5 ms·

The point about people wanting to use Linux on pc/phone is ownership of their machines. Do you own 99% of smartphones (Android and Apple) that currently exist?

The point about people wanting to use Linux on pc/phone is ownership of their machines. Do you own 99% of smartphones (Android and Apple) that currently exist? They are much more blackbox and user hostile than even laptops and desktops today.

charcircuit 3y ago
I own less than 1% of the available phone models that exist, but I don't see how that is relevant. >They are much more blackbox and user hostile than even laptops and desktops today. They are much more user friendly than most Linux distros for desktop/pc. Most users and developers will never understand how their phone's OS works and that is okay. Abstractions are a very powerful concept in software engineering. If you think there are user hostile features in Android, it will be much easier to make an Android fork that removes them instead of trying to recreate a whole entire mobile OS and software stack.
- donkeybeer 3y ago
  Because thats the very point of wanting to use a linux pc or phone, to escape the swamps of user hostile evil garbage. A computer is a computer is a computer. If there weren't artificially constructed restrictions (and boy do they work hard to create these restrictions: millions of lines of code, developing encryption algorithms, etc) anything could run on anything (if the hardware exists, and in this light phones and laptops have all the required hardware).
- donkeybeer 3y ago
  And its mostly not Android the os itself per se but the phone makers. Ask yourself, why is it that you can't install any os you want on almost all phones? Even something as basic as a root shell is hard/impossible to have on so many models. Why phone model and os are so tightly tied together? Ever heard of say random desktop pc only being able to run specific Windows version or specific Linux version? That, basically, is the root of all problems.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    >why is it that you can't install any os you want on almost all phones? Because the OS typically has device specific drivers that are not included in the OS for another phone. >Even something as basic as a root shell is hard/impossible to have on so many models What it may seem basic to you is poor design and poor security. The android way is for the OS to expose APIs that to apps to do privileged operations. There is also typically a permission required to use such an API. There shouldn't be a need for the user to use a root shell. >Why phone model and os are so tightly tied together? Because the OS is one of the distinguishing features of a phone. It's one of the ways Android phones compete against each other.
    - donkeybeer 3y ago
      An OS is just a piece of software there is nothing magic about it. If phones were like laptops or desktops, you'd just install the Android 13 on your phone when Android 12 was outdated etc. If I don't have root shell then I don't own the device. Simply. Its a useless brick and toy. As I said, its not Android the piece of software rather the manufacturers who hate users. They don't provide drivers generically either as blobs or sources. Why is it again, when you have two computers and you can generally install and update anything on one and can't do shit on the other? Not providing drivers is one thing, that falls under passive acts, another thing is active malice where even rooting or providing you the bootloader is often cryptographically locked down.
      - charcircuit 3y ago
        >I never heard a thing like Debian 12 being tied to one specific model of laptop etc Purism does this, though not to a specific device. For the products they sell they have their own custom fork of Debian. >if people can upgrade and install any software they want, that reduces incentive for them to buy a new phone every 3 years You are going to be limited by the support of the BSP even if you can install any software you want. You will end up stuck on old software which may not be properly maintained especially if the OEM has moved on to supporting newer products. >If phones were like laptops or desktops, you'd just install the Android 13 on your phone when Android 12 was outdated etc. Google has been making efforts to make it easier to upgrades parts of Android without involving the OEM. Later versions of Android may not me compatible with older hardware as minimum specs change and architectures are dropped. For phones with unlocked bootloaders you can flash Android 13 on your phone if someone creates a compatible version of it. >If I don't have root shell then I don't own the device. Simply. Its a useless brick and toy. UNIX is not the only way operating systems can be designed. Considering everything that isn't UNIX as being useless is an ignorant mindset. >As I said, its not Android the piece of software rather the manufacturers who hate users Then what's the point of this argument if you agree AOSP is a fine way to have an OS with Linux on a phone. >They don't provide drivers generically either as blobs or sources. This same issue would exist if you wanted to use Linux with a different userspace. >Why is it again, when you have two computers and you can generally install and update anything on one and can't do shit on the other? I don't understand what you are getting at. >is active malice where even rooting or providing you the bootloader is often cryptographically locked down. The bootloader being locked down isn't malicious considering it lets the system prove that malware hasn't compromised the boot process. In computing if malware is running first there isn't much the system can do the detect it's existence. It will have the upper hand in the cat and mouse game. If a normal person buys a ACME brand phone, but a malicious actor unlocked the bootloader and installed malware into the OS, that user will never realize they were pwned until they encounter software that is a step ahead in the cat and mouse game and the malware isn't able to hide its existence. A user having root is also problematic because it compromises Androids security model. If a banking app saves an access taken to your phone it is relying on the security of Android that no one is able to steal this taken. If the a user is able to get root they could bypass this and steal the token and commit fraud.
- fruitreunion1 3y ago
  You forget that some people like general purpose computing. Android and other mobile operating systems (as well as Chrome OS) do have great security, but that comes at the expense of functionality (arbitrary code execution is discouraged, putting things inside apps and strict APIs make scripting and tinkering infeasible) and user control. One of the mentioned in the talk was being able to use the traditional Linux stack and being able to use your smartphone as a general purpose computer (2:22, 4:12). I hope one day there's a solution, but it seems trade offs have to be made to have one or the other.
- kortilla 3y ago
  “User friendly” is not the opposite of “user hostile”. You’re engaging in bad faith. iOS is more “user friendly” than android but it’s absolutely hostile to anyone who wants control of their phone. Android is the same with only slight improvements.

charcircuit 3y ago

I own less than 1% of the available phone models that exist, but I don't see how that is relevant. >They are much more blackbox and user hostile than even laptops and desktops today. They are much more user friendly than most Linux distros for desktop/pc. Most users and developers will never understand how their phone's OS works and that is okay. Abstractions are a very powerful concept in software engineering. If you think there are user hostile features in Android, it will be much easier to make an Android fork that removes them instead of trying to recreate a whole entire mobile OS and software stack.

donkeybeer 3y ago
Because thats the very point of wanting to use a linux pc or phone, to escape the swamps of user hostile evil garbage. A computer is a computer is a computer. If there weren't artificially constructed restrictions (and boy do they work hard to create these restrictions: millions of lines of code, developing encryption algorithms, etc) anything could run on anything (if the hardware exists, and in this light phones and laptops have all the required hardware).
donkeybeer 3y ago
And its mostly not Android the os itself per se but the phone makers. Ask yourself, why is it that you can't install any os you want on almost all phones? Even something as basic as a root shell is hard/impossible to have on so many models. Why phone model and os are so tightly tied together? Ever heard of say random desktop pc only being able to run specific Windows version or specific Linux version? That, basically, is the root of all problems.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  >why is it that you can't install any os you want on almost all phones? Because the OS typically has device specific drivers that are not included in the OS for another phone. >Even something as basic as a root shell is hard/impossible to have on so many models What it may seem basic to you is poor design and poor security. The android way is for the OS to expose APIs that to apps to do privileged operations. There is also typically a permission required to use such an API. There shouldn't be a need for the user to use a root shell. >Why phone model and os are so tightly tied together? Because the OS is one of the distinguishing features of a phone. It's one of the ways Android phones compete against each other.
  - donkeybeer 3y ago
    An OS is just a piece of software there is nothing magic about it. If phones were like laptops or desktops, you'd just install the Android 13 on your phone when Android 12 was outdated etc. If I don't have root shell then I don't own the device. Simply. Its a useless brick and toy. As I said, its not Android the piece of software rather the manufacturers who hate users. They don't provide drivers generically either as blobs or sources. Why is it again, when you have two computers and you can generally install and update anything on one and can't do shit on the other? Not providing drivers is one thing, that falls under passive acts, another thing is active malice where even rooting or providing you the bootloader is often cryptographically locked down.
    - charcircuit 3y ago
      >I never heard a thing like Debian 12 being tied to one specific model of laptop etc Purism does this, though not to a specific device. For the products they sell they have their own custom fork of Debian. >if people can upgrade and install any software they want, that reduces incentive for them to buy a new phone every 3 years You are going to be limited by the support of the BSP even if you can install any software you want. You will end up stuck on old software which may not be properly maintained especially if the OEM has moved on to supporting newer products. >If phones were like laptops or desktops, you'd just install the Android 13 on your phone when Android 12 was outdated etc. Google has been making efforts to make it easier to upgrades parts of Android without involving the OEM. Later versions of Android may not me compatible with older hardware as minimum specs change and architectures are dropped. For phones with unlocked bootloaders you can flash Android 13 on your phone if someone creates a compatible version of it. >If I don't have root shell then I don't own the device. Simply. Its a useless brick and toy. UNIX is not the only way operating systems can be designed. Considering everything that isn't UNIX as being useless is an ignorant mindset. >As I said, its not Android the piece of software rather the manufacturers who hate users Then what's the point of this argument if you agree AOSP is a fine way to have an OS with Linux on a phone. >They don't provide drivers generically either as blobs or sources. This same issue would exist if you wanted to use Linux with a different userspace. >Why is it again, when you have two computers and you can generally install and update anything on one and can't do shit on the other? I don't understand what you are getting at. >is active malice where even rooting or providing you the bootloader is often cryptographically locked down. The bootloader being locked down isn't malicious considering it lets the system prove that malware hasn't compromised the boot process. In computing if malware is running first there isn't much the system can do the detect it's existence. It will have the upper hand in the cat and mouse game. If a normal person buys a ACME brand phone, but a malicious actor unlocked the bootloader and installed malware into the OS, that user will never realize they were pwned until they encounter software that is a step ahead in the cat and mouse game and the malware isn't able to hide its existence. A user having root is also problematic because it compromises Androids security model. If a banking app saves an access taken to your phone it is relying on the security of Android that no one is able to steal this taken. If the a user is able to get root they could bypass this and steal the token and commit fraud.
fruitreunion1 3y ago
You forget that some people like general purpose computing. Android and other mobile operating systems (as well as Chrome OS) do have great security, but that comes at the expense of functionality (arbitrary code execution is discouraged, putting things inside apps and strict APIs make scripting and tinkering infeasible) and user control. One of the mentioned in the talk was being able to use the traditional Linux stack and being able to use your smartphone as a general purpose computer (2:22, 4:12). I hope one day there's a solution, but it seems trade offs have to be made to have one or the other.
kortilla 3y ago
“User friendly” is not the opposite of “user hostile”. You’re engaging in bad faith. iOS is more “user friendly” than android but it’s absolutely hostile to anyone who wants control of their phone. Android is the same with only slight improvements.