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

851–860 of 1001 posts

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

#851

Post by scosman »

const_cast wrote: post #835
scosman wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+1. Smartphones aren't a monopoly. GrapheneOS is a thing. More companies can build hardware for it if there's demand. Not every piece of hardware needs to be general purpose computer. I've been delighted to get my parents on iPhone+iPad for simplicity (and they have too). It feels this crowd sometimes assumes every barrier put in place is anti-consumer, but it's not. Blocking access to sensors, limiting background ru…

There is exactly one device produced in the entire US that can legitimately run graphene is in a usable way. Not a monopoly my ass. > Make cool hacker centric hardware. Make cool easy to use, locked down, and foolproof hardware. Both can and should exist. Yes, what a splendid idea! Let me just invest a few billion I have lying around here. And maybe after that we can all take a spaceship to Mars and colonize it! Get…

That means there are infinitely more devices produced in the US that can run graphene than can run iOS. Seems like a weird metric.

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

#852

Post by const_cast »

scosman wrote: post #851
const_cast wrote: post #835

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is exactly one device produced in the entire US that can legitimately run graphene is in a usable way. Not a monopoly my ass. > Make cool hacker centric hardware. Make cool easy to use, locked down, and foolproof hardware. Both can and should exist. Yes, what a splendid idea! Let me just invest a few billion I have lying around here. And maybe after that we can all take a spaceship to Mars and colonize it! Get…

That means there are infinitely more devices produced in the US that can run graphene than can run iOS. Seems like a weird metric.

What? Can you elaborate? This makes no sense to me.

There's only one device currently produced in the US which can run grapheneos. Grapheneos is the only custom rom which can get even an ounce of attestation.

There are many devices produced which can run iOS.

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

#853

Post by yencabulator »

sokoloff wrote: post #759
richrichardsson wrote: post #675

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> opting out of the airport scanner slightly OT, but where can you opt out of the scanner? Every time I've tried they told me I won't be allowed through security unless I subject myself to the scanner, despite me protesting that they can search me however else they please.

Anywhere that US TSA runs the AIT scanners, you can opt out of them*. That is domestic US airports plus airports like Toronto and Dublin where you, for practical purposes, clear into the US on foreign soil and land in the US as a domestic flight. * - I think this only doesn't apply if your boarding pass got tagged with the dreaded "SSSS" enhanced screening tag, but that's a fairly rare corner case for most passengers…

My understanding, which may be wrong. It's been a few years since I did this dance.

You can opt out of the millimeter wave radar.

Opting out means you go through a metal detector, a 20-second pat-down and perhaps a hand swab for explosives sniffer.

If you have SSSS on your boarding card, that means the pat-down, hand swab and digging through your carry-on luggage happen whether you opt out of the mmwave or not.

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

#854

Post by Klonoar »

mike_hearn wrote: post #485
vbezhenar wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ability to run other operating systems on phones > building those alternatives is basically impossible For smart people it is not impossible. Just few years ago, few folks wrote complicated drivers for completely closed hardware, and I'm talking about M1 Macbook. Google Pixel, on the other hand, was pretty open until very recently. I might be wrong about specifics, but I'm pretty sure that most of software was open…

> I don't understand why mobile systems do not attract OS builders. They're graphical consumer devices, the quality bar is so high nobody can reach it except huge well funded teams. It's like asking why desktop Linux doesn't still attract OS builders, or for that matter, why the PC platform doesn't attract OS builders. Occasionally someone makes an OS that boots to a simple windowed GUI as a hobby, that's as far as i…

> Nobody is building a compelling new OS

Eh, Redox probably counters your statement here. It's just in that wide gulch of "the easy part is done and the hard parts are hard".

But it is being built, and some would definitely consider it compelling.

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

#855

Post by fsflover »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #850
bluesign wrote: post #820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant a bit like: Let's say you have 2 mobile phone operators in your country ( duopoly ) we are ok that for example using SMS for banking interaction ( second factor etc ) I think this is a process; and somehow slowly people accepting those levels, and in a society it becomes normal ( to have whatsapp for friend group, to have facebook for family photos etc etc ) and you are being left out eventually if you are ou…

I think if we accept that market concentration for essential services cannot alawys be avoided, there must be an obligation for these companies to provide those services to everyone. The difficult part is how to guarantee this right without opening the floodgates for all sorts of scammers and organised criminals. We need some sort of due process proportional in cost to the effects of account terminations (or rejectio…

Isn't this how utilities are regulated?

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

#856

Post by divan »

const_cast wrote: post #822
divan wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your smartwatch is probably more powerful than some of your past computers too. Same with your DSLR camera. Even your smart fridge. These are specialized hardware+software gadgets designed to a particular purpose, which is very different from being a development platform. Same with a phone.

A smartphone is not a specialized hardware or software, it's a general computation device. Its just a completely bogus argument. Its not a fucking smart fridge, come on

> a smartphone is ... a general computation device

Right, just a motherboard with CPU and memory put into small case, like in old good garage days.

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

#857

Post by divan »

Zak wrote: post #605
divan wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your smartwatch is probably more powerful than some of your past computers too. Same with your DSLR camera. Even your smart fridge. These are specialized hardware+software gadgets designed to a particular purpose, which is very different from being a development platform. Same with a phone.

A modern smartphone is mostly a general-purpose computer designed to run arbitrary software with a couple tightly integrated and/or regulated bits. That's very different from a DSLR, which is designed to take pictures. That said, a camera with a fully open software stack would be fun.

Oh, so no specialized hardware? Just a general-purpose components for general computation tasks?

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

#858

Post by pdonis »

bee_rider wrote: post #817
pdonis wrote: post #774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me the point where the law needs to intervene is the bank or the school. You need a bank to function--that means the bank should be prohibited by law from tying you to an app from a particular company, whether it's Google or Apple or anyone else. You should be able to access their functions using any client that supports the appropriate open standards (such as web browsers). Similarly, if the school is going to ha…

If it is a public school, the state should “intervene,” but really it isn’t an intervention, it’s the state’s school they should fix their stupid policy. For the bank, I don’t really see why it would be preferable to intervene with the bank vs the tech company. Either way the state will have to impose on a private company. > You need a bank to function--that means the bank should be prohibited by law from tying you t…

> For the bank, I don’t really see why it would be preferable to intervene with the bank vs the tech company.

Because the bank has a fiduciary responsibility to its customers. The tech company doesn't. The bank can't just deny you access to your money because you don't want to have a Google or Apple account. That should already be the legal framework, but apparently it needs to be clarified and enforced better.

> Either way the state will have to impose on a private company.

Banks are already not "private companies" the way tech companies are; banks are already agents of the state in a number of important ways (such as being required to report all kinds of transactions, follow know your customer rules, etc.).

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

#859

Post by pdonis »

adiabatichottub wrote: post #780
pdonis wrote: post #774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me the point where the law needs to intervene is the bank or the school. You need a bank to function--that means the bank should be prohibited by law from tying you to an app from a particular company, whether it's Google or Apple or anyone else. You should be able to access their functions using any client that supports the appropriate open standards (such as web browsers). Similarly, if the school is going to ha…

You mean like if there were a standard (JSON, XML, whatever) format of document that you could cryptographically sign which would order a transaction to take place? Kind of like a digital teller's slip?

That would be nice, but how would the bank verify the signature? It's the same old key exchange problem all over again.

In any case, that's not what I was suggesting. I was simply suggesting that banks shouldn't be allowed to force you to depend on certain apps or app stores to get access to your money. Similarly, schools shouldn't be allowed to force you to depend on certain apps or app stores to take proper care of your kids.

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

#860

Post by isaacremuant »

abustamam wrote: post #717
shawabawa3 wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you decide you don't want a relationship with either of those companies you will be extremely disadvantaged. Even more worrying is the inverse of this - if Google and/or Apple decide for whatever reason they don't want a relationship with you (aka they ban you for no reason) - you are completely screwed

Even if they ban you for a reason, you're screwed. Granted, the ban may have been warranted, but you're essentially put into a societal prison with no due process or recourse.

Let's hope people remember this and don't cheer the precedent when it's set against "undesirable" like it was with Alex Jones.

It always starts like that.

Post reply on HN