4 ms·

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

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 If phones were like laptops or desktops, you'd just install the Android 13 on your phone when Android 12 was outdated etc.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.
- donkeybeer 3y ago
  >Because the OS is one of the distinguishing features of a phone. It's one of the ways Android phones compete against each other. An os is just a piece of software. There is nothing magical about general oses running on general purpose computers where an OS specifically magically depends on one model of computer. Desktop and server linux distros also compete among each other, I never heard a thing like Debian 12 being tied to one specific model of laptop etc Because lets be honest, if people can upgrade and install any software they want, that reduces incentive for them to buy a new phone every 3 years. And thats the real reason, the crux of the matter. Well obviously not just profit, the power and control over peoples computers also counts for much more than mere profit.
- donkeybeer 3y ago
  Again not requiring a root shell for daily use is a different topic from taking active steps from letting the "owner" of the hardware from having root. Not running as root is common sense security, we already don't use root users for daily applications on desktop and server linux, and if you want to harden it further, good. You can harden your own pc as much as you want, you can run each app in its own user, apply SE Linux etc...but you have root access to it and can wipe it whole and install anything else if you want on it. Thats whats missing on phones, and we all know why.

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.
donkeybeer 3y ago
>Because the OS is one of the distinguishing features of a phone. It's one of the ways Android phones compete against each other. An os is just a piece of software. There is nothing magical about general oses running on general purpose computers where an OS specifically magically depends on one model of computer. Desktop and server linux distros also compete among each other, I never heard a thing like Debian 12 being tied to one specific model of laptop etc Because lets be honest, if people can upgrade and install any software they want, that reduces incentive for them to buy a new phone every 3 years. And thats the real reason, the crux of the matter. Well obviously not just profit, the power and control over peoples computers also counts for much more than mere profit.
donkeybeer 3y ago
Again not requiring a root shell for daily use is a different topic from taking active steps from letting the "owner" of the hardware from having root. Not running as root is common sense security, we already don't use root users for daily applications on desktop and server linux, and if you want to harden it further, good. You can harden your own pc as much as you want, you can run each app in its own user, apply SE Linux etc...but you have root access to it and can wipe it whole and install anything else if you want on it. Thats whats missing on phones, and we all know why.