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

OpenDrop: An Open Source AirDrop Implementation

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 231 posts

Re: OpenDrop: An Open Source AirDrop Implementation

#201

Post by rconti »

skrowl wrote: post #89
mxuribe wrote: post #81

It is 2019, and it is quite surprising - and disappointing - that we STILL haven't universally solved the means to easily, securely, and (yes, I'll use this term again) universally share files. I wish we could share files in a peer-to-peer fashion securely without hindrance of mobile platform, nor blockage of network MiTM, etc.

https://files.google.com/ is a standard and it works on the vast majority of phone sold this year, by every manufacturer except Apple. Checks all 3 of peer-to-peer, secure, no MiTM network blockage. It's only 11MB. Many popular file manager apps on android have peer-to-peer xfers as well, via WiFi direct, etc. EDIT - As people are pointing out this isn't universal because it doesn't work on Apple devices or desktops…

What's the standard this implements?

Re: OpenDrop: An Open Source AirDrop Implementation

#202

Post by sjnair96 »

arghwhat wrote: post #197
gruez wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a very loose definition of the word “evade” and the headline is definitely misleading. The average person was probably expecting to find some sort of censorship evasion while current being censored.

Censorship evasion is doable within minutes for most, which is well known for those interested in it. However, many do not feel compelled to evade it, and have no idea of what happens "on the outside".

Censorship evasion is no longer trivial. Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) exists and makes it difficult to use even VPNs. Shadowsocks works but has limited UDP support out of the box iirc.

Re: OpenDrop: An Open Source AirDrop Implementation

#203

Post by lucb1e »

oefrha wrote: post #162
cyphar wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you taken a look at magic-wormhole[1]? I've started using it recently and it's insanely easy to use. It does have a centralised signalling server for key exchange between peers, but it does attempt to do peer-to-peer data transfer (only falling back to a TURN-style relay if both clients are behind NATs and aren't on the same local network). An explanation of the cryptography and design was given at PyCon 2016[2]…

I’m a happy user of magic-wormhole myself. It doesn’t solve the problem of sending files to phones, though.

This is one of many reasons why I have a terminal on my phone, I can just apt install magic-wormhole and use it like on any other system.

(The technical reader will note that a terminal does not give you apt, but mentioning that I have Debian running on the phone is more confusing, as it sounds like I replaced Android (which I did not) or maybe that it costs a lot of battery (the tools are idle when not in use, unlike many apps unfortunately...).)

Re: OpenDrop: An Open Source AirDrop Implementation

#204

Post by rtkwe »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #198
shireboy wrote: post #194

Let's talk for a minute about why all the Apple things aren't open. There is zero about iMessage or AirDrop that should be proprietary. The only reason I know of is vendor lock-in, and that stinks for users. It would be way more helpful to way more people if these features were ubiquitous, open, and standards-based like SMTP or IMAP is for email. We wouldn't except an Apple-only iMail, why do we accept iChat and iPho…

I agree that they should be open, but there are some advantages to the current model besides vendor lock-in. Requiring a device certificate to communicate puts a pretty high bar on the integrity of the system. Being closed also allows unrestricted innovation at a faster pace. It’s very difficult to add features once an open standard is out. Just look at the evolution of the major web browsers for example.

> Being closed also allows unrestricted innovation at a faster pace.

Theoretically but has there been any new actual development in AirDrop though? From the outside it seems like it's been the same since it was released but my only Apple device is my iPad Pro so I don't really have a use for it.

Re: OpenDrop: An Open Source AirDrop Implementation

#205

Post by lucb1e »

badumtss wrote: post #99
staticvoidmaine wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rather than the google solution suggested by a sibling comment, I’d suggest a look at send.firefox.com.

I just wish they'd hurry up and make the android app useable. I signed up for the beta and was pretty disappointed as my uploads were cancelled if my screen locked or, horribly enough, rotated ...

Android is Linux, you can always just install it the normal way and use it from a terminal. Maybe that's what you mean by unusable (a terminal isn't very user-friendly, but it solves the file transfer / app availability problem).

If I remember correctly, you can configure (I don't know what the default is) to power save or even turn off WiFi on Android when you turn off the screen. Are you sure that's not interfering with this beta app?

Re: OpenDrop: An Open Source AirDrop Implementation

#206

Post by lucb1e »

anderspitman wrote: post #156
mxuribe wrote: post #81

It is 2019, and it is quite surprising - and disappointing - that we STILL haven't universally solved the means to easily, securely, and (yes, I'll use this term again) universally share files. I wish we could share files in a peer-to-peer fashion securely without hindrance of mobile platform, nor blockage of network MiTM, etc.

file.pizza has mostly solved this for me. Not ideal UX, but it gets the job done.

For those who don't know it, I'm not sure if it's clear that this is a link: yes, it really is just file.pizza (https://file.pizza).

Re: OpenDrop: An Open Source AirDrop Implementation

#207

Post by lucb1e »

devtanna wrote: post #3

I wish we had something like AirDrop to work between android and iOS devices.

I use https://dro.pm a lot to share files or links. Since the links are super short (I just made https://dro.pm/a --- note that it'll expire in 12 hours), you can just give the link to someone over the phone, put them in a presentation, or just share files independent of any operating system.

I even use it even between my laptop and my phone fairly frequently, since the top suggestion on my phone keyboard in the browser is dro.pm and I just have to add a slash (long-press "m") and a letter. It's quicker to use dropm than to open a chat with myself or send myself an email or something.

Of course this is just protected by https, and although it is source-available and the links are really gone after expiry (or when you edited it, the old contents are irretrievable), magic-wormhole is superior in that you don't have a trusted third party. For the cases where the other party doesn't have magic-wormhole installed, this might be helpful. This also alleviates the requirement of WebRTC for both parties to be online simultaneously.

Re: OpenDrop: An Open Source AirDrop Implementation

#208

Post by Terretta »

shireboy wrote: post #194

Let's talk for a minute about why all the Apple things aren't open. There is zero about iMessage or AirDrop that should be proprietary. The only reason I know of is vendor lock-in, and that stinks for users. It would be way more helpful to way more people if these features were ubiquitous, open, and standards-based like SMTP or IMAP is for email. We wouldn't except an Apple-only iMail, why do we accept iChat and iPho…

OK, I'll talk about why...

What does Apple sell? A commodity computing device running undifferentiated software? Or the experience of a holistic tool?

When someone distributes a Messenger by itself, you don't ask why it isn't open. You don't ask why the hardware device isn't open. Why should a vendor unbundle the two just to make you happy?

What if it doesn't really unbundle, what if the capabilities combine to offer most buyers something they value more than pieces parts?

Re: OpenDrop: An Open Source AirDrop Implementation

#209

Post by azinman2 »

rtkwe wrote: post #204
lawnchair_larry wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that they should be open, but there are some advantages to the current model besides vendor lock-in. Requiring a device certificate to communicate puts a pretty high bar on the integrity of the system. Being closed also allows unrestricted innovation at a faster pace. It’s very difficult to add features once an open standard is out. Just look at the evolution of the major web browsers for example.

> Being closed also allows unrestricted innovation at a faster pace. Theoretically but has there been any new actual development in AirDrop though? From the outside it seems like it's been the same since it was released but my only Apple device is my iPad Pro so I don't really have a use for it.

Never assume things are static. Or will remain static, just because it might seem like that from the outside.

Re: OpenDrop: An Open Source AirDrop Implementation

#210

Post by azinman2 »

tecleandor wrote: post #22
jumelles wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iMessage too. It's insane to me that this is still a problem.

That's not a problem. That was precisely Apple's idea: a not interoperable message network. We had XMPP among others, and Apple decided not to be open. We now also have Signal or Telegram, which are multi-platform.

Signal and telegram might be multi-platform, but they’re hardly open.
Post reply on HN