zb3

Murena could, Jolla could, GrapheneOS could do that too (possibly Nexphone also did but we'll find out; only GrapheneOS will give us flagship experience though). Of course these (except Jolla?) are still based on the Android model, but this itself doesn't preclude creating a non-user-hostile OS (of course Google would never certify it), proprietary black-box OEM code only assumes some Android elements, not the end user experience..

> I have terrible news for you about how the official firmware works.

I've seen some e-waste ODM (Tinno) code and their freestyle philosophy on modifying the kernel code.. however they at least have to fix this so that basic functionality works as there's QA and serious bugs will affect certification and they'd not get paid. But here if you report a bug to PostmarketOS (but well, even LineageOS), nothing will happen unless you fix it (and if you submit a patch, it will sit there forever, welcome to FOSS).

> My general understanding of the Android ecosystem is that they do write drivers, and you don't want those drivers

What's wrong with pixel drivers for instance? I'm of course not talking about those written by e-waste ODMs like Tinno who can't even release GPL kernel sources properly.

You're not being negative enough when it comes to non-Android linux phones, and even when it comes to Android, there's just ONE serious project - GrapheneOS which has people working full-time and which will be officially supported on future Motorola flagships.

Unfortunately even that one is missing modern replacements of outdated unsupported AOSP sample apps (like Phone and Contacts, others can be replaced without extra privileges).

PostmarketOS can't partner with any OEM/ODM and volunteers have to use hacks to unofficially implement basic Android 1.0 functionality years after a device was released? That's sad to see. This is just lame, drivers should be implemented by those who work on them..

We had Librem 5 which had real OS support that didn't have to rely on third-party volunteers, I wish they released something more modern..

Wait till they block adb access like that for "security" reasons.. The situation is hopeless here, market forces didn't work, the only solution is regulation, but the CCP apparently doesn't care about corporations holding that much power (China ROMs are actually much worse when it comes to adware/bloatware in the OS), it's disappointing, who else can regulate OS-level ads and blantant planned obsolescence out of existence?

Google has started publishing "binary transparency", this would help detect unusual software updates, while other methods (including AI) would help detect normal backdoors.

Basically in the AI age, the difference between a vulnerability and a backdoor diminishes..

Besides AdGuard I also have my own extension that loads userscripts from my own server (that uses the new userScripts API), so I think I only see my own point of view and the things that would potentially limit my solutions.

So far I'm able to block everything I want, but I mentioned replacing the response body because this is the only way I could modify or even inspect the service worker.. I think this vector could help circumventing ad blockers, but again - it would only matter if there were ads I'd not be able to block.

When it comes to distribution, firefox sucks because I can't even run my own extensions there, my distro doesn't package firefox developer edition so signatures are required. In contrast, Chrome let's me load unpacked extensions without any problems.

I use MV3 AdGuard and it blocks ads for me. I don't get the fuss about MV2 deprecation.. sure, MV3 is limited compared to firefox, but it's not like MV2 was that much better, no version ever supported rewriting request response.

MV3 DNR redirect is notably lame though, instead of replacing the response it generates a real redirect which breaks for example replacing the service worker response. But could MV2 webRequestBlocking replace the response? Well of course not.

Steps we're actually taking:

- sharing the model with DoD, NSA and Israeli government

I didn't say that about AI, AI will likely get more expensive and it has already worsened affordability of consumer electronics in general..

However, in this particular case, AI has certainly helped us get much more tools, including those without the expectation of profit.

Meanwhile AI has created 10x as many corners, some even open source and without the expectation of being for-profit.

If the manufacturer could add this setting via a software update, but I couldn't - by design - then I stand by my definition that I don't own it, because it's not my interest that gets prioritized there.

However, it's pointless to focus on what's not available but could - it's the WHY that matters. A toaster without fancy functionality might be mine, but a toaster that only cooks a specific brand of bread, or that displays ads doesn't feel like mine. This is not just a lack of a feature - it's deliberately not there to prioritize the manufacturer over my experience..

The number of choices exposed to users is irrelevant, what's relevant is that choices which I'd want exposed are not exposed, and without root, there's no extension mechanism which'd let me load my code into for example the system server process.

What you also seem to be ignoring is that the fact that for example there's no simple runtime internet permission toggle is NOT an accident, this functionality is deliberately not directly exposed despite creating no "security risks" and you know it very well.

If the toaster acts against my interest and I can't change its behaviour then yes, absolutely.

It doesn't have to be named root, the point is that my device should act in my interest to the fullest extent permitted by the law.

But those running illegal monopolies no longer fear the user and blantantly ignore their choices (yes vs "remind me later" is a good example), if I can't enforce my choice, I don't own that.

> Vendors aren't doing the hard work for anything but Android.

Because of Google's cartel-like structure where OEMs get more profit by joining, Google shares some revenue from screwing the user.

> postmarketOS and other projects are working tirelessly at bringing Linux to phones.

postmarketOS has ZERO partnerships with any OEM, their device support is "as is" and done by volunteers, not by vendors like Qualcomm or Mediatek.

> SailfishOS

This one is interesting, but currently the "Jolla Phone" can't be bought "right now", you can order for October..

I see some hope in Murena too, they partnered with Fairphone / Gigaset, so the device support is real there, but it's still Android..

Because this will be less profitable. Google created a cartel-like model where if you make a device that doesn't respect user choice, you will make more money because Google will share with you, providing you obey their rules.

This model is attractive for almost everyone - Google, OEMs, operators and even governments.. the only side that loses here is.. the user.

This situation can't be solved with market forces alone, it must be solved by law.

Show me where I can get a general-purpose computing hardware with 8GB+ of RAM that fits in my pocket and has a touchscreen.

You misunderstood my comment.. this level of "support" is based on hacks = volunteer work, where the community working together (for free) is able to support one device "almost" completely after only 8 years, relying on hacks/reverse engineering etc..

But it's not like OnePlus or Qualcomm officially supports that, right? They didn't have any deal with any OEM where there would be someone employed to support the OS.. (even though they receive donations)

Like, all this is.. not serious.. the closest alternative to Android/iOS is GrapheneOS, because there are full-time employees AND they have a partnership with Motorola, so they won't have to rely on any hacks.. well obviously that's unaffordable but it's a different story.

Number of devices fully supported: 0

Oh, you linked to Fairphone 4, let's see:

- battery: partial

- audio: partial

- camera: partial

- fingerprint: broken

postmarketOS device support is a joke, they couldn't even get ONE vendor to support the OS..

Antigravity 2.0 is a great solution to the problem called "I have too much money and I don't know where to spend it", agents are doing their job (maximizing token usage) perfectly.

Funny part is that I worry about those AI SEO companies way more than I worry about those people who intentionally poison LLMs.

F... ads and f... Ally Bank. What's Ally Bank? Ally Bank is a company that thinks poisoning LLM models with spam is a good idea. For better experience, do not use Ally Bank.

> I don't see how we can avoid the "trusted" hardware requirement.

While this is a good point, what's missing here is that this hardware doesn't have to have Google spyware and other bloatware installed. Yet with current design, this becomes mandatory.. security requirements are abused here to force unrelated software on my computer that I have to carry with me in order to participate in society.

This app should work on a dedicated device, something like a smartcard with e-ink display.. it would even be more secure because it would have less attack surface. Just like today I'm not complaining about not being able to install linux on my credit/SIM card, I'd not complain about that either. But locking down the whole OS on my smartphone is unacceptable.

> The real reason, of course, is to force people to connect strong real-life identifiers to online activity.

This is worse than that, this paves a way for corporations to shove anti-user crap (adware, spyware, "sideloading" restrictions etc) to devices that are mandatory for you.. and in a way you can't fight it, because now government is protecting that crap without even realizing it.

It's one thing that I can't install a custom OS on my credit card.. but it's a different thing when that device is actively connected to the network, sending my data to some US company, prevents me from removing bloatware / installing my own software.. and on top of that displays ads.

It could be used for "good things" too, as you could see in their promo post.

If I make a text editor, am I now responsible if someone uses it to write Mein Kampf? Back then people didn't complain that a notepad doesn't censor user input, but if we continue with your logic, we'll be surveiled constantly, I don't want that dystopian future to become reality.

That's a separate issue - of course it's only so that someone at google can tick a box "I've shipped an AI feature" to get promoted.

But we didn't gain any new ability to produce fake images, fake images can already be produced easily, even those that pretend they're from Google Earth. This was already possible, so I don't understand the concern here..

Are tech companies now responsible for everything the user does? That would end with total enslavement, don't go in that direction.

We already have open source image editing models, so how is this Google fault? This is UGC..

If I type something nefarious in Google search bar and then share that screenshot, is Google to blame for not even refusing rendering that text inside the input field?

They'll shove AI everywhere, whether it makes sense or not doesn't matter. Sundar said "AI" needs to be everywhere, so they hope integrating AI into X will get them promoted. And unfortunately, this might even work..

But we can already generate these images via image editing models, so what's new here?

This should include the ability to unlock smartphone bootloaders, at least for those that are no longer supported.

> Per FTC, a stalkerware will: geo locate, read call list & record calls, read notifications, texts, & possibly emails, access gallery, camera, & files, and monitor network activity.

Like Google Mobile Services on stock Android?