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

Android’s desktop interface leaks

9to5google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 393 posts

Re: Android’s desktop interface leaks

#121

Post by palata »

ssl-3 wrote: post #116
kelnos wrote: post #111

I enjoy cool features like this, but as usual, I'm wary of the consequences. Android is becoming more and more locked down like iOS. Even if it weren't, it's still always been more locked down than a standard desktop or laptop machine running an operating system of the user's choice. With the advent of smartphones and tablets, already I see non- and semi-technical users often dropping their laptop or desktop and just…

It wasn't always so locked-down as it is today. The OG Motorola Droid, for example: While it clearly wasn't a design intent, there was really nothing of any gravity to stop people from using it in any way they wished. Rooting was a simple matter of running a hacked su command, and voila: One becomes root. The bootloader wasn't locked at all. Custom kernels and userlands were normal. It was a great little pocket compu…

In a way I don't know what I think about them preventing me from modifying "their" certified OS. Many products do that (if I buy a Marshall smartspeaker, it's not like if I can modify the software, is it?).

What I want is to be able to properly install an alternative OS (just like I don't care about what Windows or macOS do, as long as I can install Linux), and that goes with the bootloader unlocking/locking.

Re: Android’s desktop interface leaks

#122

Post by WarmWash »

AuthAuth wrote: post #114

The visual design is just so bad. Its so ugly and souless. I actually feel bad for the UI designer that had to put their name behind that.

Unfortunately, it's just generally true that when a bunch of engineers complain about your UI, it probably will be well received by regular people.

Re: Android’s desktop interface leaks

#123

Post by [deleted] »

kelnos wrote: post #111

I enjoy cool features like this, but as usual, I'm wary of the consequences. Android is becoming more and more locked down like iOS. Even if it weren't, it's still always been more locked down than a standard desktop or laptop machine running an operating system of the user's choice. With the advent of smartphones and tablets, already I see non- and semi-technical users often dropping their laptop or desktop and just…

[deleted]

Re: Android’s desktop interface leaks

#124

Post by WarmWash »

gessha wrote: post #86

It is interesting to consider the different developments happening with the big mobile orgs regarding the convergence computing paradigm: - Samsung’s Dex has been out for a while - independent devs have been working on Linux “as an app” for some time - Android desktop interface in this article - Apple developing video output on iPhones - Apple working on a Macbook with a mobile chip - another exciting thing is XR dev…

>my concern is convergence computing will reduce the importance of desktop interfaces and the freedom we have to install whatever applications we want

The final nail was drilled into the coffin when a judge ruled Google a monopoly with Android a year or so ago.

You would think this is good but:

Apple was not found to be a monopoly with iOS. Why?

Because iOS doesn't allow any competitors, how can they be anti-competitive?

The judge explained this Google when they raised the issue, and just like that, Android wants to become iOS.

Good fucking job judge. 10,000 IQ ruling.

Re: Android’s desktop interface leaks

#126

Post by bluGill »

palata wrote: post #121
ssl-3 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't always so locked-down as it is today. The OG Motorola Droid, for example: While it clearly wasn't a design intent, there was really nothing of any gravity to stop people from using it in any way they wished. Rooting was a simple matter of running a hacked su command, and voila: One becomes root. The bootloader wasn't locked at all. Custom kernels and userlands were normal. It was a great little pocket compu…

In a way I don't know what I think about them preventing me from modifying "their" certified OS. Many products do that (if I buy a Marshall smartspeaker, it's not like if I can modify the software, is it?). What I want is to be able to properly install an alternative OS (just like I don't care about what Windows or macOS do, as long as I can install Linux), and that goes with the bootloader unlocking/locking.

The problem is for every person who wants to do this, there are hundreds (thousands?) who wouldn't want to - and these people are vulnerable various security exploits that would allow someone evil to take over their device.

This isn't just a made up situation: There are nations that have large teams of people who's job is to figure out how to get software installed on your device of their choice/make/design, allowing them to do whatever they want.

Re: Android’s desktop interface leaks

#127

Post by ece »

palata wrote: post #118
kelnos wrote: post #111

I enjoy cool features like this, but as usual, I'm wary of the consequences. Android is becoming more and more locked down like iOS. Even if it weren't, it's still always been more locked down than a standard desktop or laptop machine running an operating system of the user's choice. With the advent of smartphones and tablets, already I see non- and semi-technical users often dropping their laptop or desktop and just…

I have mixed feelings as well. The security model of Android and iOS is vastly superior, and for "normal" users it is not so much of a problem if they don't have control they neither need nor want. On the other hand, I obviously don't like it when I don't have control over my hardware. But what I hate the most is when the manufacturers prevent me from installing an alternative OS. I like being able to install somethi…

Vastly superior security doesn't make you give up freedoms for security. But do tell me how successful the war against scams has been for the average user.

Re: Android’s desktop interface leaks

#128

Post by palata »

bluGill wrote: post #126
palata wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a way I don't know what I think about them preventing me from modifying "their" certified OS. Many products do that (if I buy a Marshall smartspeaker, it's not like if I can modify the software, is it?). What I want is to be able to properly install an alternative OS (just like I don't care about what Windows or macOS do, as long as I can install Linux), and that goes with the bootloader unlocking/locking.

The problem is for every person who wants to do this, there are hundreds (thousands?) who wouldn't want to - and these people are vulnerable various security exploits that would allow someone evil to take over their device. This isn't just a made up situation: There are nations that have large teams of people who's job is to figure out how to get software installed on your device of their choice/make/design, allowing…

This isn't quite true. The Google Pixels allow me to unlock the bootloader, install my own system, and relock the bootloader. As a result, I run an alternative OS called GrapheneOS which is more secure than Android.

The fact that I can unlock and relock the bootloader is not a security issue or a risk. People who don't know what that means cannot possibly do it by mistake.

Now allowing root access to users on Android, that's a security risk because a user can be tricked into giving root access to some evil app. I don't have root access on my GrapheneOS, even though I chose to install it myself. Because it is more secure like this.

So it sounds like a fair compromise to me: they make Android the way they want, and if I don't like it I can install an alternative OS. Just like I can install Linux if I don't like Windows. What I don't like is that most Android manufacturers actively try to prevent me from doing that, and I don't like it.

Re: Android’s desktop interface leaks

#129

Post by Elfener »

NewsaHackO wrote: post #102
freedomben wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> my concern is convergence computing will reduce the importance of desktop interfaces and the freedom we have to install whatever applications we want Yep, it absolutely will I expect. All the pieces are being or have been laid to build the new world where only a "trusted" device will be able to use the internet. Us nerds can still have our Linux, but it won't work with much of the internet because we won't be able…

I think tech companies are realizing that the biggest "mistake" they have ever made was giving so much freedom to the desktop user. They hate that we can look into, modify, and delete files, hate that we can add custom-made software, and hate that we can identify and turn off tracking/telemetry. They realized this with the mobile platform and locked everything down, but by that time it was already too late.

Authoritarian governments (that is, what unfortunately all governments want to be) also love this, since if a few big companies control all computing, they can regulate them to control the public.

Fortunately, there are many computers already in the public's hands (which they can use to perform any computation without government restrictions and without paying/sending data to a company); but more and more people are switching to mobile platforms (and kids start out on these platforms) that I'm worried about the future.

Re: Android’s desktop interface leaks

#130

Post by palata »

ece wrote: post #127
palata wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have mixed feelings as well. The security model of Android and iOS is vastly superior, and for "normal" users it is not so much of a problem if they don't have control they neither need nor want. On the other hand, I obviously don't like it when I don't have control over my hardware. But what I hate the most is when the manufacturers prevent me from installing an alternative OS. I like being able to install somethi…

Vastly superior security doesn't make you give up freedoms for security. But do tell me how successful the war against scams has been for the average user.

I am not sure what you are trying to say.

Convincing a user to give their password will always be an issue, that's fundamental. But because phishing exists does not mean that security does not matter.

Without security, there is no need to phish, because the system does not protect anything. Once you have a good security, then the best attack is phishing because it's easier to trick the human than the system. This means that the security is good, not bad.

Post reply on HN