The typical GOS user generally doesnt want to do that. Flashing is a hurdle that increases barrier for entry. Reducing or eliminating that burden is ideal. Greenboot support would make flashing a little easier.
> typical GOS user generally doesnt want to do that
How do you know this? Is there an official (or even unofficial) source of GOS preinstalled devices that a substantial amount of "typical GOS user" has acquired?
Or maybe you are talking about "potential user of GOS"?
In any case: if you installed it yourself you mostly have to trust the source of the installer. If you purchase a pre-installed device you're basically back to the android/ios model: you have to trust the manufacturer AND the maker of the OS
I have helped a significant number of GOS users install GOS to their device. If you perform post install steps correctly then you do not need to trust where you got it from, as the post install steps are there to verify your install is genuine. If GOS gets greenboot support for motorola devices, then not getting a yellowboot screen will show it is genuine and you wont need to trust anything.
This is emblematic of a misunderstanding technologists often have about the law. We try to treat it like code we can exploit and hack around. But there is no compiler deterministically producing outcomes. Of course, this misunderstanding is often bolstered by the accurate observation that lawyers and businesses find loopholes and favorable interpretations that to us appear much like the exploits we propose. The critical element that's often missed, though, is the human one. To get away with an exploit, to have the case law updated to reflect your favorable interpretation, you need power, influence, and alignment on your interests. There are tax "loopholes" now that are commonly used but in a prior era, under the same laws, would have seen you dragged into court and eviscerated. If you tried your cute SD card trick a judge would tear you a new one. If Microsoft tried it, they could maybe talk to the right people before the case and come to an understanding that this little loophole was convenient for dev devices or something, and convince a judge to rule that they could do it, but only if accompanied by some external age confirmation they could self-attest to, with some wording that makes it clear that the trick is only usable by large and well-respected institutions. The law is not an impartial arbiter that you can outsmart. It's the enforcement mechanism for multiple tiers or rules that bind different classes. This age gathering law is a classic moat law. It exists to prevent outgroups from shipping software that's incompatible with this age communication system, and in a business-to-business context serves to establish obligations between ingroup members. Any other clever interpretation of the law will be discarded regardless of specific wording.
You sound like a teenager fighting his parents. "Technically you didn't say WHICH bed I had to be in by midnight!!!!! I was in A bed, I followed the rules!!!!"
Society (mostly) works because we all agree that laws have intents. The wording is crafted as best as possible, and for the rest we have judges to shutdown lawyers trying to be a moffkalast smart asses.
Call it what you want, I still think that if the, ahem, intent, of a law is to reduce personal freedoms then it should be protested in as many annoying ways as possible. Should at least get some publicity even if it gets struck down.
I'm not joshhacks, just somebody who came across his web app and posted it on HN. I wasn't personally mislead, so I'm not sure what you meant by misleading.
I think they mean when companies or projects say "in the press", they typically mean content created and published by 3rd parties, not the 1st party on a 3rd party site that basically allows anyone to post like social media.
I wouldn't call HN "press", but I do put more weight behind HN discussions because they often have multiple perspectives, and giving site visitors an easy link to potential criticism for transparency is a trust signal to me.
I still want to see the source before installing. This is a sensitive topic and the current US government seeks to punish anyone who does. I don't know who "joshhacks" is, but I do know the gov't is not above honeypots for this.
I mean: when I order something from abroad I don't consider myself as an importer - the store and/or the shipping companies they use are importing it into my country.
Particularly if AliExpress is paying local VAT and import taxes (or at least dealing with the import paperwork) or even less if it’s from one of their local (UK/EU etc) warehouses
Additionally all grapheneOS built in apps are going to be as compliant as possible with all of the app sandboxing and hardening features. Like mte, dcl, etc.
You aren't required to pay the licence fee simply for owning a television. It's required if you're using it to watch OTA channels and/or iPlayer, as I understand it?
> By law, each household in the UK - with some exceptions - has to pay if they:
> watch or record programmes as they're being shown live on any TV channel
> The rules apply to any device on which a programme is viewed, including a TV, desktop or laptop computer, mobile phone, tablet, games console or set-top box.
reply