The Linux kernel has things like SELinux, iptables, great filesystem support, device drivers for everything. Great for tinkerers, not so useful to Google
Android makes extensive use of selinux. If you don't want XYZ filesystem support you don't include support for that in your dist. It's not like these things are inextricably hardcoded into Linux.
And selinux isn't "great for tinkers". It's the fundamental access control system of Linux (in production devices, maybe not for desktop users).
Yes, it's actually worse than that I think. They want the benefit of the free OS, AND most of the free Google apps... just not the ones like search which actually make Google money. They want to take all the free stuff then bundle say Bing search and make money from deals with MSFT (or whoever) on the side.
They can just pack up and leave the EU market forever.
And as a consumer, you should be really excited about that. You'll be able to buy Apple products, that are much worse than Google on these counts (just not yet a monopoly), or buy chinese non-Google Android phones infested with malware with no app store or Google apps. Or maybe Samsung will pull one of its mobile OSes out from under the bed and start selling that into the EU.
My definition of explicitly is a popup dialog that asks DO YOU WANT TO ALLOW THIS APP TO USE THE CAMERA. Maybe you haven't actually used Android and get your usability information from reading thread here.
And at the same time, Google and Facebook have pushed hard to be at the end of that encrypted pipe. Now it's hard to spy as the middleman, so you have to buy your intel from Bob.
Because Google and Facebook value being a police state lacky over making billions of dollars?
These guys make sales through consumers, not the state. It's in their market interest to ensure no one thinks that they are selling data to the government because that'd make consumers go elsewhere for their devices.
Could they be caving to government demands behind the scenes? It's possible, but common sense says they have nothing to gain and everything to lose. As far as government favor, paying off elected officials does the job. Unlocking phones for Poe-dunk sheriff #3421? Not so much.
When you exaggerate attempting for effect or shock value you just alienate any sane person reading your post. As soon as a read you comparing Walmart to Auschwitz I knew you were either a troll or not very smart, and stopped reading.
If you actually think Walmart working conditions are in any way comparable to Auschwitz detainees you need a history lesson. I'd imagine it's also a insulting to the memories of the people that were imprisoned or died there.
What do you think is reasonable for the continued development and maintenance of an entire operating system plus the most complex Android apps and services that run on Android? $20 a month?
Regardless of what you think you want, the answer is almost no one prefers this over an advertising supported model, which is why we have we have a majority ad supported online world. One thing I'm sure of is that Google likes money. If they could make more money by charging outright for Android and Google apps, they'd do it.
Monopolies are always bad. Monopolies lead to power, and power corrupts, always.
You need to look at the big picture. Google provides an entire mobile operating system, free, including the source and the licensing to use the source however you want (see: Amazon). To anyone. Then they provide an entire suite of apps, again FREE (but no the source).
The Google suite of apps only makes money off search. Most of them have zero advertising. If you allow companies to take most of the Google apps then leave out the one app that makes Google any money in the whole deal, what do you think is going to happen? What's the end game? To have Google stop providing an entire operating system for free? To have them start charging you $ to use *any* of the apps?
That is pretty much like saying "Don't use Windows" in the PC market, which translates to "leave the market".
It's sort of a no good deed goes unpunished deal. Google builds and supports an entire operating system and gives it free of charge including all of the source and licensing to do with it whatever you want. Then they provide their entire app suite, again FREE of charge to anyone that signs the ToS.
But that's just not enough. The companies that use Android + Google for their devices aren't happy that the licensing doesn't allow them to pick and choose the Google apps they want to install on the device. E.g., they want to install Maps, but not Search... even though that's the only way Google makes any money at all out of the deal. So the Samsungs of the world can include Maps, Gmail, Calendar... all of which have zero advertising, then get paid by MSFT to include Bing search instead of Google.
Manufacturers like HTC and Samsung take AOSP* and customize** it for their devices. They then pre-load the Google suite of apps like Maps and App Market, etc. Google apps are NOT part of Android proper.
Now, Google employees are by far the largest contributors to Android and the surrounding ecosystem. But nonetheless the source is sitting right there for any company to take and build their own product (which many companies do). You just don't get the Google apps with it (unless you pass their test suite and agree to the licensing terms).
* In some cases the initial code comes from a chip manufacturer like Qualcomm who has tailored AOSP for their chipsets. ** This isn't just UI work but can include things like hardware drivers as well. Android doesn't come with a bazillion drivers like Linux or Windows.
What are Europe authorities advocating for? For breaking Android up into incompatible versions?
They are advocating for Google not to require Google app A if you pre-install Google app B. They want the flexibility to say install Google Maps without Google Search. Today Google requires them as a bundle.
If most Americans got sick in that way, US pathologists and epidemiologist would have book chapters on that.
TFA doesn't say anything like that. It says there's an increased risk. Are you really not able to understand the difference between the statements "you have an increased risk of a disease" and "you have a disease"?
Am I just lucky and I put out a lucky aura that protects those around me?
No, just lacking in reading comprehension and / or a basic understanding of logic. Or a bought and paid for troll. Only you can know the answer to that.
TFA said this:
Americans inhale enough formaldehyde vapor in the course of daily life to put them at risk of developing leukemia and other ailments
Walking in the middle of the road doesn't mean you will without a doubt be ran over. It does increase your risk. Would you be against warning people that walking in the middle of the road increases their risk of being ran over?
They're a surveillance device connected to your home network - they can also monitor all your web-browsing activity (by site if not by specific content, with https becoming more ubiquitous), and identify every piece of networked hardware you own via MAC address
Please don't spread FUD. If you have evidence that smart TVs are monitoring network traffic go ahead and post it. Otherwise please stop making up shit. Smart TVs *could* monitor your network traffic in the same way ANY device connected to your network could do the same... including your router itself.
Unless you only allow OSS on your network and review all of the code.
What could go wrong, putting such a group of competent, trustworthy, freedom loving people in charge of a technical definition that has the potential to break the internet?
At least we can all agree that the USA has some of the best, and cheapest, internet in the western world, and has the most options when it comes to service providers, right?
Thank god NN was repealed. That means by this time next year I'm going to have 5 ISPs knocking down my door, begging me use their gigabit fiber. I mean, they haven't done it over the last 10 years, but I'm sure it's coming. We just need to let the free market sort it out.
Also they made no money from it and took it down upon request. That doesn't influence the copyright on the photo, but it establishes who the actual douchebag is. Or it establishes good faith if you want to use the term.
Gotta love it. They took down is photo, which was more than fair and not required by law. But he had to push it further and lost, setting a precedent that his and others' photos can actually be legally used in such a context with consent.
Slashdot Mirror
The Linux kernel has things like SELinux, iptables, great filesystem support, device drivers for everything. Great for tinkerers, not so useful to Google
Android makes extensive use of selinux. If you don't want XYZ filesystem support you don't include support for that in your dist. It's not like these things are inextricably hardcoded into Linux.
And selinux isn't "great for tinkers". It's the fundamental access control system of Linux (in production devices, maybe not for desktop users).
From EU perspective
Nobody thinks that the underlying OS has any relevance to business decisions about bundling software.
Yes, it's actually worse than that I think. They want the benefit of the free OS, AND most of the free Google apps... just not the ones like search which actually make Google money. They want to take all the free stuff then bundle say Bing search and make money from deals with MSFT (or whoever) on the side.
They can just pack up and leave the EU market forever.
And as a consumer, you should be really excited about that. You'll be able to buy Apple products, that are much worse than Google on these counts (just not yet a monopoly), or buy chinese non-Google Android phones infested with malware with no app store or Google apps. Or maybe Samsung will pull one of its mobile OSes out from under the bed and start selling that into the EU.
you have a weird definition of "explicitly".
My definition of explicitly is a popup dialog that asks DO YOU WANT TO ALLOW THIS APP TO USE THE CAMERA. Maybe you haven't actually used Android and get your usability information from reading thread here.
What people think, is not highly correlated with reality
Does that include you? No matter how fun it is to think the rest of the world is stupid and you have some special insight, that's rarely the case.
But in the background - do all to earn money / favours / monopolies from governments and their agents.
That's nice speculation. If you are going to make up shit why stop there? Why not claim they are feeding babies to their employees in the lunchroom?
There have also been slavery, child labor, embezzlement, and genocide
Because those are comparable to cartoon breasts on a wall.
There were never any alpha males.
Having lived on planet Earth I can say this is false. And I'm not one of them.
It must be hard going through life not understanding the technology you use.
any application can gain access to the camera
User must allow that explicitly.
microphone
User must allow that explicitly.
file system of your device
Not true. All apps are sandboxed and can only access their own data.
automatically uploads your files so that Google Photo can create movies from your photographs and downloaded images.
Yes, if you install / enable and use the Google Photos app and give that app permission to access your photos explicitly.
And at the same time, Google and Facebook have pushed hard to be at the end of that encrypted pipe. Now it's hard to spy as the middleman, so you have to buy your intel from Bob.
Because Google and Facebook value being a police state lacky over making billions of dollars?
These guys make sales through consumers, not the state. It's in their market interest to ensure no one thinks that they are selling data to the government because that'd make consumers go elsewhere for their devices.
Could they be caving to government demands behind the scenes? It's possible, but common sense says they have nothing to gain and everything to lose. As far as government favor, paying off elected officials does the job. Unlocking phones for Poe-dunk sheriff #3421? Not so much.
People have spent weeks and even months for posting something that is an obvious joke.
The US does not have a extradition treaty with Russia. Pretty sure he's safe.
Fascinating, but are you sure you have the right thread?
This technology is blatantly illegal
That explains why it's illegal to have security cameras at places of employment. Oh wait.
Anyway, Random Anonymous Guy on the Internet, I'm pretty sure Walmart is on top of what's legal and what isn't when it comes to employment practices.
minimizing contact with customers is not a winning strategy
I guess that's why online shopping and delivery have been such a flop.
When you exaggerate attempting for effect or shock value you just alienate any sane person reading your post. As soon as a read you comparing Walmart to Auschwitz I knew you were either a troll or not very smart, and stopped reading.
If you actually think Walmart working conditions are in any way comparable to Auschwitz detainees you need a history lesson. I'd imagine it's also a insulting to the memories of the people that were imprisoned or died there.
reasonable
What do you think is reasonable for the continued development and maintenance of an entire operating system plus the most complex Android apps and services that run on Android? $20 a month?
Regardless of what you think you want, the answer is almost no one prefers this over an advertising supported model, which is why we have we have a majority ad supported online world. One thing I'm sure of is that Google likes money. If they could make more money by charging outright for Android and Google apps, they'd do it.
Monopolies are always bad. Monopolies lead to power, and power corrupts, always.
You need to look at the big picture. Google provides an entire mobile operating system, free, including the source and the licensing to use the source however you want (see: Amazon). To anyone. Then they provide an entire suite of apps, again FREE (but no the source).
The Google suite of apps only makes money off search. Most of them have zero advertising. If you allow companies to take most of the Google apps then leave out the one app that makes Google any money in the whole deal, what do you think is going to happen? What's the end game? To have Google stop providing an entire operating system for free? To have them start charging you $ to use *any* of the apps?
That is pretty much like saying "Don't use Windows" in the PC market, which translates to "leave the market".
It's sort of a no good deed goes unpunished deal. Google builds and supports an entire operating system and gives it free of charge including all of the source and licensing to do with it whatever you want. Then they provide their entire app suite, again FREE of charge to anyone that signs the ToS.
But that's just not enough. The companies that use Android + Google for their devices aren't happy that the licensing doesn't allow them to pick and choose the Google apps they want to install on the device. E.g., they want to install Maps, but not Search... even though that's the only way Google makes any money at all out of the deal. So the Samsungs of the world can include Maps, Gmail, Calendar... all of which have zero advertising, then get paid by MSFT to include Bing search instead of Google.
Awesome.
Android is Google's product
Well that couldn't be more wrong. Android is an OSS operating system.
https://source.android.com/
Manufacturers like HTC and Samsung take AOSP* and customize** it for their devices. They then pre-load the Google suite of apps like Maps and App Market, etc. Google apps are NOT part of Android proper.
Now, Google employees are by far the largest contributors to Android and the surrounding ecosystem. But nonetheless the source is sitting right there for any company to take and build their own product (which many companies do). You just don't get the Google apps with it (unless you pass their test suite and agree to the licensing terms).
* In some cases the initial code comes from a chip manufacturer like Qualcomm who has tailored AOSP for their chipsets.
** This isn't just UI work but can include things like hardware drivers as well. Android doesn't come with a bazillion drivers like Linux or Windows.
What are Europe authorities advocating for? For breaking Android up into incompatible versions?
They are advocating for Google not to require Google app A if you pre-install Google app B. They want the flexibility to say install Google Maps without Google Search. Today Google requires them as a bundle.
If most Americans got sick in that way, US pathologists and epidemiologist would have book chapters on that.
TFA doesn't say anything like that. It says there's an increased risk. Are you really not able to understand the difference between the statements "you have an increased risk of a disease" and "you have a disease"?
Am I just lucky and I put out a lucky aura that protects those around me?
No, just lacking in reading comprehension and / or a basic understanding of logic. Or a bought and paid for troll. Only you can know the answer to that.
TFA said this:
Americans inhale enough formaldehyde vapor in the course of daily life to put them at risk of developing leukemia and other ailments
Walking in the middle of the road doesn't mean you will without a doubt be ran over. It does increase your risk. Would you be against warning people that walking in the middle of the road increases their risk of being ran over?
They're a surveillance device connected to your home network - they can also monitor all your web-browsing activity (by site if not by specific content, with https becoming more ubiquitous), and identify every piece of networked hardware you own via MAC address
Please don't spread FUD. If you have evidence that smart TVs are monitoring network traffic go ahead and post it. Otherwise please stop making up shit. Smart TVs *could* monitor your network traffic in the same way ANY device connected to your network could do the same... including your router itself.
Unless you only allow OSS on your network and review all of the code.
What could go wrong, putting such a group of competent, trustworthy, freedom loving people in charge of a technical definition that has the potential to break the internet?
At least we can all agree that the USA has some of the best, and cheapest, internet in the western world, and has the most options when it comes to service providers, right?
Thank god NN was repealed. That means by this time next year I'm going to have 5 ISPs knocking down my door, begging me use their gigabit fiber. I mean, they haven't done it over the last 10 years, but I'm sure it's coming. We just need to let the free market sort it out.
But in almost all other ways, California wants to be the next Illinois or Venezuela.
Yes, all these jobs, sunshine, beaches, and breast augmentation is really terrible. I recommend everyone stay far, far away.
Also they made no money from it and took it down upon request. That doesn't influence the copyright on the photo, but it establishes who the actual douchebag is. Or it establishes good faith if you want to use the term.
Gotta love it. They took down is photo, which was more than fair and not required by law. But he had to push it further and lost, setting a precedent that his and others' photos can actually be legally used in such a context with consent.