Language
-
This isn't a fight over security, or even the control to form a walled garden. This is to eliminate privacy, the ability to run anonymously written code. This forces every bit of code to be tied to a name and face. It shortens the legal legwork needed to pin down who made what, this will be used to eliminate anonymous groups compiling their own E2EE communication network. Time is important when your trying to use a compromised member of a group to make a honeypot trap.
-
you can get all the right you need with a little trickery. I mean, psexec is made and distributed by Microsoft, freely. a simple download. and I don't think it's bad that the average user can't run everything immediately as TrustedInstaller or SYSTEM.
that’s a nice option to have, at least. i’ve s few more complaints left for each OS, but in the end i’d prefer a linux style and level of control over a machine and overall less abstraction. we’re getting software locked out most hardware nowadays: cars, household appliances, public transit, airports, privacy and so on
-
Do some banks not have websites anymore?
The website only works with Chrome
-
Nnnno.
Yyyyes.
Grandpa is not a child. Grandpa is an adult.
of course. that's out of question. However the tools provided by parental controls is what can solve this problem effectively. It's specifically for the case when the user cannot use the device responsibly for one reason or another. you set parental controls up, and now they can't break their phone.
what is the reason you think the parental controls function is not appropriate for grandpa? does it block him from doing something he should be able to do freely?
Grandpa is well within his rights to own appliances that do things grandpa doesn't fully understands but that are useful to Grandpa.
I totally agree! And with that, he is well within his rights to break his phone accidentally. the question is not that. the question is whether you want to help him avoid that. with parental controls you can allow him to do everything he needs to do.
There is value for Grandpa (and for your jock brother that doesn't understand computers, this isn't an age problem) to have access to applications where he pays some company to do a thing for them. Those companies can take some of the complexity out of their hands, and Grandpa should be protected from abusive practices.
Yes. That works if grandpa is willing to ask professionals before (or after) doing something stupid. If that applies, you don't set up parental controls for him, but allow him to do whatever.
If he is not willing to do that, he needs to be barred from breaking his phone. That's why you support google's plan, because they implement that, right?
But the problem is that they implement it ineffectively because they can still install plenty of hot garbage from the play store, and it'll make every other user's lives harder who know at least somewhat what they are doing, plus of those who are willing to give help to relatives any day. Because they either won't be able to install apps that they trust, outside of the play store, or it will come with huge consequences like making google play integrity checks fail, or these apps being restricted in what can they do.that is why you don't implement such insanity on all phones worldwide, but only individually for those people that need this kindof stronger guidance.
It's not on Grandpa to do research on technology just to make a phone call now any more than it was for 1960s grandpas.
who needs to do research on that? you gave him the phone, it's your job to show him how to place a call. but this point is not even relevant because google's planned limitations wouldn't do anything so that your grandpa can place a call if he doesn't know how to do that.
Hell no, I do not want to help Grandpa avoid anything. I don't want to be part of Grandpa's owning appliances at all in the first place. I have way better things to do with the little time we get to share together in this world.
And again, this hypothetical old person is not a child. I don't "allow" anything in this scenario. And even if I did, and even if I had the time or interest to run IT interference for somebody else, this solution does not scale. For every tech savvy person there are thousands of people who have never read a warning pop-up in full.
Your perception of where the onus is, how much understanding of how computers work or the usefulness of foolproof computing devices is way out of whack. And I get it, it's easy to lose perspective on this. Average familiarity and all that. But you're setting up a scenario that works just for you and not for everybody else.
So no, you are wrong, for a whole range of devices, restrictions should be the default. Absolutely. No question. This isn't even up for debate.
That's, in fact, not what is being debated, seeing how Google aren't changing install restrictions at all. The changes are more insidious and extremely bad for entirely different reasons. It is frustrating that this conversation is both being had on the wrong terms for what Google is actually doing AND showing how much even casual dwellers in tech circles misunderstand how UX needs to work to be serviceable at scale.
-
Is that not what sideloading is? A way over the safety rails?
wrote last edited by [email protected]Not at all. Root access would be a way over safety rails.
Also the context of this post is that Google is attempting to make "side loading" harder.
-
Pardon my ignorance, but would loading a forked version of android (like lineageOS or grapheneOS) get around this? I know graphene at least puts all Google services in its own container. Would that allow the rest of the system to run "side loaded" apps? Or is this unavoidable if you use any version based on android?
-
Pardon my ignorance, but would loading a forked version of android (like lineageOS or grapheneOS) get around this? I know graphene at least puts all Google services in its own container. Would that allow the rest of the system to run "side loaded" apps? Or is this unavoidable if you use any version based on android?
Cause at this point, I'm considering loading Ubuntu touch on here
-
B-b-but brand integrity! Customers love that! (Shareholders too)
wrote last edited by [email protected]Did you even stop for ONE second to think about the shareholders? You guys are all selfish, with your privacy this, freedom that. I can't take it. Sundar Pichai is frowning down on you all from his penthouse. May his piss rain down and replenish our work ethic.
-
Did you even stop for ONE second to think about the shareholders? You guys are all selfish, with your privacy this, freedom that. I can't take it. Sundar Pichai is frowning down on you all from his penthouse. May his piss rain down and replenish our work ethic.
You own nothing and will be happy is not a communist idea, it's the endgame of capitalism for 99.9% of the people.
-
I understand the paper trail that this is creating.
But it does come across as Google gatekeeping.
For example, what if I want to build an app, and distribute it outside of app stores with zero involvement from Google? It appears that cannot be done because I'd need to identify with Google through the developer program.
What happens if Google doesn't like that I made a chat app that bypasses censorship in specific country, it gets removed from play store, so i publish it on my website. What if Google gets mad at this and flags my identification?
Suddenly no one can install my app that has nothing to do with Google.
To me, even if it seems like a benign change, I can see how it can be exploited by Google to push whatever agenda they want.
If Google disappeared the day after this is rolled out, would I still be able to add a valid identifier to my apk without Google's involvement?
-
Pardon my ignorance, but would loading a forked version of android (like lineageOS or grapheneOS) get around this? I know graphene at least puts all Google services in its own container. Would that allow the rest of the system to run "side loaded" apps? Or is this unavoidable if you use any version based on android?
Yes. Those who already don't give a shit about google will be unaffected.
-
because the interface “looks dated”.
The real issue is M$ intentionally not following standards, so that opening an Office doc may or may not properly render in other suites. Hooray for EEE. Fuckers.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Eh, I haven't had that issue in years. Maybe its a problem for office workers who make extremely complicated documents and spreadsheets, but those aren't the kinds of people I'm talking about.
EDIT: Not implying you're wrong about M$ fake open standards bullshit, just that I don't think its a huge concern for the average home user.
-
GrapheneOS still intends to support all the supported devices until EOL. The sideloading change doesn't affect them. It won’t apply to GrapheneOS. It only applies to certified OSes and GrapheneOS is not certified because it doesn’t license Google Mobile Services. As per the rip out of the device trees for Pixels, that just makes Pixels like other phones. GrapheneOS has been able to expand it's automation to build that device support themselves. For new devices, making the support will take longer than it did in the past though, but they will still support those Pixels, as long as they meet the hardware requirements and still allow third-party OS support with all security features intact. Besides that GrapheneOS is actively talking with a major Android OEM right now in order to help them reach the security requirements for a subset of their future devices. They are very optimistic about that.
That's all great news. I think they deserve another donation from me.
-
I get what you are saying but is it really too much to ask for an interface that looks like it belongs there?
For legally free and open software that has to maintain UI consistency across Windows, MacOS, and the plethora of open desktop environments? Yes, yes it is.
-
It's about the security of their brand. No sane company wants people walking around, talking about shit their phone is because it keeps getting infected.
Well, the only instances I know of modern phones getting infected are Apple devices where a text message somehow gets into the kernel with zero clicks. Apparently apple insists they're too incompetent to fix this.
-
Plot twist: EU enacts Chat Control.
Plot twist: EU is literally wanting to require Google Play services and a Google approved OS to use social media
-
I understand the paper trail that this is creating.
But it does come across as Google gatekeeping.
For example, what if I want to build an app, and distribute it outside of app stores with zero involvement from Google? It appears that cannot be done because I'd need to identify with Google through the developer program.
What happens if Google doesn't like that I made a chat app that bypasses censorship in specific country, it gets removed from play store, so i publish it on my website. What if Google gets mad at this and flags my identification?
Suddenly no one can install my app that has nothing to do with Google.
To me, even if it seems like a benign change, I can see how it can be exploited by Google to push whatever agenda they want.
If Google disappeared the day after this is rolled out, would I still be able to add a valid identifier to my apk without Google's involvement?
I don't think it seems like a benign change at all, for those reasons.
Well, for most of them. It IS a concern that every single piece of bootable code on the platform is traceable to a specific person worldwide, for sure. The last one shouldn't be an issue. If Google disappeared you'd still be able to run unsigned code on Android, since on paper this will only apply to "Android certified" devices. Not being certified may remove Google services and the Play Store, but in your scenario those are gone anyway. And there isn't a ton of clarity about whether ID certification will be automatic. I presume it will be, but we won't know until we hear from devs in their early access program.
But apps being persecuted or censored by governments? Sure. That's a very real issue. And Google and Apple deciding what people can run in their devices single-handedly? That's entierly unacceptable.
-
I totally disagree. Not because I don't think like this person does but because I watched us all go from Napster days until now and I 100% anticipate that people who think like this person will be eventually snuffed out by the people advocating against AI. Why I supported AI so much was the idea that it would push for more laws that allowed developers to iterate off each others work. Seeing the push back from AI opponents and also that we live in a world of content creators using the internet to supplement their lifestyle is a recipe to kill any open source community. It is only a matter of time. It will be a death by 1000 paper cuts.
-
For legally free and open software that has to maintain UI consistency across Windows, MacOS, and the plethora of open desktop environments? Yes, yes it is.
No it’s not. There are other free and open software offerings that function cross platform and do it more cleanly.
-
I'm not willing to pay for it, are you? If no then its to much to ask.
No, it’s too much to demand but simply asking they keep the interface as clean looking as any other free cross platform open source project is not an outlandish request.
