My N900 allowed me to trivially gain root access by enabling a repository and installing a package that enabled root access. I was able to then add additional repositories and do whatever the hell I wanted.
I don't expect it to always be that easy, and would prefer at least a hardware latch before such activation (proper security with strong defaults) but there should ALWAYS be an "opt-out" for users to assume. The vast majority won't, but it'll keep the handful that want to off your back.
Negatory, it's a computer. It just happens to be small, fit in your pocket, and take phonecalls as well. This "it's not computer, it's a phone therefore it's special and NEEDS DRM" is a load of bull being fed to everyone by vendors and carriers as an excuse for locking them down.
1. Total and utter freedom to install anything on your phone.
Yes. I should have to explicitly activate it, but yes. It's my property, it's my decision.
But miss a very important phone call due to a badly programmed application running down the battery or locking up the phone. Just think, that call could be a job offer, an ex-girlfriend wanting some fun or the news that someone is in trouble.
Not like that hasn't happened before, with dumb phones. I've had older pieces of crap that would the same shit.
2. Less freedoms but a better experience, higher quality software, less chance of battery rundown or lock ups?
You mean no freedoms, but not necessarily any of the other benefits are guaranteed. The core purpose for lock down with no opt-out is explicitly to route you into their services and their store.
If restrictions and licence fees weed out all the bad coders then it's a good thing.
I can assure you this will not weed out bad coders. It will weed out more than a few good coders, however.
You have to pay $99 a year to put apps into their store. This isn't a bad price for what both MS and Apple offer.
The problem is that if you don't want to go through their store, you must pay $99/yr to join their development program and load (temporarily) your software on your phone.
This is why I don't own an iPhone or a WP7 device.
A bunch of people in the US self-identify with the Federal Government, and believe that it and this country are one and the same, so therefore publishing leaked documents embarrasses the Federal Government, thus the US, thus they personally are humiliated.
So it cuts their IQ by 20 points and makes them angry and cry for blood.
Neither the F-117A nor the F-35 are fighters, but bombers. They had to be sent in at night to prevent visual spotting, as they couldn't be escorted in by fighters.
That said, this sucker looks like China scored big and managed to jack the plans for the F-35. Go go Corporate American network security policies.
Well hold on here, isn't Honeycomb supposed to be a tablet OS? And since dual core mobile processors are on their way, is it unreasonable to make them a requirement?
I mean, you can restrict yourself to the capabilities of an ARM11 based processor from six years ago but then all of the performance and technological gains since then would be completely wasted. And if such a processor is your target, don't use an OS made for more capable devices.
Personally, I want an A9 based device running MeeGo. Something even more open than Android, and more familiar underneath.
No, it also helps those who develop and release open source kernel modules but don't have the time to maintain them for the foreseeable future just to make sure they keep compiling on every new minor kernel release.
Couple things:
- If your module was in the kernel, then chances are it would be updated automatically and confirmed (at least) to compile if someone's going to go make a change to such an ABI.
- It is not, in any way, the concern of the greater community to hamstring themselves because you aren't willing to maintain your software in what you know to be a fast moving environment.
And the "handful of modules" are, for the majority of Linux users, the only way to get stable 3D acceleration for their systems, which, I dare say, is a very important "handful".
Not really, the vast majority of Linux users don't employ 3D hardware. And the companies in question seem to be quite happy to keep maintaining out of kernel source trees, never mind vendors like PowerVR and Qualcomm, who don't provide drivers directly to end-users anyway.
I'm not going to say who is stupid in the extreme here, but do keep your response in mind next time we're going to discuss gaming on Linux (or rather lack thereof).
Oh ho, nice resort to the backhanded ad-hominem. No, this is a kernel policy discussion, not one about gaming.
You should check out the one-sided bashfest that was posted on Ars Technica over this.
If the maintainer of the tool is to be believed, MS has known of this flaw for almost six months and done nothing, and had several days of notice that the new version was going to be released (not that the new version appears to have mattered.)
Well, I suspect that this set top box will be locked down and have direct access to various "stores" and such. Depriving the user of control is all the reason they need to pursue something more than simply using existing solutions like building an HTPC or plugging your TV into your existing PC.
The carriers, obviously, and how they handle your data. They haven't gone and dictated what content can appear on the internet, or any such nonsense like the GP was trying to imply by citing the "Fairness Doctrine".
The FCC, the same organization that freaked out over Janet Jackson's nipple, wants to regulate the internet.
Your sig shows that you aren't qualified to comment on discussions like this. Fundamental failure to understand issues purely to take an anti-government stance draws into question your willingness to actually discuss issues.
Not to say that Saudi Arabia won't abuse this, they will, but suggesting that the US is trying to "regulate" the internet just shows a complete (and willing) failure to understand the topic.
ABI stability helps no one but those that develop and release closed source binaries. Holding the rest of the kernel back for the sake of a handful of modules made by people who won't play nice is stupid in the extreme.
Patents aren't much of a problem for open source any more.
False. They're a HUGE problem for anything recent. Most of the concepts and technologies in open source span decades, including very new concepts as well as old ones that are covered (wrongly) by new, vague patents.
As with other industries, patents are a big issue in the early years, and cease to be a major concern as the technology matures.
No, the goal with software patents is to make them a perpetual hazard. Vague, ill defined, and useless for actually implementing the concept in question but always useful for beating down on your enemies and keeping out potential competitors.
Not really. The most locked down Android phones are on Verizon, and includes every device from Motorola except the original DROID.
The devices not from Motorola, even those on AT&T, can and have been rooted and given 3rd party ROMs. I think the GP is specifically referring to Motorola-style lock-down, which cannot be bypassed.
It has little resemblance to that. MeeGo is much more like an additional spec on top of the Linux Standard Base. It's not an attempt to be something wholly new and flashy, but to leverage what already exists more effectively.
At this point, I just want a future option to buy a phone that doesn't insist I stay inside some neat consumer box, from a vendor that doesn't insist they own the device after the sale. And if the rumors about the Galaxy Tab are true, Samsung is going to be following Motorola, Microsoft, and Apple into the lockdown shithole.
It's not necessarily Microsoft trying to kill Android. This is Microsoft punishing Motorola for not agreeing to release Windows Phone 7 devices. Microsoft can't have Linux-based OSes exist on their own, they need to either have Windows* based devices coming out from the same vendor on the same (or similar hardware), or they need (demand) patent royalties.
It's just as abusive and anti-competitive, and the only end-result of this will be a nasty web of cross-licensed patents that ensure the mobile market is restricted to a handful of players.
In Android, the GPL covers only a handful of components, and adding a "must be open" clause wouldn't have any connection to the GPL-licensed software. They could always place conditions on the use of the Android trademarks and access to the Marketplace.
Because the handset vendors don't want that, as it leaves an easy avenue for self-support. Rooting is why Motorola locks the kernel down, so you absolutely cannot upgrade to new versions of Android directly.
Carriers hate it because it means that you're less likely to upgrade to a new contract, since your old phone will last longer.
Slashdot Mirror
And hopefully they'll continue to do so.
My N900 allowed me to trivially gain root access by enabling a repository and installing a package that enabled root access. I was able to then add additional repositories and do whatever the hell I wanted.
I don't expect it to always be that easy, and would prefer at least a hardware latch before such activation (proper security with strong defaults) but there should ALWAYS be an "opt-out" for users to assume. The vast majority won't, but it'll keep the handful that want to off your back.
And hell, they may help you later.
It's a phone not a computer.
Negatory, it's a computer. It just happens to be small, fit in your pocket, and take phonecalls as well. This "it's not computer, it's a phone therefore it's special and NEEDS DRM" is a load of bull being fed to everyone by vendors and carriers as an excuse for locking them down.
1. Total and utter freedom to install anything on your phone.
Yes. I should have to explicitly activate it, but yes. It's my property, it's my decision.
But miss a very important phone call due to a badly programmed application running down the battery or locking up the phone. Just think, that call could be a job offer, an ex-girlfriend wanting some fun or the news that someone is in trouble.
Not like that hasn't happened before, with dumb phones. I've had older pieces of crap that would the same shit.
2. Less freedoms but a better experience, higher quality software, less chance of battery rundown or lock ups?
You mean no freedoms, but not necessarily any of the other benefits are guaranteed. The core purpose for lock down with no opt-out is explicitly to route you into their services and their store.
If restrictions and licence fees weed out all the bad coders then it's a good thing.
I can assure you this will not weed out bad coders. It will weed out more than a few good coders, however.
So obviously Microsoft thinks that the future of mobile computing is that of entirely vendor-controlled console-style hardware.
Thanks but fuck you Microsoft.
You have to pay $99 a year to put apps into their store. This isn't a bad price for what both MS and Apple offer.
The problem is that if you don't want to go through their store, you must pay $99/yr to join their development program and load (temporarily) your software on your phone.
This is why I don't own an iPhone or a WP7 device.
It's not your phone. It's Microsoft's.
If it wasn't, they wouldn't be acting like they owned it by placing locks on it only they have the key for.
A bunch of people in the US self-identify with the Federal Government, and believe that it and this country are one and the same, so therefore publishing leaked documents embarrasses the Federal Government, thus the US, thus they personally are humiliated.
So it cuts their IQ by 20 points and makes them angry and cry for blood.
Because suddenly everyone would have Apple phones? Not everyone likes Apple.
Because it's otherwise flawless, right? Oh right, anyone with actual complaints against Apple is irrelevant and shouldn't be using smartphones anyway.
No, even with its flaws Android would still have a market.
Neither the F-117A nor the F-35 are fighters, but bombers. They had to be sent in at night to prevent visual spotting, as they couldn't be escorted in by fighters.
That said, this sucker looks like China scored big and managed to jack the plans for the F-35. Go go Corporate American network security policies.
Well hold on here, isn't Honeycomb supposed to be a tablet OS? And since dual core mobile processors are on their way, is it unreasonable to make them a requirement?
I mean, you can restrict yourself to the capabilities of an ARM11 based processor from six years ago but then all of the performance and technological gains since then would be completely wasted. And if such a processor is your target, don't use an OS made for more capable devices.
Personally, I want an A9 based device running MeeGo. Something even more open than Android, and more familiar underneath.
Couple things:
- If your module was in the kernel, then chances are it would be updated automatically and confirmed (at least) to compile if someone's going to go make a change to such an ABI.
- It is not, in any way, the concern of the greater community to hamstring themselves because you aren't willing to maintain your software in what you know to be a fast moving environment.
Not really, the vast majority of Linux users don't employ 3D hardware. And the companies in question seem to be quite happy to keep maintaining out of kernel source trees, never mind vendors like PowerVR and Qualcomm, who don't provide drivers directly to end-users anyway.
Oh ho, nice resort to the backhanded ad-hominem. No, this is a kernel policy discussion, not one about gaming.
Right, which is why I replied to my own comment ;)
Oh wait, this is a NEW bug. Not the one noted above. Silly me.
You should check out the one-sided bashfest that was posted on Ars Technica over this.
If the maintainer of the tool is to be believed, MS has known of this flaw for almost six months and done nothing, and had several days of notice that the new version was going to be released (not that the new version appears to have mattered.)
Well, I suspect that this set top box will be locked down and have direct access to various "stores" and such. Depriving the user of control is all the reason they need to pursue something more than simply using existing solutions like building an HTPC or plugging your TV into your existing PC.
The carriers, obviously, and how they handle your data. They haven't gone and dictated what content can appear on the internet, or any such nonsense like the GP was trying to imply by citing the "Fairness Doctrine".
Your sig shows that you aren't qualified to comment on discussions like this. Fundamental failure to understand issues purely to take an anti-government stance draws into question your willingness to actually discuss issues.
Not to say that Saudi Arabia won't abuse this, they will, but suggesting that the US is trying to "regulate" the internet just shows a complete (and willing) failure to understand the topic.
ABI stability helps no one but those that develop and release closed source binaries. Holding the rest of the kernel back for the sake of a handful of modules made by people who won't play nice is stupid in the extreme.
False. They're a HUGE problem for anything recent. Most of the concepts and technologies in open source span decades, including very new concepts as well as old ones that are covered (wrongly) by new, vague patents.
No, the goal with software patents is to make them a perpetual hazard. Vague, ill defined, and useless for actually implementing the concept in question but always useful for beating down on your enemies and keeping out potential competitors.
Not really. The most locked down Android phones are on Verizon, and includes every device from Motorola except the original DROID.
The devices not from Motorola, even those on AT&T, can and have been rooted and given 3rd party ROMs. I think the GP is specifically referring to Motorola-style lock-down, which cannot be bypassed.
To a great degree, it's already available.
It has little resemblance to that. MeeGo is much more like an additional spec on top of the Linux Standard Base. It's not an attempt to be something wholly new and flashy, but to leverage what already exists more effectively.
At this point, I just want a future option to buy a phone that doesn't insist I stay inside some neat consumer box, from a vendor that doesn't insist they own the device after the sale. And if the rumors about the Galaxy Tab are true, Samsung is going to be following Motorola, Microsoft, and Apple into the lockdown shithole.
It's not necessarily Microsoft trying to kill Android. This is Microsoft punishing Motorola for not agreeing to release Windows Phone 7 devices. Microsoft can't have Linux-based OSes exist on their own, they need to either have Windows* based devices coming out from the same vendor on the same (or similar hardware), or they need (demand) patent royalties.
It's just as abusive and anti-competitive, and the only end-result of this will be a nasty web of cross-licensed patents that ensure the mobile market is restricted to a handful of players.
Yes, it actually does.
In Android, the GPL covers only a handful of components, and adding a "must be open" clause wouldn't have any connection to the GPL-licensed software. They could always place conditions on the use of the Android trademarks and access to the Marketplace.
Because the handset vendors don't want that, as it leaves an easy avenue for self-support. Rooting is why Motorola locks the kernel down, so you absolutely cannot upgrade to new versions of Android directly.
Carriers hate it because it means that you're less likely to upgrade to a new contract, since your old phone will last longer.
Nothing like the growth of apathy as a rationalization for closed, hacker-unfriendly systems!