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

Motorola announces a partnership with GrapheneOS

motorolanews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

871–880 of 930 posts

Re: Motorola announces a partnership with GrapheneOS

#871

Post by encom »

mmmlinux wrote: post #856
encom wrote: post #789

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes...? Didn't stop me before. Unless it's some locked down, domain-joined e-waste like I have now. Public sector IT policy literally prevents me from doing certain tasks at my job, and makes others take four times as long. Not even my email works properly. Last job was a lot of SSH and webshit like Jira, Confluence, Odoo and Google apps. They didn't care if you used Amiga OS as long as your work got done.

didn't stop you before but stopping you now real good sounds like. So, WhY dOnT YoU jUsT iNsTaLl It AnYwAy?

Because our IT dept. is both incompetent and paranoid, which is an annoying combination. I keep my own X1 Carbon with Fedora in my backpack, because it's easier than arguing with them.

Re: Motorola announces a partnership with GrapheneOS

#872

Post by foxyv »

Motorola seems to HATE updating their operating systems. They only support their phone OS for the minimum possible time. Moving to an open source platform makes way too much sense for them. This is one of the few ideas that might make me go back to buying Motorola products after dumping them for a Pixel.

The question is, will my work apps be able to run on GrapheneOS? I'm really excited to find out.

Re: Motorola announces a partnership with GrapheneOS

#873

Post by lo_zamoyski »

WorldMaker wrote: post #504
Zak wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I expect most people to think it's bad if a corporation can keep them from running apps on their phone when those apps are good for the user and bad for the corporation. If most people don't understand that conflicts of interest lead to unethical behavior, that's a larger and more urgent social problem. I expect tech nerds to be aware that the conflict of interests exists in this case, while the average person would…

You can be aware of the conflict of interest and still decide that is an acceptable trade-off to make. Ethics are personal, subjective, and subject to trade-offs. You have a strong ethical support for having control of the apps running on your devices and that overrides other trade-offs. Another person may have competing ethical beliefs such as Google is an advertising company and while Android allows open software i…

> You can be aware of the conflict of interest and still decide that is an acceptable trade-off to make.

Yes, here, you can talk about the relative merits of one piece of tech vs. another and compared with your personal needs. Of course, what is immoral is never permissible—it is nonsensical to speak of immorality otherwise—but there's nothing of the sort here. The behavior of the OP is a kind of moralizing rigorism, that is, the imposition of a personal concern on others that has no objective severity of the sort being claimed, as if his personal concerns here are morally binding on others.

> Ethics are personal, subjective, and subject to trade-offs.

Subjective, no. Morality (ethics is the study of morality) is objective, or it is nothing. Murder is evil not because I arbitrarily opine—with no objective basis whatever—that it is evil, but because it actually is evil, and to choose to commit it is a gravely immoral act.

Re: Motorola announces a partnership with GrapheneOS

#874

Post by mixmastamyk »

neilv wrote: post #862
mixmastamyk wrote: post #780

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should privacy-oriented individuals be forced to dox themselves? There is a company that should be able to stand on its own reputation or not.

You need more than a corporate reputation. We're an entire industry of liars and poseurs. It would be easy to make even a completely bad-actor company with years of stellar reputation. Either as a sleeper for some future big attack, or one that only rarely and secretly takes action against very high value targets.

And how will a name and address prevent that?

Re: Motorola announces a partnership with GrapheneOS

#875

Post by broadsidepicnic »

hypercube33 wrote: post #401
BatteryMountain wrote: post #108

If anyone from Motorola reads this thread; the market is beyond ripe for a good shake up. Going full open source and pushing updates & openness, user control and freedom, you will gobble up a good chunk of market share. Make MDM easy & first class (no third parties...), and a ton of corp will roll it out too. We need you more than you think.

I agree as someone who supports devices for enterprise - if the MDM works, I'd push for these. So far we only really support Apple and Samsung (Knox) because It Just Works (TM) with Intune and other MDM tools. We looked at the Lenovo phone, and I seriously considered it for personal use, but we had already left the android market for corporate owned devices by the time this hit so I cant speak to how well it does or…

There's some road ahead here.

I enrolled my graphene into my company's intune, and I had to inject the play services via adb during the enrollment, as of course the graphene doesnt have play services available in the work profile -> unable to enroll it completely without injecting some apk's there

Re: Motorola announces a partnership with GrapheneOS

#876

Post by broadsidepicnic »

foxyv wrote: post #872

Motorola seems to HATE updating their operating systems. They only support their phone OS for the minimum possible time. Moving to an open source platform makes way too much sense for them. This is one of the few ideas that might make me go back to buying Motorola products after dumping them for a Pixel. The question is, will my work apps be able to run on GrapheneOS? I'm really excited to find out.

depends on work apps.

I've only found two apps that dont work on graphene so far (google wallet and x). Decided I'd be able to survive without them.

Re: Motorola announces a partnership with GrapheneOS

#877

Post by neilv »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #874
neilv wrote: post #862

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need more than a corporate reputation. We're an entire industry of liars and poseurs. It would be easy to make even a completely bad-actor company with years of stellar reputation. Either as a sleeper for some future big attack, or one that only rarely and secretly takes action against very high value targets.

And how will a name and address prevent that?

I don't think I said anything about an address. They've given some names, but that doesn't say why they should be trusted.

Two examples of people who have established some trust over the years: Linus Torvalds and RMS.

Joking scenario to illustrate...

Badguy: "This is it, Torvalds! Give us the Linux launch codes, or I shoot you!"

Torvalds: "Launch codes? I'm angry that you are wasting everyone's time, when clearly you don't know what you are doing, and are not bothering to get help to do it properly."

Badguy: "How about your friend! Give us the codes, or I shoot Stallman!"

Stallman: "Excuse me, but when you say Linux, I think you mean GNU/Linux, since Linux is a kernel, which is only one piece of the operating system, and used with--"

Badguy: "Argh! I can't take you nerds anymore!" shoots self in head

Re: Motorola announces a partnership with GrapheneOS

#878

Post by foxyv »

broadsidepicnic wrote: post #876
foxyv wrote: post #872

Motorola seems to HATE updating their operating systems. They only support their phone OS for the minimum possible time. Moving to an open source platform makes way too much sense for them. This is one of the few ideas that might make me go back to buying Motorola products after dumping them for a Pixel. The question is, will my work apps be able to run on GrapheneOS? I'm really excited to find out.

depends on work apps. I've only found two apps that dont work on graphene so far (google wallet and x). Decided I'd be able to survive without them.

It depends entirely on the organization. The ones my corp runs have security policies which may or may not like Graphene. I've been thinking about making a phone dedicated to work and then keeping a separate personal phone.

Re: Motorola announces a partnership with GrapheneOS

#879

Post by dang »

jama211 wrote: post #867
dang wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you please stop posting snarky and/or aggressive and/or unsubstantive comments? You've been doing it repeatedly, unfortunately. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

Piss off mate, what I said obviously wasn’t snarky and wasn’t meant that way. What you’re doing is targeted attacks, so take up your own rules with yourself.

I wasn't just talking about one comment, but about a pattern of commenting - here are other examples:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47221945

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47183702

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47178118

We're trying for something else on this site and need you to stop posting like that if you want to be on HN.

Re: Motorola announces a partnership with GrapheneOS

#880

Post by dcminter »

bogeholm wrote: post #818
dcminter wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the database world a BLOB is a Binary Large OBject ... are you sure of your etymology? Edit: and I'm not btw - for all I know BLOB in DB land might be backronym from blob in the common usage.

Wikipedia lists exactly the two cases you mention [0]: > > Not to be confused with Binary large object (BLOB). > In the context of free and open-source software, proprietary software only available as a binary executable is referred to as a blob or binary blob. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_blob

I hadn't read that page, but now I do I note that it says:

"The term blob was first used in database management systems to describe a collection of binary data stored as a single entity."

So I guess I'm not any clearer on this point.

edit: If I had to bet on it then I'd put money on the theory that "blob" became "BLOB" to sound more technical though...

Post reply on HN