631–640 of 764 posts
I want Google as an app, not OS. Hear me out. Imagine an open device where you can run Google as just another sandboxed app. Inside, they can exert all the control they want. My bank and government can force me to use Google. Then, at least I control my hardware and my OS. It's just nasty to have your device and OS controlled by an antagonistic entity. I see this in people why have used antagonistic software for deca…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They only cover the user-facing app part of the story. The rest of the system needs isolation and safeguards, too, including things like the desktop environment and whatever random daemon. A solution that's integral to the system and not just loosely taped on is required.
For many services that was solved even earlier: that's why things like Docker, podman and VMs are so popular. The hard bit is the desktop experience which is not fully there yet, but the technology is.
It would be much more nice if e.g. daemons could have their privileges pared down to only exactly what they need to function and nothing more with a config file somewhere. This can somewhat be achieved with the user system, but that really doesn’t scale well and doesn’t suit the purpose all that well in some ways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the world should cared to your needs when literally almost every adult has a phone even in third world countries? Before you say “what about the poor people” in the US at least, even poor people can get a subsidized free phone through the UCF (?) government fund Also see: no I’m not going to waste development time di you can get to a website I develop with JS disabled or so you can use lynx
> So the world should cared to your needs when literally almost every adult has a phone even in third world countries? The assumption that everyone has a "smart phone" running locked-down Android or iOS is unreasonable. Just as race, sex, religion, national origin, etc, are protected classes, the "phoneless" should be a protected class. Denying people who choose not to use a locked down phone basic interaction with y…
This conversation is officially done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you misunderstood me, the software is part of the device I paid for and own. If I tell someone to install a light switch in my living room and then it occasionally switches states when someone presses another switch at my outside wall and occasionally refuses working, I don't feel like they fulfilled their contractual obligation. Same with smartphones and software. I would agree with you if I would want addit…
You bought the device as delivered. They built it in the best way they know how. If you don't like it you're free to try to change it. But they're under no obligation to make it easy for you. If the light switch you bought, has a little daylight sensor on it, and turns off when the sun is out, and that's what it does.. you may not like that light switch. You might want one that "does what you want, because you paid f…
Not sure this analogy works as it gives prospective light switch buyers a choice of different light switch types. What google is doing seems more like forcing EVERY light switch to have daylight sensors, thus forcing you to save power (even if you're pro-global warming and just trying to do your part for the cause), then telling people with vision problems relating to suboptimal indoor illumination or suffer from sunlight frequency melting disorder or think they've got some other random "daylight makes life suck" bullshit to create a student/hobbyist account.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if your bank only does 2FA via app?
Complain. Mine wanted that, but after complaining they offered me SMS. If not, I'd have closed my account there. At least here in Spain there are plenty of banks that don't force you to use apps. I also leave bad ratings for banking apps from time to time, and bad comments on X.
One without, does not exist, or is in violation of their national obligations and likely to be cut off by the RBA.
The only "effective" complaint here, would be the gigantic effort to lobby for a change in laws entirely.
[0] https://www.apra.gov.au/use-of-multi-factor-authentication-m...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it is completely insane and stupid. Direct bank-to-bank transfers require significant administrative work to set up, and may still incur bank fees. For individual consumer accounts most people can use Zelle but it's not universally available.
Funny how South Africa has a way more sophisticated banking network than the USA.
I haven't seen a cheque my entire life, and I'm born in the last century
I want Google as an app, not OS. Hear me out. Imagine an open device where you can run Google as just another sandboxed app. Inside, they can exert all the control they want. My bank and government can force me to use Google. Then, at least I control my hardware and my OS. It's just nasty to have your device and OS controlled by an antagonistic entity. I see this in people why have used antagonistic software for deca…
You have that. Run Chrome browser on Linux. We should be thankful we have Linux.
Just to put out what Google actually said in their blog post [0]: > We appreciate the community's engagement and have heard the early feedback – specifically from students and hobbyists who need an accessible path to learn, and from power users who are more comfortable with security risks. We are making changes to address the needs of both groups. > We heard from developers who were concerned about the barrier to ent…
> shape a dedicated account type for students and hobbyists. Even that is a step too far in the wrong direction. Doesn't matter if it's free, or whatever, simply requiring an account at all to create and run software on your own device (or make it available to others) is wrong. There exists no freedom when you are required to verify your identity, or even just provide any personal information whatsoever, to a company…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It comes from a history of using mostly trusted application sources like Debian/Ubuntu package archives with manual review being the norm. And few supply chain attacks. But both Flatpak and Snap offer this new model from the two biggest desktop players in the Linux world: Red Hat and Canonical. As the sibling comment said though, being an administrator for your own computer (including a phone) does not mean that you…
It comes from a history of using mostly trusted application sources like Debian/Ubuntu package archives with manual review being the norm. And few supply chain attacks. What most of these people do not seem to get is that proper sandboxing does not only protect against attacks from the inside (rogue developer, supply chain attack), but also from the outside. Most desktop apps probably have a good number of security v…
The problem is that strict file system sandboxing in particular also breaks a substantial number of workflows that can't be modelled as 'only ever open the exact file the user explicitly' picked. (Any multi-file file formats are particularly affected, as well as any UI workflows that don't integrate well with strictly having to use the OS file picker.)
So you need some escape hatch for optionally allowing access to larger swathes of the file system, or even really everything as before, but that in turn then risks being abused again by malicious actors. And then…?
Plus things like Android's implementation initially using an API completely incompatible with classical file APIs, as well as causing some noticeable performance overhead even today if you need more than simply accessing the occasional single file here and there.