toastal

joined 4 years ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

And? That doesn’t change that you are limited strictly to the other featuresets Google phones provides… if you need a feature Pixels do not provide, then you will be using a different OS.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Webxdc is pretty neat. Cheogram & Monocles clients also support it on Android.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

For beginner self-hosters Snikket’s guide is even less work than others, but ejabberd/Prosody are easy to setup up compared to most software. General public is generally out at needing their own server even if the system requirements for XMPP incredibly minimal & many would have access to hosting at home on the cheap with dynamic DNS & basically anything with a processor + a Linux distro.

Not sure what the modern feature support you are talking about tho. Some clients already have stickers, reactions, threading… but the ‘X’ is for ‘extensible’ so it is all meant to be optional on purpose so it is easier to implement clients & democracy wins on features that clients decide are worthwhile to uptake (at least now that Google is out of the picture dictating too much)--& you have community-ran compliance suites for server features like the one for Conversations. Having used a couple of Matrix clients that aren’t Element, the fragmentation of client feature support is literally just as bad--except there is a lot less maturity due to age.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Even with the UnifiedPush fork from F-Droid where you can avoid the Play Store & FSM notifications, you are still shackled to Android which isn’t a long-term solution with Google ultimately at the helm.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Use on multiple devices (in addition to mobile device)

Anything that isn’t green here is a ‘no’. The amount of service requiring mobile devices is absurd. I would hope many of us would love to make the jump out of the Apple/Google duopoly at some point if not already, & these sort of lock-ins should be avoided if you put even two thoughts into the future.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago

It would be possible to ship generic system images with separate updates for the device support code. However, it would be drastically more complicated to maintain and support due to combinations of different versions and it would cause complications for the hardening done by GrapheneOS.

Sounds like they could, but have resource limitations to do it. It’s also a knock against Google whose hardware has gotten worse. Personally, IDGAF about these project-imposed requirements if I can’t have the standard headphone jack on portable device.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

ATS blasting in here to give you linear types, dependent types, & refinement types with the literal performance of C—& safety beyond all 3.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago (8 children)

GrapheneOS only works on Google hardware. Part of the advantage of Android is device variety, but GrapheneOS forces you down a narrow path. Want a rugged device, a headphone jack, microSD? Well Google doesn’t offer those so GrapheneOS can’t meet your device requirements.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

That I could prefer: using a remote VM for the work & being able to opt out of a company provisioned device if possibre. It’s much easier to not pollute a VM & you will want to disable it as soon as you are done anyhow to free up local resources/connections.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Thanks for confirming some of my suspicions about how it all actually operates & the reasons for doing so.

I really just don’t like this in principle as it is way too easy to accidentally do private stuff out of convenience on a machine which is why I do like I said with BYOD & will be present for all attempts to troubleshoot a device. I don’t really see a conceptual different in my digital desktop vs. my physical one & I wouldn’t let an employer install a camera at my desk just as much or would I think it is cool for a business to have cameras in the bathroom just because they own the rental agreement. It feels like there should be some form of privacy even in these digital scenarios that never happens & it leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Is there a solution to allowing users privacy in their system or is it only considered fully private property?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (6 children)

Why do IT teams think being able to snoop any users screen is a good thing? Leave folks alone. Get authorized key consent to SSH into their box iff necessary.

This is why I only work with BYOD operations…

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

We would have that freedom with Android too if those stupid banking apps stopped trying to dictate what you can run on your hardware & Google giving them more features to do so.

view more: ‹ prev next ›