NotPractical

9 ms·

301.
ProtonAOSP: Minimal Android fork(protonaosp.kdrag0n.dev)
3 points by NotPractical 5y ago|1 comments
302.
by NotPractical 5y ago
It's pleasant to see something like this on here mixed in with all the technical posts. Happy thanksgiving!
303.
by NotPractical 5y ago
There clearly is a need. It needs to be as easy as possible to switch away from Google, or developers won't do it. Additionally, an ecosystem where each developer is encouraged to go wild and implement their own notification system is
304.
by NotPractical 5y ago
Restricting background apps by default is probably good. But Google didn't have to lock users in to their own service to provide a good push notification system on Android. The correct solution here would have been a system-level, open
305.
by NotPractical 5y ago
Reading back through my comments, I'm realizing they come off as shilling for Google. In my original top-level comment, I said "most" Android phones don't allow you to install a custom OS, which I still think is true, at
306.
by NotPractical 5y ago
Tragically, Google is gradually moving to hardware-backed attestation, which is nearly impossible to bypass in most cases: https://www.xda-developers.com/safetynet-hardware-attestatio... SafetyNet is, of course, anti-user a
307.
by NotPractical 5y ago
I pulled the OEM list from the source of the percentages that I cited. Also, I am not "complaining" about anything; I am simply sharing information. I can see how it could be interpreted this way, so if I could edit the comment, I
308.
by NotPractical 5y ago
Can you please link to somewhere it says that OEMs can't prevent adb from disabling system apps? They obviously can't disable adb entirely (because it's useful to Android developers), but they can probably add restrictions on
309.
by NotPractical 5y ago
> Samsung As I said, bootloader unlocking is not supported on any modern US Samsung phone with a Snapdragon SoC. [1] It is at least """nice""" that they allow unlocking the international models though. (Perh
310.
by NotPractical 5y ago
That may be true, but most of the devices on that list are either old or not devices people actually want to use. Apple, Samsung, Lenovo (Motorola), and LG combined make up 94% of the market share in the US, while others make up only 6% [1]
311.
by NotPractical 5y ago
Most of these devices don't "support" LineageOS though; rather, LineageOS supports them . As in, they are not designed to support custom OSes, but people make it work anyway through bootloader unlock exploits and other weird
312.
by NotPractical 5y ago
This is a step in the right direction for security/privacy, and I appreciate the effort, but ultimately you have no real control over your device if you are forced to use the proprietary OS that came with the phone. (Unfortunately this
313.
Removing Apple's "unable to verify genuine battery" warning [video](youtube.com)
2 points by NotPractical 5y ago|0 comments
314.
2021 MacBook Pro has a replaceable battery(ifixit.com)
353 points by NotPractical 5y ago|13 comments
315.
by NotPractical 5y ago
> I will continue to recommend those phones for most people (pending what they’re going to do with trying to incriminate you), but it’s not for me. Why? Despite what Apple would have you believe, Pixel phones aren't "more compl
316.
by NotPractical 5y ago
Precisely this. I don't care what happens in the cloud. What bothers me is the precedent that Apple sets by shipping iOS with `scanPhotoForIllegalContent()` and `reportUserToPolice()` functions. This code is working against the user&#x
317.
by NotPractical 5y ago
It's extremely difficult (and risky) to replace the battery in any 2016+ MacBook Pro. In fact, it's so difficult, even Apple won't do it, so when you send a MBP in for a "battery replacement", they replace the entir
318.
by NotPractical 5y ago
If there is a legal basis for this threat, I guess most browser extensions are at risk.
319.
by NotPractical 5y ago
iOS is probably not nearly as security-hardened as Graphene (or even plain AOSP). iOS relies mostly on "security through obscurity" rather than actual hardening. Apple hopes to maintain security by making the system so complicated
320.
by NotPractical 5y ago
I meant a permission to circumvent the W^X restriction. > And it doesn't restrict any useful behavior. It does require some design burden to do properly, though, which not everyone is willing to do. Do you know of any alternative ap
321.
by NotPractical 5y ago
If Tox ever wishes to target normal people (like Signal), this is completely unacceptable.
322.
by NotPractical 5y ago
> crap like WhatsApp, Skype, or Discord I agree up until you mention Discord. It works really well across all platforms (including the browser) and provides a very generous suite of features for free, some of which would be difficult to
323.
by NotPractical 5y ago
Even if the security is half as good as they claim, it's still much, much better than proprietary chat apps that do no encryption whatsoever and store all your messages on their servers in plaintext. Also, there will only be real incen
324.
by NotPractical 5y ago
Stuff like this always reminds of this legendary scene from HBO's Silicon Valley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3pYZwol6Dc
325.
by NotPractical 5y ago
> Using adb is a feature only in developer mode, plugged into SDK tools. I'm aware. The difficulty in this process would act as a filter ensuring only powerusers can do it. It would certainly not be ideal to have to do this just to
326.
by NotPractical 5y ago
When I say "Android OS" here, I don't mean AOSP, I mean most (or all) manufacturer-customized Android ROMs, including Samsung, Pixel, etc. I don't think any of them further restrict this.
327.
by NotPractical 5y ago
I just want to be able to run Python scripts and whatnot on my phone; I don't care much about how it's implemented. I'm sure it's possible to have this without compromising security. As far as I know, the Android sandbox
328.
by NotPractical 5y ago
This is Play Store policy, not Android policy. As I said, the Android OS currently doesn't enforce the minimum API level, and this probably won't become a problem for a long time, as long as you are distributing outside the Play S
329.
by NotPractical 5y ago
Presumably, the "security" does not come from the assumption that the serial numbers are private information -- it comes from the assumption that you can only reprogram the parts with top-secret Apple internal tools. There's
330.
by NotPractical 5y ago
> you can't chop-shop any of the expensive parts because they're all cryptographically registered They're not cryptographically registered. iOS does a simple check to see if the serial numbers of the installed parts match

More ›