3 ms·

> Side-loading pre-built binaries like that is a huge risk for users That's quite an odd thing to say, isn't it? You're basically endorsing the idea that you

by Lazare 11y ago

> Side-loading pre-built binaries like that is a huge risk for users That's quite an odd thing to say, isn't it? You're basically endorsing the idea that you shouldn't be allowed to run binary code of your choice on your own computer. It's interesting to imagine the outrage if this policy was enforced by literally any other company on literally any other device or platform. > and never had a chance of being tolerated by Apple That's probably true. > Such abuse Can we perhaps find a term other than "abuse"? It seems quite inappropriate in this context. Spamming is abuse. Running non-Apple approved code on your own person device is basically the opposite of abuse.

braythwayt 11y ago
> That's quite an odd thing to say, isn't it? You're basically endorsing the idea that you shouldn't be allowed to run binary code of your choice on your own computer. Quite a few people have been saying for a very long time that distributing proprietary software without users being able to see the source is a Bad Thing. It's not your freedom they object to, they feel they are actually championing your freedom. You or I may pragmatically decide to embrace opaque proprietary software, but certainly there is a reasonable school of thought opposed to the notion. It's much like arguing that we should be free to buy food that doesn't list the ingredients on the side, and drugs that aren't tested. There're reasonable arguments to be made on both sides of that issue.
- teddyh 11y ago
  You are actually conflating two separate issues: 1. Whether users should be able to run any software (binary or not, proprietary or not) which they happen to have access to, on hardware that they own and 2. Whether it is right for people to distribute, to users, software which is useful for a purpose, and therefore attractive, but where the users cannot change or even inspect the software itself (and cannot hire anyone else to do these things for them). The issue at hand was the first one, and you answered by talking about the second one. I believe the usual Free Software Movement arguments go like this: For the first question, it is obvious that users should have a right to use the things they own however they wish – otherwise it can hardly be called ownership. For the manufacturer to give such restricted hardware in exchange for money, but still retain this degree of control over the hardware after the transaction, should therefore not be allowed to be referred to as “selling”, since the recipients/possessors of such hardware cannot usefully be considered the full “owners”. For the second question, while it is obvious that it is unethical to tempt users to give up their freedom to change and inspect the software, or have it changed or inspected (since this checking and tinkering is one of the things which drives a good society), it is certainly not obvious that it should be out-and-out illegal for anyone to offer such unchangeable and uninspectable software to users.
  - copperx 11y ago
    r/conflating/confusing
    - teddyh 11y ago
      No, I did mean “conflating”. Lazare was talking about the first issue, and braythwayt responded as if the answer to the second issue was the answer to the first one, implicitly conflating the two issues.
  - braythwayt 11y ago
    I'm deliberately entangling them, because outside of an abstract conversation, the behaviour of humans and the resulting economics of the marketplace are entangled, as I'm sure you agree. Freedom for humans creates incentives for manufacturers to exploit that freedom. If you give humans the right to buy anything they want, sooner or later someone will make a health drink containing Radium. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radithor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radithor At that point, you either go full Libtard and say, "we're all adults here, caveat emptor" or you regulate the marketplace and make it illegal for people to do business in Radium drinks. I'm not saying anyone should be prohibited from buying/leasing/licensing proprietary, opaque software. But I do think there are reasonable arguments for such. So what I would say back to you is "Do not conflate saying there are reasonable arguments for X with saying X should be the case."
- fenomas 11y ago
  > distributing proprietary software without users being able to see the source is a Bad Thing. That's a completely separate issue. Apple cares not a jot whether you can see the source; they care that someone was distributing iOS apps outside the garden.
MBCook 11y ago
> That's quite an odd thing to say, isn't it? It's that how many viruses and pieces of malware get around? The user is tricked into installing something and then it goes bad? Isn't that how most every exploit and virus seen on Android work? Is that how the problem apps found in the jailbreak app stores for the iPhone work? Isn't this exact restriction why the worst we've seen on iOS (despite MASSIVE deployment numbers) is social engineering attacks? I know many people hate the restrictions, but the App Store on iOS has a pretty amazing track record for security (in regard to problem code). Basically the worst we've seen is apps abusing system APIs to get more information than they should and those have been closed relatively fast. No worms, no viruses.
- Lazare 11y ago
  You're not wrong, but don't those same arguments apply to every other device and platform? Obviously if you prevented people from running non-Microsoft approved binary code on Windows, we'd see a staggering reduction in the amount of malware activity. Is that something you'd endorse?
  - MBCook 11y ago
    I consider desktops different than phones. My phone is an appliance for me. I would be pissed if they tried to do it to OS X. I wrote that as a counter to the 'Windows / OS X does it without issue' line of argument. There are issues. They may be relatively minor (OS X) or very bad (Windows XP), but there is no free lunch.
- fpgeek 11y ago
  > Isn't that how most every exploit and virus seen on Android work? Actually, no. Stagefright was about exploiting holes in the parsing of malformed media files (no installation required). Tons of other vulnerabilities were of the form "thing that shouldn't be accessible via JavaScript in the browser/WebView is". Not that there isn't malware that spreads via installation, but Google's "Verify Apps" service (for sideloaded apps) has been quite effective: http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2015/04/android-security-state-of-union-2014.html http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2015/04/android-sec...

by Lazare 11y ago

braythwayt 11y ago

> That's quite an odd thing to say, isn't it? You're basically endorsing the idea that you shouldn't be allowed to run binary code of your choice on your own computer. Quite a few people have been saying for a very long time that distributing proprietary software without users being able to see the source is a Bad Thing. It's not your freedom they object to, they feel they are actually championing your freedom. You or I may pragmatically decide to embrace opaque proprietary software, but certainly there is a reasonable school of thought opposed to the notion. It's much like arguing that we should be free to buy food that doesn't list the ingredients on the side, and drugs that aren't tested. There're reasonable arguments to be made on both sides of that issue.

teddyh 11y ago
You are actually conflating two separate issues: 1. Whether users should be able to run any software (binary or not, proprietary or not) which they happen to have access to, on hardware that they own and 2. Whether it is right for people to distribute, to users, software which is useful for a purpose, and therefore attractive, but where the users cannot change or even inspect the software itself (and cannot hire anyone else to do these things for them). The issue at hand was the first one, and you answered by talking about the second one. I believe the usual Free Software Movement arguments go like this: For the first question, it is obvious that users should have a right to use the things they own however they wish – otherwise it can hardly be called ownership. For the manufacturer to give such restricted hardware in exchange for money, but still retain this degree of control over the hardware after the transaction, should therefore not be allowed to be referred to as “selling”, since the recipients/possessors of such hardware cannot usefully be considered the full “owners”. For the second question, while it is obvious that it is unethical to tempt users to give up their freedom to change and inspect the software, or have it changed or inspected (since this checking and tinkering is one of the things which drives a good society), it is certainly not obvious that it should be out-and-out illegal for anyone to offer such unchangeable and uninspectable software to users.
- copperx 11y ago
  r/conflating/confusing
  - teddyh 11y ago
    No, I did mean “conflating”. Lazare was talking about the first issue, and braythwayt responded as if the answer to the second issue was the answer to the first one, implicitly conflating the two issues.
- braythwayt 11y ago
  I'm deliberately entangling them, because outside of an abstract conversation, the behaviour of humans and the resulting economics of the marketplace are entangled, as I'm sure you agree. Freedom for humans creates incentives for manufacturers to exploit that freedom. If you give humans the right to buy anything they want, sooner or later someone will make a health drink containing Radium. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radithor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radithor At that point, you either go full Libtard and say, "we're all adults here, caveat emptor" or you regulate the marketplace and make it illegal for people to do business in Radium drinks. I'm not saying anyone should be prohibited from buying/leasing/licensing proprietary, opaque software. But I do think there are reasonable arguments for such. So what I would say back to you is "Do not conflate saying there are reasonable arguments for X with saying X should be the case."
fenomas 11y ago
> distributing proprietary software without users being able to see the source is a Bad Thing. That's a completely separate issue. Apple cares not a jot whether you can see the source; they care that someone was distributing iOS apps outside the garden.

MBCook 11y ago

> That's quite an odd thing to say, isn't it? It's that how many viruses and pieces of malware get around? The user is tricked into installing something and then it goes bad? Isn't that how most every exploit and virus seen on Android work? Is that how the problem apps found in the jailbreak app stores for the iPhone work? Isn't this exact restriction why the worst we've seen on iOS (despite MASSIVE deployment numbers) is social engineering attacks? I know many people hate the restrictions, but the App Store on iOS has a pretty amazing track record for security (in regard to problem code). Basically the worst we've seen is apps abusing system APIs to get more information than they should and those have been closed relatively fast. No worms, no viruses.

Lazare 11y ago
You're not wrong, but don't those same arguments apply to every other device and platform? Obviously if you prevented people from running non-Microsoft approved binary code on Windows, we'd see a staggering reduction in the amount of malware activity. Is that something you'd endorse?
- MBCook 11y ago
  I consider desktops different than phones. My phone is an appliance for me. I would be pissed if they tried to do it to OS X. I wrote that as a counter to the 'Windows / OS X does it without issue' line of argument. There are issues. They may be relatively minor (OS X) or very bad (Windows XP), but there is no free lunch.
fpgeek 11y ago
> Isn't that how most every exploit and virus seen on Android work? Actually, no. Stagefright was about exploiting holes in the parsing of malformed media files (no installation required). Tons of other vulnerabilities were of the form "thing that shouldn't be accessible via JavaScript in the browser/WebView is". Not that there isn't malware that spreads via installation, but Google's "Verify Apps" service (for sideloaded apps) has been quite effective: http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2015/04/android-security-state-of-union-2014.html http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2015/04/android-sec...