Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Cutting edge journalism (Score 1) 179

by Cley Faye (#49451495) Attached to: Google Lollipop Bricking Nexus 5 and Nexus 7 Devices

Wait... Google provides your cellphone directly? How did you get on their corporate plan?

Seeing that google sells phones on Google Play, don't give a crap about what carrier you have, and these phones works, I'd say your sarcasm is seriously misplaced.

Or are you talking about those Nexuses that are provided by a different carrier, and as such that carrier retains the right to do whatever they want to the OSS Android underneath?

If you believe that there only exist phones with carrier-specific/altered OS, you're the perfect client for them. All the crap they keep doing to phones (locking them on specific networks, adding crapware, removing legitimate options/tools) is totally irrelevant regarding the ability to use a mobile phone...

You know... because Google can't just go on to the Verizon/T-Mobile/AT&T/Sprint network and update everyone's phone. The provider provides the specific Android build.

Let's look at the Nexus5. Google produce a firmware, google put said firmware on their servers, the phone connect to these servers, and get the update. At what point exactly is the carrier doing anything, beside *maybe* providing the data connection (supposing you're not on wifi when the phone checks his updates)?
Same thing for phones from other manufacturer; Samsung handle updates of their devices, LG does the same, etc.
Carrier are only concerned when they sell severly modified version of the OS, where they take pride to redirect the update lookup to their servers, and only provide updates really late (if at all).

And that's why they can't update all the devices at once. Because everyone and their mother can develop their own kernel, and their own Android for their platform.

Now, if everyone just ran AOSP, then Google would be fine to update everyone at the same time.

Quite the contrary. Google provides OTA updates progressively, probably to limit the impact of large unknown bugs. A friend got a notification way before me about his Nexus 5 getting an update. Still, if you want to update before you get the notification, you're free to do it with the exact same image provided online. The latency here is voluntary, and don't have much to do with carrier.
And about AOSP; even if everyone where using it, Google couldn't do squat about updating every devices at once *especially* because the kernel is the only thing that have to be device specific. Sure, the fact that some manufacturer likes to add their own UI and crap is also an issue, but you can't just put AOSP on any phone, you have to have a working kernel for it.

Comment: Message to the UK (Score 1) 187

by Cley Faye (#49407219) Attached to: UK's Tories Promise To Enact Age Limits For Viewing Online Porn
Dear UK politicians,
Please stop screwing our internet. If you don't like it, just make your own, it's easy and the infrastructure exist.
Thanks, the real world.
In all seriousness, if they want to create a "curated" internet, sanctioned by the state, they can. No need to bother the sane people around with their craziness.

Comment: Not "block" (Score 1) 216

by Cley Faye (#49285995) Attached to: France Will Block Web Sites That Promote Terrorism
A more appropriate terminology is "hide". There is zero improvement in the gov' capacity to actually block such websites from the source (which would at least have a chance to be effective). Instead, they just mess with the DNS to "prevent access" to a list of websites containing gods know what. I wouldn't know such blockage exist without news outlet since I'm not using my ISP's DNS.
And there's not much uproar about these "weapons" (the media call the recent laws "arsenal") being targeted at everyone, very marginally hitting actual terrorists (and not, in any way, hindering their capacity to communicate and recruit). Way to go France.

Comment: Re:What's TSYNC ? (Score 4, Insightful) 338

by Cley Faye (#49209383) Attached to: Google Chrome Requires TSYNC Support Under Linux

they were able to survive without TSYNC and make it 'safe' but suddenly they can't

Geez, improving their software's security by taking advantage of better kernel support, Google really are deadbeat stupid. Better drop the sandboxing idea, have everything in the same process, preferably run as root. We'll be all safe with this old, not up-to-date version of openssl with brand new SSL3.0 support.

Comment: Re:What's TSYNC ? (Score 2) 338

by Cley Faye (#49209369) Attached to: Google Chrome Requires TSYNC Support Under Linux
The actual replies are worse than the slashdot summary; when someone asked for TSYNC support, the answer was "sounds like another good reason not to use Google Spyware". The followup are in the same vein about Flash.
Now one can have his opinion and think that Chrome/Flash are evil incarnates and must be wiped out from our universe, that doesn't change the fact that Flash still exist, is still in use by an awful lot of websites, and Chrome is the only way to get this content under Linux. Telling people "nah, not gonna have it, kthxbai" is probably more hurting than anything.

Comment: Re:I hope it works (Score 2) 60

by Cley Faye (#48874021) Attached to: Calls For European ISPs To Filter Content Could Be Illegal
I hope too. Even with the best intention in the world, doing this would only have negative consequences (and not the expected one).
  • Filtered content would still exist and grow happily with at most the small annoyance of hiding it slightly. Or simpler yet use a vpn that even a grandma could set up nowadays and proxy to an unfiltered ISP.
  • People responsible for "drawing the line" of what is forbidden will go haywire. Any situation where the lines are fuzzy need dedicated examination and reaction, not a handful of guys saying "hey, block me this just 'cause".

But I'll admit I might be a bit optimistic trying to use logic and basic thinking about what will be a political discussion.

Comment: Re:what's wrong with ifconfig? (Score 2) 164

by Cley Faye (#48658753) Attached to: NetworkManager 1.0 Released After Ten Years Development
For desktop users.
Most "not power" user simply want their computer to access "the internet" and don't care much about anything in between. NetworkManager does just that: plug the ethernet, you get a working connection. Input a wifi password in a simple, straighforward input dialog, and it works.
I don't know if it was designed explicitely for this usage, but it work wonderfully there. In other scenarios... not so good. On a dev system, or a server, you'll want to remove it. Bet let's not forget the desktop users :)

Comment: Re:Forked the Debian? or the Debian? (Score 1) 184

by Cley Faye (#48658737) Attached to: Devuan Progress Report Published
The proposition to have multiple init system in Debian was promptly rejected with arguments ranging from infeasible to "who is going to make all these packages compatible with sysv init" (although they were compatible a few month ago).
I don't think doing it anyway in Debian was a good choice in that ambience.

Invest in physics -- own a piece of Dirac!

Working...