Re: [gentoo-user] any one using ubuntu phones?

[behrouz khosravi]

>
>
> If you build/install Android on a device, then it only contains what
> you put there, and you can just as easily remove it.  If you let
> somebody else build/install android on a device and not give you root
> access, then it is painful.
>
> If you build/install Gentoo on a device, then it only contains what
> you put there, and you can just as easily remove it.  If you let me
> build/install Gentoo on your device and not give you root access, then
> it is painful.
>
> If you let me reflash the firmware on your Gentoo system so that it
> uses my UEFI keys and firmware update keys and doesn't let you change
> them, and I set it up with a bootloader that checks your
> kernel+initramfs signatures and decrypts the rest of your hard drive
> using a TPM-supplied key and a verified boot path, and an initramfs
> that checks the signature on your /usr and mounts everything else
> noexec, then you're going to have some serious headaches.  And yes,
> you actually can do all of this with Gentoo, though almost nobody
> bothers (ChromeOS is based on Gentoo and does use a variation on this,
> with licensed devices having a switch to disable the signature
> checks).  I'd have to check but I think Linux actually supports (maybe
> via a patch) signature verification on execing images, in which case I
> can let you mount whatever you want +x and you still won't be able to
> run your own stuff.
>
> Your problem isn't with Android the OS.  Your problem is with the
> experience your phone vendor is giving you.  All that lockdown stuff
> that you seem to hate is 100% supported by the Linux kernel - you're
> just not turning it on with a typical distro install.
>
> >
> >> FOSS developers seem to mostly be stuck in X11-land - it scratches
> >> their itch which tends to be on the desktop.  While touch screen is
> >> "just another input device" the fact is that you need to design your
> >> entire application UI around it. ...
> >
> > why do you thinks some foss user interfaces can not be created for this
> > situation?
> >
>
> I'm not saying that they cannot be created.  I'm simply pointing out
> that nobody is bothering to do so.  Anybody can write a web-based MUA
> comparable to Gmail or a web-based replacement to Google Docs, and
> release it as FOSS.  However, it takes a lot of work and for various
> reasons most seem content to use an X11-based version of each.  In the
> case of LibreOffice I think the origins are actually in software that
> was intended to be sold commercially, but failed (which is probably
> why they've been trying to cleanup the code for years).
>
> For a mobile OS your life is made even more difficult by Android,
> since many who would tend to write a competing OS probably consider it
> good enough.
>
> I'm really not interested in yet another android so much as more open
> hardware to run android on.  Vendors are getting better about allowing
> unlocking, but driver support/etc is still a mess.
>
> Oh, and I don't like the general move of APIs into Google Play
> Services.  That really needs to be split into two applications.  One
> would provide APIs for stuff actually related to Google (like Google
> authentication, buying stuff on the Play Store, Google Wallet, and so
> on), and that could be closed.  The other would provide all the stuff
> like WebView APIs where rapid updates are desirable, and it should be
> FOSS.
>
>

I know what you mean. This is all more or less true, but what can we do in
this situation?
I will try to move toward whatever promotes openness, and please do not
tell me that ubuntu
is not more open that android. In android I cant even have pure native
apps! some parts of an application
should always be in java.