←back to thread

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

(hugotunius.se)
2071 points K0nserv | 4 comments | 31 Aug 25 21:46 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
zmmmmm ◴[01 Sep 25 02:51 UTC] No.45088995[source]▶
> In this context this would mean having the ability and documentation to build or install alternative operating systems on this hardware

It doesn't work. Everything from banks to Netflix and others are slowly edging out anything where they can't fully verify the chain of control to an entity they can have a legal or contractual relationship with. To be clear, this is fundamental, not incidental. You can't run your own operating system because it's not in Netflix's financial interest for you to do so. Or your banks, or your government. They all benefit from you not having control, so you can't.

This is why it's so important to defend the real principles here not just the technical artefacts of them. Netflix shouldn't be able to insist on a particular type of DRM for me to receive their service. Governments shouldn't be able to prevent me from end to end encrypting things. I should be able to opt into all this if I want more security, but it can't be mandatory. However all of these things are not technical, they are principles and rights that we have to argue for.

replies(38): >>45089166 #>>45089202 #>>45089284 #>>45089333 #>>45089427 #>>45089429 #>>45089435 #>>45089489 #>>45089510 #>>45089540 #>>45089671 #>>45089713 #>>45089774 #>>45089807 #>>45089822 #>>45089863 #>>45089898 #>>45089923 #>>45089969 #>>45090089 #>>45090324 #>>45090433 #>>45090512 #>>45090536 #>>45090578 #>>45090671 #>>45090714 #>>45090902 #>>45090919 #>>45091186 #>>45091432 #>>45091515 #>>45091629 #>>45091710 #>>45092238 #>>45092325 #>>45092412 #>>45092773 #
josephg ◴[01 Sep 25 04:34 UTC] No.45089489[source]▶
My parents are getting old and they aren't tech savvy. The missing piece here is that I want my parents to have a computer they can safely do their banking on, without leaving them vulnerable to scams and viruses and the like. I like that they have iphones. Doing internet banking on their phone is safer than doing it on their desktop computer. Why is that?

The reason is that the desktop PC security model is deeply flawed. In modern desktop operating systems, we protect user A from user B. But any program running on my computer is - for some reason - completely trusted with my data. Any program I run is allowed to silently edit, delete or steal anything I own. Unless you install special software, you can't even tell if any of this is happening. This makes every transitive dependency of every program on your computer a potential attack vector.

I want computers to be hackable. But I don't also want my computer to be able to be hacked so easily. Right now, I have to choose between doing banking on my (maybe - hopefully - safe) computer. Or doing banking on my definitely safe iphone. What a horrible choice.

Personally I think we need to start making computers that provide the best of both worlds. I want much more control over what code can do on my computer. I also want programs to be able to run in a safe, sandboxed way. But I should be the one in charge of that sandbox. Not Google. Definitely not Apple. But there's currently no desktop environment that provides that ability.

I think the argument against locked down computers (like iphones and androids) would be a lot stronger if linux & friends provided a real alternative that was both safe and secure. If big companies are the only ones which provide a safe computing experience, we're asking for trouble.

replies(21): >>45089546 #>>45089576 #>>45089598 #>>45089602 #>>45089643 #>>45089690 #>>45089745 #>>45089884 #>>45090077 #>>45090112 #>>45090128 #>>45090605 #>>45090660 #>>45091074 #>>45091275 #>>45091454 #>>45091793 #>>45092007 #>>45092495 #>>45092746 #>>45114735 #
extraisland ◴[01 Sep 25 05:00 UTC] No.45089602[source]▶
Everything in life is about trade-offs. Certain trade-offs people aren't going to make.

- If you want to run an alternative operating system, you got to learn how it works. That is a trade off not even many tech savvy people want to make.

- There is a trade-off with a desktop OS. I actually like the fact that it isn't super sand-boxed and locked down. I am willing to trade security & safety for control.

> Personally I think we need to start making computers that provide the best of both worlds. I want much more control over what code can do on my computer. I also want programs to be able to run in a safe, sandboxed way. But I should be the one in charge of that sandbox. Not Google. Definitely not Apple. But there's currently no desktop environment that provides that ability.

The market and demand for that is low.

BTW. This does exist with Qubes OS already. However there are a bunch of trade-offs that most people are unlikely to want to make.

https://www.qubes-os.org/

replies(5): >>45089940 #>>45090318 #>>45090562 #>>45090759 #>>45091309 #
1. tonyhart7 ◴[01 Sep 25 06:14 UTC] No.45089940[source]▶
exactly, people want all the benefit without the consequences

like if there are OS utopia exist that has all the advantage without the downside then everybody would use that

but people complaining don't live in reality

replies(1): >>45090166 #
2. extraisland ◴[01 Sep 25 06:52 UTC] No.45090166[source]▶
A lot of it already exists in one form or another and the trade-off for sand-boxing is usability a lot of the time.

It isn't even a freedom vs security. It is usability vs security.

replies(1): >>45090233 #
3. josephg ◴[01 Sep 25 07:03 UTC] No.45090233[source]▶
> It is usability vs security.

I think a lot of it is "nobody has bothered building it yet" vs security.

Eg Qubes runs everything in Xen isolates - which is a wildly complex, performance limiting way to do sandboxing on modern computers. There are much better ways to implement sandboxing that don't limit performance or communication between applications. For example SeL4's OS level capability model. SeL4 still allows arbitrary IPC / shared memory between processes. Or Solaris / Illumos's Zones. But that route would unfortunately require rewriting / changing most modern software.

replies(1): >>45090359 #
4. extraisland ◴[01 Sep 25 07:29 UTC] No.45090359{3}[source]▶
> I think a lot of it is "nobody has bothered building it yet" vs security.

All of this takes considerable time, money to build and after that you need to get people to buy into it anyway. Large billion dollar software companies have difficulty doing this. If you think it is so easy, go away and build a proof of concept.

BTW They have implementing sand-boxing in most desktop operating system. It is often a PITA. Phone like permissions model already exist in Windows, Linux and I suspect MacOS in various guises.

For development there are various solutions that already exist.

e.g.

https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/devcontainers/containers

So these things already exist and often people don't use them. The reason for that is that there is usually reduces usability by introducing annoyances.

> Eg Qubes runs everything in Xen isolates - which is a wildly complex, performance limiting way to do sandboxing on modern computers.

It exists though today. If I care about security enough, I am willing to sacrifice performance. That is a trade off that some people are willing to make.

> There are much better ways to implement sandboxing that don't limit performance or communication between applications. For example SeL4's OS level capability model. SeL4 still allows arbitrary IPC / shared memory between processes. Or Solaris / Illumos's Zones. But that route would unfortunately require rewriting / changing most modern software.

If you solution starts with "rewriting most modern software". Then it isn't really a solution.

BTW what you are suggesting is a trade off. You have to trade resources (time and money typically) to build the thing and then you will need to spend more resources to get people to buy into using your tech.