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

Recall for Linux

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 228 posts

Re: Recall for Linux

#201

Post by jajuuka »

newscombinatorY wrote: post #183
jajuuka wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Recall was problematic because of the lack of information provided when they announced it. How would it handle sensitive details like banking account pages. Can developers opt out for best security practices? How is the managed in an enterprise environment? Once they delayed and got all their ducks in a row it's a much more solid feature. Not for everyone, but a good way to lever…

What irritates me most about all these unwanted "innovations" is that they always make them opt-out. "If it's opt-in, nobody's gonna use it - and it's such a flawless feature, we should be shoving it down everyone's throats"

Recall IS opt-in. Personally I don't get the big deal. Opt out stuff is just a simple toggle. If they were shoving down everyone's throat you wouldn't be able to opt out of it. Like ads on Google Discover feed.

Re: Recall for Linux

#202

Post by Forgeties79 »

noir_lord wrote: post #122
Forgeties79 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Love bazzite on my 9070/9800x3d setup. Zero issues with a game yet. Played expedition 33 the day I built it a few months back!

Nice, I'm running a 7900XTX/7950X3D so I may give it a try - I don't game anything like as much as I used to though anyway so if the odd game did cause issues it's no biggie.

It’s honestly been great. I forgot the exact terminal command but make sure to up your…zram I believe? To be half…? your total ram. Double check me on that. Whatever it is, out the box it starts at 4gb, which leads to this kind of weird issue where I would play a game, I would stop playing the game and close it, then I would return and it would only open a black screen and not actually open the game. I would have to restart the computer to get it to work. Once I upped that the problem went away immediately. Literally the only tweak I had to make, everything comes out the box basically ready to go

Re: Recall for Linux

#203

Post by hulitu »

thesuitonym wrote: post #114
lostmsu wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just nuked my home server Ubuntu and installed Windows. Canonical is still unable to make reliable TPM-unlocked full disk encryption, unacceptable for me as a data hoarder. https://bugs.launchpad.net/snapd/+bug/2045417

This is something that's bugged me about BitLocker for ages: What's the point of encrypting your disks if the computer automatically decrypts them anyway? The only situation I can see where this helps you is if someone steals your disk but not your computer, but that seems very unlikely to me. Maybe if someone just clones the disk, but again, it seems much more likely to me that if you're a high enough value target t…

> What's the point of encrypting your disks if the computer automatically decrypts them anyway?

Your security. We also back up your key in the cloud, in case you forget it. /s

Re: Recall for Linux

#205

Post by IshKebab »

lpln3452 wrote: post #103
IshKebab wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah uninstallation is a flaw, but what alternative are you suggesting? And yes I am the type of person that uses heuristics to trust what software to run. You aren't magically safer if you audit the install script and not the actual binary.

The smaller the attack surface, the better. There is no need to expand it unnecessarily. By your logic, we shouldn't even use the binaries provided by the official package manager, because they also cannot be trusted. We are talking about the dangers of the installation method. Not the program itself.

> We are talking about the dangers of the installation method. Not the program itself.

It only makes sense to separate them if you install the program and then never run it which is obviously ridiculous.

> There is no need to expand it unnecessarily.

I agree, but it is necessary because there aren't any good alternatives.

Also it is very minimal additional risk. If it wasn't we'd see it used as an attack method and as far as I know that has yet to happen once.

Re: Recall for Linux

#206

Post by 63stack »

kccqzy wrote: post #124
63stack wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has been over a decade that big tech has been playing this script: * Introduce a feature that is abysmal for user privacy * Promise it's okay because $reasons * Make the feature opt-out * Change the EULA so that $reasons are no longer applicable/valid * Roll out an update that "accidentally" turns the feature back on for everyone * Apologize, deny, divert, deflect * Siphon off all that sweet sweet user data Rinse…

You are merely objecting to Microsoft being the developer behind Recall. Great I don't fault you for that. But now consider hypothetically what if the Linux Foundation developed and announced Recall?

The linux foundation would introduce this is an optional thing you can download, with documentation on how it works, and where you can find the source. Within 3 days the community would make self hosted servers for it.

They are not known for siphoning user data through dark patterns, so there is nothing to object from me. If they were to try it the same underhanded way as microsoft, I'd be just as much against it.

Re: Recall for Linux

#207

Post by hulitu »

mrasong wrote: post #17

LOL, can’t believe a Linux app turned out to be an .exe file.

> LOL, can’t believe a Linux app turned out to be an .exe file.

To be more "native" shall have the extension com or lnk.

Re: Recall for Linux

#208

Post by hulitu »

perryizgr8 wrote: post #41

I never understood the hate for Recall. The idea is definitely good. In fact I want this sort of feature to work across my devices. I guess people don't trust Microsoft to implement it in a secure way?

> I never understood the hate for Recall.

It is like making sex with all your coleagues and your boss watching you and getting a performance review based on this.

Re: Recall for Linux

#209

Post by kccqzy »

63stack wrote: post #206
kccqzy wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are merely objecting to Microsoft being the developer behind Recall. Great I don't fault you for that. But now consider hypothetically what if the Linux Foundation developed and announced Recall?

The linux foundation would introduce this is an optional thing you can download, with documentation on how it works, and where you can find the source. Within 3 days the community would make self hosted servers for it. They are not known for siphoning user data through dark patterns, so there is nothing to object from me. If they were to try it the same underhanded way as microsoft, I'd be just as much against it.

That's exactly what I would think too in this thought experiment. So Recall itself isn't the problem; it's the way Microsoft built it. I am personally still in fact waiting for a reputable organization to build it.

Re: Recall for Linux

#210

Post by daniel_iversen »

Vinnl wrote: post #55
daniel_iversen wrote: post #51

From the installation instructions; curl -fsSL https://tinyurl.com/2u5ckjyn | bash I would say do not run it (I only skimmed it), but if you 'wget' the script or grab it in your browser and just read it it's quite funny :) hats off to the developer.

You can read the script in the repo: https://github.com/rolflobker/recall-for-linux/blob/main/rec... (Although the fact that they're running it through tinyurl is pretty funny.)

ah yes of course - how silly of me haha :P I guess I couldn't keep myself from seeing what was behind the URL! I half-thought it might have been something more Rick Roll'y
Post reply on HN