Related
Is anti virus a waste or is it worth having it run on your phone?
waste......
MrGibbage said:
waste......
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why is that?
its a waste, when was the lest time u heard of someone getting a phone virus? lol, plus what are you downloading and running on your phone that might even pose a threat
I vote waste too, for current AV solutions. Like another poster said -- There really aren't any threats at the moment. It's real likely there will be at some point, but I see no reason to believe the current AV providers have any clue what these future hypothetical virii will look like. I'll trust an AV once it is written by a security researcher who has studied live Android virii. Until then they're just wasting resources.
I don't run AV software on my home computers or my phones. I am careful with the email that I open, and when I DL software, I try to be aware of where it is coming from. I am never the guy that that downloads something the day it comes out. If it is nefarious, I'll hear about it. Maybe I'm lucky, but I just don't see the need.
SMS Trojan for Android - http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1727325/android-virus-spotted
They do exist just not on a Windows level lol. I'm sure they will jump in numbers as the popularity of the platform continues to explode. Currently, Lookout is one of the top rated AV apps, and its free.
BTW when you install the "SMS Trojan" it asks for permission to send text messages that may cost money.
TOTAL Waste.
Just read the permissions requests when installing apps.
Or go read up on how Android's app sandboxing works. Either way, nothing can harm your phone unless you explicitly allow it to. And if you allow a photo app to read all of your data, and send text messages and connect to the internet, you deserve what you get.
reuthermonkey said:
TOTAL Waste.
Just read the permissions requests when installing apps.
Or go read up on how Android's app sandboxing works. Either way, nothing can harm your phone unless you explicitly allow it to. And if you allow a photo app to read all of your data, and send text messages and connect to the internet, you deserve what you get.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Aint that the truth. Idiots need to pay attention to the Android Permissions screen and ask themselves "Why does this flashlight app need to read my contacts, google account and access my dialer, data connection and send SMS??"
Like others have mentioned, threat levels right now are so low that it doesn't warrant the use of money or system resources.
Some apps in the market that are labeled as such are just spam btw.
And also, we are far from a mass infection ala PCs. Just be very careful with what you download. Pay close attention to the permissions and use your very good judgement. If a music player asks permission to read/send/receive text messages and make phone calls, it's probably some type of malware.
jblade1000 said:
SMS Trojan for Android - http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1727325/android-virus-spotted
They do exist just not on a Windows level lol. I'm sure they will jump in numbers as the popularity of the platform continues to explode. Currently, Lookout is one of the top rated AV apps, and its free.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
WASTE ,..,.., hands down......
A virus that has to be manually installed by the user or creator on the host device ????? , and this is after all the warnings to the user before you press ok .,.,.,.,., never mind all the warnings telling you NOT TO DOWNLOAD outside of the market,unless you know what you are doing , download AT YOUR OWN RISK..... Not to mention the anti virus companies CREATING the need for you to install their app ... ever read some of the comments in the market about these "AV" apps ? > 'this app works great, protects my phone'<<<<<? protects it ? from what ???? WTF..
So yes I think it's a waste.....
People make viruses for a living so pretty soon someone will come out with a major one cause it being a phone means nothing its based off of linux and I know linux doesn't have any killer viruses but they do have some just not on a windows level. So ask it takes is one overseas a hole to create one just so he can get famous and then we will need an
Worth installing virus app.
O yea most people only read the permission when installing apps when they are new to android most people don't look at them.especially for apps they regularly use like handcent. Who know what they do with our info?
Sent from my Samsung Vibrant
hmmm lets see, would an app be able to slide in a permission without a warning? as in read contacts after installed but it never showed on the permission screen.
creglenn said:
People make viruses for a living so pretty soon someone will come out with a major one cause it being a phone means nothing its based off of linux and I know linux doesn't have any killer viruses but they do have some just not on a windows level. So ask it takes is one overseas a hole to create one just so he can get famous and then we will need an
Worth installing virus app.
O yea most people only read the permission when installing apps when they are new to android most people don't look at them.especially for apps they regularly use like handcent. Who know what they do with our info?
Sent from my Samsung Vibrant
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
None of that supports a need for an Anti-Virus. Android sandboxes each and every application on the system. It's not like any other Linux distro in how it handles security. It's MORE secure than linux. You can hack individual apps (and thus use their permissions - ie the browser), but that's quickly patched.
The biggest security threat to Android is the same as the biggest security threat for EVERY OS: Lazy users.
reuthermonkey said:
None of that supports a need for an Anti-Virus. Android sandboxes each and every application on the system. It's not like any other Linux distro in how it handles security. It's MORE secure than linux. You can hack individual apps (and thus use their permissions - ie the browser), but that's quickly patched.
The biggest security threat to Android is the same as the biggest security threat for EVERY OS: Lazy users.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats so true but im speaking on the basic users who dont need a dumbphone instead of a smartphone cause when/if a virus does come out those are the people who ill be flooding the forums. While we sit back and laugh.
everyone is talking **** about anti-virus for taking up resources, but i've found Lookout to be very unobtrusive. Also, besides virus scan, it will locate your phone, send a siren to your device, backup your info, all at schedules you determine.
jamesey10 said:
everyone is talking **** about anti-virus for taking up resources, but i've found Lookout to be very unobtrusive. Also, besides virus scan, it will locate your phone, send a siren to your device, backup your info, all at schedules you determine.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sure, those are a few reasons to keep Lookout installed. But I don't need it scanning all my files for threats that don't exist yet and it probably wouldn't recognize anyway. Fortunately, the AV component is optional.
I have just bought one for my dad, who needs my help quite frequently for basic functions. Is there an app out there, that I can use to see and control his screen. The only simple one I have come across is webkey, but that will only work for rooted tabs. Being remote, it is going to be a real challenge to root this, so just curious if anyone can point me to a good app for remotely managing the app. Thanks a lot.
try droid vnc server beta
seeky said:
try droid vnc server beta
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This one also says 'It needs a rooted device'
remote access to unrooted Android devices
Unless the stock rom has remote access backed in then you will not be able to do this without a rooted device. We use Bomgar where we work and before Android and iOS we used to remote to windows phones all the time. Now the system file on these are more locked down on stock. If you search bomgar and ios you will see that Bomgar has a patition out there for users to sign. Right now only providers can use there software to rmote to devices. Maybe this will chamge in the future but it depends onthe rom and who is selling the device.
Being a techincal security guru, I like the more locked down phones, but it does come at a cost. As these roms and devices mature more, I'm sure a dev will figure out a way to do this without compromising the security of the device.
tave a look at this:
Removed ,hope he grabed it.
I think you might want to remove that link sharpish.
awww now my curiosity has the best of me lol
I posted this in another forum but I want to know what you guys here think about android security.
How worried are you all about security on the android platform? Don't you find it a little unnerving that anybody could upload and app to the android market and there is no verification of the app like on IOS platform. Anybody could write an app that looks legit but does devious things. All this along with there are very very few security applications and they are in the infant state. Don't you find it very dangerous? How do you try to maintain security on your android device? Don't download apps? Only download from known publishers? Or do you roll the dice and download anything? If you use a security app which one?
the_main_app said:
I posted this in another forum but I want to know what you guys here think about android security.
How worried are you all about security on the android platform? Don't you find it a little unnerving that anybody could upload and app to the android market and there is no verification of the app like on IOS platform. Anybody could write an app that looks legit but does devious things. All this along with there are very very few security applications and they are in the infant state. Don't you find it very dangerous? How do you try to maintain security on your android device? Don't download apps? Only download from known publishers? Or do you roll the dice and download anything? If you use a security app which one?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are viruses for Android.....right ?
Besides , if you're smart enough you can check whether an app needs such permissions when installing , through the Mart or an .apk .
I don't like the way iOS works , they give too limited functionality .
Forever living in my Galaxy Ace using XDA App
the_main_app said:
I posted this in another forum but I want to know what you guys here think about android security.
How worried are you all about security on the android platform? Don't you find it a little unnerving that anybody could upload and app to the android market and there is no verification of the app like on IOS platform. Anybody could write an app that looks legit but does devious things. All this along with there are very very few security applications and they are in the infant state. Don't you find it very dangerous? How do you try to maintain security on your android device? Don't download apps? Only download from known publishers? Or do you roll the dice and download anything? If you use a security app which one?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i dont use a security app, i use common sense.
a game doesn't need access to my contacts...
notepad app doesn't need access to my private information...
this is why android phones are for the power users and shouldn't be used by soccer moms and grandmas - because they have no clue what they are doing with these phones except for when a phone call or text message comes in... let them have the iphones.
but if you are tech savvy, and want to squeeze every bit of user capability out of your phone, a high end android phone is for you.
the people that are tech savvy also have the awareness because they treat their phone like a computer, and not a phone.
just my thoughts.
I think the best thing would be if android embraced that the user can choose which permissions to give to apps. I mean, an app may want to know your location, you denies it, and the app continnues happily without using that functionality, or quits saying its essantial.
cobraboy85 said:
i dont use a security app, i use common sense.
a game doesn't need access to my contacts...
notepad app doesn't need access to my private information...
this is why android phones are for the power users and shouldn't be used by soccer moms and grandmas - because they have no clue what they are doing with these phones except for when a phone call or text message comes in... let them have the iphones.
but if you are tech savvy, and want to squeeze every bit of user capability out of your phone, a high end android phone is for you.
the people that are tech savvy also have the awareness because they treat their phone like a computer, and not a phone.
just my thoughts.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
very well put, unfortunately most dont think like this..
It is always a good habit to check the permissions an app needs before installation.I personally think that a system should be implemented in android market where all apps are erquested to give informaation on "Why they need certain permissions?".Certain apps do that.
An antivirus program is also useful in my opinion.I use Lookout antivirus,as i find it simple to use and does not slow down my phone.I tried avg but it slowed down my phone terribly.
hiitti said:
I think the best thing would be if android embraced that the user can choose which permissions to give to apps. I mean, an app may want to know your location, you denies it, and the app continnues happily without using that functionality, or quits saying its essantial.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But, as a matter of degree, this just what we wish. The fact may be far beyond our imagination. Sometimes, malware still run certain functionalities even you cancel it. It's worse that some apps run secretly in system. I'm a little scared about security issue based on my PC.
cobraboy85 said:
i dont use a security app, i use common sense.
a game doesn't need access to my contacts...
notepad app doesn't need access to my private information...
this is why android phones are for the power users and shouldn't be used by soccer moms and grandmas - because they have no clue what they are doing with these phones except for when a phone call or text message comes in... let them have the iphones.
but if you are tech savvy, and want to squeeze every bit of user capability out of your phone, a high end android phone is for you.
the people that are tech savvy also have the awareness because they treat their phone like a computer, and not a phone.
just my thoughts.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But a game might ask for internet/network permissions which you would probably accept. How do you guard against this? How can you prevent a malicious app that asks for relavent permissions but abuses them?
I never take the time to study the permissions required when I download an app from the market.
I tend to avoid the low number of d'load apps..... partly as there is less feedback to judge.... and partly as any app thats worth the download will have high stars and many d'loads.
Works for me so far.
Netquins running in the background just in case...... but whose to say they dont upload my contacts for spamming?
Prof Peach said:
I never take the time to study the permissions required when I download an app from the market.
I tend to avoid the low number of d'load apps..... partly as there is less feedback to judge.... and partly as any app thats worth the download will have high stars and many d'loads.
Works for me so far.
Netquins running in the background just in case...... but whose to say they dont upload my contacts for spamming?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But what about new apps that may be legit? They won't have any reviews yet or stars. If everybody did the same as you it would never get reviews or stars? There's got to be a better way, don't you agree?
the_main_app said:
But a game might ask for internet/network permissions which you would probably accept. How do you guard against this? How can you prevent a malicious app that asks for relavent permissions but abuses them?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's the only question above that can't be answered by LBE Privacy Guard.
Someone mentioned a game that wants access to your contacts. What if you really want the game? You just don't allow it access to your contacts and then play it anyway.
Most apps ask for access to your IMEI (you'd be surprised how many!) With LBE they don't get it.
Antivirus software is all well and good, but it's not the same as on a PC where pattern matching can be used. AV software on Android basically opens the apk file and has a look round to see if anything looks suspicious. Other than that, there's nothing it can do to stop a clever developer bypassing it.
Seriously, if you have concerns then get LBE and start restricting permissions access on an app-by-app basis.
johncmolyneux said:
That's the only question above that can't be answered by LBE Privacy Guard.
Someone mentioned a game that wants access to your contacts. What if you really want the game? You just don't allow it access to your contacts and then play it anyway.
Most apps ask for access to your IMEI (you'd be surprised how many!) With LBE they don't get it.
Antivirus software is all well and good, but it's not the same as on a PC where pattern matching can be used. AV software on Android basically opens the apk file and has a look round to see if anything looks suspicious. Other than that, there's nothing it can do to stop a clever developer bypassing it.
Seriously, if you have concerns then get LBE and start restricting permissions access on an app-by-app basis.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
this.
i was JUST about to say the same thing about the android "anti-virus" scam... not really a scam, but a false sense of security. as you said, not the same at ALL. people need to get out of the PC mindset with these phones. this is not windows, it's linux.
and i'm going to give LBE a shot. seems pretty legit.
for all of those running antivirus "software" on your phone, how many of you have actually run a virus scan and had it give a detailed description of a malicious "virus"....
Liking lookout
Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA App
ummm, anyone ever heard of antiviruses (Kapersky, maybe?)? Or at least look up the app's access to things... If it accesses something you don't want it to access (or think the app doesn't need to access it), don't install it!
I know out-of-the-box Androids aren't so vunerable to viruses, compared to rooted ones... So...?
First look up the developer of the app, then if you trust him, install, if you never heard of him, google it (or look at the comments at where you're downloading from), and if you had experience with the developer before (and if the experience is bad, like trojans, etc.), don't install!
(I don't understand half of what I'm typing XD...Don't blame me for misspellings, please )
Cant say I can rave or not when it comes to the anti virus apps.
Have used Lookout in the past and currently using netquin.... neither of which ever flagged up a virus, malware or whatever.
Its nice to think its running in the background but dont know whether it will do anything if its needed.
I was tempted to download a load of apps in a zip file but 20 secs in my Avast siad there was a virus. I'd like to think the market would have its own precautions but having searched the site, cant see any mention of its security for the apps we download.
Its a different thing altogether but we cant take the fact that its the market and relax...... the worst virus my laptop ever had came in an update from Microsoft...... and another directly from google tools.
Kapersky for Android then? You can pick up free full non-trial versions on the web...
About the Market - yes, that's true. You'd expect them to check if apps are infected or at least leave a bot to do it...
Sorta lame...
The best security is the brain.akp just like brain.exe is on windows - best thing it's free, godgiven and everyone got a copy
Zeze21 said:
The best security is the brain.akp just like brain.exe is on windows - best thing it's free, godgiven and everyone got a copy
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah but not everyone got the full version. A few of my friends got a corrupted exe and then this girl I know got the 30 day trial
not that good
Prawesome said:
It is always a good habit to check the permissions an app needs before installation.I personally think that a system should be implemented in android market where all apps are erquested to give informaation on "Why they need certain permissions?".Certain apps do that.
An antivirus program is also useful in my opinion.I use Lookout antivirus,as i find it simple to use and does not slow down my phone.I tried avg but it slowed down my phone terribly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have both Lookout and AVG, neither has stopped my phone from getting up to 10 junk downloads, you have won an ipad, iphone etc., a day, not sms or email, I have to have every form of external contact turned off, the moment I get wifi or mobile access it starts downloading spam.
If anyone knows of a way to stop it I would appreciate the feedback
Moved to proper section
This is my first post to XDA.
I have been asking this question about various OS's in various forums, for past 18 months, and each time I ask it, the person who answers it spends a few iterations with me bending-over-backwards trying to avoid telling me what I want to know. I hope that this does not happen here.
I have a native C++ application. It currently runs on Linux desktop. It does many things that native C++ applications do, including sending raw Ethernet frames (mesh networking).
Obviously, if one of my customers tries to install this application on his/her Android device, there will be problems, and it won't work.
I am aware that a human being has the ability to root his/her phone.
I am aware that a human being has the ability to root his/her phone.
I am aware that a human being has the ability to root his/her phone.
Please do not send me a reply saying, "But your customer has the ability to root his/her phone!" :cyclops:
What I would like, is a smartphone, that is running Linux, that allows my customer to install a 100% Native C++ application, >>>WITHOUT<<< having to go through the process of rooting his/her phone. Ideally, the barrier-to-installation would be roughly equivalent to what s/he would experience on a desktop computer.
I am not concerned about the presence of X or any particular GUI subsystem, but I will definitely need access to all the normal system-level Linux primitives (multi-threading, asynchronous I/O, etc.)
Please do not send me a reply saying, You can ssh into the phone and install the app that way."
I would like to know if Ubuntu on smartphone allows a relatively naive user to install a 100% native C++ application that interfaces with the system-level primitives of Linux.
And finally, please note that I am not interested in finding a work-around to an engineering problem that I am having. I am trying to determine the maximum permissible degree of nativity of Ubuntu Touch applications when the application is to be installed by a naive user.
If Ubuntu touch does allow such native applications to be installed, I would be interested in getting an idea of the steps that a customer would take.
UT apps can be uploaded as a click app to the UbuntuOne store and then can be installed as easy as any Android app. You should be able to "sideload" click apps, but I never tried.
UT apps - that are not a web app - are written in native C++ using QT5/QML for UI.
UT apps are restricted by apparmour profiles, but that should not keep them from using multithreading or asynchronous I/O. You would have to test, if your specific requirements work.
There is only one way to answer all your questions: give it a try!
Sent from my TF300T using Tapatalk
f69m said:
UT apps can be uploaded as a click app to the UbuntuOne store and then can be installed as easy as any Android app. You should be able to "sideload" click apps, but I never tried.
UT apps - that are not a web app - are written in native C++ using QT5/QML for UI.
UT apps are restricted by apparmour profiles, but that should not keep them from using multithreading or asynchronous I/O. You would have to test, if your specific requirements work.
There is only one way to answer all your questions: give it a try!
Sent from my TF300T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
:good:
Yes, you would need to change the packaging system from debian archives to click packages but that shouldn't be too difficult. If you run into problems with the Ubuntu SDK in connection with C++, have a look at this bug report and the mentioned fixes: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qtcreator/+bug/1215913
f69m said:
UT apps can be uploaded as a click app to the UbuntuOne store and then can be installed as easy as any Android app. You should be able to "sideload" click apps, but I never tried.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Any idea at all what the user would see when trying to sideload a click app. [I am trying to set my expectations before diving in.] Would the user download package to a directory, then click on it, or?
UT apps are restricted by apparmour profiles, but that should not keep them from using multithreading or asynchronous I/O. You would have to test, if your specific requirements work.
There is only one way to answer all your questions: give it a try!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OK, apparmour seems to be the focal point. I would be really interested (if any knows), how restrictive apparmour will be with a newly-purchased UT phone, and what control a naive user of that phone will have in allowing native C++ applications to run. I would check this myself, but I cannot do any significant coding (porting) until mid-March.
In particular, my app works with WiFi, and will need to interact with stock WiFi drivers (mac80211/etc.). I would like to know what I, and the user, can expect when s/he:
acquires my app from my web site
does something to install it (what would s/he do at this step?)
attempts to execute it (will apparmour block access to mac80211-like drivers)
RareHare said:
Any idea at all what the user would see when trying to sideload a click app. [I am trying to set my expectations before diving in.] Would the user download package to a directory, then click on it, or?
OK, apparmour seems to be the focal point. I would be really interested (if any knows), how restrictive apparmour will be with a newly-purchased UT phone, and what control a naive user of that phone will have in allowing native C++ applications to run. I would check this myself, but I cannot do any significant coding (porting) until mid-March.
In particular, my app works with WiFi, and will need to interact with stock WiFi drivers (mac80211/etc.). I would like to know what I, and the user, can expect when s/he:
acquires my app from my web site
does something to install it (what would s/he do at this step?)
attempts to execute it (will apparmour block access to mac80211-like drivers)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Applications should be installed from the Ubuntu app store. If you've just got the click package, you currently need to use the command line to install it:
Code:
sudo install <path to package>
sudo register --user=phablet <package name> <package version>
I hope that this will change though. (It's name is "click" package. )
RareHare said:
Any idea at all what the user would see when trying to sideload a click app. [I am trying to set my expectations before diving in.] Would the user download package to a directory, then click on it, or?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
nikwen said:
Applications should be installed from the Ubuntu app store. If you've just got the click package, you currently need to use the command line to install it:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Technically it should be possible to install a click package just by clicking on a web link, if the web site serves a specific mime type, but this is not implemented.
Not sure about Canonical's policy on that, they might not like the idea. Otherwise they might implement it or at least accept a patch from a community developer.
RareHare said:
OK, apparmour seems to be the focal point. I would be really interested (if any knows), how restrictive apparmour will be with a newly-purchased UT phone, and what control a naive user of that phone will have in allowing native C++ applications to run. I would check this myself, but I cannot do any significant coding (porting) until mid-March.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry, have not looked myself into the apparmour profiles too closely and don't have the time to do that right now.
However you can download a recent UT rootfs using the link below and have a look at the profiles yourself:
https://system-image.ubuntu.com/pool/ubuntu-cd4246419c888397c0d8debbd9f945219f40fc670220b7ac86753dc79eb73707.tar.xz
RareHare said:
In particular, my app works with WiFi, and will need to interact with stock WiFi drivers (mac80211/etc.).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think this is possible with any current or future off-the-shelf phone. Any OS will provide an abstract API for WLAN and require root to talk to the drivers directly.
As you say requiring your customers to root the phone is not an option, this seems to leave only one way out: you need to split off the low-level code of your app into a generic and secure API and submit it to Ubuntu Touch. If it is accepted, your app can use the new API.
f69m said:
Technically it should be possible to install a click package just by clicking on a web link, if the web site serves a specific mime type, but this is not implemented.
Not sure about Canonical's policy on that, they might not like the idea. Otherwise they might implement it or at least accept a patch from a community developer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Of course, it would technically be possible. Recently, I read a Google Plus post on that topic. Here's the link. (The interesting part is in the comments. Read all of them. )
They said that they'll offer those options in the future.
f69m said:
Technically it should be possible to install a click package just by clicking on a web link, if the web site serves a specific mime type, but this is not implemented.
Not sure about Canonical's policy on that, they might not like the idea. Otherwise they might implement it or at least accept a patch from a community developer.[
Sorry, have not looked myself into the apparmour profiles too closely and don't have the time to do that right now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am in the same situation myself - I do not have enough time to experiment with apparmour, so I'm asking Ubuntu so that I do not have to search/guess.:victory:
I don't think this is possible with any current or future off-the-shelf phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So it would seem.
Any OS will provide an abstract API for WLAN and require root to talk to the drivers directly.
As you say requiring your customers to root the phone is not an option, this seems to leave only one way out: you need to split off the low-level code of your app into a generic and secure API and submit it to Ubuntu Touch. If it is accepted, your app can use the new API.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, the low-level code, in my case, is the WiFi drivers. Also, I cannot imagine submitting a new API to Ubuntu Touch every-time a new model for accessing system-level primitives arrive. That would essentially loop Canonical into all of our engineering processes.
Your last comment actually is the crux of the issue. It points to a policy question, not a technical one, and one for which the answer is yes or no. I would imagine that, at this point, Canonical already knows the answer...
Principle:
There are numerous situations where it is good for a native application to not be sand-boxed, but have the same access to the Linux subsystems as a user would have on Ubuntu Desktop. There are situations where the owner of the phone would be sophisticated and comfortable enough that s/he can decide for himself/herself whether an application should be allowed root access to the phone. A fellow engineer called this the "welded-hood" principle:
Do people prefer buying cars that have the hoods welded-shut?
Many people might, but there are a significant number who would prefer not. As it turns out, an automobile can dangerous if the person opens the hood and starts working on things that s/he should not be touching (no pun intended). In the case of the fuel and braking system, it can even be lethal. But in the end, it was decided that, since we are all liberated adults, it is better to allow the customer freedom-of-choice.
What we have, right now, is a situation where the "hoods" on all mobile devices are essentially welded shut. I think that is unfortunate, because there is a huge latent demand for mobile devices that "still have their hoods", but if the user chooses to open the hood, with they key word here being easily, that would be his/her prerogative.
By the default, the system should be sand-boxed, but the user should have a facility that allows him/her access to install some native, system-level applications, easily, just as a user is allowed to tap-off her break fluid or bleed the fuel-line if she so desires, even though there are many warnings about what could happen if the application is installed. The "open-the-hood" operation would come with warnings that the user can choose to ignore, with resulting consequences.
Question:
Will Ubuntu Touch allow the owner of an Ubuntu Touch phone to side-load a native C++ application that interfaces with the various existing WiFi drivers in Linux, if the user decides for himself/herself, that it is OK for the application to interface with such drivers?
I have a feeling that the answer is no, but I am asking here to make sure.
RareHare said:
I am in the same situation myself - I do not have enough time to experiment with apparmour, so I'm asking Ubuntu so that I do not have to search/guess.:victory:
So it would seem.
Well, the low-level code, in my case, is the WiFi drivers. Also, I cannot imagine submitting a new API to Ubuntu Touch every-time a new model for accessing system-level primitives arrive. That would essentially loop Canonical into all of our engineering processes.
Your last comment actually is the crux of the issue. It points to a policy question, not a technical one, and one for which the answer is yes or no. I would imagine that, at this point, Canonical already knows the answer...
Principle:
There are numerous situations where it is good for a native application to not be sand-boxed, but have the same access to the Linux subsystems as a user would have on Ubuntu Desktop. There are situations where the owner of the phone would be sophisticated and comfortable enough that s/he can decide for himself/herself whether an application should be allowed root access to the phone. A fellow engineer called this the "welded-hood" principle:
Do people prefer buying cars that have the hoods welded-shut?
Many people might, but there are a significant number who would prefer not. As it turns out, an automobile can dangerous if the person opens the hood and starts working on things that s/he should not be touching (no pun intended). In the case of the fuel and braking system, it can even be lethal. But in the end, it was decided that, since we are all liberated adults, it is better to allow the customer freedom-of-choice.
What we have, right now, is a situation where the "hoods" on all mobile devices are essentially welded shut. I think that is unfortunate, because there is a huge latent demand for mobile devices that "still have their hoods", but if the user chooses to open the hood, with they key word here being easily, that would be his/her prerogative.
By the default, the system should be sand-boxed, but the user should have a facility that allows him/her access to install some native, system-level applications, easily, just as a user is allowed to tap-off her break fluid or bleed the fuel-line if she so desires, even though there are many warnings about what could happen if the application is installed. The "open-the-hood" operation would come with warnings that the user can choose to ignore, with resulting consequences.
Question:
Will Ubuntu Touch allow the owner of an Ubuntu Touch phone to side-load a native C++ application that interfaces with the various existing WiFi drivers in Linux, if the user decides for himself/herself, that it is OK for the application to interface with such drivers?
I have a feeling that the answer is no, but I am asking here to make sure.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, your comparison is not quite correct. On most phones, there is a way for an educated user to open the hood. This is usually referred to as rooting the phone. Some companies will give you a tool to unlock the bootloader and thus open the hood easily, for others it is a little harder. But any user has the freedom of choice to open the hood or leave it closed.
Now, what you are asking for is something completely different. You are asking for a closed-source "black box" app to get access to what is under the hood, without the user ever opening it. This would mean opening the door for all kinds of malware, and I sure hope this will not be allowed by Ubuntu Touch . Let an educated user open the hood and place the black box there, if he feels comfortable about it, but don't make it too easy. A user that is not willing or not able to open the hood himself should also not be required to understand the consequences of installing a black box app with root privileges.
And there is another thing to consider: Ubuntu is heading for convergence, meaning the same app runs fine on a phone, on a tablet and on a desktop. This means apps must be written against an abstract SDK and not have access to the actual hardware.
Well, I am afraid we have hit a dead end now, unless you are willing to disclose more details on the functionality of your app.
Sent from my TF300T using Tapatalk
83594455 676
And there is another thing to consider: Ubuntu is heading for convergence, meaning the same app runs fine on a phone, on a tablet and on a
desktop. This means apps must be written against an abstract SDK and not have access to the actual hardware.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think my native, system-level app would not only run on all versions of Ubuntu, regardless of device, but most versions of Linux, on 100's of different hardware devices, without changes to my code. So actually, I would be accessing a standard Linux software interface.
Well, I am afraid we have hit a dead end now, unless you are willing to disclose more details on the functionality of your app.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sure. I would like to send and receive raw 802.11 frames from user-space utilizing the various standard Linux 802.11 system-level API's for mesh networking. My application is entirely user-space, and would run on any stock Linux kernel. My field of work is wireless communication, so naturally, if someone were to offer me a mesh-networking packaging as an alternative, I could not use it - my goal is not to have a mesh network for mesh networking sake, but to create a mesh network using my own user-space algorithms. In other words, I really do need access to the 802.11 drivers.
You can run every system command from your app using C++: http://askubuntu.com/questions/288494/run-system-commands-from-qml-app
The sudo password is "phablet". You could also ask the user for it if it was changed. You can pass it like this:
Code:
echo phablet | sudo -S <my command>
That might help you.
You could also ask in the IRC channel for Ubuntu app development (search the internet and you'll find it). Some Canonical people as well as some awesome community members will surely answer your questions. (But tell us the result, please.)
nikwen said:
You can run every system command from your app using C++: http://askubuntu.com/questions/288494/run-system-commands-from-qml-app
The sudo password is "phablet". You could also ask the user for it if it was changed. You can pass it like this:
Code:
echo phablet | sudo -S <my command>
That might help you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That works for the development images and community ports, but I am afraid if you buy a pre-configured UT phone (once they are available), sudo will not work. At least I would be surprised if a company would give full warranty for a device with working sudo.
Sent from my TF300T using Tapatalk
---------- Post added at 11:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 PM ----------
RareHare said:
I think my native, system-level app would not only run on all versions of Ubuntu, regardless of device, but most versions of Linux, on 100's of different hardware devices, without changes to my code. So actually, I would be accessing a standard Linux software interface.
Sure. I would like to send and receive raw 802.11 frames from user-space utilizing the various standard Linux 802.11 system-level API's for mesh networking. My application is entirely user-space, and would run on any stock Linux kernel. My field of work is wireless communication, so naturally, if someone were to offer me a mesh-networking packaging as an alternative, I could not use it - my goal is not to have a mesh network for mesh networking sake, but to create a mesh network using my own user-space algorithms. In other words, I really do need access to the 802.11 drivers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmm, never really used the user-space network link interface, but I believe it would be possible to grant the required capabilities to a click application.
You would have to figure out, exactly what capabilities your process needs to run this as a non-root user. Then the right place to ask for supporting this would be the Ubuntu Phone mailing list.
Just a Tip: You should present a very strong use case to get this kind of capabilities. The benefits of using your user-space algorithms should be plain, even to someone just scanning over your email.
Sent from my TF300T using Tapatalk
f69m said:
That works for the development images and community ports, but I am afraid if you buy a pre-configured UT phone (once they are available), sudo will not work. At least I would be surprised if a company would give full warranty for a device with working sudo.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
When nikwen made the suggestion, I was happy for maybe 2-3 seconds, but then caught myself, because I suspected this.
[Notice how I am saving myself enormous amounts of time and frustration by avoiding downloading the SDK, opening my compiler tool-chain, and experimenting., and discovering all the things that you are telling me as we go along (especially about apparmour). Yes, I am very proud of myself for saving myself so much time by asking questions here. :angel:]
So my question still stands:
Under the assumption that my customers (doctors, scientists, etc.) are mature/sophisticated/responsible/whatever enough to know that the application that they are about to install on their smartphone (mine) is potentially very dangerous, but they are still interested in installing my app, and that they are uninterested in going through the manual process of rooting their phone or engaging in any other type of significant manual reconfiguration, what are my options?
Can Ubuntu Phone to be the OS-of-choice for this situation, or am I out-of-luck?
RareHare said:
Under the assumption that my customers (doctors, scientists, etc.) are mature/sophisticated/responsible/whatever enough to know that the application that they are about to install on their smartphone (mine) is potentially very dangerous, but they are still interested in installing my app, and that they are uninterested in going through the manual process of rooting their phone or engaging in any other type of significant manual reconfiguration, what are my options?
Can Ubuntu Phone to be the OS-of-choice for this situation, or am I out-of-luck?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe my second answer and your post crossed? But anyhow, here are the steps you can take:
1) Figure out the minimum set of capabilities your process needs to run as a non-root user.
2) Write an email to the Ubuntu Phone mailing list, describing the required capabilities and a convincing use case that motivates the engineers to have a hard look into it.
Honestly, I think the chances are slim, given the kind of capabilities you probably need. But Ubuntu Touch is probably your best bet of all the OSs out there.
EDIT: Mind that Ubuntu Touch uses a read-only rootfs, with only some config files being writable (via bind mount) and apt/dpkg is not supported. Your app must be running as a click package as a non-root user, but I believe it is technically possible to elevate an app process with certain capabilities. It would be your job to convince Canonical to make the policy decision to support it and to make the effort of implementing it.
EDIT2 (you see, I am giving it some thought): Not sure, how your business plan looks like or if your app makes this approach feasible, but another option could be to open-source your basic algorithms and try to have them included into Ubuntu Touch. Then cash in on an app to make the features easily accessible.
f69m said:
That works for the development images and community ports, but I am afraid if you buy a pre-configured UT phone (once they are available), sudo will not work. At least I would be surprised if a company would give full warranty for a device with working sudo.
Sent from my TF300T using Tapatalk
---------- Post added at 11:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 PM ----------
Hmm, never really used the user-space network link interface, but I believe it would be possible to grant the required capabilities to a click application.
You would have to figure out, exactly what capabilities your process needs to run this as a non-root user. Then the right place to ask for supporting this would be the Ubuntu Phone mailing list.
Just a Tip: You should present a very strong use case to get this kind of capabilities. The benefits of using your user-space algorithms should be plain, even to someone just scanning over your email.
Sent from my TF300T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hm...it would be a bit weird for me to justify the benefits my user-space algorithms to Canonical. My app is not an open-source app. I guess I should have mentioned that first. In any case, I can say that I am "experienced" in this field, and my colleagues, at least, are experts in the field, so if the question is whether I am mistaken in thinking I need this capability, the answer is probably no.
However, you do have me intrigued regarding the granting of capability for a click application. My guess is that this would have to happen within the context of Ubuntu Store and not any other way or?
I ask because it is not yet definite that we will choose Ubuntu Phone. That is what I am determining now. I would hate to get into a situation where we have to "work with" Canonical to get access to the Linux API that we need, which is why I was suggesting putting the decision into the hands of the user. I would also like to avoid "lobbying" Canonical for a feature. It would be more efficient for us if Canonical would simply tell us whether they are going to allow it or not, to what extent, and what would be involved.
Again, what we are asking for is pretty straightforward - access to the standard Linux WiFi drivers from user-space.
There's really not much more to it. I was hoping that, based upon the assumption that we actually need this, that Canonical would be able to give us an answer.
[P.S. Yes, our posts got crossed. ]
RareHare said:
Hm...it would be a bit weird for me to justify the benefits my user-space algorithms to Canonical. My app is not an open-source app. I guess I should have mentioned that first.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, I somehow guessed it would not be open source, and probably my EDIT2 to my last post (crossed again) is not an option. But make sure to read my first EDIT, it might have helpful information.
I think the question is not, if it is a benefit to Canonical directly, but if it is a benefit to potential users of Ubuntu Touch. The API support you need might be helpful for other applications too.
RareHare said:
However, you do have me intrigued regarding the granting of capability for a click application. My guess is that this would have to happen within the context of Ubuntu Store and not any other way or?
I ask because it is not yet definite that we will choose Ubuntu Phone. That is what I am determining now. I would hate to get into a situation where we have to "work with" Canonical to get access to the Linux API that we need, which is why I was suggesting putting the decision into the hands of the user. I would also like to avoid "lobbying" Canonical for a feature. It would be more efficient for us if Canonical would simply tell us whether they are going to allow it or not, to what extent, and what would be involved.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Any decision taken by the user must first be implemented by Canonical, or there is no way for the user to make that decision. Unfortunately, I am not an expert on UT app development and the UT SDK, working mostly on low-level things like porting UT to my own device. But, as an example, it should be possible to have an API that creates a sub-process with elevated capabilities (there might be a more elegant solution). Still Canonical will have to implement that and to do this, they need some kind of motivation. The motivation could be a good use case that shows potential for other applications or indeed "lobbying" them directly (which probably means to send them some money).
RareHare said:
Again, what we are asking for is pretty straightforward - access to the standard Linux WiFi drivers from user-space.
There's really not much more to it. I was hoping that, based upon the assumption that we actually need this, that Canonical would be able to give us an answer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have not really used those APIs, but I assume that the kernel capabilities needed for this are usually granted to the root user only. I am pretty certain that UT will not allow you to run a process as root, but as mentioned above, it should be possible to create a subprocess with certain elevated capabilities.
f69m said:
Well, I somehow guessed it would not be open source, and probably my EDIT2 to my last post (crossed again) is not an option. But make sure to read my first EDIT, it might have helpful information.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OK.
f69m said:
I think the question is not, if it is a benefit to Canonical directly, but if it is a benefit to potential users of Ubuntu Touch. The API support you need might be helpful for other applications too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, the API that I need is definitely helpful for other applications. Namely, it is helpful to any application that already uses it. And there are many such applications that use the 802.11 WiFi drivers that come with Linux.
Any decision taken by the user must first be implemented by Canonical, or there is no way for the user to make that decision. Unfortunately, I am not an expert on UT app development and the UT SDK, working mostly on low-level things like porting UT to my own device. But, as an example, it should be possible to have an API that creates a sub-process with elevated capabilities (there might be a more elegant solution). Still Canonical will have to implement that and to do this, they need some kind of motivation. The motivation could be a good use case that shows potential for other applications or indeed "lobbying" them directly (which probably means to send them some money).
I have not really used those APIs, but I assume that the kernel capabilities needed for this are usually granted to the root user only. I am pretty certain that UT will not allow you to run a process as root, but as mentioned above, it should be possible to create a sub-process with certain elevated capabilities.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OK.
I am going to send an email to Canonical asking if they could articulate, clearly, in a manner that a Linux C/C++ software engineer can understand, their policy on native application development. Here's what it currently says on their Wiki:
Which applications do run on Ubuntu Touch?
Ubuntu Touch is primarily designed to support web apps, and native apps programmed in qml and javascript or C++. As it is a real linux, of course all non graphical applications run equally as on any other linux system. You can ssh to Ubuntu Touch and run any console based application.
X11 is not supported (so far) so all GUI standard applications will not run.
This is slightly confusing, because it gives the impression that, with the exception of X11, the run-time environment on Ubuntu Touch is equal to the run-time environment on Ubuntu Desktop.
Obviously, that is not true. Native applications on Ubuntu Touch are sand-boxed. My customer can run a console app on Ubuntu Desktop just fine, but on Ubuntu Touch, she cannot not - I guess she could if she rooted or re-flashed her phone, but that is not practical.
I think Canonical should make it clear that native C/C++ applications on Ubuntu Touch will be sand-boxed. Then they should articulate, clearly on their web site, just how that works, at least the part that they know so far.
The reason I feel this is necessary is that there are a lot of developers who read the press releases and see the words open source native C/C++, more open than Android, etc...and they get the impression that it is basically Ubuntu Desktop for small form-factor, but that is not quite true.
Spelling-out, explicitly, Canonical's native C/C++ strategy would save such developers a lot of time and hacking trying to figure out what is feasible and what is not.
To be fair, I just received feedback from a competitor to Ubuntu Touch, giving me assurances that the competing OS will allow the user/owner of the phone to determine whether any software should have root access, etc - basically, like the desktop version of the OS. I will send them an email asking them if they could make public what they have assured me in private.
These are things that should be crystal clear to C/C++ software developers long in advance before committing to a platform. I can only imagine the time that would have been lost if I had misinterpreted what Canonical wrote above, only to find out that there is nothing practical that my customer can do to install my application as easily as they would on Ubuntu Desktop because of the sandbox that cannot be easily turned-off.
RareHare said:
I think Canonical should make it clear that native C/C++ applications on Ubuntu Touch will be sand-boxed. Then they should articulate, clearly on their web site, just how that works, at least the part that they know so far.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Of course I can't speak for Canonical and I might be wrong, but I would really be surprised, if it was possibly to run applications as root on an off-the-shelf Ubuntu Touch device.
RareHare said:
To be fair, I just received feedback from a competitor to Ubuntu Touch, giving me assurances that the competing OS will allow the user/owner of the phone to determine whether any software should have root access, etc - basically, like the desktop version of the OS. I will send them an email asking them if they could make public what they have assured me in private.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting, but then it might be a difference between the "reference" implementation and what is being delivered on an out-of-the-shelf phone. I can't belive a device vendor to take the risk of allowing root access and still providing full warranty. Most likely the user will have to accept a "no warranty" waiver to get root access, if that feature is not completly disabled by the device vendor. The same kind of holds for UT, as sudo works on the development images as mentioned previously.
EDIT: Make sure the feedback you received does refer to an actual device that is/will be available for sale and not to a development platform. Marketing wording can be tricky about simple issues like that,
RareHare said:
These are things that should be crystal clear to C/C++ software developers long in advance before committing to a platform. I can only imagine the time that would have been lost if I had misinterpreted what Canonical wrote above, only to find out that there is nothing practical that my customer can do to install my application as easily as they would on Ubuntu Desktop because of the sandbox that cannot be easily turned-off.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed, but the same holds for any other platform.
f69m said:
Of course I can't speak for Canonical and I might be wrong, but I would really be surprised, if it was possibly to run applications as root on an off-the-shelf Ubuntu Touch device.
Interesting, but then it might be a difference between the "reference" implementation and what is being delivered on an out-of-the-shelf phone. I can't belive a device vendor to take the risk of allowing root access and still providing full warranty. Most likely the user will have to accept a "no warranty" waiver to get root access, if that feature is not completly disabled by the device vendor. The same kind of holds for UT, as sudo works on the development images as mentioned previously.
Agreed, but the same holds for any other platform.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was very careful in asking the UT-competitor what their policy would be with regard to the subject of this thread, and they assured me that, when they say open, they really do mean open, as in open-like-the-desktop. However, just now, I found clues on the Internet what they said might not be quite true. So I just sent a grab-me-by-the-ears-while-you-are-speaking email asking them to be clear.
However, they have committed to allowing the user to install my application. They know that my application will open a device driver, and they said that it should work fine, that they would allow the user to do it, and that they had already intended to create a feature where the user gets to decide, after a WARNING, though they are not yet certain what this feature will be called. Note that they are not doing this for me alone. They are doing it, in general. In other words, they are doing what I proposed earlier: give the user the choice of whether to "use metal chainsaw".
As far as voiding the warranty goes...honestly, I do not think that will be a problem. As you know, I can write software that will wipe my hard disk clean on Windows, right now, put it up on my web site, and anyone in the world can download that software, and the most that will happen before they install my application is that they will get a brief warning. So the model for allowing the user to do foolish things has been with us for a while, and companies are still very profitable with this model, and despite viruses (I developed anti-virus algorithm that some of you use, btw), most people are happy with the level-of-control they get with their desktop devices. When Windows Vista tried to remove some of it, even moderate users were very angry, as you know.
I think that, especially for cell-phone carriers in the USA (Verizon, AT&T, Sprint)...the reason is not so much to protect the consumer, but to make sure that the user is not able...for example...to remove the bloatware that they put on the phone. It is more about controlling the customer experience for profit than for protection or being liable for damages.
The UT-competitor has probably figured out that there is a market for a truly open mobile platform, one where the decision of what happens to the device reverts to the owner of the device. They are probably counting on all the pent-up demand of C/C++/etc. native software developers who have been trying to escape the Android/Java iOS/* Sandbox, and not only that, the developers who are able to create revolutionary innovations if they had more access to the Linux API. My guess is that, once one OEM takes this path, the others will not have any choice but to follow, because there will be a free-for-all (no pun intended) in the development market. It will be messy, perhaps, but there will no longer be any restrictions on getting the most out of the device.
It will definitely be more efficient to decouple development from deliverance.
Well, sounds good, just hope that they will find an OEM that shares their views. I think Desktop/Windows is not a relevant reference, as nobody will send their PC back to Microsoft, if it is not working. And if you want to use official MS support you are paying dearly. On the other hand support/warranty is a huge concern for phone and tablet vendors.
Again, not being able to run a process as root on a UT device is my personal opinion and I am not speaking for Canonical or their partners.
EDIT: Do the "bad" operations you mentioned work on Windows 8 phone? I suppose not.
Sent from my TF300T using Tapatalk
Not so good...
Android apps on Chrome OS: hands-on and initial thoughts
http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/06/17/android-apps-on-chrome-os-hands-on-and-initial-thoughts/
As expected.....
lollyjay said:
Not so good...
Android apps on Chrome OS: hands-on and initial thoughts
http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/06/17/android-apps-on-chrome-os-hands-on-and-initial-thoughts/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Okay but you do realize it's on an unstable dev build on a Chromebook with one of the lowest-end processors in a Chromebook (ARM Rockchip)? Until it gets in the stable build and is also tested on other hardware (like the x86 Pixel), I wouldn't judge it too much.
Also, the privacy issues with ChromiumOS(not just ChromeOS), prevent it from being a real threat.
moriel5 said:
Also, the privacy issues with ChromiumOS(not just ChromeOS), prevent it from being a real threat.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not about the "threat" (let's not be religious here) - it's about the options.
I honestly prefer a google supported OS with google supported hardware instead of a hack like Remix OS.
Chromebooks are amazing tools. I am expecting Android apps on Chromebooks to cause a very deep disruption in the PC market.
note the asus flip is the only chromebook with arm chip in the 3 ones that get the m53 dev update.
so i assume for the moment only the arm code is ready.
from what i know google does not want to use the android x86 open source project to make their x86 compatibility layer unlike remix os
this explain why no other chromebook have the playstore for the moment.
and yes this asus is only to show the extreme lower end part of chromebooks.
wait until the x86 code they are building is coming...
it will be another story.
you want to be scared?
imagine cloudready or just chromium os for pc
with playstore inside
if it comes.
or29544 said:
It's not about the "threat" (let's not be religious here) - it's about the options.
I honestly prefer a google supported OS with google supported hardware instead of a hack like Remix OS.
Chromebooks are amazing tools. I am expecting Android apps on Chromebooks to cause a very deep disruption in the PC market.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't worry, while I am deeply against Google's behaviour in matters such as privacy, I do agree that if someone absolutely wants to use Google, he/she should be able to.
What I was referring to was being locked to sending personal data to Google, some of it unwantedly.
I think that ChromeOS, or at least ChromiumOS, should at least allow you to create a local owner account, with connecting to Google as an option, should you wish to.
Had that been an option, then I would have been of the same opinion as you.
Anyway remix for the moment make a really bad desktop.
Without a way to select sound inputs and outputs most of the time we got no sound or sound in the wrong output...
Also it need to change resolution on the fly like most os does...or just change screen scaling because remix os on some screens is not usable at all...
And what about include a desktop grade browser that support extensions.because remix browser is as useless as edge for the moment.
The things is ,chrome os have all those fixes already inside.
tailslol said:
Anyway remix for the moment make a really bad desktop.
Without a way to select sound inputs and outputs most of the time we got no sound or sound in the wrong output...
Also it need to change resolution on the fly like most os does...or just change screen scaling because remix os on some screens is not usable at all...
And what about include a desktop grade browser that support extensions.because remix browser is as useless as edge for the moment.
The things is ,chrome os have all those fixes already inside.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with about half of what you said.
However, changing the DPI on the fly may have to wait until Android N.
And while I don't think that a browser has to have addon support, I do prefer it that way.
By the way, Firefox for Android supports both addons and themes, as well as plugins and addon frameworks (e.g. Greasemonkey), so technically you could put it on RemixOS.
And I thought RemixOS doesn't have it's own browser, rather arriving with the AOSP Browser?
I personally prefer Lightning Browser on Android, it's so light without comprimising on absolute necessaties.
All the rest, you're right, there already tools to those on the fly (with root).
moriel5 said:
I agree with about half of what you said.
However, changing the DPI on the fly may have to wait until Android N.
And while I don't think that a browser has to have addon support, I do prefer it that way.
By the way, Firefox for Android supports both addons and themes, as well as plugins and addon frameworks (e.g. Greasemonkey), so technically you could put it on RemixOS.
And I thought RemixOS doesn't have it's own browser, rather arriving with the AOSP Browser?
I personally prefer Lightning Browser on Android, it's so light without comprimising on absolute necessaties.
All the rest, you're right, there already tools to those on the fly (with root).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well now it comes with chrome included.about firefox well i never used on android.
but in case of need of flash or silverlight for old sites i dont think it will handle them with addblock in same time.
root and tools in remix is another story,mostly because this is not easy,and most of those tools just not work on remix,for example on remix to be able to patch sound you need to change the kernel...
not stability or update friendly.
and not usable by everyone.
so i think google will go to the right way here.
but remix?
lets just say remix should count the month or year it have left.
tailslol said:
well now it comes with chrome included.about firefox well i never used on android.
but in case of need of flash or silverlight for old sites i dont think it will handle them with addblock in same time.
root and tools in remix is another story,mostly because this is not easy,and most of those tools just not work on remix,for example on remix to be able to patch sound you need to change the kernel...
not stability or update friendly.
and not usable by everyone.
so i think google will go to the right way here.
but remix?
lets just say remix should count the month or year it have left.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You brought some very important points, however I have to say that I disagree with you, since:
1. Jide could always update the kernel to support on the fly audio channel switching.
2. 3rd party developers could do the above.
3. RemixOS is still in beta, and literaly is reinventing the wheel when it comes to Android, so instabilities are to be expected.
About #3, some of what RemixOS is doing is becoming redundant with the native Android APIs in MM and N, so if Jide chooses to yse the native APIs, then RemixOS will become much more stable.
FF can can handle Flash fine with an adblocker (I recommend uBlock Origin), however you need a patched version of Flash for it run at all on Android 4.4 and up.
And by the way, Silverlight is unsupported on both Android and ChromeOS.
Please don't think I'm bashing you, or being zealous.
I'm just trying to answer all the points, and I have a tendency to be formal.
I personally would love to use ChromiumOS, however the mandatory Google owned user policy (the owner account has to be connected to Google), prevents me from doing that.
I need the owner account to be strictly local, plus other reasons which will take several days or weeks to explain.
Thanks for telling me that RemixOS comes with Chrome, by the way.
moriel5 said:
You brought some very important points, however I have to say that I disagree with you, since:
1. Jide could always update the kernel to support on the fly audio channel switching.
2. 3rd party developers could do the above.
3. RemixOS is still in beta, and literaly is reinventing the wheel when it comes to Android, so instabilities are to be expected.
About #3, some of what RemixOS is doing is becoming redundant with the native Android APIs in MM and N, so if Jide chooses to yse the native APIs, then RemixOS will become much more stable.
FF can can handle Flash fine with an adblocker (I recommend uBlock Origin), however you need a patched version of Flash for it run at all on Android 4.4 and up.
And by the way, Silverlight is unsupported on both Android and ChromeOS.
Please don't think I'm bashing you, or being zealous.
I'm just trying to answer all the points, and I have a tendency to be formal.
I personally would love to use ChromiumOS, however the mandatory Google owned user policy (the owner account has to be connected to Google), prevents me from doing that.
I need the owner account to be strictly local, plus other reasons which will take several days or weeks to explain.
Thanks for telling me that RemixOS comes with Chrome, by the way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
no it is ok,you made some point but for android n it is wait and see on what will be available in the final version.
remix was good to kick the bee hive i think
it kinda made move the big name os and things are starting to change,but as always in the long run it is another story.
Chrome OS isn't open source and the framework for Android apps on it isn't too; which means only Chromebooks, and always online is part of owning one.
Google is already taking Android down that same path more so on MM and up.
for example with permission controls(enforcement) I would like to use a word processor and one of the permissions is location so i block that but guess what can't use app until i enable location again. have to use google app installer instead of aosp, etc ...
Windows as a service =$hitty Windows (always on even if you use a local account only)
Ubuntu= Unity was ok for 12.04 LTS(went downhill from there)
Android can be viable without Google Apps/services(despite perception) there is Fdroid and XDA labs; Chrome and Chromium can not.
Maromi said:
Chrome OS isn't open source and the framework for Android apps on it isn't too; which means only Chromebooks, and always online is part of owning one.
Google is already taking Android down that same path more so on MM and up.
for example with permission controls(enforcement) I would like to use a word processor and one of the permissions is location so i block that but guess what can't use app until i enable location again. have to use google app installer instead of aosp, etc ...
Windows as a service =$hitty Windows (always on even if you use a local account only)
Ubuntu= Unity was ok for 12.04 LTS(went downhill from there)
Android can be viable without Google Apps/services(despite perception) there is Fdroid and XDA labs; Chrome and Chromium can not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
it is true actual chrome os is closed source,but they use a open source base (chromium os)
and distro like cloudready or arnoldthebat are clearly advanced already.
i just hope someone will figure a way to port the android part on those distro.
but stock android N x86 will already be something good.
Maromi said:
Chrome OS isn't open source and the framework for Android apps on it isn't too; which means only Chromebooks, and always online is part of owning one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, Chromium OS is open, however your're locked to Google there.
Maromi said:
Windows as a service =$hitty Windows (always on even if you use a local account only)
Ubuntu= Unity was ok for 12.04 LTS(went downhill from there)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Using the Enterprise edition allows you more freedom, however, I still can't disable Cortana.
I like Unity 8, however Canonical is right now at crossroads, and they seem to be edging the same path as Google, Microsoft, and others.
By the way, I mainly use Gnome 3.20 as well as Budgie, since I mainly use Antergos (as well as Solus OS).
Maromi said:
Android can be viable without Google Apps/services(despite perception) there is Fdroid and XDA labs; Chrome and Chromium can not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't use most of the GApps, however Chromium does run without GApps, you just can't connect it to Google without GApps.
And I don't always use F-Droid, however this post is through XDA Labs.
And I have nothing against closed-source and/or paid software, while at the same time supporting FOSS.
moriel5 said:
Actually, Chromium OS is open, however your're locled to Google there
I don't use most of the GApps, however Chromium does run without GApps, you just can't connect it to Google without GApps.
And I don't always use F-Droid, however this post is through XDA Labs.
And I have nothing against closed-source and/or paid software, while at the same time supporting FOSS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
When I said chrome and chromium i was talking about OS's not the browsers
I'm not against closed source. Remix OS is one.
Maromi said:
When I said chrome and chromium i was talking about OS's not the browsers
I'm not against closed source. Remix OS is one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know, I was just pointing out that there is an open-source version of Chrome OS.
And thanks, I didn't notice I had made a spelling mistake until I saw it in your quote of my previous post.
It should be "locked", not "locled".
I guess we all reach one point in life sooner or later when we stop being ideologists and start being consumers. I used to care and tinker with all my software and all my devices, tuning and optimizing, caring for a device like it was a pet. I was switching linux distros like clothes, writing my DOS drivers and optimizing memory usage in config.sys - nowadays I don't care. I want Android on my system just to stick to the same UI as my tablet and phone. I want Android for the apps, not for the ideology. I couldn't care less if my user is "owned" by Google - I can handle my own privacy.
Having said that, if Google or Jide will be the first to offer Android on desktop for me - I will use it. If Chromebooks will - I will use them. I am too lazy to think about open source. Just give me something that works and it's fine for me. No matter how much we delude ourselves, RemixOS doesn't work for now. I can't be expected to throw my nVidia card just because nVidia is closed source and gives no **** about the community.
or29544 said:
I guess we all reach one point in life sooner or later when we stop being ideologists and start being consumers. I used to care and tinker with all my software and all my devices, tuning and optimizing, caring for a device like it was a pet. I was switching linux distros like clothes, writing my DOS drivers and optimizing memory usage in config.sys - nowadays I don't care. I want Android on my system just to stick to the same UI as my tablet and phone. I want Android for the apps, not for the ideology. I couldn't care less if my user is "owned" by Google - I can handle my own privacy.
Having said that, if Google or Jide will be the first to offer Android on desktop for me - I will use it. If Chromebooks will - I will use them. I am too lazy to think about open source. Just give me something that works and it's fine for me. No matter how much we delude ourselves, RemixOS doesn't work for now. I can't be expected to throw my nVidia card just because nVidia is closed source and gives no **** about the community.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm something in the middle, and I hope it will stay like that.
Ideology and practicality/consumerism.
Android and open Source Chromium
I read that GOOGLE will never release Chromium OS with android support. What I am saying is unless someone hacks the Chrome os and pulls the OS apart to get the required files and what not to make a hacked copy of chromium with android it is NEVER going to happen.