rdri @ rdri @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

829

Joined

2 yr. ago

With "optimized for gaming" premise? That's obviously nothing more than "hey we decided to allow you to terminate resource hungry explorer/copilot/edge when you play".

SotN is great but I really liked GBA and NDS games more. They are less complex but also somehow make more sense overall, and are less frustrating for my taste. The only one I would say is safe to skip is Harmony of Dissonance.

It's arch...

Yeah but its downside right now is that it doesn't really support latest tech, since it is not based on latest Linux. Wish they would change that because I seriously consider SteamOS for my next gaming PC.

That must be on MacOS programmers. See WOW64.

I heard they are irrelevant for Proton as it has its own fsync.

So it's actually the whole cause of the issue? If Valve shifts to 64bit then there would be no issue? Or is there a limitation that would then prevent 32bit games from working?

And what if Valve starts releasing 64bit version?

Hey that's me there, and I say do Valve too. They are special but that kind of public discussion through court won't hurt anyone.

That's too bad. It's only a matter of time until there will be less countries that fit that "free" criteria then. Or the criteria itself will again shift further down.

Panic button implementation should not require that much and it should work fine on any device.

GOS will not become a phone. Relying proprietary hardware to achieve security of your own product is not optimal.

If you want to install the Google store, you can. If you want to use f Droid, you can. If you want to install apps directly from GitHub from developers that you trust you can.

I know what you mean but it sounds like you're describing basically all of Android OS derivatives.

I don't see how realistically every requirement of GOS is really needed, given it is still very vulnerable to users' unawareness, stupidity and other easy exploits. It's like people advocating secure communication via Signal while participating in huge public groups. It's like you're building a house from the top - from the premise that the device is secure and therefore great for user. You prepare user for a rain and a storm, but the building will crumble due to an earthquake, or a fire started by the user. But what can you do? Earthquakes are inevitable and crush every other building, and users can't be educated properly, right? That's on top of relying on Google to provide materials and warranty for the house...

I'm not implying there are better ones. I mean that ways how "better" systems are being built, updated by developers, and how are they viewed by users, should make everyone question whether those are actually useful.

GOS lets you decide what apps to trust

But not what vendors to trust...

GOS is EXTREMELY clear about who their product is for

Clear... but apparently not loud enough because all I know is "for Google Pixel owners".

It's not like I even want to use GOS. I want to use something that cares about me as a user, more than the default experience with limited and forced aspects. It just happens that most people say Pixel is the best phone overall for now, and I can't ignore that.

My issue is that someone who say they do everything they can to harden your device and improve security, fail at simple things. Like blocking such traffic at the OS level for all untrusted apps, or allowing installing untrusted apps at all. It's like they can't decide who their product is for. And users thinking they are getting more protected just because they switched to another OS, as a result.

Making security measures irrelevant is easy for police officers, for app makers, and for users too.

https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/22889-meta-and-yandex-are-de-anonymizing-android-users-web-browsing-identifiers

So it's an OS for journalists now? For protesters? I'm not going to trust an OS that failed to save anyone from Meta, to save me from my government.

Are all protesters notified they must buy a Google phone to protest safely?

If you are in such a position, it's only a matter of time for a friendly police officer to stop being friendly as soon as he sees any signs of your phone using encryption, or GrapheneOS, or being Pixel. You will get detained/interrogated/beaten/etc. and you will share all your secrets yourself. If they have those industrial devices and you allow them to take your property from you - an OS will most likely not help you.

Instead of trusting OS to protect your data on your device from unauthorized users owning unknown toolset, it's better to make sure you have no data they might want from you, on your device.

I meant the requirements are tailored to Google devices basically. Anyway, Google Pixels are about 5% of android market if I'm not mistaken. Is it worth it? If yes then I'm sure targeting pretty much any other maker would also worth it.

My advice: lower the requirements, and focus on real issues and real expectations from users. It appears GrapheneOS's default settings were useless against that latest loopback tracking by Meta.

Privacy risk is like "Google is constantly spying on me". Security risk is like "a hacker next door is waiting for a next 0day to drop to get my passwords and photos". Guess which of these is a real threat in most people's eyes?

Maybe it's just me but those "very reasonable hardware requirements" look like they can be handled only by huge corporations directly involved with Android development.

If you expect to have stuff patched within a week, it should tell me you expect all those unpatched devices are going to be heavily impacted after a week. It doesn't look like a lot of massive security incidents are happening to Android devices in recent years because some vendor delayed a patch by a week. I understand high standards, but if some user also expects high standards why shouldn't they expect their devices patched within a day? Only explanation is that most people care about privacy risks much more than about security risks.

I can't call ethical an app that relies on Electron.

My point was that the "nuclear bomb is viable vs. other weapons" argument is wrong. MOP is a missile that seems to be specifically crafted for such purposes.