[android-developers] Re: Block Switch App
Hey, don't feed the trolls... On 10 déc, 17:25, Greg Donald gdon...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:16 PM, TreKing treking...@gmail.com wrote: Did you even read Dianne's earlier post? She covered ALL of this ... Code was implemented to prevent users from making an alternate lock app. It wasn't some sort of accident. Drink the koolaid, pretend Android is open source if you want. -- Greg Donaldhttp://destiney.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
Re: [android-developers] Re: Block Switch App
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:58 PM, esavard savard.etie...@gmail.com wrote: Hey, don't feed the trolls... Hey, don't think everyone who disagrees with you is a troll. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
[android-developers] Re: Block Switch App
I must say that I have really enjoyed reading this thread to see how both sides view this issue so passionately. As I've grown in my study and understanding of the Android platform, many of these issues HAVE frustrated the hell out of me, but I've come to just accept them. And as far as the lock screen goes -- nobody has said that there would never be support for third party lock screens. Why can't this issue simply be resolved by disabling the lock screen with disableKeyguard() and the android.permission.DISABLE_KEYGUARD permission. I've done this in a security app and it seems to work just fine. I can create my own Lock Screen with ANY content that I want. Taking over the home key will not be done with a permission, period. Why this is, I have no idea and I'd have to agree with Greg: The current lock app doesn't recognize input from the home button, so using that as a reason to not allow any other lock apps is hypocrisy. Seems to me that this should be up to the users. Why would Google even want to override what its users think is best for them, when they've developed a solid permissions system that seems to work just fine everywhere else? There have been countless attempts to build better security apps, ALL of which can be (as Dianne put it) BROKEN. How is this an Android feature? Just imagine if MS was the only one allowed to create anti-virus or security apps for Windows (crazy!) Anyway, there is after all the option to set a Home Screen replacement as a Use by default for this action, which I think would solve the Home Button problem (for Security, Toddler Lock apps and such). Google has done what no one else in the industry has done, which is to provide us with the ability to create and use an Open distro, with little trouble (see CyanogenMod and JesusFreak). So, in the end, that's probably the answer. At least 1 alternative distro should be popularly supported for users that need just a bit more... S. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
[android-developers] Re: Block Switch App
So what is needed to do this the right way is an addition to the platform that makes the lock screen UI customizable, but that doesn't interfere with the functionality otherwise. Like app widgets, but for the lock screen. Maybe a step more complex so that the widgets can trigger an unlock when manipulated correctly. The way the HTC Tattoo is named and marketed shows that HTC thinks personalization is important to users. It would be interesting to see what marketing research went into that decision. If personalization really is something a lot of users enjoy, then devoting the resources to add support for this to the platform, or accepting an outside patch for it, might be something companies want to do. On Dec 10, 3:57 pm, Jason Proctor jason.android.li...@gmail.com wrote: Claiming, as some do, that Android is open and anyone can go and implement his/her own distribution is somewhat disingenuous. I will let you figure out why it is. well people *have* created their own distributions, so why don't you go ahead and tell me why it's disingenuous to claim that it's possible? (btw, i have no connection with Google and IMHO Android is great but in no way perfect. but claiming that it's not open when the source is right there, well...) -- jason.vp.engineering.particle -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
[android-developers] Re: Block Switch App
Dianne, You are a smart person, and should recognize that what you state as being a fact, and inherently right is, in fact, simply your (Google's) opinion and position and, unlike most of us, you are in the position to enforce that opinion and position. While it is true that since Google invested significant resources into Android (for its own interest and good), it is acting normally in exercising control over the platform, I find it somewhat irritating that Google tries to portray itself as a promoter of Open Source. It is not. Google uses Open Source to further its corporate goals. Plain and simple. Nothing wrong with that. When Google's interests and thos of the Open Source community at large coincide, everybody is happy. When they don't Google enforces its position and acts based on its corporate interests. Claiming, as some do, that Android is open and anyone can go and implement his/her own distribution is somewhat disingenuous. I will let you figure out why it is. Alex Donnini On Dec 10, 2:28 am, Dianne Hackborn hack...@android.com wrote: Taking over the home key will not be done with a permission, period. This is way you get to take over the home key: by having an intent-filter saying you can be home, and letting the user explicitly select your app at the point where they press home. The home key is too central to the user's security for it to be misdirected by some random application they installed a month ago that at time time seemed okay to be able to intercept home key (if they looked at it at all). And as far as the lock screen goes -- nobody has said that there would never be support for third party lock screens. Right now, however, there isn't, and there is no near-term plan to do so. If you want to see why, start perusing the lock screen code starting here: http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/frameworks/policies/base.gi...http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/frameworks/policies/base.gi... Lock screen management is extremely complicated, and not in any shape at this point to be user replaceable. At the very least, all of the points of contacts with the rest of the system (complicated interaction with the in-call experience in various states, dealing with emergency dialing that is legally required and the related SIM states that go with it, deep fragile interaction with low-level power management and event dispatching, etc) needs to be deeply abstracted out of the UI itself. And then there are all of the issues of dealing with this now no longer trusted third party code when it crashes or otherwise misbehaves. This isn't just oh those mean Android people won't let me write a few lines of code to replace the lock screen. On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Lance Nanek lna...@gmail.com wrote: Allowing apps like this, but requiring a permission seems like it would support the most users. Users who want a fancy toddler lock or screensaver or different unlock screen or whatever could then use those apps and would just have to agree to an extra permission when installing. Users who don't want any app to have this level of access just have to check for the permission being requested and not install. On Dec 9, 8:07 pm, Jason Proctor jason.android.li...@gmail.com wrote: Or purposely writing code to break them as with the promises Diane made on this topic. oh sorry i didn't know there were promises made re home button or lock app replacements. what were they? Making it impossible to replace the screen lock app doesn't enhance security. Knowing Android engineers will purposely write code to break any discovered workarounds for the restrictions isn't enhancing security either. do you really want lock app replacements that ship your phone ID and lock code around the network? Fairly open != open. can you, or can you not, create exactly the Android distro you want? yes, you can. hence, open. the owners of distros, which could be you, decide how open particular distros are. Apples and oranges. not at all -- stick whatever drivers you like in your distro. nobody else's distro is obliged to take them. ditto your lock app replacement or home button override. this arrangement is a feature, IMHO. -- jason.vp.engineering.particle -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comandroid-developers%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -- Dianne Hackborn Android framework engineer hack...@android.com Note: please don't send private questions to me, as I don't have time to provide private support, and so won't reply to such e-mails. All such
[android-developers] Re: Block Switch App
Claiming, as some do, that Android is open and anyone can go and implement his/her own distribution is somewhat disingenuous. I will let you figure out why it is. well people *have* created their own distributions, so why don't you go ahead and tell me why it's disingenuous to claim that it's possible? (btw, i have no connection with Google and IMHO Android is great but in no way perfect. but claiming that it's not open when the source is right there, well...) -- jason.vp.engineering.particle -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
Re: [android-developers] Re: Block Switch App
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 2:45 PM, alexdonnini alexdonn...@ieee.org wrote: Dianne, You are a smart person, and should recognize that what you state as being a fact, and inherently right is, in fact, simply your (Google's) opinion and position and, unlike most of us, you are in the position to enforce that opinion and position. While it is true that since Google invested significant resources into Android (for its own interest and good), it is acting normally in exercising control over the platform, I find it somewhat irritating that Google tries to portray itself as a promoter of Open Source. It is not. Google uses Open Source to further its corporate goals. Plain and simple. Nothing wrong with that. When Google's interests and thos of the Open Source community at large coincide, everybody is happy. When they don't Google enforces its position and acts based on its corporate interests. Claiming, as some do, that Android is open and anyone can go and implement his/her own distribution is somewhat disingenuous. I will let you figure out why it is. Alex Donnini Preach it brother Alex. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
Re: [android-developers] Re: Block Switch App
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Jason Proctor jason.android.li...@gmail.com wrote: well people *have* created their own distributions, so why don't you go ahead and tell me why it's disingenuous to claim that it's possible? You assume a high level of resources that do not exist for most people. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
[android-developers] Re: Block Switch App
Nobody is stopping you from downloading the Android source, modifying it, and installing it on your own hardware. If you want to use hardware that has multiple party interest, ie carrier, hardware manufacturer, and integrated services (Google) then why are you so surprised they enforce their interests on you? It might be cool to go buy a breadboard, your favorite DSP chipset, and associated peripherals and install Android on it. Let us know how it goes if you do and show us the cool new lock screen you made. Disclaimer: I'm on DayQuil and am edgy. On Dec 10, 3:45 pm, alexdonnini alexdonn...@ieee.org wrote: Dianne, You are a smart person, and should recognize that what you state as being a fact, and inherently right is, in fact, simply your (Google's) opinion and position and, unlike most of us, you are in the position to enforce that opinion and position. While it is true that since Google invested significant resources into Android (for its own interest and good), it is acting normally in exercising control over the platform, I find it somewhat irritating that Google tries to portray itself as a promoter of Open Source. It is not. Google uses Open Source to further its corporate goals. Plain and simple. Nothing wrong with that. When Google's interests and thos of the Open Source community at large coincide, everybody is happy. When they don't Google enforces its position and acts based on its corporate interests. Claiming, as some do, that Android is open and anyone can go and implement his/her own distribution is somewhat disingenuous. I will let you figure out why it is. Alex Donnini On Dec 10, 2:28 am, Dianne Hackborn hack...@android.com wrote: Taking over the home key will not be done with a permission, period. This is way you get to take over the home key: by having an intent-filter saying you can be home, and letting the user explicitly select your app at the point where they press home. The home key is too central to the user's security for it to be misdirected by some random application they installed a month ago that at time time seemed okay to be able to intercept home key (if they looked at it at all). And as far as the lock screen goes -- nobody has said that there would never be support for third party lock screens. Right now, however, there isn't, and there is no near-term plan to do so. If you want to see why, start perusing the lock screen code starting here: http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/frameworks/policies/base.gi...http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/frameworks/policies/base.gi... Lock screen management is extremely complicated, and not in any shape at this point to be user replaceable. At the very least, all of the points of contacts with the rest of the system (complicated interaction with the in-call experience in various states, dealing with emergency dialing that is legally required and the related SIM states that go with it, deep fragile interaction with low-level power management and event dispatching, etc) needs to be deeply abstracted out of the UI itself. And then there are all of the issues of dealing with this now no longer trusted third party code when it crashes or otherwise misbehaves. This isn't just oh those mean Android people won't let me write a few lines of code to replace the lock screen. On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Lance Nanek lna...@gmail.com wrote: Allowing apps like this, but requiring a permission seems like it would support the most users. Users who want a fancy toddler lock or screensaver or different unlock screen or whatever could then use those apps and would just have to agree to an extra permission when installing. Users who don't want any app to have this level of access just have to check for the permission being requested and not install. On Dec 9, 8:07 pm, Jason Proctor jason.android.li...@gmail.com wrote: Or purposely writing code to break them as with the promises Diane made on this topic. oh sorry i didn't know there were promises made re home button or lock app replacements. what were they? Making it impossible to replace the screen lock app doesn't enhance security. Knowing Android engineers will purposely write code to break any discovered workarounds for the restrictions isn't enhancing security either. do you really want lock app replacements that ship your phone ID and lock code around the network? Fairly open != open. can you, or can you not, create exactly the Android distro you want? yes, you can. hence, open. the owners of distros, which could be you, decide how open particular distros are. Apples and oranges. not at all -- stick whatever drivers you like in your distro. nobody else's distro is obliged to take them. ditto your lock app replacement or home button override. this arrangement is a feature, IMHO. --
[android-developers] Re: Block Switch App
When developers ask if this or that feature is available and the Google support team says you can't do that they are just giving you useful information about what works and what doesn't work. Maybe they could be more sensitive and say gee that's an interesting (dumb) idea and maybe someday we will get around to it :-) Let's try an analogy. Linux is open source, right? If you want to change the way super user privileges are handled you can get the source for Linux and change the kernel. But don't ask Red Hat to provide hooks so you can do that. Red Hat doesn't want to support your hack. You are on your own. Same thing with Android. If you want to change the way the Home key works, you can get the source (it is open source) and modify any part of Android you want. But you can't demand that Google modify the internals of the system to support your hack. They have a long roadmap of future changes and legacy platforms to support. Some things are not workable ideas in the near term or maybe never. On Dec 10, 12:45 pm, alexdonnini alexdonn...@ieee.org wrote: Dianne, You are a smart person, and should recognize that what you state as being a fact, and inherently right is, in fact, simply your (Google's) opinion and position and, unlike most of us, you are in the position to enforce that opinion and position. While it is true that since Google invested significant resources into Android (for its own interest and good), it is acting normally in exercising control over the platform, I find it somewhat irritating that Google tries to portray itself as a promoter of Open Source. It is not. Google uses Open Source to further its corporate goals. Plain and simple. Nothing wrong with that. When Google's interests and thos of the Open Source community at large coincide, everybody is happy. When they don't Google enforces its position and acts based on its corporate interests. Claiming, as some do, that Android is open and anyone can go and implement his/her own distribution is somewhat disingenuous. I will let you figure out why it is. Alex Donnini On Dec 10, 2:28 am, Dianne Hackborn hack...@android.com wrote: Taking over the home key will not be done with a permission, period. This is way you get to take over the home key: by having an intent-filter saying you can be home, and letting the user explicitly select your app at the point where they press home. The home key is too central to the user's security for it to be misdirected by some random application they installed a month ago that at time time seemed okay to be able to intercept home key (if they looked at it at all). And as far as the lock screen goes -- nobody has said that there would never be support for third party lock screens. Right now, however, there isn't, and there is no near-term plan to do so. If you want to see why, start perusing the lock screen code starting here: http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/frameworks/policies/base.gi...http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/frameworks/policies/base.gi... Lock screen management is extremely complicated, and not in any shape at this point to be user replaceable. At the very least, all of the points of contacts with the rest of the system (complicated interaction with the in-call experience in various states, dealing with emergency dialing that is legally required and the related SIM states that go with it, deep fragile interaction with low-level power management and event dispatching, etc) needs to be deeply abstracted out of the UI itself. And then there are all of the issues of dealing with this now no longer trusted third party code when it crashes or otherwise misbehaves. This isn't just oh those mean Android people won't let me write a few lines of code to replace the lock screen. On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Lance Nanek lna...@gmail.com wrote: Allowing apps like this, but requiring a permission seems like it would support the most users. Users who want a fancy toddler lock or screensaver or different unlock screen or whatever could then use those apps and would just have to agree to an extra permission when installing. Users who don't want any app to have this level of access just have to check for the permission being requested and not install. On Dec 9, 8:07 pm, Jason Proctor jason.android.li...@gmail.com wrote: Or purposely writing code to break them as with the promises Diane made on this topic. oh sorry i didn't know there were promises made re home button or lock app replacements. what were they? Making it impossible to replace the screen lock app doesn't enhance security. Knowing Android engineers will purposely write code to break any discovered workarounds for the restrictions isn't enhancing security either. do you really want lock app replacements that ship your phone ID and lock code around the network?
Re: [android-developers] Re: Block Switch App
Preach it brother jotobjects =) - TreKing - Chicago transit tracking app for Android-powered devices http://sites.google.com/site/rezmobileapps/treking On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:10 PM, jotobjects jotobje...@gmail.com wrote: When developers ask if this or that feature is available and the Google support team says you can't do that they are just giving you useful information about what works and what doesn't work. Maybe they could be more sensitive and say gee that's an interesting (dumb) idea and maybe someday we will get around to it :-) Let's try an analogy. Linux is open source, right? If you want to change the way super user privileges are handled you can get the source for Linux and change the kernel. But don't ask Red Hat to provide hooks so you can do that. Red Hat doesn't want to support your hack. You are on your own. Same thing with Android. If you want to change the way the Home key works, you can get the source (it is open source) and modify any part of Android you want. But you can't demand that Google modify the internals of the system to support your hack. They have a long roadmap of future changes and legacy platforms to support. Some things are not workable ideas in the near term or maybe never. On Dec 10, 12:45 pm, alexdonnini alexdonn...@ieee.org wrote: Dianne, You are a smart person, and should recognize that what you state as being a fact, and inherently right is, in fact, simply your (Google's) opinion and position and, unlike most of us, you are in the position to enforce that opinion and position. While it is true that since Google invested significant resources into Android (for its own interest and good), it is acting normally in exercising control over the platform, I find it somewhat irritating that Google tries to portray itself as a promoter of Open Source. It is not. Google uses Open Source to further its corporate goals. Plain and simple. Nothing wrong with that. When Google's interests and thos of the Open Source community at large coincide, everybody is happy. When they don't Google enforces its position and acts based on its corporate interests. Claiming, as some do, that Android is open and anyone can go and implement his/her own distribution is somewhat disingenuous. I will let you figure out why it is. Alex Donnini On Dec 10, 2:28 am, Dianne Hackborn hack...@android.com wrote: Taking over the home key will not be done with a permission, period. This is way you get to take over the home key: by having an intent-filter saying you can be home, and letting the user explicitly select your app at the point where they press home. The home key is too central to the user's security for it to be misdirected by some random application they installed a month ago that at time time seemed okay to be able to intercept home key (if they looked at it at all). And as far as the lock screen goes -- nobody has said that there would never be support for third party lock screens. Right now, however, there isn't, and there is no near-term plan to do so. If you want to see why, start perusing the lock screen code starting here: http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/frameworks/policies/base.gi.. .http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/frameworks/policies/base.gi.. . Lock screen management is extremely complicated, and not in any shape at this point to be user replaceable. At the very least, all of the points of contacts with the rest of the system (complicated interaction with the in-call experience in various states, dealing with emergency dialing that is legally required and the related SIM states that go with it, deep fragile interaction with low-level power management and event dispatching, etc) needs to be deeply abstracted out of the UI itself. And then there are all of the issues of dealing with this now no longer trusted third party code when it crashes or otherwise misbehaves. This isn't just oh those mean Android people won't let me write a few lines of code to replace the lock screen. On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Lance Nanek lna...@gmail.com wrote: Allowing apps like this, but requiring a permission seems like it would support the most users. Users who want a fancy toddler lock or screensaver or different unlock screen or whatever could then use those apps and would just have to agree to an extra permission when installing. Users who don't want any app to have this level of access just have to check for the permission being requested and not install. On Dec 9, 8:07 pm, Jason Proctor jason.android.li...@gmail.com wrote: Or purposely writing code to break them as with the promises Diane made on this topic. oh sorry i didn't know there
[android-developers] Re: Block Switch App
Hello Jason, I would be glad to. Let me give you a simple example that does not quite fit but should give you an approximate idea of what I mean. Gold mining is an open activity. Anyone can go and look for gold. An entire mythology has grown reinforcing the dream that ANYONE can go and get rich looking for and finding gold. In fact, there have been a few (very very few) individuals that have struck the proverbial gold mine. However, for the vast majority of humanity, gold mining is completely out of reach. In fact, gold mining is very big business. As I said, this is a very small and imperfect example. To further clarify, the keywords are scale and resources. It does not matter how open something in theory is. Ultimately, if the scale and resources are not there, it will die or, live in a very small niche. By the way, ever heard of the word sycophant? Perhaps, I am being too harsh but whenever I read these postings, that word comes to mind. I am puzzled by the number of individuals that rise in the (aggressive) defense of Google and its employees, as if they needed to be defended, and don't do a good enough job of defending themselves as regularly proven by Dianne. Google and Android are not causes. They are a company and a product. The packaging may be a little different, and updated, but ultimately Google is not and cannot be any different from, say, IBM, Apple, Microsoft and Oracle. And, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Alex Donnini On Dec 10, 3:57 pm, Jason Proctor jason.android.li...@gmail.com wrote: Claiming, as some do, that Android is open and anyone can go and implement his/her own distribution is somewhat disingenuous. I will let you figure out why it is. well people *have* created their own distributions, so why don't you go ahead and tell me why it's disingenuous to claim that it's possible? (btw, i have no connection with Google and IMHO Android is great but in no way perfect. but claiming that it's not open when the source is right there, well...) -- jason.vp.engineering.particle -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
Re: [android-developers] Re: Block Switch App
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:10 PM, jotobjects jotobje...@gmail.com wrote: When developers ask if this or that feature is available and the Google support team says you can't do that they are just giving you No, it's more like you can't do that and if you find a way I'll break your code. http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers/msg/4dfceeda40b4950c?hl=en That's not in the spirit of open source. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
Re: [android-developers] Re: Block Switch App
No, it's more like you can't do that and if you find a way I'll break your code. http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers/msg/4dfceeda40b4950c?hl=en That's not in the spirit of open source. I think that's in the spirit of fixing exploits that were *not supposed to have been there in the first place.* - TreKing - Chicago transit tracking app for Android-powered devices http://sites.google.com/site/rezmobileapps/treking On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Greg Donald gdon...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:10 PM, jotobjects jotobje...@gmail.com wrote: When developers ask if this or that feature is available and the Google support team says you can't do that they are just giving you No, it's more like you can't do that and if you find a way I'll break your code. http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers/msg/4dfceeda40b4950c?hl=en That's not in the spirit of open source. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comandroid-developers%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
Re: [android-developers] Re: Block Switch App
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:33 PM, TreKing treking...@gmail.com wrote: I think that's in the spirit of fixing exploits that were not supposed to have been there in the first place. Not allowing someone to change out the lock app is a choice Google made, it's not an exploit. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
Re: [android-developers] Re: Block Switch App
Not allowing someone to change out the lock app is a choice Google made, it's not an exploit. Exactly ... therefore any app that is able to get around this restriction is exploiting a bug which is expected to be fixed it so that this cannot happen - as designed. - TreKing - Chicago transit tracking app for Android-powered devices http://sites.google.com/site/rezmobileapps/treking On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Greg Donald gdon...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:33 PM, TreKing treking...@gmail.com wrote: I think that's in the spirit of fixing exploits that were not supposed to have been there in the first place. Not allowing someone to change out the lock app is a choice Google made, it's not an exploit. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comandroid-developers%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
Re: [android-developers] Re: Block Switch App
Android is not closed because you don't feel like you have the resources to create your own distro and make it available. Android is not closed because Google see fit to close security holes in their distro. Android is not closed because Google didn't include your desired feature in their distro. Android is not closed because Dianne and Romain and others represent Google's position on the list. Android is not closed because Google is a for-profit company. and to the guy who basically called me a sycophant, stfu. if you had actually spent more than 1 second reading this thread, you would have noticed that i am saying that Android is open, because you have all you need - free of charge! - to create your own distribution. that's all. note that i specifically did not say that i agree with Google's decisions - although in some cases i can see a rationale for them (which isn't the same thing). btw, *i* wanted to create an app which did something the Google distro didn't allow, and i don't agree with Google's position on why this particular thing is not possible. so we decided to make the change anyway, and partner with a company making its own distro. i can assure you that if you came up with a killer distro, someone would take you up on it and stick it on their hardware or whatever. can you make your own iPhone distro? no. never in a million years. *that* is a closed platform. and, for the record, Linus didn't have any resources either. -- jason.vp.engineering.particle -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
Re: [android-developers] Re: Block Switch App
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Jason Proctor jason.android.li...@gmail.com wrote: Android is not closed because Google see fit to close security holes in their distro. Not allowing some components to be swapped out is not in the true spirit of open source. Claiming it to be a security hole is hypocrisy. The current lock app disables the home button the same as the original poster's proposed app would. Not everyone wants a gesture-based lock app. If the Android platform were truly open, anyone would have the option to make a better lock app. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
Re: [android-developers] Re: Block Switch App
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Jason Proctor jason.android.li...@gmail.com wrote: Android is not closed because Google see fit to close security holes in their distro. Not allowing some components to be swapped out is not in the true spirit of open source. Claiming it to be a security hole is hypocrisy. The current lock app disables the home button the same as the original poster's proposed app would. Not everyone wants a gesture-based lock app. If the Android platform were truly open, anyone would have the option to make a better lock app. these points were covered earlier in the thread. btw the difference between Android, as such, and Google's distribution of same, is *still* lost here. -- jason.vp.engineering.particle -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
Re: [android-developers] Re: Block Switch App
Did you even read Dianne's earlier post? She covered ALL of this ... - TreKing - Chicago transit tracking app for Android-powered devices http://sites.google.com/site/rezmobileapps/treking On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Greg Donald gdon...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Jason Proctor jason.android.li...@gmail.com wrote: Android is not closed because Google see fit to close security holes in their distro. Not allowing some components to be swapped out is not in the true spirit of open source. Claiming it to be a security hole is hypocrisy. The current lock app disables the home button the same as the original poster's proposed app would. Not everyone wants a gesture-based lock app. If the Android platform were truly open, anyone would have the option to make a better lock app. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comandroid-developers%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
Re: [android-developers] Re: Block Switch App
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:16 PM, TreKing treking...@gmail.com wrote: Did you even read Dianne's earlier post? She covered ALL of this ... Code was implemented to prevent users from making an alternate lock app. It wasn't some sort of accident. Drink the koolaid, pretend Android is open source if you want. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
Re: [android-developers] Re: Block Switch App
I see no one actually understands Dianne's post. It currently is not possible to abstract a metric $h!+ tonne of low level code from the current implementation.Like it has been said many times, If you want to do it go for it! Its there for you to mess with but don't try to get me to put it on my phone because I don't want it. The code is open. It implementation of this particular code is not. Not because Google is evil but because Google has to maintain a hold on things that can AND WILL be exploited by those that want to do evil. Again if you want to change it on YOUR phone go for it. Its open and if you break it you own both parts. On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Greg Donald gdon...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:16 PM, TreKing treking...@gmail.com wrote: Did you even read Dianne's earlier post? She covered ALL of this ... Code was implemented to prevent users from making an alternate lock app. It wasn't some sort of accident. Drink the koolaid, pretend Android is open source if you want. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comandroid-developers%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -- Writing code is one of few things that teaches me I don't know everything. Join the Closed Beta of Call Girl Manager http://www.fuligin.com/forums -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
Re: [android-developers] Re: Block Switch App
Code was implemented to prevent users from making an alternate lock app. It wasn't some sort of accident. OK, so then, no, you did not read what Dianne posted. Try that first. Drink the koolaid, pretend Android is open source if you want. Open Sourcehttp://www.google.com/search?hl=enrlz=1C1CHMB_enUS321US322defl=enq=define:open+sourceei=53chS93nHIHiMZz-heIJsa=Xoi=glossary_definitionct=titleved=0CAcQkAE. No one is pretending. And I'm done arguing with this 3 year old. - TreKing - Chicago transit tracking app for Android-powered devices http://sites.google.com/site/rezmobileapps/treking On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Greg Donald gdon...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:16 PM, TreKing treking...@gmail.com wrote: Did you even read Dianne's earlier post? She covered ALL of this ... Code was implemented to prevent users from making an alternate lock app. It wasn't some sort of accident. Drink the koolaid, pretend Android is open source if you want. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comandroid-developers%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
[android-developers] Re: Block Switch App
Not only is the source there, but it's pretty liberally licensed. I'm a fan of the Apache License now. On Dec 10, 12:57 pm, Jason Proctor jason.android.li...@gmail.com wrote: (btw, i have no connection with Google and IMHO Android is great but in no way perfect. but claiming that it's not open when the source is right there, well...) -- jason.vp.engineering.particle -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
[android-developers] Re: Block Switch App
Bottom line is that some believe and trust Google's and its engineers' motivations more than others. Not recognizing that their motivations are different (not good, not evil) from those of the community at large is ignoring and not understanding human nature. You do this at your own peril. Alex Donnini On Dec 10, 5:37 pm, TreKing treking...@gmail.com wrote: Code was implemented to prevent users from making an alternate lock app. It wasn't some sort of accident. OK, so then, no, you did not read what Dianne posted. Try that first. Drink the koolaid, pretend Android is open source if you want. Open Sourcehttp://www.google.com/search?hl=enrlz=1C1CHMB_enUS321US322defl=enq No one is pretending. And I'm done arguing with this 3 year old. - TreKing - Chicago transit tracking app for Android-powered deviceshttp://sites.google.com/site/rezmobileapps/treking On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Greg Donald gdon...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:16 PM, TreKing treking...@gmail.com wrote: Did you even read Dianne's earlier post? She covered ALL of this ... Code was implemented to prevent users from making an alternate lock app. It wasn't some sort of accident. Drink the koolaid, pretend Android is open source if you want. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comandroid-developers%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
[android-developers] Re: Block Switch App
Allowing apps like this, but requiring a permission seems like it would support the most users. Users who want a fancy toddler lock or screensaver or different unlock screen or whatever could then use those apps and would just have to agree to an extra permission when installing. Users who don't want any app to have this level of access just have to check for the permission being requested and not install. On Dec 9, 8:07 pm, Jason Proctor jason.android.li...@gmail.com wrote: Or purposely writing code to break them as with the promises Diane made on this topic. oh sorry i didn't know there were promises made re home button or lock app replacements. what were they? Making it impossible to replace the screen lock app doesn't enhance security. Knowing Android engineers will purposely write code to break any discovered workarounds for the restrictions isn't enhancing security either. do you really want lock app replacements that ship your phone ID and lock code around the network? Fairly open != open. can you, or can you not, create exactly the Android distro you want? yes, you can. hence, open. the owners of distros, which could be you, decide how open particular distros are. Apples and oranges. not at all -- stick whatever drivers you like in your distro. nobody else's distro is obliged to take them. ditto your lock app replacement or home button override. this arrangement is a feature, IMHO. -- jason.vp.engineering.particle -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
[android-developers] Re: Block Switch App
I actually wrote my own scheduler variant once. It's frustrating how disk hungry background tasks can hose the responsiveness on most systems and easy to fix if you're willing to pass in more information from userland. There's ionice nowadays, though. Normal users do install third party anti-virus programs frequently on general purpose computers. That isn't on the level of a scheduler in terms of system access, but it is veto power over program execution and file access. Oh, well. I still have a Zaurus Linux PDA from over a decade ago that I can carry around when I need a phone sized computer. On Dec 10, 12:39 am, Dianne Hackborn hack...@android.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Greg Donald gdon...@gmail.com wrote: Just seems wrong to call the platform open when it's really only as open as Google sees fit to allow. Would it not be frowned upon if the Linux Kernel developers started making kernel components vendors couldn't override/replace? Sorry, you can't use or develop your own sound card driver, you have to use ours that doesn't do quite what you wanted. Yeah or let you replace the scheduler! Oh, wait... -- Dianne Hackborn Android framework engineer hack...@android.com Note: please don't send private questions to me, as I don't have time to provide private support, and so won't reply to such e-mails. All such questions should be posted on public forums, where I and others can see and answer them. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
Re: [android-developers] Re: Block Switch App
Taking over the home key will not be done with a permission, period. This is way you get to take over the home key: by having an intent-filter saying you can be home, and letting the user explicitly select your app at the point where they press home. The home key is too central to the user's security for it to be misdirected by some random application they installed a month ago that at time time seemed okay to be able to intercept home key (if they looked at it at all). And as far as the lock screen goes -- nobody has said that there would never be support for third party lock screens. Right now, however, there isn't, and there is no near-term plan to do so. If you want to see why, start perusing the lock screen code starting here: http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/frameworks/policies/base.git;a=blob;f=phone/com/android/internal/policy/impl/PhoneWindowManager.javahttp://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/frameworks/policies/base.git;a=blob;f=phone/com/android/internal/policy/impl/PhoneWindowManager.java;h=e57fbe8b544b608ba7040b4c1d40b01cd01fe082;hb=HEAD Lock screen management is extremely complicated, and not in any shape at this point to be user replaceable. At the very least, all of the points of contacts with the rest of the system (complicated interaction with the in-call experience in various states, dealing with emergency dialing that is legally required and the related SIM states that go with it, deep fragile interaction with low-level power management and event dispatching, etc) needs to be deeply abstracted out of the UI itself. And then there are all of the issues of dealing with this now no longer trusted third party code when it crashes or otherwise misbehaves. This isn't just oh those mean Android people won't let me write a few lines of code to replace the lock screen. On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Lance Nanek lna...@gmail.com wrote: Allowing apps like this, but requiring a permission seems like it would support the most users. Users who want a fancy toddler lock or screensaver or different unlock screen or whatever could then use those apps and would just have to agree to an extra permission when installing. Users who don't want any app to have this level of access just have to check for the permission being requested and not install. On Dec 9, 8:07 pm, Jason Proctor jason.android.li...@gmail.com wrote: Or purposely writing code to break them as with the promises Diane made on this topic. oh sorry i didn't know there were promises made re home button or lock app replacements. what were they? Making it impossible to replace the screen lock app doesn't enhance security. Knowing Android engineers will purposely write code to break any discovered workarounds for the restrictions isn't enhancing security either. do you really want lock app replacements that ship your phone ID and lock code around the network? Fairly open != open. can you, or can you not, create exactly the Android distro you want? yes, you can. hence, open. the owners of distros, which could be you, decide how open particular distros are. Apples and oranges. not at all -- stick whatever drivers you like in your distro. nobody else's distro is obliged to take them. ditto your lock app replacement or home button override. this arrangement is a feature, IMHO. -- jason.vp.engineering.particle -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comandroid-developers%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -- Dianne Hackborn Android framework engineer hack...@android.com Note: please don't send private questions to me, as I don't have time to provide private support, and so won't reply to such e-mails. All such questions should be posted on public forums, where I and others can see and answer them. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
