7 ms·

>But those are by far the minority of apps, and it seems crazy to make a pretty massive security tradeoff for something that 99% of apps don't need to do. It a

>But those are by far the minority of apps, and it seems crazy to make a pretty massive security tradeoff for something that 99% of apps don't need to do. It also completely eliminates general purpose computing. >One solution might be a special permission to be allowed to do that, but it seems unlikely a user could really make an informed decision. I think the way "Developer Mode" on Android is implemented is pretty good.

shawnz 6y ago
While I agree the current situation does hinder some general purpose computing use cases on Android, it is still possible to run any code you want. If they can develop easier methods for developers to design around the restrictions then that might be a fine solution. > I think the way "Developer Mode" on Android is implemented is pretty good. Assuming you meant Chrome OS here, I disagree. Developer mode sucks because it forces you to forego almost all system security and it makes it trivial to compromise your data. There needs to be a middle ground, not just dev mode. In my opinion there's a similar situation happening with SIP on Mac OS -- it's too drastic to disable, but there's in many cases not enough control to leave it enabled. Nobody should need to enable dev mode or disable SIP just to run their favorite apps.
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  No, I was talking about Android, not Chrome OS. And I was talking about the obscurity level of accessing the developer mode, because you said was hard to achieve a good balance between "too difficult" and "too easy to be tricked into".
UncleMeat 6y ago
> It also completely eliminates general purpose computing. The number of people who want general purpose computing on phones is vanishingly small. And since malware is often indistinguishable from general purpose computing, it can be a reasonable product choice.
- amelius 6y ago
  Not if you want developers to use your product.
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    Sure. But the developer population is far smaller than the general population.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    There are many ways to use a product as developer, not everything needs to be UNIX CLI clone.
- fsflover 6y ago
  "The number of people who want free speech is vanishingly small. And since criticism of government is indistinguishable from hate speech, it can be reasonable to forbid everything potentially dangerous."
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    This feels like a ridiculous comparison. Free speech protects people from going to prison. Flexible OS options enable some personal choices with a product. Even if we take a much wider view of free speech (protection from corporate interference), this is still a massive stretch. Free speech is enshrined in the constitution because, although dangerous, lawmakers generally believe that protecting it is critical to the long term success of the nation (and not every nation even agrees with this). I see no world where exec permissions on arbitrary directories on my phone is critical to the long term success of the nation.
    - fsflover 6y ago
      General-purpose computing protects people from being trapped in a walled garden, from dealing with the monopoly. You bought a phone and you can only ask the vendor to fix and update it, not anyone else. Replace "a phone" with "a car" or "a tractor" [0] and see how ridiculous and anti-consumer it is. The current state results in a huge amount of e-waste instead of encouraging reuse of the smartphones. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22482598 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22482598
Arnt 6y ago
Letting people eliminate general purpose computing is the point. That program permits you to say "as of this moment, all the apps that comprise this device's purpose have been installed, and computing should cease being general, and should instead be limited to only those apps (including upgrades)". This isn't something I'd do for my development device, but I can see how it's a desirable policy for some people.
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  I don't think it's desirable for most people, they just don't realize what they're missing.
  - Arnt 6y ago
    1. Most people can't write even Fizzbuzz. How could they possibly realise what they're missing? 2. That feature isn't targeted at most people either, it's for "users with high visibility and sensitive information, who are at risk of targeted online attacks". AFAICT, turning the feature off is simpler than writing Fizzbuzz.
user-the-name 6y ago
General purpose computing is not secure, and can most likely never be made secure.
- danShumway 6y ago
  Why did we move away from flip phones? Like seriously, what are people even arguing here? General purpose computing was a mistake? Is that seriously an argument that anyone is making in good faith as they type into their web browser on an Internet forum? Just wait until you find out that app stores are always going to have fundamentally imperfect moderation. Forget running unsigned/unapproved code, we should get rid of 3rd-party code entirely. General purpose everything is insecure. Self-published books spread lies, open markets have bad products, computers get infected, and people burn and poison themselves cooking their own food in stoves. If your goal is 100% security, then you will very likely never build any platform or product that's worth using. We have other ways to improve security beyond turning smartphones back into flip phones.
  - pksebben 6y ago
    so much this. I don't want to be forced into sacrificing what's possible to keep myself safe, thank you very much. I'm more than capable of performing my own risk assessments, and the further we go down the "secure the hell out of everything" road the closer we get to industrial capture of essential tech. I think it was a piece by stallman I read recently, about the concept of hardware signature-key application whitelisting. kept me up for a week.
  - themacguffinman 6y ago
    Lay off implications about bad faith, please. The argument is not that general purpose computing was a mistake, but that general purpose computing is not necessary and is to some extent counterproductive for the majority of consumers. Consumers moved away from flip phones because they wanted more capable phones, that doesn't mean they largely want capability to the extent of general purpose computing. Consumers will be the judge of whether a platform or product is worth using. Given the unparalleled success of iOS and Apple's locked down ecosystem, it's pretty clear that many find this level of security is very much worth using regardless of imperfect moderation.
bitwize 6y ago
"General purpose computing" is not something most users need or want. Whitelisting is an easy, effective way to improve your security posture w.r.t. a given device. Therefore, expect whitelisting platforms to dominate in thr coming decades.

shawnz 6y ago

While I agree the current situation does hinder some general purpose computing use cases on Android, it is still possible to run any code you want. If they can develop easier methods for developers to design around the restrictions then that might be a fine solution. > I think the way "Developer Mode" on Android is implemented is pretty good. Assuming you meant Chrome OS here, I disagree. Developer mode sucks because it forces you to forego almost all system security and it makes it trivial to compromise your data. There needs to be a middle ground, not just dev mode. In my opinion there's a similar situation happening with SIP on Mac OS -- it's too drastic to disable, but there's in many cases not enough control to leave it enabled. Nobody should need to enable dev mode or disable SIP just to run their favorite apps.

forgotmypw17 6y ago
No, I was talking about Android, not Chrome OS. And I was talking about the obscurity level of accessing the developer mode, because you said was hard to achieve a good balance between "too difficult" and "too easy to be tricked into".

UncleMeat 6y ago

> It also completely eliminates general purpose computing. The number of people who want general purpose computing on phones is vanishingly small. And since malware is often indistinguishable from general purpose computing, it can be a reasonable product choice.

amelius 6y ago
Not if you want developers to use your product.
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  Sure. But the developer population is far smaller than the general population.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  There are many ways to use a product as developer, not everything needs to be UNIX CLI clone.
fsflover 6y ago
"The number of people who want free speech is vanishingly small. And since criticism of government is indistinguishable from hate speech, it can be reasonable to forbid everything potentially dangerous."
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  This feels like a ridiculous comparison. Free speech protects people from going to prison. Flexible OS options enable some personal choices with a product. Even if we take a much wider view of free speech (protection from corporate interference), this is still a massive stretch. Free speech is enshrined in the constitution because, although dangerous, lawmakers generally believe that protecting it is critical to the long term success of the nation (and not every nation even agrees with this). I see no world where exec permissions on arbitrary directories on my phone is critical to the long term success of the nation.
  - fsflover 6y ago
    General-purpose computing protects people from being trapped in a walled garden, from dealing with the monopoly. You bought a phone and you can only ask the vendor to fix and update it, not anyone else. Replace "a phone" with "a car" or "a tractor" [0] and see how ridiculous and anti-consumer it is. The current state results in a huge amount of e-waste instead of encouraging reuse of the smartphones. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22482598 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22482598

Arnt 6y ago

Letting people eliminate general purpose computing is the point. That program permits you to say "as of this moment, all the apps that comprise this device's purpose have been installed, and computing should cease being general, and should instead be limited to only those apps (including upgrades)". This isn't something I'd do for my development device, but I can see how it's a desirable policy for some people.

forgotmypw17 6y ago
I don't think it's desirable for most people, they just don't realize what they're missing.
- Arnt 6y ago
  1. Most people can't write even Fizzbuzz. How could they possibly realise what they're missing? 2. That feature isn't targeted at most people either, it's for "users with high visibility and sensitive information, who are at risk of targeted online attacks". AFAICT, turning the feature off is simpler than writing Fizzbuzz.

user-the-name 6y ago

General purpose computing is not secure, and can most likely never be made secure.

danShumway 6y ago
Why did we move away from flip phones? Like seriously, what are people even arguing here? General purpose computing was a mistake? Is that seriously an argument that anyone is making in good faith as they type into their web browser on an Internet forum? Just wait until you find out that app stores are always going to have fundamentally imperfect moderation. Forget running unsigned/unapproved code, we should get rid of 3rd-party code entirely. General purpose everything is insecure. Self-published books spread lies, open markets have bad products, computers get infected, and people burn and poison themselves cooking their own food in stoves. If your goal is 100% security, then you will very likely never build any platform or product that's worth using. We have other ways to improve security beyond turning smartphones back into flip phones.
- pksebben 6y ago
  so much this. I don't want to be forced into sacrificing what's possible to keep myself safe, thank you very much. I'm more than capable of performing my own risk assessments, and the further we go down the "secure the hell out of everything" road the closer we get to industrial capture of essential tech. I think it was a piece by stallman I read recently, about the concept of hardware signature-key application whitelisting. kept me up for a week.
- themacguffinman 6y ago
  Lay off implications about bad faith, please. The argument is not that general purpose computing was a mistake, but that general purpose computing is not necessary and is to some extent counterproductive for the majority of consumers. Consumers moved away from flip phones because they wanted more capable phones, that doesn't mean they largely want capability to the extent of general purpose computing. Consumers will be the judge of whether a platform or product is worth using. Given the unparalleled success of iOS and Apple's locked down ecosystem, it's pretty clear that many find this level of security is very much worth using regardless of imperfect moderation.

bitwize 6y ago

"General purpose computing" is not something most users need or want. Whitelisting is an easy, effective way to improve your security posture w.r.t. a given device. Therefore, expect whitelisting platforms to dominate in thr coming decades.