It's a different approach to compartmentalization and the security risk of root in Grapheneos is different to that in QubesOS. But you know this looking at your bio, you just chose to ignore it.
Can you elaborate on the differences in the compartmentalization? When the existence of root is equivalent to a broken security, it doesn't look secure to me at all. Are you talking about the security from the user?
By the way, personal attacks are against the HN Guidelines.
Ah yes thats a real good faith argument you got there.
GrapheneOS is designed so you don’t need root to run apps or manage the device. Compartmentalization is on an per app level. And you already know how qubes does compartmentalisation.
Sandboxing is on a per-app level but those sandboxed apps can be hooked up to different profiles. The Linux kernel is the main weakness of the current app sandboxing along with system services to a lesser extent. Running apps or groups of apps within virtual machines is definitely part of what GrapheneOS working on. There's already hardware-based virtualization integration but it really needs native GPU virtualization support to be fully usable for GUI usage without relying on proxying GPU commands to the host OS. Pixel 10 is the first device with this, but it will take us some time to support the 10th gen Pixels and our focus is going to be more on Snapdragon devices and their Gunyah hypervisor soon due to our OEM partnership.
What utter nonesense. Just because the GrapheneOS Team doesn't do free work to support devices you like doesn't mean they prevent you from doing it. It's still 100% opensource and you are free to port it yourself to whatever device you please. The entitlement of people that want the grapheneos project to work for them for free is insane. Fucking hire a dev to work on this for a few month yourself if you don't like the device support.
Just to be clear: There are people like me that will NEVER EVER stop pirating media. I've done it my whole life and I will do it for the rest of my life. You can now chose to accept that because I and others like me exist, your freedoms must be destroyed or recognize that freedoms necessarily allow for "abuse" and realize that these media conglomerates would rather see the internet, the only truly global technology, fundamentally destroyed before giving you just enough freedom to maybe abuse it.
I'm curious about your moral justifications. Do you ever compensate creators for their work? Do you believe anyone deserves to be compensated for their creative effort? Do you only pirate recordings but still pay for original work like live performance?
I'm a atheist and moral nihilist. "morals" literally don't play a role in that decision for me.
> Do you ever compensate creators for their work?
> Do you only pirate recordings but still pay for original work like live performance?
Yeah, all the time. I go to the cinema as often as i can find time, I go to concerts whenever i can, i tend to buy games on steam all the time, because i'm a linux gamer and pirating games is really annoying to do. I even have a Spotify premium account (though that will go away soon due to pricing increases). It's genuinely a matter of pricing and convenience.
I have the technical capabilities to enjoy whatever media I want whenever I want on devices without limitations for free. If some service believes that they can make me pay to make it less convenient for me than my private tracker does, they are mistaken. If a service offers value to me at a reasonable price and without massive restrictions, I'm open to pay for the convenience and Premium experience.
> Do you believe anyone deserves to be compensated for their creative effort?
Sure, I even paid on kickstarter for movies to be made and tipped smaller movie creators that released movies as torrents because I enjoyed them so much. Just recently I watched "Tim Travers and the Time Travel Paradox" and was trying to find a way to pay for it because I liked it so much but it was unavailable in Europe. But this is mostly because I want that creator to make more content from that.
But let's be real, once a digital work has been created, the cost to make a copy is practically 0 or very close to it. Just this week I seeded roughly 800GB on a residential line. Cost me effectively nothing. That's the reality, any law or service that tries to artificially fight that reality is unjust and should be ignored. Let me give you an example to proof that this true. Here's a digital picture of the Mona Lisa[0]. Acquiring that cost literally nothing. Ordering a high quality poster print of it and getting a frame for it that mimics the original frame is propably less than 50 bucks these days. The copy is worth almost nothing, yet the original is invaluable. Digital works are just the extreme version of this, copies of it are perfect yet worthless.
There’s no controversy that copying data is easy. That’s obvious to everyone. What you have failed to articulate is why that’s relevant in a conversation on intellectual property rights.
I'd say piracy is best fought with better service but draconian laws and enforcement would also work.
> There’s no controversy that copying data is easy. That’s obvious to everyone. What you have failed to articulate is why that’s relevant in a conversation on intellectual property rights.
The fact that copying data is so easy means that any law trying to criminalize it is unjust by nature, that's my most important argument.
I believed this for a while but no. Piracy is an enforcement problem. Make pirates face jailtime or lifedestroying fines for torrenting a single movie, constantly scan all public torrents for IPs from your country, make VPN Providers liable for their customers and the use of out of country providers illegal. Enforce that Google, Apple and Microsoft do not allow foreign VPN providers software or non-registered VPN Connections and you end piracy. I've seen this in Germany when the fines where high enough, people were scared shitless. Make the fines life-destroying and circumvention a felony offense and you decimate piracy.
edit: to be clear, if don't advocate for this, i personally believe that copyright should be abolished completely. But I have seen what high fines will do here in germany before they reigned them in.
And yet, in Germany like elsewhere, piracy spiked during COVID's lockdowns. Some places say greater than 180%. Showing that their enforcement alone, was not an effective tool.
Yeah, that was more than a decade after the fines were noticeably capped and fees limited to < 1k€. I remember during my school years when there were lawyers giving talks to us and classmates getting fines in the 10s of thousands of euros.
The perfect solution to all crimes, totally out of scale punishments for every infraction! If we just charge people 10,000 euros per km/h over the speed limit, we could do away with speeding! Stop crime forever by bankrupting everyone who does anything bad!
>
IlikeKitties 2 hours ago | unvote | parent | prev | next [–]
Just to be clear: There are people like me that will NEVER EVER stop pirating media. I've done it my whole life and I will do it for the rest of my life. You can now chose to accept that because I and others like me exist, your freedoms must be destroyed or recognize that freedoms necessarily allow for "abuse" and realize that these media conglomerates would rather see the internet, the only truly global technology, fundamentally destroyed before giving you just enough freedom to maybe abuse it.
> while in this thread you're calling for executions for that very action?
I'm not calling for that, you are misreading my post. Because irony hardly translates to the internet let me spell it out for you:
* Piracy is an option because the punishment for it is low and enforcement not very effective. Even in Germany where law firms can punish you for it without government involvement (i shit you not private companies send you fines you HAVE to pay) using a VPN is enough to pirate as much as you want
* Piracy could be curbed by massively out of scale punishments and total constant scanning and enforcement of the internet. I've seen the scared people here in Germany talking about it to this day. Fear causes compliance. To argue otherwise would be intellectually dishonest.
* I'm making fun of the fact that copyright owners would still call for stronger punishment until executions are on the table North Korean style ("Only then will copyright holders be safe again.")
My personal opinion is that piracy is the logical result of the fact that once a digital work has been created the cost to copy it is practically zero. Laws that try to deny that reality are by their nature unjust and should be abolished. To truly enforce them, even the death penalty isn't enough (see NK).
You'll soon find that those phones will be useless because you are required to own a certified device to interact with your government, bank, insurance company, postal service etc. I can see it happen every day.
I think people underestimate just how bad this will become.
First they will use Remote Attestation against users. Not only will your certified device not run unsigned apps, your uncertified device won't run certified apps (already happening [0])
Than more and more services will require you to own a google certified device. Banks, Governments, Insurance, Postal Service, everyone. (see also [0] for examples)
Soon you'll live in a world where you are forced to own and regularly use a device certified and controlled by either Google, Apple or Microsoft without exception and no way around it.
> even that country's law can't really touch them.
Well, that countries law enforcement could always cut off those servers. It's usually either due to corruption or in case of russia political intent that these servers are kept online.
It kind of depends, a lot of the recent ones are in Myanmar where the state is in not much position to enforce much of anything due to the whole civil war thing.
Well they started bombing Qatar so they are moving into a direction where they might actually make progress. But to ensure that Hamas is beyond being any kind of threat israel will have to kill everyone in palastine and ensure that iran gets the message that further acts of terror will be responded to in a similar manner.
Considering Israel is the occupying state inhabiting Palestine, they probably only want to kill the (non-Jewish) Palestinians in Palestine.
But it does seem like they're on the path to your killing "everyone in Palestine" (including themselves) regardless, in addition to causing mass death and instability in many other regions.
reply