Even as a licensed ham it's getting increasingly difficult to even get hardware that allows utilization of frequencies I'm duly licensed to transmit on in the 2.4 GHz band. Short of building and designing your own transmitters it's become impossible to repurpose hardware like it was before. Our club has aging M2 Rockets from Unifi that were modified for this use that are now decaying and dying. It's unfortunate too because once these stop working that's it. A few club members have been championing GLiNET but same problems. They are relying on older models which weren't as locked down and already show signs of suffering the same fate as the Rockets.
The other more compelling reason why people would have a rooted phone is to run ROMs that may still be providing OS support where the stock OS has been abandoned or EOL'd by the developer.
Having an unlocked bootloader at the minimum would be required in those scenarios. It actually saves hardware that still works from ending up in landfills.
I have a cache of old devices, largely the freebies Google gave out at I/O in the early days of Android. Was prepping them to sell last week and saw most are running Cyanogen (the first big community Android fork). Even then, root was a popular way to gain more functionality and add features that haven't been released for a device.
Incidentally, if anyone wants some collector's edition Google/Android devices...
> Incidentally, if anyone wants some collector's edition Google/Android devices...
Please get in touch with the postmarketOS folks, since any phone old enough to be running CyanogenMod proper is most likely not supported there yet. (It would be super nice to even have a proper list of all devices where old CyanogenMod was officially supported at some point, with device specs for each. We're lacking even that at present because the transition from the CyanogenMod name to LineageOS was so messy.)
Of course, the combination of extremely limited hardware specs (512MB RAM + 512MB built-in storage was a common spec), old ARM32 SoCs and the ongoing 3G/2G mobile network phaseout means that many such devices will only really be useful as glorified palmtops or for even more minimal uses. But it might be worth experimenting with nonetheless.
This is the way. Widevine is a cancer that only serves to lock down the browser market to a small handful of web engines that have been approved by Google. If your browser isn't based on Chrome, Firefox, or Safari you're out of luck.
Most people will not use a browser that can't open youtube videos and they know and exploit this with extreme precision.
If you are already paying for the streaming service that offers the content and they restrict you from watching because of your OS are you harming the industry by downloading it? Nothing is stopping you from buying a 4k webcam and recording your computer monitor.
You're already paying the monthly fee to stream it, you're just streaming it in a more friendly way. Granted if you cancel the service, you should delete the content.
Many won't though and that's the problem but that problem is caused by the fact that you're being restricted in the first place.
There are still other, non-trashy ways to record your screen. Motivated actors have no problem with such restrictions, as happens with everything. It is for exerting control over the normal users' behaviours and habits.
Yes. I tried using Chrome on Linux just to watch movies that I purchased on Youtube at HD/4K and watched as the stream was limited to 240P. IMHO regardless of what Google says in their ToS they have already broken the trust agreement by not providing what I paid for. Regardless of what the studios want, all this does is push me back towards piracy because once again the industry fails to understand that piracy is a accessibility problem, not a financial problem. If I pay for 4K then regardless of where I want to watch that movie it better be in 4K, that's what I paid for. Google hides behind their ToS to get around the fact that they sold me a product then failed to deliver.
> ChromeOS gets 1080p/4K not because it has massive market share but cause the hardware and boot chain are locked down by the almighty Google.
ChromeOS is based on Gentoo Linux underneath just very stripped down and Googlefied. It's the same BS that Bungee pulled with Destiny 2 and Linux. If you so much as dared to run Destiny 2 on Linux you would be banned. Stadia used Linux but because Google controlled the platform they allowed it to be played there.
These are the games they play to make other platforms that aren't MacOS/Windows appear like they are incapable but in reality it's just corporate greed and grift.
I think the difference is really more noticeable if you're on a limited connection. For example, on Starlink I only have 50 GB to play with. It's entirely ineffective if the browser downloads the ads and only scrubs them out of the view after the fact. Same with anybody using a mobile hotspot over LTE. In those situations bandwidth is super limited (I have 5 GB of hotspot data a month) unless you can convince the carriers to zero-rate data pulled for advertisements (they won't) I'll continue blocking ads before they can be loaded.
Edit: and I'm not on some cheap MVNO, I'm paying over $80 a month with AT&T on their post-paid plan. The phone gets unlimited data but any other device I may need to share that connection needs to be as efficient with bandwidth as possible. Only Firefox and derivatives provide proper ad blocking at this time.
Unfortunately this is not unexpected because Mozilla needs to continue receiving money to survive and unfortunately nobody wants to have the tough conversation about paying for a browser so when whoever is funneling money into Mozilla (Google) says you need AI in your product you have no choice but to jump.
I think their logic is a bit wrong here. Microsoft is a "trusted" entity. Trust doing a lot of heavy lifting here, and even they had to roll back their AI ambitions after seeing the lackluster adoption rates of people using their AI features. The trust part just doesn't matter. It's the principal that we've had browsers for over 20+ years and we never needed AI in our browsers. I would quickly abandon Firefox for an alternative in a heartbeat that doesn't include AI in it.
The uncomfortable truth for all these companies though is that most people simply do not need AI in the places they are shoving it into. Like why does notepad need AI?
I'm paying for my search engine now. I'd pay for Firefox if Mozilla wasn't a fucking clown car of an organization at the business level. I have a deep respect for the engineering team there, but the bean counters running the place should long ago have been ousted. It's the same cabal paying themselves exorbitant salaries and driving completely inane initiatives that nobody wants (see pocket, now AI). I'm not giving them a dime until they get their corporate shit together and I'll be disabling whatever crap they're shoving into Firefox.
Oh I agree 100%. I also play for my search engine so it's definitely not a lack of interest in doing so. I agree with your point as well. Get rid of the money vultures in the C-suite who are paying themselves exorbitant salaries and hand that money over to the Firefox devs. Give them the runway necessary to bring on more developers that would give Firefox the attention it needs to keep up with Chrome/Chromium and maybe start playing with the idea that if you want the latest updates when they release you pay for the browser. If you don't need immediate updates you'll get the deferred releases under a 1-2 month delay or whatever they deem fit with security fixes obviously being backported to keep those who refuse to pay happy enough to not abandon the browser entirely.
Fuck that noise. The places that shadow ban and encourage self-censorship do not deserve your traffic nor your content.
Start voting with your voice and your (digital) feet. Don't be sheeple. Keep the Internet weird. It is not on us to censor ourselves to protect the feelings of snowflakes who get all bent out of shape because of something someone said.
Those contracts will be monitoring their service availability on their own. If Google can't be honest you can bet your bottom dollar the companies paying for that SLA are going to hold them accountable if they report the outage properly or not.
The real point of SLAs is to give you a reason to break contracts. If a vendor doesn't meet their contractual promises, that gives you a lot of room to get out contracts
> but it would seem a reasonable protection for consumers in general.
The final say may ultimately come from the Cox vs Record Labels case from 2019 that is still working it's way through the appeal courts.
If the record labels win their appeal, anyone who helped facilitate the infringement can be brought into a lawsuit. The record labels sued Cox for infringement by it's users. It's not out of the question that any ISP that provides Internet connectivity to Facebook could be pulled in for damages.
For Meta these two cases could result in an existential threat to the company, and rightly so because the record labels do not play games. The blood is already in the water.
Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say. - Edward Snowden
Even as a licensed ham it's getting increasingly difficult to even get hardware that allows utilization of frequencies I'm duly licensed to transmit on in the 2.4 GHz band. Short of building and designing your own transmitters it's become impossible to repurpose hardware like it was before. Our club has aging M2 Rockets from Unifi that were modified for this use that are now decaying and dying. It's unfortunate too because once these stop working that's it. A few club members have been championing GLiNET but same problems. They are relying on older models which weren't as locked down and already show signs of suffering the same fate as the Rockets.
reply