911–920 of 927 posts
Respectfully, I think this is the wrong fight. And I fear it may be counter-productive, because all the effort put into asking Google to make it a little less painful to install an unverified app is not put into the real fight. IMHO, it should be fine for Google or Apple to do whatever they want with their OS. What should be forbidden is to prevent people from installing an alternative OS on their hardware. But this…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they didn't have technology yet to do it properly , so it was trivial for people to sever the tie and install alternative OSes - trivial enough that it was also easy to teach others how to do it. Now, the tech to make that tie near-unbreakable exists.
Can you install an alternate os on the original Mac or a C64? I was only aware of that possibility for pc clones
Here's an alternative OS for the C64, though I no longer have such a machine to try it on: https://www.c64-wiki.com/wiki/Contiki
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if they don't give you an apple dev account, or close yours, you can't. Case in point.
Did you just move the goalposts from “you can’t run arbitrary code today” to “hypothetically, in the future, Apple could prevent running arbitrary code”?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You keep repeating this everywhere. Consider reading what a Librem 5 developer says instead, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47943487 Also, Librem 5 has "proper" firmware updates (whatever that means). Please do not spread false information.
Since you copy pasta your response, I will link to my other comment and do a bit of copy pasta here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47953726 It is exactly how it works. Read the actual code for yourself: https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/librem5-fw-jail/-/blob/pureos... If you can't read code, here is the marketing material: https://puri.sm/posts/shipping-new-sparklan-wifi-cards-with-... If you don't know that the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can have "some debate" on absolutely anything, but that doesn't yet mean it makes any sense. Sure, but from the fact that anything can be debated it does not follow that any given debate is nonsensical, which is kind of what you did there. > ...whatever debate you're referring to is unlikely to be held in good faith. I don't know which is odder, that assertion, or the notion that two completely different securi…
> I only mention that because a contingent of voices as high in volume as they are few in number endlessly shoehorning the Librem 5 into numerous threads no matter how much of a non-sequitur it takes, has me suddenly paying more attention these days to what's coming from the Purism camp. The more I do the more disingenuous the rhetoric seems. It seems to be mainly fsflover. You can search “Librem 5” messages in HN an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty much any modern phone is also full of blobs that run on the main CPU to ensure basic functionality, with only a handful of exceptions. Just consider how many features stop working or get severely degraded on various phones when you use a clean AOSP build on them (provided that you can do it at all in the first place). Android's driver infrastructure effectively encourages non-free blobs in "vendor" partitions,…
> You can have "some debate" on absolutely anything, but that doesn't yet mean it makes any sense. Sure, but from the fact that anything can be debated it does not follow that any given debate is nonsensical, which is kind of what you did there. > ...whatever debate you're referring to is unlikely to be held in good faith. I don't know which is odder, that assertion, or the notion that two completely different securi…
I explained in the other comment why I thing that GNU/Linux phones are relevant, where I posted. You can discuss my arguments, but you can't just dismiss them all with a single general wording like this.
> a project with such a fraught history and tarnished reputation
Another unsubstantiated attack on a free software project from the GrapheneOS crowd, with no links or argumentation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s still a car. You could own a race car that cannot legally be driven on any public roads and it’s still a car. I agree with brookst that this sort of redefinition is a poor rhetorical tool.
Well it's still a vehicle but once something sufficiently deviates in form or function or the like it will no longer primarily be called that. People usually say they took a taxi for example rather saying they came by car even when every taxi is a car. Once that happens they start taking up different mental spots and comparisons between them start to make less and less sense. (saying you don't see the value of self d…
This isn’t relevant. Taxis are still cars and that’s something the vast majority of people would agree with. The fact that they have a more specific name doesn’t change anything.
A Bungalow is still a house. A skyscraper is still a building. A panini is still a sandwich. A taxi is still a car.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they didn't have technology yet to do it properly , so it was trivial for people to sever the tie and install alternative OSes - trivial enough that it was also easy to teach others how to do it. Now, the tech to make that tie near-unbreakable exists.
Can you install an alternate os on the original Mac or a C64? I was only aware of that possibility for pc clones
The problem today is that modern computers are designed to prevent this, by means that can provide mathematical proofs you won't be able to defeat the protection in any useful sense before the Sun burns out. You have tamper-proof fuses embedded in microchips, and some systems have cryptographic hashes in every major component to prevent you from replacing something too hard to reprogram, etc.
We're yet to see a fully locked down computer (smartphones are close), but the tech for it is there.