3 ms·
> why can't I disable network access entirely for some apps Agreed, the only reason we don’t have a streamlined version of Little Snitch (very flexible network
by gyomu 10mo ago
> why can't I disable network access entirely for some apps
Agreed, the only reason we don’t have a streamlined version of Little Snitch (very flexible network monitor) built in to the OS is that it’d destroy billions of revenue for the advertising industry.
- lostlogin 10mo ago> it’d destroy billions of revenue for the advertising industry. Excellent. What hidden consequences am I missing? I don’t see a downside. I spent too much time fortifying devices and blocking their shit from getting in.
- luplex 10mo agoyou're missing the fact that OS developers like ads, because they want the OS to be a platform where devs can make money.
- lostlogin 10mo agoI avoid ad supported apps, so if those devs move to companies that I support, it might actually help me? If it damages the the OS, that’s a problem for me on a Mac/ios but not so much with Ubuntu. It’s not that long ago that I was paying for OS updates (that seems wild, I had to go and check). If it went back to that and I had no ads, it would be a straight win.
- gyomu 10mo ago> I don’t see a downside. You don't, Apple does :)
- why-o-why 10mo agoAbout 5 years ago I purged as many apps as I could. I still have some I need for my job, especially on my work-issued iPhone, but excluding those apps I have exactly 5 apps on my phone. Everything has a website. I've heard that native apps are more secure than webapps, but in my experience Firefox is a more reliable steward of security, and App permissions are too obscure to really understand: it is harder to make a malicious webapp than it is to make a malicious native app. Is that a fair statement?
- j16sdiz 10mo agoThe same API needed for Little Snitch can be used for surveillance. See Facebook/Onavo.
- kuekacang 10mo agoI'm sure no API and only built-in control is more favorable. Digressing, built-in mixer is nice to have too.