Language
-
Can't IT lock things down if they so desire? That is the owner of the device using it as they see fit: Locking it down so the non technical users of the device can't break it. That you keep suggesting that devices should come out of the box restricted would make your IT job obsolete and in fact impossible to perform.
Edit: And before you ask yes I have worked in IT support, although I currently do not.
Not corporate IT, but IT for home users, back in the days when things were much less locked down basically every computer i got access too was completely crawling with malware. Had tons of people lose all of their data including family photos and the like because they dowloaded something dodgy off limewire and their system just let them run it.
Why cant you guys understand that the vast vast majority of computer users are not technical? And as such need those safety rails in place to save them from their own ignorance?
-
A hidden option to unlock power user mode solves this
Yeah exactly. Though i would personally say a bit more obfuscation is needed then a simple hidden switch.
-
Because making a power user take a more complicated path to achieve something is better than having an incopetent user brick their entire machine by accident?
-
If you write desktop software and don't ship a Windows version, that's like 90% of users you're missing out on. Android vs iOS you lose half. Not everyone wants to learn C++ for qt and by the time you get to things like Flutter, might as well use Tauri and some lightweight js framework.
Not an issue if you only do FOSS, but commercial software is always about lowest possible cost to build
wrote last edited by [email protected]Sure, but imagine a world where you could run a JVM (just as an example please don't focus on that lol) on your phone (and yes I know Android is JVM-esque, but you aren't just running JVM code on there willy nilly due to the way it's designed). There is no longer an Android vs iOS in that case with respect to JVM and even desktop or laptop applications. Of course there would need to be work done on the development side to deal with screen size and all that fun stuff, but these are all solvable problems and things you already have to deal with. QT has very easy to use Python bindings if you want an easy entry to that so that's no big deal. I don't write a lot of GUI code so I don't know the landscape that well, but I've had success with PyQt6 and Kotlin + JavaFX.
Anyway that's all kinda besides the point. We know how to build VMs; we've done it plenty of times. There is nothing magic about JavaScript; it's just a VM. Are browsers incredibly complex and well designed programs? Yes, but they're not special and their role as the backbone of everything doesn't seem inevitable or wise to me.
-
They claim this is about security but when your system is compromised there is fuck all they will do to help you.
Fucking hypocritical, control-hungry pricks.
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.
-
I argue that would be even more of a use case for the device owner to have such control.
Then you'd have rights to control which software your mom can install on the phone.
Why, in the love of all free tech support would I ever want to do that?
I swear, people just don't grasp how normies use computers. I don't want my normie relatives to have me micromanage their devices, I want their devices to be foolproof and do the five things they need to do.
That's not what I want for every device, though, so there needs to be an alternative for people who post on federated social media and performatively use open source software. If there are only two providers in a segment and both lock down all sideloading that's not acceptable, but the concept of locked down devices by itself is not.
This is not such a challenging concept. I am convinced most people in this thread would get it just fine outside of the context of having a knee-jerk reaction to the last thing they read online.
-
Not corporate IT, but IT for home users, back in the days when things were much less locked down basically every computer i got access too was completely crawling with malware. Had tons of people lose all of their data including family photos and the like because they dowloaded something dodgy off limewire and their system just let them run it.
Why cant you guys understand that the vast vast majority of computer users are not technical? And as such need those safety rails in place to save them from their own ignorance?
wrote last edited by [email protected]We'll always need safety rails, I think the thing you're missing in most of the arguments you're seeing here is that people want ways over or around those safety rails, and that those safety rails do not need to be as strict as they're becoming. That is not the case currently and that is definitely not the direction AOSP or iOS are interested in going.
Also, just for the record, comparing the modern era of computing to the limewire era is bananas.
-
Exactly. Locking basic services behind apps should be illegal. Services must be accessible to everyone.
Yea.. Like some of those parking applications. Ugh.
-
Have you people never worked in IT support? Like its all fair and good that you, a power user, dont want the OS to restrict you at all. But for your averrage person to be treated the same is just asking for disaster.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I have worked in IT. People still manage to screw up shit that's locked down. Babysitting everyone because some people are just technologically incompetent is stupid and does not solve any actual problems.
-
Yeah exactly. Though i would personally say a bit more obfuscation is needed then a simple hidden switch.
Don't hide it. That's pointless. Make it so someone has to type "I understand what I'm doing and my username is blah" into a box to activate "advanced" mode, after reading a warning, sure.
-
wrote last edited by [email protected]
It's an option you have. Personally having to do the same thing for my family, I configure an idiot-proof setup and I don't get random calls from my parents / grandparents.
Blocking sideloading won't help you here either though. You can just leave your mom using Google play store which vets the applications on the store.
You can lock down a device security-wise without locking down a device freedom-wise.
That said, I don't think there ever will be a foolproof device, that's not realistic.
If you want to guarantee someone won't fuck up their device that's what Administration is for. That's what child controls and safety features are for.
Its not that I "don't get it" its that I've been there and done that. And I use the tools given to me to make my life better. Those tools are for managing what my normie grandparents can and can't do, because in reality, they just want to face-time their grandchildren, check emails, and print photos. But they're also targets for scammers.
-
wrote last edited by [email protected]
Megacorps gonna megacorp.
Monopolies gonna monopoly.We can fight these giants by not using their services & products.
It only gets harder to fight them the more we give in.
-
SailfishOS. Fun fact, it's also finnish.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Just an FYI I think they still did not deliver on the promise of open sourcing.
And I believe you're still supposed to buy a license unless that's changed recently.
-
I finally want to switch to android and boom: Custom ROMs and "sideloading" gets swept off the platter. Well ok I guess I‘ll just wait for a good linux mobile OS
SteamOS. Outside of Ubuntu and other corp distros, if steam made a mobile-specific os or invested in arch enough to make a mobile friendly UI I would be interested
-
It's an option you have. Personally having to do the same thing for my family, I configure an idiot-proof setup and I don't get random calls from my parents / grandparents.
Blocking sideloading won't help you here either though. You can just leave your mom using Google play store which vets the applications on the store.
You can lock down a device security-wise without locking down a device freedom-wise.
That said, I don't think there ever will be a foolproof device, that's not realistic.
If you want to guarantee someone won't fuck up their device that's what Administration is for. That's what child controls and safety features are for.
Its not that I "don't get it" its that I've been there and done that. And I use the tools given to me to make my life better. Those tools are for managing what my normie grandparents can and can't do, because in reality, they just want to face-time their grandchildren, check emails, and print photos. But they're also targets for scammers.
wrote last edited by [email protected]No, trust me, it's that you don't get it.
What you're describing is an inordinate amount of effort and you clearly don't realize just how much. There are billions of people with billions of devices. People who can "configure an idiot-proof setup" at all are outnumbered many thousands to one.
There isn't a you to configure anything for most people with a mobile phone. That's not how that works. It either works out of the box and forever or it's broken and unusuable.
And sure, locking it down is no guarantee. People can still mess up their Apple phones, and those do like a thing and a half. Less than that without Apple's strict supervision. But this is a matter of degrees. The difference between a few of those thousands of unsupervised normies making a mistake each year and 10% of them making a mistake each year is the difference between Android being a viable platform and it being a broken mess nobody uses.
I feel like I'm weirdly relitigating every other conversation I have with people about Linux over here. It's kind of exhausting.
And to reiterate, that doesn't make Google insisting on having the ID of the author of every piece of software allowed to run on Android acceptable. It's just the difference between a reasonable objection and... not that.
-
If I ever go insane and write a manifesto this will be on it.
Sounds fairly sane to me.
-
meh both on mac and windows you’re not the true admin of the machine. mac requires disabling SIP and some others to even be able to delete default applications for example and don’t get me started on windows. linux ftw (as I type this from my old ass ios device)
I mean nobody is shocked that they both suck. If it's not open source you are not in control.
-
This does feel like a bit of a double-standard to me. I’ve hated how Microsoft and Apple have introduced app stores on Windows and macOS and try to push people to only install from there instead of directly from the developer. And yet on Linux the advice seems to be never ever download directly from the developer; you should only download from the package repository provided by your OS (which sure feels like an App Store). And that package probably wasn’t even provided by the developer or the OS but some random volunteer that you just assume has good intentions.
Installing from a repo via a terminal does not feel like an App Store at all. It's only the GUI apps that do and those are all entirely optional. Exactly how it should be. God's in his heaven. All's right with the world.
-
But we subsidised the cost of your phone so we could make sweet sweet recurring revenue off your usage habits and targeted advertising!
You wouldn't want to take that away from us would you? Won't SOMEBODY think of the shareholders?!
I'm getting really sick of products being only available subsidized by a level of invasiveness that should be illegal.
The government should need an individualized warrant to purchase my data. And honestly Google should need one to collect it
-
From a personal freedom POV, I agree. But, if it was easy it would be a support nightmare.
Google and Apple scan every app that gets loaded into their app stores for malware. There's also a lengthy review process, even just for updates. Some malware does still slip through, but it's a trickle compared to what gets blocked. If sideloading apps were easy, my younger sister would be in so much trouble. She'd have various accounts phished within a day. She'd install something that drains the battery within an hour and not understand what was going wrong. And, she's relatively tech savvy. I have no idea how the older generation would survive.
Of course, since Apple and Google make 30% of every sale on the app store, they're not purely motivated to just keep their users safe. The real problem is that there is a duopoly in smartphones. Apple and Google have essentially the same policies, and if you don't like them you have no other options. If there were a dozen OSes, there could be smart phones for Granny that had everything locked down, and smart phones for h4x04z that didn't. Companies that struck a good balance between protecting their users and allowing their users freedom would do well in the market. Companies that didn't would shrink and fail.
wrote last edited by [email protected]So? Don't run fishy files off the internet unless you're open to the risks. Have secure walls that require either a setting change or individual permission grants before they can access secure apps.
Operating systems are prone to natural monopoly or duopoly. Furthermore there's anti consumer incentives here in that governments want surveillance data and os companies sell it.
Where competition fails to protect consumers governments must. And that includes protection from governments. I know it's ironic today as we're in a fascist regime, but that's one of the basic principles of my country. So anyways please Europe protect us worldwide consumers from American companies.
