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

Right to root access

medhir.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 428 posts

Re: Right to root access

#91

Post by cwalv »

mixdup wrote: post #80
cwalv wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could see Microsoft saying "we're only allowing apps installed through our 'store', for safety/security reasons, unless you opt out (gated by some scary warning that doing so is unsafe). Even if they never charged a fee for running the store, I bet this would raise a lot of eyebrows.

Microsoft has been going in the opposite direction. Nowadays you can post any win32 app to the store, they are loosening not tightening

I haven't used it in ages, but last I looked their store was entirely pointless. I wouldn't be surprised if they just got rid of it altogether.

My point was more about how people would react if MS did such a thing (i.e. installs to come from the store by default).

Re: Right to root access

#92

Post by fargle »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #40
lapcat wrote: post #32

There are a ton of products on the market that are vastly more dangerous than computers: guns, cars, motorcycles, bicycles, chainsaws, table saws, cigarettes, alcohol, junk food. Yes, consumers do sometimes harm themselves by using these products. That's the price of freedom . I think it's bizarre that we treat computers as the most dangerous products in the world that for some reason demand paternalism, when none of…

This is a very popular HN opinion; but not a very popular real world opinion. The average customer wants a device that works consistently, every day, that is easy to use, with a collection of 3rd party apps who won’t steal their life savings. Windows failed to deliver this; the average customer never downloads an Exe from a newer publisher without terror. The average consumer is literally dozens of times more likely…

that's a, frankly, stupid argument. the conclusion doesn't follow the premise.

then don't root your phone or download an .exe. having the ability to do something doesn't mean you are forced to do it.

not safe enough for you? fine! make the current status quo comfortable walled-garden-of-illusionary-fake-safety the default. for example, there's no reason windows needs to by default allow unsigned code to run. hell, even make it really annoying to turn off.

but the "safety" and "easy to use" arguments against right-to-repair, digital rights, ownership, etc. is simply nonsense. there is literally ZERO negative safety or usability impact to anyone else's device because i'd like to own mine.

it's also an insulting and disingenuous argument to hear anyone on this forum make: our careers and entire segment of the economy would not exist if it were not for open systems. and it's insulting to basically say "bubba/granny is too dumb to be trusted" with owning their own device.

Re: Right to root access

#93

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

stavros wrote: post #44
lrvick wrote: post #25

I detest Google, but I do think they made the right call with Android devices and Chromebooks. You can unlock either as long as you are willing to totally wipe the device first and start over as a new device under a new security context. This removes the risk of this being abused to compromise the data of stolen devices or evil maid attacks unless a user that knows what they are doing has explicitly opted themselves…

Agreed, that's a good solution. I can root my phone immediately when I buy it, or I can leave it locked if that's my choice. That's the best of both worlds.

I would argue that the best of both worlds is being able to add your own keys and then relock the bootloader. Which Pixel devices also do:) Not sure about Chromebooks; I kinda think you maybe could reflash the firmware and then put back the write-protect screw?

Re: Right to root access

#94

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

emmelaich wrote: post #23
lapcat wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the author mentions, desktop computers have always been (mostly) unlocked. This comment is just over the top scaremongering.

Even with access controls, people do things like download chrome from random web sites, then do their banking with the result. If the fake-chrome requested admin access then you'd never be able trust anything on that computer ever again. Even re-installing the OS wouldn't fix it. It would no longer be your computer.

> If the fake-chrome requested admin access

If the user is doing banking on fake-chrome then admin is pointless; https://xkcd.com/1200/

> then you'd never be able trust anything on that computer ever again. Even re-installing the OS wouldn't fix it.

Why not? If the hardware is under user control, they just reimage the firmware, reimage the OS, and then it's clean. (Or, in practice, perhaps they hire the local computer shop to do so, but I don't think that changes anything.)

Re: Right to root access

#95

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

emmelaich wrote: post #65
qmr wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stupidest take I've seen today. There are already myriad unlockable devices. What a bizarre fantasy you have constructed.

Let me clarify .. if you have an unlocked device, then software vendors should be able to ensure that their software is non-functional on such a device. Given that, then anything very useful would be rendered non-functional, resulting in the device probably being useless.

Why should a software vendor be allowed to say what I can and can't run on my machine?

Re: Right to root access

#96

Post by petesergeant »

Contrarian take: you bought the device, that you knew already did not provide that, from a company who has priced in not having to support rooted devices, and who had priced in your future revenue from extras. The company can't complain if you find a way to root it (and they don't), but they're under no obligation to add in this extra feature you're asking for. If you want a mostly-open handheld device, they're for sale, you should buy one of those.

Re: Right to root access

#97

Post by jerjerjer »

Fully agreed. I was thinking of something similar, only I was calling it "Right to execute", similarly to the "Right to repair". I'm buying a general computing device. It's ridiculous I'm artificially limited in using it for the main purpose of making shareholders rich.

Ideally I'd add a mandatory toolchain to that. At least a C compiler which should be able to target a device I own.

Re: Right to root access

#98

Post by golergka »

lapcat wrote: post #32

There are a ton of products on the market that are vastly more dangerous than computers: guns, cars, motorcycles, bicycles, chainsaws, table saws, cigarettes, alcohol, junk food. Yes, consumers do sometimes harm themselves by using these products. That's the price of freedom . I think it's bizarre that we treat computers as the most dangerous products in the world that for some reason demand paternalism, when none of…

Thanks, but no. I'm never buying a device with easy root access for a non technical family member ever again. Freedom is great, and I'm using this freedom to buy something with exactly the capabilities I need.

Re: Right to root access

#99

Post by dmichulke »

stavros wrote: post #60

Every time this issue comes up, an army of people who've never unlocked a phone comes out of the woodwork to talk about their theoretical fears of malware and piracy and rain falling from the sky if you dare to own your device. If you've never unlocked a phone, please educate yourself on how the process works before opining. It's really not as terrifying as you imagine.

On the contrary, unlocking the bootloader might also be not as possible as you imagine.

Happened twice to me:

Once the URL for getting the key did not exist anymore.

The other time it was disallowed after some time by the company.

Re: Right to root access

#100

Post by seszett »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #48
do_not_redeem wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average customer wants a car that doesn't explode because you installed a sketchy spark plug. Does that mean the manufacturers should install locks on the hood of every new car, with the threat of jail time if you pick the lock and look underneath?

A sketchy spark plug does not have the ability to make a car explode, so the analogy is pointless. On that note, even if someone stole your car, at least your car does not have access to your bank account, your passwords, your messages, and even your sexual history. The personal and reputational cost of losing a car is not comparable. Many people would actually probably prefer their car to be stolen than the contents…

> In Australia, doing your own electrical work is a crime even for the homeowner, because it can cause physical death, and is too likely to be done wrong. Yes, you will possibly go to jail for replacing $2 light switches

And do you find this reasonable, and a good thing to expand to smartphone use?

Post reply on HN