19 ms·

App store and signed code are not a bad thing per se. I have never installed anything on by Debian/Ubuntu boxes that was not GPG-signed and coming from an apt r

by gioele 14y ago

App store and signed code are not a bad thing per se. I have never installed anything on by Debian/Ubuntu boxes that was not GPG-signed and coming from an apt repository (an app store fwiw). Nothing except software I developed my self. The problem is when it is the hardware manufacturer that dictates which signatures are to be trusted and which are not. The user should be the one that is free to choose the software that runs on its hardware, not the hardware maker. I suggest «The coming war on general computation: the copyright war was just the beginning» by Cory Doctorow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg .

blhack 14y ago
Really never? I think you're the minority here. Running a Linux for me meant a /lot/ of going to developer websites, downloading something, then: ./config make make install
- gioele 14y ago
  I wrote that with binaries in mind. Yes, I, like you, have installed plenty of sw via `./configure && ...`. You did check the md5sums and their GPG signatures, didn't you? ;) BTW, many non-developer will always be bound to what their distro provide them with. I am OK with that, as long as I can override all these security restrictions whenever I want and for whatever reason. I think that Chromebook-like operating systems could provide an interesting middle-ground. By default the system is locked down and only Google can update the software. At the same time you can unlock the bootloader whenever you want and install your own things if you want to escape the walled garden.
astrodust 14y ago
There's a lot of confusion between "freedom to install anything" and "freedom of not worrying about what you install". The Android app stores have some housekeeping problems. There are apps that shouldn't be in there because they're malicious. Is it restricting "freedom" to prevent people from installing these? Cory is turning into a cantankerous crank lately. The future is not these general purpose computation platforms, naturally it is smaller more application focused devices that provide a safe environment for the user. I can imagine he'd be railing against roads a hundred years ago as "the coming war on general driving" because they restrict a person's freedom to drive anywhere they want. At the same time, users have never had more options when it comes to free and open in other spaces like Arduino or the new ARM-based machines. People can get a very capable computer for $25-35 and run a robust open-source environment like Ubuntu on it. What more do you want?
- gbog 14y ago
  > "freedom of not worrying about what you install". Nonsense. Or you could as well talk about "freedom to not hear unhealthy opinions", "freedom from the burden of choosing your profession", etc.
  - astrodust 14y ago
    How about "freedom to eat safe food" where you wouldn't have to bring a chemistry kit to every restaurant to test for toxins? How about "freedom from unnecessarily dangerous professions" where you won't have to concern yourself with being just another casualty in the factory? Usually when people "give up" freedom they're just trading it for a different form. It is extremely liberating for non-technical people to be able to browse an app store catalog and install things without concern that it will wreck their device.
    - gbog 14y ago
      > Usually when people "give up" freedom they're just trading it for a different form. Go tell that to the many people who are fighting for more freedom.
      - astrodust 14y ago
        The people that are usually fighting are the ones from which freedom has been forcibly taken. There was no option. You expect me to have sympathy for people that are whinging about their iPhone not being as open as their Raspberry Pi? Where's your rage about refrigerators or washing machines? Why isn't your car's firmware open-source? You want freedom, you can get freedom. You want a polished, appliance-like phone, you can choose that.
us_and_them 14y ago
Apple dictates the apps can you use and restricts the OS. It's not a matter of signed packages and security, but of corporate domination of technology and restriction of use of a hardware device you legitimately own. Would you buy a PC that restricts what OS and software you can run on it? But when it comes to smart phone and tablets, we except this. Blocking nefarious apps is one thing, having absolute control of what your computer and or smartphone can run (yes smartphones are just portable computers)is a monopoly. We wouldn't except this in any other industry. If Ford decided that you cant modify, improve or repair their products based on a restrictive license you had to agree to on purchase, you probably wouldn't buy a car from them. In the tech or media industries this is acceptable. Why should we accept a "walled garden" on smart phones when we own the hardware? If it were any other industry, people would be outraged.
- gioele 14y ago
  > It's not a matter of signed packages and security, but of corporate domination of technology and restriction of use of a hardware device you legitimately own. It is a matter of corporate domination of technology and restriction of use through signed packages and security. ;)
- mattmanser 14y ago
  You say on the one hand Blocking nefarious apps is one thing but on the other having absolute control of what your computer and or smartphone can run. Which do you want? The harsh truth is we've tried the 'run whatever you want' model and it sucks ass for the end user as they get infested with malware. I say, which do you want?
  - tikhonj 14y ago
    That is a blatantly false dichotomy. You wouldn't use a browser that did not let you access potentially malicious pages at all, but you wouldn't want one that gave you no protection either. And so you run Chrome which gives you a scary warning page but lets you go see any page if you really want. I really don't buy that Apple's absurdly draconian control is better than something akin to Chrome's warnings. You should make it difficult to install something potentially malicious by accident our without thought, but you should definitely not go out of your way to stop determined users from installing what they want either! Apple goes well beyond the reasonable and helpful and into the absurd.

by gioele 14y ago

blhack 14y ago

Really never? I think you're the minority here. Running a Linux for me meant a /lot/ of going to developer websites, downloading something, then: ./config make make install

gioele 14y ago
I wrote that with binaries in mind. Yes, I, like you, have installed plenty of sw via `./configure && ...`. You did check the md5sums and their GPG signatures, didn't you? ;) BTW, many non-developer will always be bound to what their distro provide them with. I am OK with that, as long as I can override all these security restrictions whenever I want and for whatever reason. I think that Chromebook-like operating systems could provide an interesting middle-ground. By default the system is locked down and only Google can update the software. At the same time you can unlock the bootloader whenever you want and install your own things if you want to escape the walled garden.

astrodust 14y ago

There's a lot of confusion between "freedom to install anything" and "freedom of not worrying about what you install". The Android app stores have some housekeeping problems. There are apps that shouldn't be in there because they're malicious. Is it restricting "freedom" to prevent people from installing these? Cory is turning into a cantankerous crank lately. The future is not these general purpose computation platforms, naturally it is smaller more application focused devices that provide a safe environment for the user. I can imagine he'd be railing against roads a hundred years ago as "the coming war on general driving" because they restrict a person's freedom to drive anywhere they want. At the same time, users have never had more options when it comes to free and open in other spaces like Arduino or the new ARM-based machines. People can get a very capable computer for $25-35 and run a robust open-source environment like Ubuntu on it. What more do you want?

gbog 14y ago
> "freedom of not worrying about what you install". Nonsense. Or you could as well talk about "freedom to not hear unhealthy opinions", "freedom from the burden of choosing your profession", etc.
- astrodust 14y ago
  How about "freedom to eat safe food" where you wouldn't have to bring a chemistry kit to every restaurant to test for toxins? How about "freedom from unnecessarily dangerous professions" where you won't have to concern yourself with being just another casualty in the factory? Usually when people "give up" freedom they're just trading it for a different form. It is extremely liberating for non-technical people to be able to browse an app store catalog and install things without concern that it will wreck their device.
  - gbog 14y ago
    > Usually when people "give up" freedom they're just trading it for a different form. Go tell that to the many people who are fighting for more freedom.
    - astrodust 14y ago
      The people that are usually fighting are the ones from which freedom has been forcibly taken. There was no option. You expect me to have sympathy for people that are whinging about their iPhone not being as open as their Raspberry Pi? Where's your rage about refrigerators or washing machines? Why isn't your car's firmware open-source? You want freedom, you can get freedom. You want a polished, appliance-like phone, you can choose that.

us_and_them 14y ago

Apple dictates the apps can you use and restricts the OS. It's not a matter of signed packages and security, but of corporate domination of technology and restriction of use of a hardware device you legitimately own. Would you buy a PC that restricts what OS and software you can run on it? But when it comes to smart phone and tablets, we except this. Blocking nefarious apps is one thing, having absolute control of what your computer and or smartphone can run (yes smartphones are just portable computers)is a monopoly. We wouldn't except this in any other industry. If Ford decided that you cant modify, improve or repair their products based on a restrictive license you had to agree to on purchase, you probably wouldn't buy a car from them. In the tech or media industries this is acceptable. Why should we accept a "walled garden" on smart phones when we own the hardware? If it were any other industry, people would be outraged.

gioele 14y ago
> It's not a matter of signed packages and security, but of corporate domination of technology and restriction of use of a hardware device you legitimately own. It is a matter of corporate domination of technology and restriction of use through signed packages and security. ;)
mattmanser 14y ago
You say on the one hand Blocking nefarious apps is one thing but on the other having absolute control of what your computer and or smartphone can run. Which do you want? The harsh truth is we've tried the 'run whatever you want' model and it sucks ass for the end user as they get infested with malware. I say, which do you want?
- tikhonj 14y ago
  That is a blatantly false dichotomy. You wouldn't use a browser that did not let you access potentially malicious pages at all, but you wouldn't want one that gave you no protection either. And so you run Chrome which gives you a scary warning page but lets you go see any page if you really want. I really don't buy that Apple's absurdly draconian control is better than something akin to Chrome's warnings. You should make it difficult to install something potentially malicious by accident our without thought, but you should definitely not go out of your way to stop determined users from installing what they want either! Apple goes well beyond the reasonable and helpful and into the absurd.