←back to thread

We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

(hugotunius.se)
2071 points K0nserv | 3 comments | 31 Aug 25 21:46 UTC | HN request time: 0.612s | source
Show context
marcus_holmes ◴[01 Sep 25 01:00 UTC] No.45088460[source]▶
I know I'm going to get downvoted to hell for this, but I genuinely think it's OK for a device manufacturer to say: "we are building this device to run this software. If you don't want to run this software, then don't buy this device. There are plenty of other devices out there that will run other software, you can buy one of those if you want to run other software - our devices are designed to only run our software, and we're only going to support that".

I think that's a huge difference from the sideloading issue, though. Which is effectively saying "you must purchase all your software for this device from us, even if it's not our software, and even if it's available elsewhere for less".

I get how one statement creates the monopoly that allows the other statement, but I think they are still two separate statements.

replies(3): >>45088471 #>>45088540 #>>45088544 #
1. mixmastamyk ◴[01 Sep 25 01:13 UTC] No.45088540[source]▶
> There are plenty of other devices out there...

No there isn't, and one of the main problems.

replies(1): >>45088957 #
2. SchemaLoad ◴[01 Sep 25 02:43 UTC] No.45088957[source]▶
There are if you are willing to have two devices. One secure phone for banking, phone calls, etc. And a portable linux device for installing whatever you want on. Where installing malware doesn't risk losing all of your money.
replies(1): >>45089046 #
3. mixmastamyk ◴[01 Sep 25 03:02 UTC] No.45089046[source]▶
> secure phone for banking

Secure from the owner doesn't equal security in general.

I know of no reasonable, modern Linux devices besides the Starlite tablet and potentially the Furiphone. And boy, have I looked and looked. But the second has not been around long enough to be reviewed by a reputable entity.