4 ms·

It's true that the AOSP version of the email app, for example, hasn't been in actual development. But as long as you can replace it with a good solution, like K

It's true that the AOSP version of the email app, for example, hasn't been in actual development. But as long as you can replace it with a good solution, like K9-Mail, does it really matter?

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
K-9 Mail has gone years without significant updates. Last I checked it doesn't work on newer Exchange servers and requires you enable "less secure login" to work with Gmail.
- mi100hael 9y ago
  "Less secure login" is just a scare tactic anyway. You're still using a device-specific, highly-random password that's being sent over TLS to their servers. It's at least as secure as any other IMAP/SMTP server on the internet.
  - mikelward 9y ago
    But it's not device-specific, which is exactly what makes it less secure. If anybody is able to sniff your password (e.g. due to initially trying to connect without TLS accidentally) or MITM your connection or get privileged access to your device (either locally or remotely), then they get access to your email, even from their machines.
    - mi100hael 9y ago
      Any mail client in the wild today will support STARTTLS and won't submit any credentials to Gmail until a TLS connection has been established. If your connection is MITM'd and you accept the bad certificate error or your laptop is totally pwnd, you're screwed regardless of how you're authenticating. In those situations an attacker could still hijack sessions, exfil data, act on your behalf, etc regardless of whether you went through their browser auth flow with MFA.
hd4 9y ago
Yes it does really matter. It wouldn't cost them much but would prove they are committed to the ideals of open source.
- rmmm 9y ago
  Wasn't open source coined as a way to remove ideals from the discussion? This is why (as annoying as it gets sometimes) it's important to make the distinction between open source and free software. Free software has ideals.
  - aidenn0 9y ago
    I thought it was primarily to remove the implicit assumption that free software was necessarily non-commercial. Ultimately both terms are problematic, because free software will always have the confusion with "free as in beer" and open source software implies that access to the source is important, when it's more about what the user is allowed to do with the source.
    - rmmm 9y ago
      > I thought it was primarily to remove the implicit assumption that free software was necessarily non-commercial. I've heard Bruce Perens talk about it a few times, and even on the OSI website (https://opensource.org/history https://opensource.org/history) they state... "The conferees believed the pragmatic, business-case grounds that had motivated Netscape to release their code illustrated a valuable way to engage with potential software users and developers, and convince them to create and improve source code by participating in an engaged community. The conferees also believed that it would be useful to have a single label that identified this approach and distinguished it from the philosophically- and politically-focused label "free software." Brainstorming for this new label eventually converged on the term "open source", originally suggested by Christine Peterson." You could be right though and some may have seen the non-commercial aspects of the word free as a tertiary benefit, but the primary stated goal was to distance itself from the ideals and politics of free software. I agree with you though on the last part. Even as someone who uses the term free software, I often use the term open source while using search engines because searching free software brings up sites with freeware/adware/shareware and stuff I don't want. I also think using loan words like "libre" are a stretch for your general public. At work I tend to use "Free and Open Source Software".

It's true that the AOSP version of the email app, for example, hasn't been in actual development. But as long as you can replace it with a good solution, like K9-Mail, does it really matter?

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

K-9 Mail has gone years without significant updates. Last I checked it doesn't work on newer Exchange servers and requires you enable "less secure login" to work with Gmail.

mi100hael 9y ago
"Less secure login" is just a scare tactic anyway. You're still using a device-specific, highly-random password that's being sent over TLS to their servers. It's at least as secure as any other IMAP/SMTP server on the internet.
- mikelward 9y ago
  But it's not device-specific, which is exactly what makes it less secure. If anybody is able to sniff your password (e.g. due to initially trying to connect without TLS accidentally) or MITM your connection or get privileged access to your device (either locally or remotely), then they get access to your email, even from their machines.
  - mi100hael 9y ago
    Any mail client in the wild today will support STARTTLS and won't submit any credentials to Gmail until a TLS connection has been established. If your connection is MITM'd and you accept the bad certificate error or your laptop is totally pwnd, you're screwed regardless of how you're authenticating. In those situations an attacker could still hijack sessions, exfil data, act on your behalf, etc regardless of whether you went through their browser auth flow with MFA.

hd4 9y ago

Yes it does really matter. It wouldn't cost them much but would prove they are committed to the ideals of open source.

rmmm 9y ago
Wasn't open source coined as a way to remove ideals from the discussion? This is why (as annoying as it gets sometimes) it's important to make the distinction between open source and free software. Free software has ideals.
- aidenn0 9y ago
  I thought it was primarily to remove the implicit assumption that free software was necessarily non-commercial. Ultimately both terms are problematic, because free software will always have the confusion with "free as in beer" and open source software implies that access to the source is important, when it's more about what the user is allowed to do with the source.
  - rmmm 9y ago
    > I thought it was primarily to remove the implicit assumption that free software was necessarily non-commercial. I've heard Bruce Perens talk about it a few times, and even on the OSI website (https://opensource.org/history https://opensource.org/history) they state... "The conferees believed the pragmatic, business-case grounds that had motivated Netscape to release their code illustrated a valuable way to engage with potential software users and developers, and convince them to create and improve source code by participating in an engaged community. The conferees also believed that it would be useful to have a single label that identified this approach and distinguished it from the philosophically- and politically-focused label "free software." Brainstorming for this new label eventually converged on the term "open source", originally suggested by Christine Peterson." You could be right though and some may have seen the non-commercial aspects of the word free as a tertiary benefit, but the primary stated goal was to distance itself from the ideals and politics of free software. I agree with you though on the last part. Even as someone who uses the term free software, I often use the term open source while using search engines because searching free software brings up sites with freeware/adware/shareware and stuff I don't want. I also think using loan words like "libre" are a stretch for your general public. At work I tend to use "Free and Open Source Software".