Language
-
Not my fault you don't understand the difference between "thread" and "comment chain." Who's illiterate now?
Moreover, who the fuck do you think you are? You're not entitled to expect people to read anything but direct replies. You're just not that important.
-
my take on it is that it was a mistake to push end-to-end encryption on every chat. now the government wants to remove privacy for everyone, because some people are going to abuse it.
it would have been a better approach to make privacy through encryption possible, but somewhat technical so non-techy people aren't going to use it much.
context: EU tries to implement "chat control" (again) which is basically removing user's privacy on private chat messages by letting the government spy on it.
my take on it is that it was a mistake to push end-to-end encryption on every chat. now the government wants to remove privacy for everyone, because some people are going to abuse it.
I'm inclined to agree with this, even though I dislike it. I think encryption should be accessible to everybody, for any purpose, no questions asked. But, making it mainstream allowed certain powers to control the narrative. It's much easier to shift public opinions on something that most people know about, as opposed to something that's more niche. While everybody should have access to encryption, there is benefit to obscurity, as well.
-
No difference from checking IDs at the airport? So Google wants a government body to handle their platform on their behalf and to ensure a common playing field where at the airport I can choose whatever vendor I’d like?
No difference from checking IDs at the airport?
An airplane is a glorified autobus. You don't need an ID to get on one of those.
-
Some of these comments are wild.
The OS should not at all stop me from doing what I want to do. Ever. Not even if that means I can fuck it up.
They can warn me when I attempt to do things that could fuck shit up. They can make it a bit harder to navigate to certain things so I'm less likely to fuck shit up. But it's my god damn hardware. I should be able to run and configure the software on it as I see fit.
“Why isn’t x working! I set x on my [insert device here] and now it won’t turn on!”
-
I think that, with the current state of OSes like Windows and Android, there should be some minimal amount of friction to enabling installation of non-vetted apps. Maybe some switch that can't be enabled accidentally, or without understanding that there's risk involved (or at least a switch that can be disabled and password protected) for the sake of children or the elderly.
On the other hand, though, an OS should be built with enough security and sandboxing that no single application can brick your entire device without at least tapping through and giving it a ton of permissions; which means that the only remaining risk to the end user would be access to disinformation or other harmful content, or the risk of personal information exfiltration (i.e. phishing). At that point, a simple block list (or even just an allow list) maintained by a trusted guardian or third party would be sufficient to keep children or the elderly from harmful content, and whoops we've just invented the internet again.
I am once again begging for Boot2Gecko to become a thing.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Boot2Gecko is a thing: it's called KaiOS. It targets lower tech devices though and is just as locked down as Android, potentially even more actually.
I'm interested: why do you want it? I'm not a big fan of the idea of web development being the standard
-
Only in the US, I guess. In my country and in Europe this will not fly...
Nope
These requirements go into effect in Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, and Thailand. At this point, any app installed on a certified Android device in these regions must be registered by a verified developer.
2027 and beyond: We will continue to roll out these requirements globally.
https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/08/elevating-android-security.html?m=1
-
I had to 'sideload' the secret of mana port because play store would refuse to validate the license offline after purchase. If I can't play offline a single player game that i bought, than what should i do.
I also have an apk of wayward souls, because it was removed from the store and i like that game. Also a premium game.
So yes. Running software as i see fit. -
Yeah I can accept some kind of "hey we can't verify this, you are on your own if you want to install" warning message, but if it prevents me then I don't want it.
I don't know about you, but my Pixel 6a already does this. When I go to install an APK not from the app store directly it warms me, requires me to acknowledge that the APK was downloaded through Firefox, and acknowledge what permissions it is requesting.
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]And yet on Linux the advice seems to be never ever download directly from the developer
Are people really giving this advice that often and that strongly? I find myself building more and more things from source these days. Especially with modern languages that OS maintainers are actually having a difficult time packaging in the way they're used to.
-
Some of these comments are wild.
The OS should not at all stop me from doing what I want to do. Ever. Not even if that means I can fuck it up.
They can warn me when I attempt to do things that could fuck shit up. They can make it a bit harder to navigate to certain things so I'm less likely to fuck shit up. But it's my god damn hardware. I should be able to run and configure the software on it as I see fit.
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.
-
What exactly are you trying to argue here?
You say automated updates good, mandatory updates maybe not?
But there's no difference on Windows, that's the point. You, as a user, get no choice.You will get broken updates and unwanted features whenever they decide, because it's ultimately about the same thing with both MS and Android: taking away your control of your devices.
No, it's about implementation. Implementation is implementation. If you want to discuss software in terms of principle we're going to have a very short conversation. "You, as a user get no choice" because "they are taking away your control of your devices" is a meaningless statement.
I am arguing that yeah, there are scenarios where limiting the ability to install or run unsigned software at the user level makes perfect sense. Honestly, it may make sense most of the time. The mirage that it does not comes from mostly spending time in home computers where the only user is also the person acting as an admin.
Do I feel that most, if not all, devices should allow full access to a consenting user that understands they are very likely about to nuke their thing? Yeah, sure! It's basic right to repair. But pretending that automating maintenance tasks or adding access restrictions is a fundamental, ideological problem is just... not how this works.
I think the change Google has announced is unacceptable. Just not for the reasons you're describing and certainly not in the way you're describing them. The difference is very important, because the last thing we need is a roaming mob of online dilettantes arguing that any restriction to access is a betrayal of fundamental freedoms.
Which, frankly, is how we ended up with the dumb notion that there's no reason why you wouldn't want your home computer updating itself every time you reboot it. Which in turn has nothing to do with the ability to not do that if the OS is running on something that is NOT a home computer where somebody needs to have manual control over what changes and when.
-
wrote last edited by [email protected]
I'm probably going to spam this around a bit, since most people don't seem to know about it, but a reminder that FuriLabs has a (GNU+)Linux phone with decent spec.s and the ability to run Android app.s (from what I've heard) pretty decently: https://furilabs.com/
Biggest drawback is it's based on Halium. Usual growing pains of a new product/company apply but apparently the company is pretty responsive and their dev.s have worked with customers to get things like calling working with the carrier and bands of their country where it hasn't worked before so improvements move pretty quickly.
Collection of different experiences I've variously seen online over the last year or so:
- https://clehaxze.tw/gemlog/2025/07-20-flx1-actually-usable-linux-phone.gmi
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41839326
- https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1fa1ljn/furilabs_flx1/
- https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1j46f2w/flx1_linux_phone_display_out/
- https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/03/furiphone_flx1/
I don't own one, myself, so I can't give any personal experience but I've seen it around for a few years now but most people don't seem to even know about it. Maybe there's a reason for that? But none I've ever seen anyone say.
-
Anyone that makes this argumrnt needs to work in a public IT support role for at least a year.
Then you will understsnd why your average user should not be given unrestricted freedom on their device.
-
That just sounds like the system needs a separate "Admin" mode to do things like that. Your mom can take the risk of messing with that herself (which can be very educational!), or leave that for you or someone else to handle. But that would let her make a more informed choice, even without technical ability.
Sure. I don't disagree with that. In fact, that's how it currently works on Android, more or less. It's actually looser now than it has been in the past.
But "informed choice without technical ability" is not a thing. You can't be informed if you don't understand what you're doing. People online that more or less understand computers but don't necessarily understand how other people interact with computers tend to miss how this works. My mom doesn't choose to take risks or not, she won't read what's on the screen and if she reads it she won't understand it, and if she understands it she won't trust it, because she doesn't have the knowledge to distinguish a genuine message from the OS trying to ask for confirmation from a janky physhing request.
My mom thinks Whatsapp messages can hack her bank account and freaks out every time her phone asks her to reboot for an update. She doesn't have the time or interest to get to a place where she can change that, and more to the point she shouldn't have to. It's prefectly fine to buy a device that will only let you do the things you want to do and won't let you do the rest.
As you say, that device just needs some process by which someone who cares and knows how to do more stuff can reclaim full access.
-
Anyone that makes this argumrnt needs to work in a public IT support role for at least a year.
Then you will understsnd why your average user should not be given unrestricted freedom on their device.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Even people who are not being supported by any IT department at all? For example, home users. If they break their device they will learn how to not break their next one and therefore become more technologically proficient.
-
Yeah this is where I'm at too, there is no reason these device makers should be locking us out of doing what we want with our phones. Their app store can exist along side other install options and compete on usability instead of monopoly.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Yep. I don't need Google to let me install apks freely and I don't need them to host everything on the Play store with zero supervision.
But I do need F-Droid to keep working and to be able to install software that Google has zero visibility on, or a way to unlock my device to be able to sideload stuff. There is zero reasonable argument to say that Google is the only valid arbiter of signed software on the planet.
-
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]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.
-
Boot2Gecko is a thing: it's called KaiOS. It targets lower tech devices though and is just as locked down as Android, potentially even more actually.
I'm interested: why do you want it? I'm not a big fan of the idea of web development being the standard
Let me answer your question with a question: How many things do you do with your phone that aren't also able to be accomplished with a website already? I'd be willing to bet that the answer is in the single digits. And for most of those, that limitation is likely to be entirely arbitrary, instituted by a developer as an anti-consumer form of lock-in.
Delivering application-like experiences via the web allows users to make accessibility changes to that experience without the developer needing to support it explicitly. It also allows users to implement plugins that extend and improve their experience, by removing undesirable content or adding functionality that you haven't provided. And because browsers are built on open standards, there's no longer any device ecosystem lock-in; I should be able to access all of the websites I want to from any browser on any device. Users could even build their own bespoke applications, without the need to enable a developer mode on their phone or get a certification from a megacorp.
And because downloadable and cacheable progressive web apps are a thing, as well as local storage options for browsers, the experience for an end-user of a browser-only phone wouldn't need to be any different in low-signal or high-latency situations.
The web is a mature and proven platform for delivering arbitrary code and data, plugins make the web more accessible and easier to use, and web standards make the world more open. It's not a perfect platform, of course, but it's the one we've got; I think making it the default rather than the fallback for the devices most people use more than any other would be a great boon for the world at large.
-
I don't know about you, but my Pixel 6a already does this. When I go to install an APK not from the app store directly it warms me, requires me to acknowledge that the APK was downloaded through Firefox, and acknowledge what permissions it is requesting.
Yes, the problem is that Android is talking about requiring developer verification at install time; as I understand it, without allowing an override.
-
To be clear, Kolanaki is saying that that is not how an OS should behave.
wrote last edited by [email protected]oh yea I agree I was just venting further; prefer less hand holding
