commoner

Archive before deletion: https://web.archive.org/web/20240518030444/https://old.reddi...

There are free and open source apps for Android that automatically lock the device when the accelerometer detects rapid acceleration, which is a simple detection method. For example, Private Lock is on F-Droid:

- Private Lock (source): https://github.com/wesaphzt/privatelock

- Private Lock (F-Droid): https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.wesaphzt.privatelock/

The Cato Institute is libertarian, so them being anti-interventionist shouldn't be surprising. The article was written by a "weekly columnist at Antiwar.com" according to the author's bio, which explains the tone of the headline.

> An included tip would incentivize getting customers out the door to get new butts in the seats and collect more included tips.

Faster service with honest pricing? Sounds good to me.

avbroot is not officially supported by CalyxOS or GrapheneOS, but it does work with both OSes. The point of avbroot is to make root access available to trusted Android apps while leaving commands such as "fastboot flash" and "fastboot erase" disabled.

There will always be a subset of users who prioritize functionality over security. This includes anyone who would root an Android device (and anyone who would use a desktop computer running most distributions of Linux, macOS, or Windows).

I'll be glad to reconsider using root on Android if all of the functions of App Manager's "block trackers" feature[1] and Basic Call Recorder[2] were available on Android without root.

[1] App Manager: https://github.com/MuntashirAkon/AppManager

[2] BCR (Basic Call Recorder): https://github.com/chenxiaolong/BCR

No, over-the-air updates are not supported. The instructions for flashing updates patched with avbroot are here:

https://github.com/chenxiaolong/avbroot?tab=readme-ov-file#u...

Anyone who prefers root access on Android with a locked bootloader (on the OSes that support it) can use avbroot:

https://github.com/chenxiaolong/avbroot

Works great with CalyxOS and GrapheneOS.

With those restrictions, Akaunting is definitely not open source, but it is source-available.

Both KDE and GNOME have improved dramatically over the years in stability and user-friendliness. The leap from KDE Plasma 5 to 6 was massive and brought proper DPI scaling to all displays for both X11 and Wayland applications, on par with what Windows offers.

CalyxOS has been working well for me and I recommend it. I appreciate how the included microG allows me to disable Firebase Cloud Messaging for any app that I don't need push notifications for. Having push notifications without Google Ads or Google Analytics is great.

LocalSend is also on Codeberg:

https://codeberg.org/localsend/localsend

While GitHub is not open source, LocalSend is under the MIT License: https://codeberg.org/localsend/localsend/src/branch/main/LIC...

libhoudini and libndk are libraries that translate ARM instructions to x86. There's an installation script for Waydroid:

https://github.com/casualsnek/waydroid_script

> What's the best alternative?

Waydroid runs Android apps on Linux and some people claim to have gotten it to work on WSL.

- Waydroid: https://waydro.id

Reddit threads:

- https://www.reddit.com/r/bashonubuntuonwindows/comments/eofn...

- https://www.reddit.com/r/waydroid/comments/10y813d/is_it_pos...

- https://www.reddit.com/r/waydroid/comments/14e6t3g/does_maki...

I want to thank you all for open sourcing the Ente server and for supporting desktop Linux. Even though I already had a working photo backup solution that fulfilled my privacy criteria, I've switched over to Ente with a paid subscription to show my support.

The headline is definitely wrong due to all of the above and also due to iMessage being closed source. iMessage does not have the transparency or auditability to be on the same footing as Signal, which is free and open source.

Ad blocking has already been mainstream for a long time.

> As of March 2023, 31% of US adult consumers said they used an ad blocker to protect their privacy, with baby boomers (31%) being more likely than Gen Zers (27%) to use the tech, according to Tinuiti.

> As of Q3 2021, 37.0% of internet users worldwide use ad blockers, according to GWI data cited by Hootsuite. Among those, younger consumers are more likely to use ad blockers, with 25- to 34-year-olds taking the top spot. In the US, just over 50% of adults use an ad blocker on their desktop, per March 2021 CivicScience data.

https://www.insiderintelligence.com/insights/ad-blocking/

To anyone looking for an alternative, the best free and open source desktop publishing software is Scribus. The look and feel of Scribus is closer to that of professional applications like Adobe InDesign. Scribus is able to import Microsoft Publisher files, though I've never tried the feature. Unlike Publisher and most other desktop publishing applications, Scribus also works on Linux.

https://www.scribus.net/

Apple has no way of enforcing any kind of platform fee for PWAs since the developer does not need to interact with Apple at all. This financial conflict of interest is why the availablity of the full PWA feature set is desirable to developers and undesirable to Apple.

I found this:

> Now, when a user in Europe taps a web app icon, they will see a system message asking if they wish to open it in Safari or cancel. The message adds that the web app "will open in your default browser from now on." When opened in Safari, the web app opens like a bookmark, with no dedicated windowing, notifications, or long-term local storage. Users have seen issues with existing web apps such as data loss, since the Safari version can no longer access local data, as well as broken notifications.

> Progressive Web Apps are designed to offer a user experience comparable to that of native apps using web technologies, with the potential for users to add them directly to their home screen with no need for an app store. The latest change is particularly controversial because historically Apple has suggested that developers who are unwilling to comply with its App Store guidelines could instead focus on web apps. Now, the company's recent adjustments appear to contradict this stance by limiting the capabilities of PWAs and their ability to compete with native applications in iOS, raising questions about its commitment to supporting web technologies as a viable alternative to the App Store.

https://9to5mac.com/2024/02/07/17-4-beta-2/

Based on media reports like this one, assuming that the website links do open in the default browser selected by the user and not just Safari, it looks like TFA's sentence "PWAs can’t be linked to alternative browsers" is incorrect or at least imprecise.

It remains to be seen whether iOS browsers using non-WebKit browser engines in the EU can implement PWAs independently and make use of PWA links on the home screen. I'll wait and see when the iOS update is released.

> no new such links can be created

The article doesn't say that. It says that Apple is changing iOS in the EU so that PWAs can't be linked to alternative (non-Safari) browsers.

The article doesn't mention any changes to other PWA features like notifications for PWAs/links added to the home screen via Safari. It only says that, in the EU, Apple removed full-screen mode for PWAs from Safari while restricting non-Safari browsers from adding PWA icons to the home screen.

Nothing in the article says that new PWA links can't be created in Safari. Read carefully:

> PWAs can’t be linked to alternative browsers.

If the situation that you think is happening were true, the article would simply say that Apple removed PWA links from iOS, instead of specifically saying that the removal applies to alternative (non-Safari) browsers on iOS.

As the article says, Apple is changing iOS in the EU to prevent non-Safari browsers from adding PWA icon links to the home screen, making this feature exclusive to Safari (and granting Safari an anticompetitive advantage). Apple did not remove PWAs in Safari, but they removed the ability for PWAs to be displayed full-screen in Safari in the EU.

From TFA:

> PWAs can’t be linked to alternative browsers. Apple simply doesn’t allow it anymore at the operating system or launcher level. Users in the EU are forced to open them in Safari, if they want to open them at all.

Apple is not compelled to remove PWAs from Safari in the EU, because Apple has the option of allowing non-Safari browsers to implement PWAs. Apple chose to remove a PWA feature from Safari and prevent non-Safari browsers from adding PWA icons to home screens, which degrades functionality for all iOS users in the EU while still granting Safari an anticompetitive advantage.

According to the article, the latest iOS beta prevents non-Safari browsers from adding PWA icons to the home screen. These changes retain iOS's favoritism of Safari.

With these changes, Safari is the only browser allowed by Apple to implement PWAs on iOS, which gives Safari an advantage over the other browsers that are not allowed to implement PWAs on iOS. Anyone who uses PWAs on iOS must do so via Safari. PWA users who prefer a non-Safari browser on iOS must switch between their preferred browser and Safari for their web browsing needs. The additional burden of maintaining two web browsers discourages these users from switching away from Safari, and the entire setup prevents these users from leaving Safari completely.

> it doesn’t mean the EU is actually competent to regulate the market

The EU has done more to improve consumer choice in the mobile app industry than any other region in the world. They can go even further, but their progress so far certainly demonstrates competence.

Preventing other browsers from implementing PWAs does not improve security in iOS. This is a self-serving restriction intended to discourage users from switching away from Safari.

Why should anyone give Apple sympathy for restricting PWAs to Safari in iOS? There is no valid reason for Apple to prevent PWAs from opening in the default browser selected by the user.

When Mozilla launched Focus for iOS in 2016, Apple had two WebKit implementations on iOS. Focus was implemented with UIWebView (slower, with more extensive content blocking capabilities), while Firefox was implemented with WKWebView (faster, with limited content blocking capabilities).[1]

Focus was Mozilla's way of offering Tracking Protection on iOS in some form without slowing down the performance of its main Firefox for iOS app. In addition to blocking ads within the Focus browser itself, Focus also provided iOS content blockers, which ironically (due to iOS content blockers being exclusive to Safari) allowed Focus users to block ads in Safari but not in Firefox for iOS at the time.[2]

Focus migrated to WKWebView in 2017 after iOS 11 bridged WKWebView's feature gap, allowing Focus to retain its Tracking Protection feature through the transition.[3] With Firefox and Focus both on WKWebView, Mozilla then ported Tracking Protection to Firefox for iOS in 2018.[4] Tracking Protection improved Firefox for iOS, but could never be as comprehensive as the Safari-exclusive content blockers.

By that time, Mozilla had already launched Focus for Android in 2017[4] even though Firefox for Android already had the ability to block ads more comprehensively with extensions such as uBlock Origin. As a privacy-focused secondary browser with a one-tap "erase session" feature, Focus was a niche app that turned out to be well-received by users, and Mozilla probably did not have a good reason to discontinue it even after Firefox for iOS gained Tracking Protection.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12977855

[2] https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/introducing-fir...

[3] https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/focus-ios/issues/274

[4] https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/latest-firefox-...

[5] https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-focus-n...