Being a fan of Linux, and an Ubuntu user, I guess I thought Android was going to be a lot more openly tweakable, but from looking over these threads it looks like it's actually not that easy to do things that I would have assumed would be easily accessible tweaks... like theme/appearance/fonts/icons, etc... In fact it looks like some pretty intense hacking is going on with slow progress in bypassing , etc...
Maybe I'm not understanding correctly. I don't have the G1, but my girlfriend does and I've been enjoying it from over her shoulder... I guess I just expected something more 'open' along the lines of what I've become used to with Ubuntu.
I kind thought Android would be to iPhone, what Linux OS is to Apple OS, but it definitely doesn't seem like that's the case. It seems like Android is just as locked down as iPhone but with fewer apps and not-as-slick interface for the same price as an iPhone.
I had been thinking about getting this phone... maybe I just need to wait for more apps to come out?
Any thoughts?
As of right now we do have a little more opensource than anything else. And like all new software it will take time to learn what to do. Obviously people didn't get Mac OS 3 and immediatly know how to hack it so they could do things they weren't meant to do. And of course same goes with mobile phones. When WM5 came out they had to learn about the new OS and it takes awhile.
So far the freedom we have already surpasses that of any other. We have internet sharing (for those with root) that is far better than the old USB or BluetoothPAN method(which btw is going to be a new profile, it is in the source)
I am willing to bet that as soon as it hits 1.0 that we will see it go entirely open with the ability to flash the rom and all.
That makes sense... I just have to be patient Thanks for the reply!
Open source != open system.
Open source means just that... you can see the source code. That's it. It doesn't imply or confer any other right of access, and with most open source licenses the licensor (Google & HTC) is free to build closed systems just as locked down as one based on proprietary code. Many commercial systems (Android included) are underpinned by open source code for cost savings or stability/security reasons.
Edit:
what Linux OS is to Apple OS
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's comparing apples to oranges. Linux is not an operating system; it is an open source kernel on which an operating system can be built.
Fact of the matter is, OS X's Mach kernel is partially descendant from BSD, so you could say the center of OS X is open source as well. More info at wikipedia's Darwin entry. For being a "fan of Linux" you don't seem to understand some of the core principles.
If I am not mistaken Mac's are unix based right? many the kernel is similar to linux... which is why the filesystem structure is similar as well.
But you are correct open source means you can see the source... but usually when someone can see the source they find a way to get around security holes that lock down the system.
With open source and developers an open system is possible. And we already know we can do it because we have modified the updates that are sent which change the system files. so all you need to do is put a new boot.img and a new recovery.img and replace the root system directory... before you know it you can have this running any version of android and/or anything else that will run on an ARM6 device.
Don't make it so complex. It's meaningless to play the words game.
To make it simple:
As a developer, on G1, we are not able to do what we can do on a linux PC, and that was my understanding about the open source smartphone OS.
To be practical, for the same project I ported for Android, Windows Mobile and iPhone, I would say: Windows Mobile is the most open one (friendly) for developer. You can even make your own driver on it. So I would say Windows Mobile = smart version of Windows Desktop. But I cannot say Android = smart version of linux.
I really hope Google can push a little bit to the carriers to open the root for us. Android really needs to be more developer friendly. Otherwise, it is hard to compete with iPhone, since the key part of Andorid was "openess".
jashsu said:
Open source != open system.
Open source means just that... you can see the source code. That's it. It doesn't imply or confer any other right of access, and with most open source licenses the licensor (Google & HTC) is free to build closed systems just as locked down as one based on proprietary code. Many commercial systems (Android included) are underpinned by open source code for cost savings or stability/security reasons.
Edit: That's comparing apples to oranges. Linux is not an operating system; it is an open source kernel on which an operating system can be built.
Fact of the matter is, OS X's Mach kernel is partially descendant from BSD, so you could say the center of OS X is open source as well. More info at wikipedia's Darwin entry. For being a "fan of Linux" you don't seem to understand some of the core principles.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As a developer, on G1, we are not able to do what we can do on a linux PC, and that was my understanding about the open source smartphone OS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's like you've never even heard of embedded linux before. Show me where on the G1 advertising or packaging it claims to be a Linux PC.
To be practical, for the same project I ported for Android, Windows Mobile and iPhone, I would say: Windows Mobile is the most open one (friendly) for developer. You can even make your own driver on it. So I would say Windows Mobile = smart version of Windows Desktop. But I cannot say Android = smart version of linux.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
WM gives the developer deeper system access. That's awesome for developers maybe, but calling it a "smart" is probably going a bit too far.
I really hope Google can push a little bit to the carriers to open the root for us. Android really needs to be more developer friendly. Otherwise, it is hard to compete with iPhone, since the key part of Andorid was "openess".
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Android's security framework design is solely Google's responsibility. Tmo doesn't even remotely factor into it. If you don't like the default Android system lockdown then download the codebase and compile it yourself without the security settings. Security is there to prevent neophytes from opening shell and f__king their phones up.
jashsu said:
Android's security framework design is solely Google's responsibility. Tmo doesn't even remotely factor into it. If you don't like the default Android system lockdown then download the codebase and compile it yourself without the security settings. Security is there to prevent neophytes from opening shell and f__king their phones up.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And run it, how?
From my understanding, the only way to get a firmware onto the phone ATM is from the recovery menu, which will only install signed updates from Google. Yes, we've got a way around that for now, but it requires root access.
How would you install a self compiled version of Android onto the G1 on the official RC30?
Gary13579 said:
And run it, how?
From my understanding, the only way to get a firmware onto the phone ATM is from the recovery menu, which will only install signed updates from Google. Yes, we've got a way around that for now, but it requires root access.
How would you install a self compiled version of Android onto the G1 on the official RC30?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No clue. I'd probably do it with a Freerunner or something that is specifically designed as an open system. The recovery menu is not the only way to write to internal memory; i'm sure the HTC bootloader has some provision for usb access.
You have all of the Android operating system at your disposal in the form of source code (provided you agree to the license). If you want to write/port low level drivers for it go right ahead. You just can't run it on the G1. They chose to lock down the Android implementation on G1 and you're dissatisfied with that. That's like being dissatisfied that a house has locks on it when the architect gave away the blueprints and floor plans for free.
jashsu said:
That's like being dissatisfied that a house has locks on it when the architect gave away the blueprints and floor plans for free.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Except when you buy a house, they generally give you the keys.
Gary13579 said:
Except when you buy a house, they generally give you the keys.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah I know, it's a flawed analogy.
If you want to have free reign over your Android, I suggest you get a Neo Freerunner to play with. I say play because the open source portion of Android is missing a lot of closed source Google added value apps (Maps, Gmail, etc) that define the G1. Also the porting process is still ongoing.
Android's security framework design is solely Google's responsibility. Tmo doesn't even remotely factor into it. If you don't like the default Android system lockdown then download the codebase and compile it yourself without the security settings. Security is there to prevent neophytes from opening shell and f__king their phones up.[/QUOTE said:
Stop playing the work game and understand the simple Thing that Developers want full Access to device in order to build Software Beyond Generalised Application, like bluetooth drivers, codecs, themes, different home shell the way we do in Windows Mobile
You said take OpenSource and Customise the OS by bypassing some security for shell access. Now Lets understand 98 % device get automatically f**ked with RC30 and there is no Reversal!!! If you can build any Customised Android Package which can bypasss Security for shell access and also Bypass Signature checking just do it for me so i can Revert to Shell Access from f**king RC30.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hetaldp said:
Stop playing the work game and understand the simple Thing that Developers want full Access to device in order to build Software Beyond Generalised Application, like bluetooth drivers, codecs, themes, different home shell the way we do in Windows Mobile
You said take OpenSource and Customise the OS by bypassing some security for shell access. Now Lets understand 98 % device get automatically f**ked with RC30 and there is no Reversal!!! If you can build any Customised Android Package which can bypasss Security for shell access and also Bypass Signature checking just do it for me so i can Revert to Shell Access from f**king RC30.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
98% of G1s might get derooted with RC30, but guess what? 99% of users don't need root or don't care. Tmo and HTC didn't build the G1 as a device for devs to hack and play with. That's why its a subsidized $179 phone and your unlimited dataplan is $25.
99% Percent people dont want it but if we develop some Application which is beyond the SDK thing we must have to have root access to all device in order to Install it.
Adobe is releasing Flash Plugins for Browser lets see they can do it by just releasing APK Package in Market or a Pushed OTA Update. If Adobe requires OTA Update then Smaller Company and Developers see hard time to develop such Extension without Googles Permission.
Just make your Science clear before commenting it
hetaldp said:
99% Percent people dont want it but if we develop some Application which is beyond the SDK thing we must have to have root access to all device in order to Install it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Of course. I am just saying that there is a sense among some people that they are entitled to root access simply because G1 is built on Linux. You are not entitled to anything of the sort. If root is important to you then sell your G1 to someone who doesn't care about root (there are a lot of these people) and buy a Freerunner.
Every OpenMoko phone I have seen looks like they are competing for ugliest phone ever. I know the G1 isn't that pretty, but oh my god, I would be embarassed to carry that in my pocket.
I already own more then 6 Smartphone. And i don't use G1 also becuase of Microsoft Exchange things. I dont have any Complaint for Exchange Connectivity.
Here the Question is how can i develop some more powerful Application / extension / core Part and Distribute it across all G1 users the way we do it in Windows.
This means my core Application can run in free Runner (OpenMoko) but it will not be available in G1 user group. There will be handfull user who may use free Runner but its not my Market. I require bigger community to sell the Software buddy.
Here the Question is how can i develop some more powerful Application / extension / core Part and Distribute it across all G1 users the way we do it in Windows.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you need to get below the VM on stock ota G1 then most likely your product will need to become a part of the Android platform (meaning open sourcing). The integrity of the os and user data is one of the main reasons the Android sdk only supports the VM.
I'll be interested to see how Adobe's flash implementation for G1 works. Flash is closed source, and Google has explicitly stated that the entire Android platform is open source. My guess is they will patch the Browser to accept signed binary plugins. Perhaps Google's signature will require a peek at the source. I'm only speculating though...
Yeah using SDK we can only Develop Application which run itself in the Sandbox cna they can communication with other Application using intents, you can share Data using content Provider, share the Setting using Preference. We can develop some services in apps to handle Asynchronous process.
We we ca not do is recompile the Whole Modded Source, replace or test drivers, codec, low level binaries.
The SDK is fairly powerful out off the Box for Standalone things. !
Thats why i have made a different demand to google in this thread
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=444893
The only thing tmobile is worried is tethering, as they give unlock code after every 90% day Subsidized Handset unlocking is not a big worry for them.
Just think If you want to develop On Screen keyboard it require more powerful access to core system and its beyond Google Sandbox approach.
jashsu said:
It's like you've never even heard of embedded linux before. Show me where on the G1 advertising or packaging it claims to be a Linux PC..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Show me where did I say Android = a linux pc. Same, I didn't say Windows Mobile = Windows XP/Vista.
I hate to play the word game.
jashsu said:
WM gives the developer deeper system access. That's awesome for developers maybe, but calling it a "smart" is probably going a bit too far..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's why I thought very high with Android. But the limited development access makes it worse than WM.
jashsu said:
Android's security framework design is solely Google's responsibility. Tmo doesn't even remotely factor into it. If you don't like the default Android system lockdown then download the codebase and compile it yourself without the security settings. Security is there to prevent neophytes from opening shell and f__king their phones up.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Could you please show us how to get the root from the f__king rc30?
Do you rebuild the whole linux on your pc if you just want to make a simple application?
Related
I have Purchased the G1 Thinking the overall architecture of Open Source Application, Android API, Equality of Application bla bla.
But after see the Handset i think it only Open for Source Code
neither we can create own on Modified Images nor we can change the Device at Root level. Its same f*cking thing like Apple iPhone Jailed and no Root Access.
We got some Android SDK but whats the use we can Create same Application for iPhone and Windows Mobile also. Infact in WinMob we have thousand of Software running nicely.
I am very Disappointed the way G1 is Locked with the Open Source OS.
i think in the name of Openess G1 device have locked everybuddy to f**k around with T-Mobile and Google only Service. Android Market have very Little apps which can Surprise me after all that hype of Software Availability. Infact 1st Generation iPhone had more Application which Developers have Developed without help of any SDK from Apple. G1 really sucks.
Well, i regret that fact too, but in fairness they never said the device would be open. What they said was "You can make your own device and use Android on it".
It's sad that T-Mo didn't get the "open" part but in all case my hopes are with chinese device manufacturer who don't care for 5 minutes what you do with their hardware as long as you buy it. Or maybe OpenMoko but their design is really ugly
Okay, being able to type commands on the keyboard and have them executed as root from anywhere on the device IS NOT SAFE.
What happens when someone tells you to type rm -rf / and hit enter? Brick? YES from anywhere on the device. Even from the lock screen.
They are not locking down the phone again, they are fixing a MAJOR bug. The phone is not "Jailed."
its said when god closes doors he opens new ones
Since the door is closed, how to put your own native lib to the system? Is there any way to use native lib?
sadly i find both Android and iPhone OS as restrictive.
because nope of Future Manufacturer is gonna allow us the Flash the Customised Android to Phone unless we know the Private Key of that Manufacturer. There is nore of Legal way to do much powerfull Developements in Kernal , drivers or boot loader of Android etc. What we got is that Ugly ADB thing which itself is so much Restrictive. I feel like am developing the software again as what we have done in Java on Mobile for Sony Ericson etc.
Google could have offered us a Safe but Power full access to hardware for Customized OS. and they could also have safeguarded device from Possibly bricking by bad flashing.
I think Phone OS should more like Installing Linux / Windows into Computer rather then Boot loader and so on.
hetaldp said:
I have Purchased the G1 Thinking the overall architecture of Open Source Application, Android API, Equality of Application bla bla.
But after see the Handset i think it only Open for Source Code
neither we can create own on Modified Images nor we can change the Device at Root level. Its same f*cking thing like Apple iPhone Jailed and no Root Access.
We got some Android SDK but whats the use we can Create same Application for iPhone and Windows Mobile also. Infact in WinMob we have thousand of Software running nicely.
I am very Disappointed the way G1 is Locked with the Open Source OS.
i think in the name of Openess G1 device have locked everybuddy to f**k around with T-Mobile and Google only Service. Android Market have very Little apps which can Surprise me after all that hype of Software Availability. Infact 1st Generation iPhone had more Application which Developers have Developed without help of any SDK from Apple. G1 really sucks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, I also miss a lot of stuff in G1 at least. System is so powerful, but closed, only thing in G1 is you can change batter if necessary and put bigger size transflash. I miss SIP, for every text entry I have to type using keyboard everytime. The other major issue, which Kaiser (Tilt) addressed very well, is removing battery cover to change SIM card. I have good number of Windows Mobile phones and iPhone before G1. I take different phone, whatever matches my belt or whatever I feel like, and changing SIM card is pain except for Kaiser and iPhone. G1 taking out the battery cover is so bad, it is like having older Dell desktop lying under the table and plugging a usb device. For older dell lattitudes, you have to knee down and push your usb cable angularly, otherwise it would either screw the usb port or you could push it for good time. The same goes to G1, you have open the keyboard, push the latch little and push your battery cover slowly to righside. Not a good idea, if you change phones daily like me.
Like the other one said, if you have root privileges, you could brick your device, if you don't have one, you don't know what you are doing. TMob and HTC screwed Google big time on this. I don't know how much control Google has on device makers and carriers. I see same pattern that Microsoft is struggling with WinMo devices here. At least in the case of Microsoft, we can easily play around devices without bricking like writing apps is easy, finding apps is easy and hacking device without bricking easy, at least if somebody doesn't have time to hack, they could easily look at our forum (XDA) and be creative.
my 2 cents.
--Ram--
I hate to say it but 99.9% of the customers T-Mobile is marketing don't care about having root access or installing operating systems on their phone or having easy access to their SIM card. I'm a programmer and I don't even care about that kind of stuff for my phone. The difference between this and something like the iphone is that you can write an app to replace pretty much anything you see on any screen on the phone and post it in the marketplace. Even with things like an on-screen keyboard there's no reason why it can't be done, there's just nobody who's made one yet. Hell, we already see apps that won't ever exist for non-hacked iphones(the 3 or 4 video players out there, tunewiki and other audio players, AndNav and things like the app that turns on your screen when you get an SMS message). If you really care about that stuff, return your G1 and get a OpenMoko or something similar.
I'm interested to see what the future holds for factory unlocked Android devices. Maybe T-Mobile decided the G1 cant be offered unless they have control over the firmware. When the handset manufacturer isn't tied down to these restrictions, it is possible that will grant root access by default.
As far as the possibility of bricking the phone, that is a stupid argument IMO. First of all, its my phone which I paid for which should give me the right to do what I want with it. Second of all, it should be brick proof to begin with. If I completely corrupt the filesystem, I should be able to go into the bootloader and and flash a new image to the device.
Today Adobe has announced their next generation of Flash player 10.1 will be available across the wide range of mobile phones out there, including WM. Indeed a public beta will be available for WM phones later this year. Another reason to love our WM phone.
Check out the announcement at: www.adobe.com
Note that this this the full Flash 10, not Flash Lite. And the player is the browser plug-in.
This, I presume, is the announcement you're referring to...?
http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200910/100509AFPforMobileDevicesandPCs.html
There's an interesting omission, there. Check out the first paragraph:
A public developer beta of the browser-based runtime is expected to be available for Windows® Mobile, Palm® webOS and desktop operating systems including Windows, Macintosh and Linux later this year. Public betas for Google® Android™ and Symbian® OS are expected to be available in early 2010. In addition, Adobe and RIM announced a joint collaboration to bring Flash Player to Blackberry® smartphones, and Google joined close to 50 other industry players in the Open Screen Project initiative.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Windows Mobile, Symbian, Android, Blackberry, Palm WebOS, desktop operating systems... but no mention of the iPhone! I wonder if that's an accidental omission or if they genuinely won't be porting it to the iPhone for a while? If the latter, then that might help some other phone platforms to survive in the face of the iPhone juggernaut, which is no bad thing.
The iPhone is rather conspicuous by its absence, but that's no doubt down to Apple rather than Adobe.
The fact that flash let's you load dynamic executable content from those darn interwebs means that Flash 10.1 is pretty darn unlikely to ever appear on the iPhone. Of course with 95%* of Flash content being ads, it's unclear if this is a plus or a minus for Apple.
*according to an in-depth survey of myself.
Apples terms don't scripted languages on the iPhone. Unless Apple change the policy flash will NEVER be on the iPhone.
I've used this many times to annoy my iPhone fanboy mate
Monty Burns said:
Apples terms don't scripted languages on the iPhone. Unless Apple change the policy flash will NEVER be on the iPhone.
I've used this many times to annoy my iPhone fanboy mate
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Adobe's Flash anyway. Apple has it's own engine I think. (but it of course is limited in what it can do)
Anyway, hurray for WM!
Reason why iPhone is not listed is because Steve Jobs would not allow Flash on iPhone. Apple is pushing its own Quicktime as a standard and would do anything to stop Flash being the standard.
Besides, supporting Flash would mean anyone can download and run a Flash apps without the need to go through the Apple App Store. Thereby bypassing Apple's total control of their platform.
So the above means that we won't see Flash on iPhone in the foreseeable future. At least not in its current form.
Now there are some developers who are writing a compiler that would compile a Flash app into native Apple app. But that is another story.
Monty Burns said:
Apples terms don't scripted languages on the iPhone. Unless Apple change the policy flash will NEVER be on the iPhone.
I've used this many times to annoy my iPhone fanboy mate
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, the Flash app is a compiled app (compiled into binary code).
Lord_BlackAdder said:
No, the Flash app is a compiled app (compiled into binary code).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wire disagree with you and so do Apple.
REASON 1:
. "No interpreted code may be downloaded and used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple’s Published APIs and built-in interpreter(s)."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Taken from: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/11/adobe-flash-on/
REASON 2:
That means Flash would open a new door for application developers to get their software onto the iPhone: Just code them in Flash
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Now....
Blackadder, its notthing to do with Quicktime. Its a technical issue and the way Flash allows extra code to be run outside of Apples control and the way it executes it (See reason 1 & 2 above and the next paragraph to clarify).
Besides, supporting Flash would mean anyone can download and run a Flash apps without the need to go through the Apple App Store. Thereby bypassing Apple's total control of their platform.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is the second of two reasons and with this you are correct!
That all said, looks like we might ALL be wrong (in a sense)!
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/confirmed_apple_and_adobe_coll.php
It looks like Adobe have written a Compiler for Flash code allowing developers to compile there Flash code thus allowing them to be submitted to the App store for approval.
At its worldwide developer conference in Los Angeles, Adobe said it would be releasing Flash for mobile platforms including Microsoft Windows Mobile, Palm’s webOS and Google Android. But don’t expect Flash to come to the iPhone’s Safari mobile browser. Instead, Adobe is adding support to its Flash Professional CS5 developer kit to convert software written in Flash into standalone iPhone applications.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Reference: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/10/iphone-flash/
i.e change them from interpreted to compiled. Just like a normal EXE for example instead of a BAT file.
Sorry Monty Burn. The fact that Apple does not accept Flash is not because Flash App is an interpreted code. Flash App is compiled as binary code.
That fact that Flash CS5 can publish as native Apple code simply means that Flash CS5 can be used as a development tool to create Apple apps. And it has nothing to do with the Flash runtime though.
Ifits compiled, why do flash sites NOT work without a flash client being installed?
Maybe its only partialy compiled?
Either way, if you take the time to read the links I grabbed or even did some of your own googling you would quickly find that these TWO reasons are commonly and REPEATEDLY cited as to why Flash is currently not allowed.
Compiled? You better explain that to Apple as they keep using the Interpreted clause along with "no control".
Hi,
I'm kinda new to android, I've rooted my phone and I'm ready to flash a custom rom (SlimKat to be specific). I feel the stock rom can be "trusted", but can a custom rom be trusted to be secure and have privacy? I'm concerned that a custom rom dev may have added anything to the rom to be a security or privacy issue (where they can listen in on texts or phone calls, steal contacts or even steal passwords).
What are your thoughts?
p.s because I have limited knowledge of android I can't look through the code to inspect it.
You can consider the "safest" Roms to be built on AOSP, and have their own open source code repository where you can build from. Something like cynaogenmod comes to mind.
Source code is not available for all parts of most stock Roms for non-nexus phones (Sense, touchwiz, etc). But many stock-based Roms such as what I use (insert-coin), have completely open codebase with the base ROM files copied in (and certain files modified / deleted--these changes visible in the source tree). So using a ROM with a large development community probably isn't much more risky than using stock (especially since many stock phone manufacturer include spyware on the phone)
The big problem is closed source firmwares. This is unavoidable when you consider the radio--even on nexus phones. As far as I know, the radio firmwares are completely opaque on every since phone available, which ****ing sucks.
You can take steps to make sure the phone isn't doing weird ****, like configuring a VPN to send all phone data thru a firewall appliance which does packet inspection. A device like Sonicwall would do nicely. This will also warn you if any apps are misbehaving (unexpected p2p, TOR, i2p, DHT, or anything weird)
At this time I believe phones are inherently insecure, but the best you could do is a nexus device with stock Google OS.
If you want a completely secure computer, check out libreboot (open bios), only a few models compatible. And a good OS like hardened Gentoo or openBSD.
Source code source code source code ...
Anytime I'm hearing this I must be laughing. The code is useless if most of people are not able to read and understand it and also not if nobody really makes a proper audit (which means that it usually takes some hours/days and a lot of knowledge). OpenSSL was also vulnerability for years and it is open source.. So stop telling the people any myth about that open source is a benefit. It could but mostly nobody cares much since nobody want's always spent hours/days for every new release to re-audit everything.
I guess every guy that care much about secure something must read, read and read. There is no common setup or tool or guide, stay up-2-date, try to update things asap and inform yourself about known attacks. It's aslo a known myth that changing any rom more secure anything. There are rare roms/OS which are build to be "more secure" but in fact such mentioned attacks like Openssl affects a lot of OS and apps even if they are build with more security inside.
If you want a completely secure computer, check out libreboot (open bios), only a few models compatible. And a good OS like hardened Gentoo or openBSD.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nothing is "completely secure" as long the user without knowledge controls it or if there are attacks which can't be controlled easily ...e.g. if you are already infected since the first day/boot with malware which the av or you can't access/scan that easy (for example usb firmware malware or hdd boot partition malware which are locked because no tool can't access it under a booted up os).
[email protected]
I just wonder if there is one.
When there is nothing is it possible to get the "oculus os/android" working on Qemu with kvm or something like that? Normal Android already runs on Qemu so is there a possibility?
Unfortunately not, as Oculus has not released the source code for the OS. We'd need that to compile it for Qemu's "Goldfish" target (ARM64 cannot run on x86_64, and vice versa, without tricks). Since we don't have any of that, not even a device tree, it cannot be done.
Android-x86 is a compiled version of the Android Open Source Project (AOSP) for x86/x86_64, so that version of Android is binary compatible with your PC and QEMU, normal ARM/ARM64 copies of android are not. We also cannot simply take the OS from the device and plant it into QEMU as, once again, they wouldn't be binary compatible and the OS on the Quest 2 wouldn't have the drivers needed to run on QEMU as it would only have the proprietary blobs needed to start the HMD.
Hmm, I was hoping for some kind of quest 2 Android SDK myself, so I could try out a few features myself, but it's not THAT important. Was kinda hoping I could test the OS and built-in apps a bit before buying it. Yes, I have a standing offer to borrow a friend's quest 2 for a few weeks, but it's honestly more work than it's worth, to do that, because he lives something like an hour away. If he was right next door then sure, but he's not. He also lives in a group home on a caddy waiver, so there's all these rules he has to follow which makes having friends over a pain, as I can only be outside or the garage, and not in their house.
There's so many things that I really would like to look at before purchasing one, just in the OS and settings, like how adding your own figures to the home environment for instance, and all the multi screen things that oculus seems to be adding. Not to mention that I'd also love to try out sideloading apps, which really almost requires prior knowledge as it's a bit different than normal sideloading I'm given to understand. All of this stuff is something I would love to try without having to potentially brick a working quest 2. And yes I know that nothing on a quest 2 should brick from any of that, but still, it's not a known entity to me, therefore the caution, to my mind at least, is worth it, considering if something happened I'd have a 400$ paperweight
I am a retired programmer with too much time on my hands; as such, I wrote a complaint to a regulatory body about how I can't install the operating system I want on my device because it will render it unusable (if I can't call for help on a phone because of drivers, what good is it?). I received a response requesting an interview with an officer who specializes in anticompetition cases and I would like to make sure I have my eggs all in one basket.
The current mobile phone market I liken to the desktop OS market of the 90s, where you had companies like Xerox, Microsoft, IBM, and so on; in the 90s, there were antitrust lawsuits where a particular company was accused of intentionally creating barriers to customers seeking to install software by other companies on personal computers. Obviously, that was settled in the 2000s, but IMO it did appear to make a positive change even if we are still fighting against IE. This may not be relevant, but that's what my mind went to when I realized I couldn't uninstall the Play Store.
Nobody uses "cellular telephones" as telephones anymore; instead, they are mobile computers. Computers in the 80s/90s had plenty of OS options (you may recall using OS/2 or BSD), but you can't do that with mobile computers... is that a good thing?
In my retirement, I'd like to develop and build a mobile phone operating system that is not android (nor lineageOS); this would either be Linux or BSD-based with a simple package manager, but the user would have the option to compile their own software also. This would ideally *not* hinder the underlying function of the device (i.e. telephony), but I don't see how manufacturers could be compelled to provide binary drivers. The current mobile market makes it obviously a very high barrier to entry for any who want to develop new operating systems for mobile computers. Is this anticompetitive? Perhaps not, but I'd like to hear some opinions and if you would kindly point me towards some resources I would appreciate it.
IMO the OS is not the problem - a command line based OS can be written by any talented student nowadays - preferably in C++, yes there are enough templates on the Internet, it is the device drivers what have to fit the hardware that make the whole thing difficult. I know that some OEMs put their device drivers' source code to the public.
jwoegerbauer said:
IMO the OS is not the problem - a command line based OS can be written by any talented student nowadays - preferably in C++, yes there are enough templates on the Internet, it is the device drivers what have to fit the hardware that make the whole thing difficult. I know that some OEMs put their device drivers' source code to the public.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To install a new OS on a phone, the phone must first be booted into a bootloader such that the 'image' of the OS can be loaded. The image for the OS should be built with the drivers present such that when booting, the OS kernel can load the relevant drivers as it probes the hardware in the phone, and then the software installed on the user layer can access that hardware through the relevant system calls. How possible is it for the bootloader to load a custom OS in the general sense? The majority of instructions I find are on enthusiast/developer websites with the actual manufacturers giving basically no input (that is to say, I haven't seen on manufacturer's websites or instruction manuals where they give instructions for booting your choice of OS).
Would it be fair to say that mobile developers, like Google/Samsung/LG/Amazon/etc are restricting users from being able to install their own OS on their device? Is driver access a reasonable thing to ask for?
Again, I'm retired, so I have time on my hands, but I'm old and there's realistically not a lot of that time left. I don't want to try developing my own BSD-based mobile OS if there's no way for me to install it on my own devices; that effort could go into another project if it is otherwise wasted. I suppose it is worth asking whether I should bother returning the bureau's request for an interview.