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

We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

hugotunius.se

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 1001 posts

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#41

Post by rogerrogerr »

add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #9
DrillShopper wrote: post #2

No, says the man in Hollywood - those cycles belong to the MPAA No, says the car manufacturers, those cycles belong to us No, says the nerds in Redmond, your computer belongs to us

Weird last example, Windows is freer than Apple/Google. There's no path to locking down Windows like Android or iOS, half the world would break. Apple originated and normalized this, Google is following.

A few weeks ago someone was posting links to a thing MS is trying to push, which would require signed code for local execution. It had a weird name but seemed like they’re trying.

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#42

Post by jetbalsa »

hnuser123456 wrote: post #29
idle_zealot wrote: post #4

This makes the point that the real battle we should be fighting is not for control of Android/iOS, but the ability to run other operating systems on phones. That would be great, but as the author acknowledges, building those alternatives is basically impossible. Even assuming that building a solid alternative is feasible, though, I don't think their point stands. Generally I'm not keen on legislatively forcing a deve…

GrapheneOS?

Only runs on a handful of hardware, and still uses the binblobs from google for the hardware devices.

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#43

Post by g-b-r »

slug wrote: post #16
abtinf wrote: post #5

[flagged]

What bad old days? 15 years ago we had n700, n800 and n900 to run whatever we wanted on a portable device. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N700_Series_Shinkansen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_N800 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_N900

Exactly, I have no idea what he's talking about

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#44

Post by fareesh »

the Android change doesn't impact your ability to plug in your own device and run your own code or someone else's code

the change impacts closed source software distributed without verification which is by definition unknown so the "want" is not possible - i.e. you can't know if you want to run it.

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#45

Post by nancyminusone »

abtinf wrote: post #8
idle_zealot wrote: post #4

This makes the point that the real battle we should be fighting is not for control of Android/iOS, but the ability to run other operating systems on phones. That would be great, but as the author acknowledges, building those alternatives is basically impossible. Even assuming that building a solid alternative is feasible, though, I don't think their point stands. Generally I'm not keen on legislatively forcing a deve…

[flagged]

They have access to such absurdly large amounts of money that they don't need those.

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#47

Post by marcus_holmes »

I know I'm going to get downvoted to hell for this, but I genuinely think it's OK for a device manufacturer to say: "we are building this device to run this software. If you don't want to run this software, then don't buy this device. There are plenty of other devices out there that will run other software, you can buy one of those if you want to run other software - our devices are designed to only run our software, and we're only going to support that".

I think that's a huge difference from the sideloading issue, though. Which is effectively saying "you must purchase all your software for this device from us, even if it's not our software, and even if it's available elsewhere for less".

I get how one statement creates the monopoly that allows the other statement, but I think they are still two separate statements.

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#48

Post by blooalien »

nzeid wrote: post #18
abtinf wrote: post #5

[flagged]

This is confusing. No one (I know) who zealously supports open hardware also thinks that "closed ecosystem" software should be eliminated or undermined. Making hardware friendly to multiple implementations is good for everyone.

> "Making hardware friendly to multiple implementations is good for everyone."

Yeah, it's called "competition", which time and again throughout history has proven to force all involved parties to improve or perish (good for everyone; at least the "improve" part). Lack of any has proven to foster "enshittification" to the most extreme levels (absolutely bad for everyone).

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#49

Post by dwattttt »

bsder wrote: post #36
idle_zealot wrote: post #4

This makes the point that the real battle we should be fighting is not for control of Android/iOS, but the ability to run other operating systems on phones. That would be great, but as the author acknowledges, building those alternatives is basically impossible. Even assuming that building a solid alternative is feasible, though, I don't think their point stands. Generally I'm not keen on legislatively forcing a deve…

The primary problem is that we can't build a phone and run it on a cellular carrier network. This is where legislation is needed. Apple and Google are still a problem, but they are a secondary problem.

You'll run into a variant of the tragedy of the commons; without any kind of regulation or provable assertions from people taking part in common communication infrastructure, it'd be quite easy to ruin it for everyone.

Re: We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

#50

Post by mullingitover »

Command+F 'drivers'

0 results

These things are never thought through. Sure, Apple could unlock the whole thing, tell everyone to go nuts. Who's writing the damn drivers? Apple's certainly not obligated to open source theirs, I also can't imagine them signing someone else's. So we end up with a bunch of homebrew drivers, devices crashing, getting pwned, and the dozens of people who install a third party OS on their iPhone write furious articles that get voted up to the front page of HN.

Post reply on HN