this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2025
1037 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
68349 readers
3845 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Donβt just legalise jailbreak (which was never illegal anyway π), but force device manufacturers to unlock root as soon as they end support for the device.
How about not letting Google have exclusive rights to the drivers for all the phone hardware? I would like to be able to install Linux on any phone I buy. I don't want Google monopolizing phone operating systems. #FOSS #Linux #FuckGoogle #Monopoly #deGoogle
What exactly do you mean by that? Google is one of the few companies that let you easily unlock their phones so you can do whatever you want with them.
Unlock so you can use whatever phone service provider you want but Google controls the Android operating system. If you don't want Android on your phone and would rather use Linux or another FOSS operating system, it's very difficult, because Google doesn't give up control of the drivers for a lot of phones. If you just want to remove Google apps from a phone that comes with Android, you have to jailbreak it which voids the warranty and jailbreaking can't be done to every phone.
No, unlock as in: You can install whatever operating system you want. No need for "jailbreaking" on Google phones. They officially support unlocking the bootloader (and re-locking it later as well!). There are many things not to like about Google, but how they handle their phones when it comes to openness is certainly not one of them. Pretty much all other phone vendors are much worse than that (except for maybe a few small ones like Fairphone).
You are talking about phones made by Google. I am talking about ALL the phones using Android and how difficult or sometimes impossible it is to use anything but Android. I am talking about (oranges) a monopoly on phone operating systems. And you are saying what great (apples) phones Google produces.
That's not what you were saying. You were explicitly talking about Google. Also, implying it is Google's fault that other manufacturers don't let you install other operating systems easily is pretty bizarre. If you want to complain about that, at least complain about the right companies. Those are usually the phone manufacturers and/or the SoC manufacturers. The SoC manufacturers often times are particularily problematic, since they often do not publish open source drivers at all or in a very limited fashion.
The manufacturers don't have to provide open source drivers, They could offer the drivers to other companies besides Google though. Why do you suppose they don't?
I'm not sure why you think manufactuers of SoCs (or entire phones) - which aren't used by Google directly (as in: used by Google in their own products or sold by Google as their own product) - provide drivers to Google. They don't, because there is no point in doing that. This is not how the Android eco-system works or the business of selling those SoCs for that matter.
SoC manufactuers sell their SoCs to companies who want to build Android phones (or they build their own like Samsung). With those SoCs they provide a BSP (board support package) that includes all the bits needed to bring up a system running on that partricular SoC. Google has pretty much nothing to do with this, except that Google recommends a certain Linux kernel version (with a bunch of Android-specific patches) for a given Android version, which SoC makers often (but not always) use as the base for their customized kernels.
It is not like Google provides the operating system including all device specific drivers to the device manufacturers. They don't care about that at all. They provide AOSP (which is open source, so anyone can get that) as well as their proprietary stuff like Google Play etc. That's pretty much it.
There is a lot not to like about many Android phones (or rather smartphones in general), when it comes to their openness in regards to software. And it is perfectly fine to criticize those involved, but you should direct your criticism at the correct parties. Google isn't the bad guy in this instance.
Agree 100%
Why not force them to unlock root from the start?
Because people are stupid, will fuck up their device/s, and then complain to the manufacturer about how their device was ruined.
It's an incredibly stupid argument, but it's their argument nonetheless. Something something "for your safety/protection/security/etc"....i.e. "Trust us".
I think root privileges should be available as well, but in a way that 1) only someone who knows what the fuck they're doing can access, and 2) can be done entirely locally, without calling to a server controlled by the manufacturer.
Rooting a device shouldn't be any more complicated than having a sticker saying "warranty void if removed".
I don't disagree, however, there needs to be some form of security so the average Joe (or their kid) doesn't accidentally press the wrong button and
rm -rfthe entire device (exaggerating of course, but you get the idea).my apologies, I was actually thinking of "unlocking the bootloader", rooting a device without an unlocked bootloader didn't even occur to me. And since unlocking a bootloader is non-trivial by design, that would prevent any such accidents.
Absolutely anyone can follow a guide to root a phone, I am an idiot and I have done it. The manufacturer should not be liable for me using the phone in a manner not intended and then breaking it, but they should absolutely have to make it available to do. It should only require signing away liability in a tick box.
Exactly, and this also ties into my first point that the people who know, know what to look for.
I've rooted/jailbroken every single phone and tablet I've owned over the last 15 years. I wouldn't have it any other way. I cannot stand the artificial "security" blocks out in place simply because a company thinks rooted users are somehow cheating or committing fraud or what have you - the people who do that are gonna do it no matter what.
Yes, of course, but I think, like I wrote it, it is more likely to happen in reality π but of course, I would prefer from the start as well
Like just hide it in developer settings which as well are hidden. No noob should accidentally go there, but a malicious being may lead a noob thereβ¦
Then they will offer shit support to avoid doing so. Simpler and safer to just make unlocking legit from the start.