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

491–500 of 1001 posts

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

#491

Post by sunderw »

mike_hearn wrote: post #477
benrutter wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Joining all the other comments agreeing completely with this take. I think it's worth adding that this is fundamental enough to not just be a tech issue. There's a strong legal framework in almost all developed companies for regulating companies where acting in their self interest harms the consumer interest. Without which, lots of things we take for granted (electrical safety certification, usb c, splits between ser…

Most politicians would find that argument confusing and not agree with you. I don't think the outcomes of running to government would be what you expect. It could easily backfire. Politics is a spectrum. Some claim that model is oversimplified but it's not. Here you're making a left wing argument that individual bad actors must be regulated for the good of the collective. However, left politicians would look at the s…

I think the framing that "individual bad actors must be regulated for the good of the collective" is wrong here. In my opinion, what GP is saying is more along the line of "powerful actors must be regulated for the good of the collective powerless people".

When you look at it like that, then what Google and Apple is doing does not fit this point of view. They are (extremely) powerful entities imposing themselves on the whole world.

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

#492

Post by jacquesm »

tern wrote: post #369
jacquesm wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what they wrote at all.

> It should be possible to run Android on an iPhone and manufacturers should be required by law to provide enough technical support and documentation to make the development of new operating systems possible I was writing in reference to this quote ^ It would have been more accurate for me to say "support the development of arbitrary software stacks," but where do you draw the line between "supporting the development…

Because the documentation is already written, it just isn't opened up. All you need to do is open it up. The big stumbling block when writing drivers for new hardware is simply to know what goes where.

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

#493

Post by deadbabe »

zmmmmm wrote: post #165

> In this context this would mean having the ability and documentation to build or install alternative operating systems on this hardware It doesn't work. Everything from banks to Netflix and others are slowly edging out anything where they can't fully verify the chain of control to an entity they can have a legal or contractual relationship with. To be clear, this is fundamental, not incidental. You can't run your o…

Let’s say we do all that. How do you explain to a common layperson exactly what has been achieved? What is the ultimate benefit?

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

#494

Post by plst »

makeitdouble wrote: post #175
qmr wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're wrong. My hardware. My decision.

I don't think it will convince you in any way, but the whole point is/will be that it's not your hardware, you're paying for a perpetual license to use a terminal bound to someone else's service.

And it really shouldn't be this way. Everyone is tricked into believing that they own devices they bought. And we are somehow supposed to accept that the abilities of the device can be reduced after we bought it just because the vendor said so. Same with (lack of) right to repair. It's really not ok, nobody (especially here) should accept that.

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

#495

Post by mike_hearn »

sunderw wrote: post #491
mike_hearn wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most politicians would find that argument confusing and not agree with you. I don't think the outcomes of running to government would be what you expect. It could easily backfire. Politics is a spectrum. Some claim that model is oversimplified but it's not. Here you're making a left wing argument that individual bad actors must be regulated for the good of the collective. However, left politicians would look at the s…

I think the framing that "individual bad actors must be regulated for the good of the collective" is wrong here. In my opinion, what GP is saying is more along the line of "powerful actors must be regulated for the good of the collective powerless people". When you look at it like that, then what Google and Apple is doing does not fit this point of view. They are (extremely) powerful entities imposing themselves on t…

Those are exactly the same framing and the most likely outcome is left politicians saying, "why do you allow this 'sideloading' at all Google? I have a constitutent who got scammed, why did you allow it? Are you one of those awful libertarians? You should be more like Apple and review all software, otherwise you clearly aren't caring about consumer protection as much as Tim Cook does, up your standards or else we'll regulate you".

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

#496

Post by anonzzzies »

zmmmmm wrote: post #165

> In this context this would mean having the ability and documentation to build or install alternative operating systems on this hardware It doesn't work. Everything from banks to Netflix and others are slowly edging out anything where they can't fully verify the chain of control to an entity they can have a legal or contractual relationship with. To be clear, this is fundamental, not incidental. You can't run your o…

How feasible is it currently (I never tried as I don't want or need it yet) to run Android under Linux for your banking/gov apps? I can accessibility tooling to control them, so only in those cases, I could communicate with the android layer. I don't care about Netflix etc (I know many people do) but I must he able to login to banking and gov.

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

#498

Post by whizzter »

wvh wrote: post #462
zmmmmm wrote: post #165

> In this context this would mean having the ability and documentation to build or install alternative operating systems on this hardware It doesn't work. Everything from banks to Netflix and others are slowly edging out anything where they can't fully verify the chain of control to an entity they can have a legal or contractual relationship with. To be clear, this is fundamental, not incidental. You can't run your o…

What I like about your comment is that it points out that all technical work-arounds are moot if people as a whole are not willing to stand up with pitchforks and torches to defend their freedoms. It will always come down to that. A handful of tech-savvy users with rooted devices and open-source software will not make a difference to the giant crushing machine that is the system. And I'm afraid most of us are part of…

The problem is that tech-savvy users are like bikers, most of us are law-abiding and want the best for society.

Then there's the 1%'ers, people causing trouble, be it by being biker thugs or malware authors or toplevel pirates, actually disrupting the system but often not in a way that's good for the masses and when clashing authoritans the authoritans win due to the masses good.

And yes, the "good" for the masses is more about malware whilst DRM is more of powergrab by media industries that were unwilling to adapt.

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

#499

Post by sunshine-o »

lucideer wrote: post #401
reddalo wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as soon as passkeys started popping up the endgame became clear That's why I'm 100% against passkeys. I'll never use them and I'll make sure nobody I know does. They're just a lock-in mechanism.

"Passkeys" is a new brand name slapped on an older open, interoperable technology, so it's difficult for me to be "against passkeys" as they haven't fundamentally changed anything. Before the branding they were known as FIDO2 "discoverable credentials" or "resident keys". Two things have changed with the rebrand: 1. A lot of platforms are adopting support for FIDO2 resident keys. This is good actually. 2. A lot of la…

By the way, notice Yubikey did not really release any new series/models and jacked up their price in just a few years. About 50% in 4 years.

The large adoption of those devices and standards did not lower the price.

They probably just banked on the enterprise market where every CISO was pressured to tick the hardware/2FA checkbox. And is then gonna allow to use the Microsoft/Google "software" one because it is hard to manage otherwise.

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

#500

Post by liampulles »

IBM didn't want their PCs and OS APIs to be open and for IBM compatible clones to exist either, they were just bad competitors. I think the relative user freedom we have on PCs is quite exceptional in the truest sense of the word.

I want there to be the same openness on devices too, don't get me wrong.

Post reply on HN