Brew got one thing right that no Linux package manager seems to emulate: it doesn't require root for normal operations and even goes so far as to error out if running as root (https://docs.brew.sh/FAQ#why-does-homebrew-say-sudo-is-bad).
In multi-user mode, Nix uses dedicated build users to write to the store. There is also single-user mode, but that also doesn't require a world-writable store.
There is also conda/mamba/pixi/etc. (anything in the conda-forge ecosystem) that can be used without root. Then there are Guix and nix, which (mostly) require to be set up by someone with root privileges, but which then allow unprivileged users to install packages for themselves. I think I have even used emerge rootless-ly at some point a few years ago.
Brew is so full of Linux/OSS/GNU anti-patterns that I can't wrap my head how did it ever managed to receive so much adoption. I guess macOS people are way more ignorant about things that made Linux/OSS what it is.
>To many users, an app seems to be perceived as the blessed way to access the web. While on a mobile, they are mostly a way to organize symlinks or bookmarks. Except, off course a web browser does its best to protect the user while most apps don't.
That is an education problem. What do school computer courses teach these days? Do schools even have computer literacy classes anymore? Do they still teach students about the internet?
> At the end of the day, as long as the owner of the hardware gets to control the keys, this seems like fantastic tech.
The problem is that there are powerful corporate and government interests who would love nothing more than to prevent users from controlling the keys for their own computers, and they can make their dream come true simply by passing a law.
It may be the case that certain users want to ensure that their computers are only running their code. But the same technologies can also used to ensure that their computers are only running someone else's code, locking users out from their own devices.
That's like saying we shouldn't build anything that can be used for good if it can also be used for evil.
By that logic, we should just turn off the internet. Too much potential for evil there.
More seriously, the argument being presented seems to just be "attestation tech has been used for evil in the past, therefore all attestation tech is bad," which is obviously an unsound argument. A sound argument would have to show that attestation tech is _inherently_ bad, and I've already provided examples that I think effectively counter that. I can provide more if needed.
I get that we want to prevent attestation tech from being used for evil, but that's a regulatory problem, not a technical one. You make this point by framing the evil parties as "corporate and government interests."
Don't get me wrong, I am fully against anything that limits the freedoms of the person that owns the device. I just don't see how any of this is a valid argument that Amutable's mission is bad/immoral/invalid.
Or maybe another argument that's perhaps more aligned with the FOSS ideology: if I want e2e attestation of the software stack on my own devices, isn't this a good thing for me?
>if I want e2e attestation of the software stack on my own devices, isn't this a good thing for me?
The building blocks are already there for a sufficiently motivated user to build their own verified OS image. Google has been doing that with ChromeOS for years. The danger I see is that once there is a low-friction, turnkey solution for locking down general purpose systems, then the battle for control over users' devices reduces to control over the keys. That is much easier for well-heeled interests to dominate than outlawing Linux outright.
The status quo is a large population of unverified but fully user-configurable systems. While the ideal end state is a large population of verified and fully user-configurable systems, it is more likely that the tools for achieving that outcome will be co-opted by corporate and political interests to bend the population toward verified and un-configurable systems. That outcome would be far worse than the status quo.
> The models we have in mind for attestation are very much based on users having full control of their keys.
If user control of keys becomes the linchpin for retaining full control over one's own computer, doesn't it become easy for a lobby or government to exert control by banning user-controlled keys? Today, such interest groups would need to ban Linux altogether to achieve such a result.
You left out a pretty important detail. Your "insurgents" in America aren't shooting people or planting IEDs. Communicating and protesting, on the other hand, are sacrosanct rights in the US.
You're missing the forest for the trees here. The network and techniques used here are the same, but even more refined and tech enabled, of those insurgency groups. The power is the network of people in their specialized roles that can quickly target the enemy (ICE) and deliver a payload (obstruction).
The FBI has a long history of attempting to infiltrate and destabilize these groups. In the early 2010s there was a push to infiltrate right leaning groups. They especially called out in their published documents disgruntled veterans returning from the wars and unhappy with leadership noting a worry they would use the skills picked up at war at home.
It's absolutely no surprise that the FBI would investigate this behavior.
And once you remove the friction for requiring cryptographic verification of each component, all it takes is one well-resourced lobby to pass a law either banning user-controlled signing keys outright or relegating them to second-class status. All governments share broadly similar tendencies; the EU and UK govts have always coveted central control over user devices.
Given that they're regularly labeled as "pro democracy protests", I'd venture to say that most people outside the Great Firewall don't know much about it either.
Ni juede zhongguoren bu zhidao tiananmen square 1989 de shihou zuole shenme?
That's HSK2 being generous, if you had to plug it into Google Translate, how can you say you know more than the people who speak the language and live there?
Fascism takes hold in stages; Nazi Germany didn't go from 0 to 100 in one day. You have to nip it in the bud before it grows up.
Right now, ICE goes out of their way to beat and arrest protestors and steal their cameras. They're not yet mowing them down but by that time it would be a little late to do something about their conduct. Remember that the current US president admires how the CCP crushed the student protestors in Tiananmen square with tanks and guns.
>You have to nip it in the bud before it grows up.
Sure, but if you use fascist tactics to fight fascism, are you not a fascist yourself?
And people conveniently focus only on the symptoms(rise of fascism) but not on the main cause that leads to it.
Like Hitler didn't just randomly get to power one day out of nowhere because the average German citizen was living such a good life. He was just one of the symptoms to a major problem that the Weimar republic didn't address and instead used fascist tactics to get rid of Hitler before he could gain power, and then guess what happened.
Similarly, Trump is also only but a symptom to a larger issue. Using fascist tactics to get him out of power, only makes the counter response greeter, and not make the core problem go away.
What fascist tactics did they use to get rid of Hitler? If you're referring to his time in prison, he was put there because he staged a putsch.
Beyond that, much of the establishment and industry tried to work with him using a softly, softly approach. They thought they could steer him, temper him, leverage his popularity for their own ends. Of course, that didn't work out for them
>What fascist tactics did they use to get rid of Hitler?
November 1921 (Munich): During a speech at an NSDAP rally in a beer hall, an unknown assailant fired shots at Hitler from the crowd amid a melee, but he escaped unharmed.
1923 (Thuringia): An unidentified person attempted to shoot Hitler during a rally, but Nazi supporters outnumbered opponents, forcing the attacker to flee.
1923 (Memmingen): Another unknown individual tried to assassinate Hitler with a rifle but retreated when confronted by his followers.
July 15, 1932 (Munich): An assailant fired shots at Hitler and SA leader Ernst Röhm while they dined at Cafe Heck, but both were unhurt.
1932 (Nuremberg): A bomb was planted in the lobby of Hitler's hotel, but it was discovered and removed before detonation.
1932 (Berlin and Munich): Two additional attempts occurred, one involving potential poisoning at the Hotel Kaiserhof in Berlin (where Hitler and staff fell ill after a meal, suspected to be deliberate contamination), though details are limited and perpetrators unidentified.
Attempted assassinations by unidentified lone wolves, spread out over decades, are not "fascist" tactics. Obviously they are very bad for a political climate, but I think that's stretching the definition beyond any use.
You originally implied the Weimar Republic itself used fascistic tactics. But your examples show nothing of the sort (and are obviously just an LLM dump, which disinclines me to continue this conversation)
Yes, I'm sure they were lone wolves who happen to have massive resources for political assassinations, and not backed by hitler's political opposition. Please, let's end the conversation here since it's clearly not going anywhere.
You listed a handful of failed attempts that didn't come anywhere near to being successful. Where are the massive resources? What's the evidence for massive resources? And where's the evidence that these attempts were organised by political opponents at state level?
at what point do you start to question your worldview, when you are actively complaining about the "fascist tactics" used by people who tried to kill Hitler himself?
I wasn't, but thanks for proving my point: If everyone calls their opposition fascists in order to justify killing them, who's the fascist then?
As per history proves, the ones who lose the battle are the fascist, since both the allies and soviets were guilty of the same atrocities in their colonies that they accused the nazis of.
The fascist is the ultranationalist, authoritarian, and xenophobic side that operates under the rule of one strongman leader. That's all. These days the idea that "Liberals are the real fascists" runs rampant, or even more "Antifa is fascist". It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.
> As per history proves, the ones who lose the battle are.
What are you trying to say? Mussolini called himself a fascist. Hitler modeled his nazi party on Mussolini's fascist party, he openly admitted that and admired him. Fascism is not some word that was invented post-hoc to describe very bad people.
>And today this is.. not sufficient. What we require today is to run software protected from each other. For quite some time I tried to use Unix permissions for this (one user per application I run), but it's totally unworkable. You need a capabilities model, not an user permission model
Unix permissions remain a fundamental building block of Android's sandbox. Each app runs as its own unix user.
reply