-ubunt... https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/B2G_OS/Intr...
I'm taken aback by how many, even in this tech forum, seem surprised to learn that automatic os updates means settings can be updated automatically. Bugs are bad and all but I don't understand the "how could Google do this?!" questions. Am I missing something?
This happens in ubuntu linux actually. Every now and then, an update changes my configuration of systemd without asking.
* Changing a field's default value (is that even a mistake? users might perceive it that way. Also, is there a difference between a field set to the default value and has never been changed vs a field explicitly set to the default value? Should you change it in the latter case? Did you even track the latter case?).
* Overwriting a field's non-default value and setting it back to default.
* Migrating a field and mapping the non-default value to the wrong non-default value.
* Migrating a tuple of fields to another tuple of fields and getting the map wrong for an edge case subset of the input values (bonus points if that subset was thought to be an impossible state to get into).
etc...
The best way to avoid settings updates it to throw it all on the user. eg, Arch Linux just takes the approach: if, you update a file in /etc, the new file is just created with a special file extension and merging the new and current file is left to the user. You don't get nearly as many surprise updates, but... you spend time merging config files, which few people are willing to do.
What a misleading, fake title. Honestly disappointing coming form HackerNews... The post quite literally says it's an experiment, accidentally enabled. A bug. Literally an A/B test, which they do all the time. The title makes it sound like they hacked in your phone. With that logic, any time your apps update or you get a notification, you're getting hacked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's your phone, and you voluntarily allowed Google to control it. I didn't want Google to control my phone, so I installed LineageOS.
Without GApps?
We need more transparency from companies, this time it was a 'bug' that was visible to the end user (hey! who turned on power saving?). Would Google go public if they also develop a 'bug' that is not visible easily by the user or if it was not discovered by anybody but them? Like a 'bug' that changes certs temporarily to intercept your encrypted traffic or uploads random data elsewhere, etc?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We've had several FOSS based phones. The problem is that no one buys them, their finances dry up and the whole thing goes down the drain.
People don't care for privacy and freedom as much as they care for features and convenience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This happens in ubuntu linux actually. Every now and then, an update changes my configuration of systemd without asking.
Thus is the nature of updating settings. Easy mistakes to make include: * Changing a field's default value (is that even a mistake? users might perceive it that way. Also, is there a difference between a field set to the default value and has never been changed vs a field explicitly set to the default value? Should you change it in the latter case? Did you even track the latter case?). * Overwriting a field's non-def…
actually I prefer Slackware's way to do it: you can keep either the new or the old file, or launch vimdiff and merge them yourself