4 ms·

It is unfortunate that the company that became incredibly successful, at least partly, because of the hackability of Linux and open source software is now activ

It is unfortunate that the company that became incredibly successful, at least partly, because of the hackability of Linux and open source software is now actively working to suppress hackability. I recently had to unroot my phone since it was too much pain. Almost all apps were constantly fighting to not be allowed to run. After a while, I had a variety of root-hiding modules installed on Magisk, and every time I downloaded and installed a new app, the dread was there that it would not work because of root. War on General Computing[1] is here. For some reason, most people do not seem to care that they do not have full control of the devices that they bought with their own hard-earned money. It is one of those rare cases where 'your choices affect my choices' and therefore not meshing with the idea that maximum individual freedom is always a good thing. Therefore, I don't think this can be solved by market forces- we may need some regulation. I think it would be fair to ask the companies to allow the apps to run on a rooted device so long as the user takes responsibility for any resulting losses. Any service provider should still be responsible for securing their own systems though. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg

charcircuit 3y ago
Getting rid of rooting is not a "war on general computing." General computing means that you can write a wide variety of software for them instead of the computer being meant for a specific use case. The app platform on Android allows for such a variety of apps. Just because it's not possible for an app to record your microphone without asking the user for permission that doesn't mean that the phone isn't general purpose.
- idiotsecant 3y ago
  If I own it, I should be able to make it do what I tell it to do. Its a simple concept, no need to water it down to please our corporate overlords.
- aeroevan 3y ago
  If I don't have root on my device, is it really my device?
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    Yes. That line of logic is like thinking you don't own a hard disk if the firmware on it prevents you from scratching / destroying the platter.
    - stonogo 3y ago
      "Installing software I want" and "physically destroying my device" are not the same thing, and shame on you for trying to equate them.
      - charcircuit 3y ago
        "Installing software you want" and "getting access to the root user" are not the same thing either. The root user is a means to an end and not the end in itself for one's desires they have with a computer.
        jacobgkau 3y ago
        When Google decides that you're not allowed to install a piece of software you want on a non-rooted device (such as a phone call recorder or an ad blocker), and the only way to bypass those restrictions is using root access, then they become the same thing.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
      I mean... yes? If a disk has firmware that prevents the owner from destroying it when desired, that's really not okay. It even has a practical angle in cases where you need to make a disk unreadable.
    - Crespyl 3y ago
      A hard disk firmware module isn't connected to the internet and reporting on you (yet).
      - jauntywundrkind 3y ago
fddrdplktrew 3y ago
they suppressed hackability since the beginning though, but of course not as much as Apple... For example, by default, they block native Linux apps, block ad-hoc WiFi, rooting your device can be a pain, etc
gjsman-1000 3y ago
I’m not that pessimistic. The world ebbs and flows. There was a time when if you wanted an app, it had to be for Windows. It needed to be digitally signed (for good reason) not long later. Good luck moving it to any other platform. Also, good luck getting past corporate IT departments. Then, the internet got better. Anyone could make a program that ran on any device. Later, we need pseudo-signing for that too, but it was nowhere near as intensive to get. Desktop computers have never been a free for all. It ebbs and flows. Less freedom on system apps, greater freedom for web apps is the new vogue. Let’s also not forget the motivation for this - people learned to be terrified of installing software. Remember Windows 10 and 11 S mode? Microsoft claims 60% of users never leave that mode to install even one app outside the Microsoft Store. That’s how much the “Normie” has learned to fear programs, and I think that there’s some blame to be had there. We desired freedom at the expense of the normal user. The normal user has rebelled and rejected freedom voluntarily. The “Normie” user is perfectly content with a walled garden and a big tech company “securing” their experience. They’ve had their taste of freedom with Windows in the 90s and 2000s and fear it immensely. Blue screens, viruses, clunky software, broken updates, unreliable - but free. Unlike iPhone: Automatic updates, no crashes, viruses almost nonexistent, reliable and simple. Not technically free, but it feels free enough. We don’t really have anyone but ourselves (tech enthusiasts in general) to blame. I can’t overstate this enough: We want freedom? We need to break the well-earned cultural stereotype that freedom equals a terrible experience.
- 31337Logic 3y ago
  I don't know what you're talking about. I'm old enough to remember the exact "free for all" on desktop computers that you claim never existed. Take your "walled gardens" and stuff it. Not everyone wishes to be boxed in that way.
  - gjsman-1000 3y ago
    > Take your "walled gardens" and stuff it. Not everyone wishes to be boxed in that way. Yes, everyone on Hacker News doesn’t want to be boxed in this way. In the real world, literally nobody gives a darn about Apple having an iOS monopoly. They love their iPhones, they hate their laptops. Why is that?
1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
To me, this situation only serves to illustrate the importance of computer owners optionally being able to create systems "from scratch". Versus the only option being to use some "we-already-did-the-work-for-you" facility such as a "software development kit" or whatever the terminology is these days. Custom ROMs might seem like "building from scratch" but to me, it is still far from it. People are still stuck following rules made by someone else, and not the hardware manufacturer. Those rules can change any time, for any reason, long after purchase. Google's ability to easily frustrate people trying to control their pocket-sized computers suggests that whatever control they are able to achieve, it is not enough. Until I can run NetBSD on an old "phone", or some other pocket-sized computer with similar form factor, I'm not satisfied.
mid-kid 3y ago
I don't share your experience wrt apps and root checks at all. Only once in a blue moon do I encounter an app that does this, and when they do it's just a good reason not to use it. In the rest of the cases, say games, the basic root hiding of magisk/kernelsu do wonders, and since recently w/ kernelsu the safetynet bypass comes out of the box. Of course, I avoid relying on this for anything I can't go without. That said, a big part of this experience might be related to how I primarily run applications from F-Droid these days. The free software app ecosystem is absolutely massive and very mature compared to when I first went gapps-less around 2015, to the point it's rare for me to use anything from the android market at all.

charcircuit 3y ago

Getting rid of rooting is not a "war on general computing." General computing means that you can write a wide variety of software for them instead of the computer being meant for a specific use case. The app platform on Android allows for such a variety of apps. Just because it's not possible for an app to record your microphone without asking the user for permission that doesn't mean that the phone isn't general purpose.

idiotsecant 3y ago
If I own it, I should be able to make it do what I tell it to do. Its a simple concept, no need to water it down to please our corporate overlords.
aeroevan 3y ago
If I don't have root on my device, is it really my device?
- charcircuit 3y ago
  Yes. That line of logic is like thinking you don't own a hard disk if the firmware on it prevents you from scratching / destroying the platter.
  - stonogo 3y ago
    "Installing software I want" and "physically destroying my device" are not the same thing, and shame on you for trying to equate them.
    - charcircuit 3y ago
      "Installing software you want" and "getting access to the root user" are not the same thing either. The root user is a means to an end and not the end in itself for one's desires they have with a computer.
      - jacobgkau 3y ago
        When Google decides that you're not allowed to install a piece of software you want on a non-rooted device (such as a phone call recorder or an ad blocker), and the only way to bypass those restrictions is using root access, then they become the same thing.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    I mean... yes? If a disk has firmware that prevents the owner from destroying it when desired, that's really not okay. It even has a practical angle in cases where you need to make a disk unreadable.
  - Crespyl 3y ago
    A hard disk firmware module isn't connected to the internet and reporting on you (yet).
    - jauntywundrkind 3y ago

fddrdplktrew 3y ago

they suppressed hackability since the beginning though, but of course not as much as Apple... For example, by default, they block native Linux apps, block ad-hoc WiFi, rooting your device can be a pain, etc

gjsman-1000 3y ago

I’m not that pessimistic. The world ebbs and flows. There was a time when if you wanted an app, it had to be for Windows. It needed to be digitally signed (for good reason) not long later. Good luck moving it to any other platform. Also, good luck getting past corporate IT departments. Then, the internet got better. Anyone could make a program that ran on any device. Later, we need pseudo-signing for that too, but it was nowhere near as intensive to get. Desktop computers have never been a free for all. It ebbs and flows. Less freedom on system apps, greater freedom for web apps is the new vogue. Let’s also not forget the motivation for this - people learned to be terrified of installing software. Remember Windows 10 and 11 S mode? Microsoft claims 60% of users never leave that mode to install even one app outside the Microsoft Store. That’s how much the “Normie” has learned to fear programs, and I think that there’s some blame to be had there. We desired freedom at the expense of the normal user. The normal user has rebelled and rejected freedom voluntarily. The “Normie” user is perfectly content with a walled garden and a big tech company “securing” their experience. They’ve had their taste of freedom with Windows in the 90s and 2000s and fear it immensely. Blue screens, viruses, clunky software, broken updates, unreliable - but free. Unlike iPhone: Automatic updates, no crashes, viruses almost nonexistent, reliable and simple. Not technically free, but it feels free enough. We don’t really have anyone but ourselves (tech enthusiasts in general) to blame. I can’t overstate this enough: We want freedom? We need to break the well-earned cultural stereotype that freedom equals a terrible experience.

31337Logic 3y ago
I don't know what you're talking about. I'm old enough to remember the exact "free for all" on desktop computers that you claim never existed. Take your "walled gardens" and stuff it. Not everyone wishes to be boxed in that way.
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  > Take your "walled gardens" and stuff it. Not everyone wishes to be boxed in that way. Yes, everyone on Hacker News doesn’t want to be boxed in this way. In the real world, literally nobody gives a darn about Apple having an iOS monopoly. They love their iPhones, they hate their laptops. Why is that?

1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago

To me, this situation only serves to illustrate the importance of computer owners optionally being able to create systems "from scratch". Versus the only option being to use some "we-already-did-the-work-for-you" facility such as a "software development kit" or whatever the terminology is these days. Custom ROMs might seem like "building from scratch" but to me, it is still far from it. People are still stuck following rules made by someone else, and not the hardware manufacturer. Those rules can change any time, for any reason, long after purchase. Google's ability to easily frustrate people trying to control their pocket-sized computers suggests that whatever control they are able to achieve, it is not enough. Until I can run NetBSD on an old "phone", or some other pocket-sized computer with similar form factor, I'm not satisfied.

mid-kid 3y ago

I don't share your experience wrt apps and root checks at all. Only once in a blue moon do I encounter an app that does this, and when they do it's just a good reason not to use it. In the rest of the cases, say games, the basic root hiding of magisk/kernelsu do wonders, and since recently w/ kernelsu the safetynet bypass comes out of the box. Of course, I avoid relying on this for anything I can't go without. That said, a big part of this experience might be related to how I primarily run applications from F-Droid these days. The free software app ecosystem is absolutely massive and very mature compared to when I first went gapps-less around 2015, to the point it's rare for me to use anything from the android market at all.