sfRattan

11 ms·

121.
by sfRattan 1y ago
The people promoting "fair" source are specifically doing so to set up legal entities---companies---in order to run a business. That's fine, but it means users of their software should include the potential endgames of those
122.
by sfRattan 1y ago
> Git clone, problem solved. What a myopic assumption. Availability of source code doesn't solve the legal problems that can arise in the wake corporate restructuring, as new owners work to impede forking and continuing a project ou
123.
by sfRattan 1y ago
> Authors using Fair want to share their code while getting protections for themselves . Strong copyleft doesn't care about authors and is all about protecting the end users. This is a one-sided assertion of fairness, and therefore
124.
by sfRattan 1y ago
I care that software I depend upon survives long term. In consequence, I care to some extent that the principal company or organization building that software also survives... But that finite concern is balanced against the simultaneous co
125.
by sfRattan 1y ago
Yeah, that's fair enough. Security and privacy aren't totally mutually excluse, but there are absolutely tradeoffs. And security in a modern threat environment and customizability (at root level) are pretty much non-overlapping ci
126.
by sfRattan 1y ago
My banking app didn't work for a while on Graphene OS, but now it does again. In the interim I was able to use the bank's mobile website in a pinch. Password manager apps (I've tried Bitwarden and KeePassDX) integrate with th
127.
by sfRattan 1y ago
I assume GP comment is referring to their software, especially cloud-deployed software, which can change under your feet like quicksand. Hardware, once assembled and in your hands, is yours to a higher degree than that. Eventually each Pixe
128.
by sfRattan 1y ago
It's probably because I don't extensively customize my browser, but my only complaint about Firefox sync is that it doesn't sync the favicons of booksmarks. That seems like such a simple, obvious thing. It is super nice that
129.
by sfRattan 1y ago
Theft is taking possessions away from someone else, and as a result depriving the victim of that property. The legal threshold would also include an intent to deprive (mens rea) in most countries. Copyright infringement is making a copy of
130.
by sfRattan 1y ago
> You would argue... I would? Are you sure? Please don't put words in my mouth. Is your hypothetical an invasion of privacy? Yes. Is it enslavement of the duplicate? Very probably, yes. You don't specify what the corporation
131.
by sfRattan 1y ago
Megacorporate propaganda conflating copyright infringement with violent raiders on the high seas is both decades old and completely ridiculous. > But that doesn't mean it's a victimless crime to just take it. Please reply to wh
132.
by sfRattan 1y ago
> akin to them walking into the store, sliding the product under their jacket and walking out That is a misrepresentation of what is happening across computers and networks. Here is a better analogue: If someone walks up to my car, taps
133.
by sfRattan 1y ago
Absolutely. I've made several new Spotify and Pandora accounts over the years. Initially they offer good recommendations but eventually the algorithms always aggressively funnel down to the same 2-to-3 dozen similar-sounding songs (tho
134.
by sfRattan 1y ago
> stumbling across something new just from having public radio on in the background still feels magical, organic, and overall such a good way to broaden your musical horizons. I've largely given up on algorithmic recommendations and
135.
by sfRattan 1y ago
Just added my old music collection to my private Jellyfin server on my home network. The UI for music is not as polished as some focused alternatives like Navidrome or FunkWhale, but it's good enough... And I like having both fewer app
136.
by sfRattan 1y ago
> As for whether it's worse in other countries... I don't think you get to make that determination without being a visible minority. Bluntly, I didn't need to be a Turk to notice how Germans treated and talked about Turks
137.
by sfRattan 1y ago
Looking out across the software landscape, it seems to me software companies do just fine if they achieve some-to-most of: 1. Build a piece of software that actually solves one or more problems. 2. Keep ownership private and limited. Once y
138.
by sfRattan 1y ago
Fair enough. But I think we're talking past each other: > You seem to think shooting a gun is not stupid in all cases. I think shooting a gun at a person or a paper target are both stupid. In the same way I brought up morals and you
139.
by sfRattan 1y ago
I'm saying, even if both things are bad, there's a moral category difference between profiling based on immutable, born characteristics and profiling based on choices (in this case, choice of phone). They are not continuous or co
140.
by sfRattan 1y ago
I think about my experiences as an American living in Germany as an exchange student, at an age when the green-bubble nonsense would've been most relevant to my life, and there were also similar socioeconomic status markers in Germany
141.
by sfRattan 1y ago
> This is just a continuation of “well a lot of people who commit crimes have dark skin, so let’s profile all people with dark skin.” You aren't born with a GrapheneOS phone and you can't trivially discard or swap your skin col
142.
by sfRattan 1y ago
I don't see this discussion progressing either, because you haven't added anything to it, and it's harder and harder to assume you are acting in good faith. You haven't actually made any specific arguments. Nor refuted a
143.
by sfRattan 1y ago
>Do you have an understanding of the point you are arguing, or are you repeating things you've heard? Do you understand that a security model includes allocation of finite developer resources? How much time a project's develope
144.
by sfRattan 1y ago
>Remove the parts dependent on the Pixel security hardware, and you still have a MUCH stronger android OS than anything else available. Yes. And the correct course of action is a separate, downstream project with a different name doing
145.
by sfRattan 1y ago
> The projects security requirements don't need to be that stringent. GrapheneOS security requirements very much do need to be that stringent. That's the whole reason for the project. Have something that is maximally secure w
146.
by sfRattan 1y ago
Unfortunately, Google's Pixel devices have been the only ones with hardware that meets all of the project's stringent security requirements, including a secure hardware enclave and multiyear commitments from the vendor to firmware
147.
by sfRattan 1y ago
> To me it seems like fighting teen pregnancy by preaching abstinence. More like fighting teen pregnancy by mandating chastity belts... With the same ultimate problems too: those most determined to overcome the block will make use of bol
148.
by sfRattan 1y ago
Apologies. I misread. Yeah, it sucks that Google Pay doesn't work on GrapheneOS. Though Google Pay is also probably the least private of the major tech-company payment platforms (the others being Apple Pay, Samsung Pay, and Garmin Pay)
149.
by sfRattan 1y ago
> GrapheneOS you cannot use Google Pay (one major feature of a phone) News to me. Edit: I misread parent comment.
150.
by sfRattan 1y ago
> The author has some valid points, but dismissing this entire class of arguments so flippantly is intellectually lazy. Agree 100%. And generally programmers have a poor understanding of the law, especially common law as it applies in Am

More ›