why would anyone want Android OS on a tablet?

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Graham

We're getting there. That's pretty much the way Google Now is heading. Albeit without the holograms, yet.

If I didn't love Google, I'd be terrified.

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by Sgt.Stubby

For more detail, RMS is the leading authority on this, see what he has to say.

rms seems not to understand that freedom is not an absolute but almost always a compromise. I am no more sacrificing any real freedom by using a device with an open source OS but a few "binary blob" hardware drivers, than I am a "slave" because I exchange some of my free time to my employer for money.

[Sgt.Stubby]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The device certainly IS yours. Hack away.

sure, but then you contradict yourself:

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The 3G network that was being subverted for purposes never intended, however, was very much NOT 'yours.' Not even remotely. There's a difference.

Possession makes no significant difference to the use. It matters more who has what usage rights, not who owns what bit of wire.

A driver might use a rental car to go grocery shopping, or to go to a restaurant. The usage makes no difference as long as the car is returned in the specified condition. Let's not try to control someones lifestyle in a misguided effort to control a different variable.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The free 3G service was for THAT device's limited use ... not for every Tom, Dick, and seedbox people were tethering to them.

What you're endorsing is like putting a prohibition on 1 pint beer glasses in an attempt to stop DUIs (when someone can get just as wasted if the beer comes from shot glasses). It's both more effective and easier to enforce consumption and/or blood alcohol levels. Likewise, it's both more effective and trivial to enforce a consumption limit -- let's not take a gestapo approach and dictate insignificant personal choices. Otherwise you needlessly restrict one variable, and fail to actually address the variable that needs to be controlled.

It's absolutely foolish to dictate how the packets are produced or used. I don't give a rats ass how someone generates or reads a packet - just how much traffic they add to the congestion and whether a packet is malicious.

Live and let live.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Sgt.Stubby

It's absolutely foolish to dictate how the packets are produced or used. I don't give a rats ass how someone generates or reads a packet - just how much traffic they add to the congestion and whether a packet is malicious.

It's theft of services pure and simple.
Even assuming it's OK on some the-rules-don't-apply-to-me level, the people who do it used far more data than people using it by the allowed methods.
That data usage costs Amazon money.
Amazon's response, by the way, was to do exactly what you suggest. Limit traffic. For everyone.

[DiapDealer]

I'm not "endorsing" anything. Just grasping the obvious.

Your analogy to support the use of someone else's 3G network in a manner that violates the ToS you (rhetorical) agreed to by clicking "buy now" is tired and really not very apt.

I myself don't use analogies. Mainly because they're usually only used to twist what is already perfectly clear to begin with into something else.

If you don't like the Terms, don't buy the product/service. Simple. Or at the very least, don't pretend you have a leg to stand on when breaking the ToS bites you in the ass (like free, unlimited 3G web browsing going away).

I have no issue with anyone not liking/supporting (or wanting to change) the current status quo. Only those who retroactively bark about injustices they were too lazy to notice BEFORE they bought a product... and then use that perceived injustice to defend their later actions.

The main mistake you seem to make on these boards is that you assume those who buy these products/services are ignorant sheep who are unwittingly making a deal with the devil. When the truth of the matter is that most (especially here) aren't blind--or stupid. They've just learned to pick and choose their battles... and "gadget ideology" just ain't a battle most are willing to gird their loins for. You're preaching to the choir that already heard the sermon a dozen times and decided they don't care.

[Sgt.Stubby]

Originally Posted by latepaul

rms seems not to understand that freedom is not an absolute but almost always a compromise. I am no more sacrificing any real freedom by using a device with an open source OS but a few "binary blob" hardware drivers, than I am a "slave" because I exchange some of my free time to my employer for money.

You don't realize the significance of the the baseband OS (the master OS that boots first) -- a binary "hardware driver" blob that controls all Android phones. The Android kernel is just a virtual "guest" to the baseband. Everything is ultimately under the control of a blackbox that the phone carrier controls. By design, the baseband OS is updated by the cell tower that the phone registers to.

Regarding absolutes- where do you get the idea that rms advocates absolute extremes? Have you heard any of his talks? E.g., with copyright, he doesn't oppose it; he just opposes absurd lengths of time (75+ years for Mickey Mouse, beyond the death of the creator, for example). And regarding open source-- he does not oppose writing code for profit and charging for works, so long as the consumer is free to fully use it.

What "compromise" would you propose?

rms' stance is that the consumer has compromised way too much, and that things have changed in the past 100 years, so the "deal needs to be renegotiated" (his words in a talk around 2005). Renegotiating implies that rms supports mutual compromise.

[Sgt.Stubby]

Originally Posted by ApK

It's theft of services pure and simple.

Actually it could not be any fuzzier. How can not caring about how someone constructs a packet be constructed as "theft" of anything?

Originally Posted by ApK

Even assuming it's OK on some the-rules-don't-apply-to-me level, the people who do it used far more data than people using it by the allowed methods.
That data usage costs Amazon money.

"Costs money" in the sense that fewer buy a more premium product to avoid an artificially imposed loss of value (like how the brits deliberately had a "mail delayer" person to make sure that normal mail never got incidentally delivered at the same speed as the premium service). As opposed to actually adding value to the product. Your stance is a demonstration of how conditioned consumers are becoming toward accepting these wasteful and embarrassing pro-corporate ideas.

Let's charge subway passengers more for using their smartphones or tablets on the train (instead of charging more for value that the supplier actually added), call it our "premium luxury" service, and then let's act shocked when we discover that the silly plan fails and that the customers are dissatisfied.

Originally Posted by ApK

Amazon's response, by the way, was to do exactly what you suggest. Limit traffic. For everyone.

Which is what they should have done in the first place.

[Sgt.Stubby]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm not "endorsing" anything. Just grasping the obvious.

Your analogy to support the use of someone else's 3G network in a manner that violates the ToS you (rhetorical) agreed to by clicking "buy now" is tired and really not very apt.

You've misunderstood. I never said violate the ToS.

Of course, the ToS is obviously foolish and highly objectionable, but I never proposed any counter actions. But I will now say what action I took personally: boycott. I vote with my feet and feed the competitor, which actually does more damage to them than violating their ToS by using the same traffic volume in some harmless but "forbidden" way.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

If you don't like the Terms, don't buy the product/service. Simple.

Indeed. You're making my case.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Sgt.Stubby

"Costs money"

You are aware that Amazon buys the 3G service from carriers, right?

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by Sgt.Stubby

You don't realize the significance of the the baseband OS (the master OS that boots first) -- a binary "hardware driver" blob that controls all Android phones. The Android kernel is just a virtual "guest" to the baseband. Everything is ultimately under the control of a blackbox that the phone carrier controls. By design, the baseband OS is updated by the cell tower that the phone registers to.

You're assuming a lot about what I do and don't realise.

The baseband OS is there to allow the Android OS to function. If you're suggesting that the phone carrier might update it in a way that stops a user-hacked version of Android working - it's extremely unlikely that they would be able to do that without also disabling Android in general including non-hacked versions.

So if I have an Android phone I can modify the most important bits of software that run on it. There are a few bits I can't get to. But the alternative that rms and apparently you propose is not to use such a device at all because of the small part that I can't hack. That to me is an extreme position. I choose to give up some freedom for utility. As we all do in many areas of life because freedom is not an absolute.

Regarding absolutes- where do you get the idea that rms advocates absolute extremes?

From reading what he has written over the years.

Have you heard any of his talks?

A few.

E.g., with copyright, he doesn't oppose it; he just opposes absurd lengths of time (75+ years for Mickey Mouse, beyond the death of the creator, for example). And regarding open source-- he does not oppose writing code for profit and charging for works, so long as the consumer is free to fully use it.

He opposes the idea of copyright on software. He thinks that in an ideal world it shouldn't exist but that since it does he uses it - in the form of the GPL - to try to promote free software.

By the way, he wouldn't thank you for comparing software copyright with copyright on movies, books etc. He specifically separates them, it's why he doesn't like the term "intellectual property" because it conflates what he sees as different things. I suspect one of the reasons he does this is because his ideas about software freedom applied to creative works would never fly at all, never mind the limited way in which they have for software.

What "compromise" would you propose?

I propose that we do what we do in other areas of life and balance our freedoms against those of others. If I find that it's useful for me to give up the freedom to change some software in exchange for the usefulness it provides that that is a decision I am free to make. I am therefore not against copyright on software. Indeed I am a software engineer and I make money through both open source and proprietary software.

rms' stance is that the consumer has compromised way too much, and that things have changed in the past 100 years, so the "deal needs to be renegotiated" (his words in a talk around 2005). Renegotiating implies that rms supports mutual compromise.

And in many ways I agree. I certainly agree it's time to look again at copyright lengths, especially for creative works. But I'm not against copyright per se, and I certainly am not against it for software.

[Sgt.Stubby]

Originally Posted by latepaul

The baseband OS is there to allow the Android OS to function.

That's part of the problem. It should be Android OS that allows the baseband to function. It's backwards.

Originally Posted by latepaul

If you're suggesting that the phone carrier might update it in a way that stops a user-hacked version of Android working - it's extremely unlikely that they would be able to do that without also disabling Android in general including non-hacked versions.

Denial of service is a threat, but there are far worse consequences to allowing carriers (thus governments) and anyone with an SDR to have full control over the baseband. An eavesdropper can turn on the microphone surreptitiously, a voyeur perv with an SDR configured as a cell tower can remotely turn on the camera (think high school locker rooms or stalker victim). This design also facilitates tracking of phones that appear to be powered off.

BTW, when you say "user-hacked version of Android", you are in fact already talking about taking freedoms that (by design) you were prevented from having.

Originally Posted by latepaul

So if I have an Android phone I can modify the most important bits of software that run on it.

No you cannot - not without hacking it. And even if you give credit to suppliers who tried to stop you, but then look the other way when you hack it, the baseband can manipulate everything anyway, even your hacks.

Originally Posted by latepaul

There are a few bits I can't get to.

Like the bits to the master OS kernel.

No big deal, right?

You are handing the keys to the castle over to someone you don't even know. You need to realize the critical role that open source plays with security. This is not merely some insignificant piece. The baseband OS is both closed, and it's controlled by untrusted parties. The user does not even have control over which closed source bits to use for the baseband OS. The baseband OS has complete control (and visibility) on the guest OS.

If the Facebook app is closed source - fair enough. It's a reasonable compromise if I at least have the option of preventing it from executing. But the most important bits are closed - bits that are running in master kernel space and thus critical to the security of everything you do on the phone.

Originally Posted by latepaul

But the alternative that rms and apparently you propose is not to use such a device at all because of the small part that I can't hack. That to me is an extreme position.

You're letting the size carry too much weight. The most damaging malware in the world is tiny enough to fit on a 1980s floppy disk. It's not the size that matters. The master OS kernel could not be more important.

Originally Posted by latepaul

I choose to give up some freedom for utility. As we all do in many areas of life because freedom is not an absolute.

Giving up both control and visibility to the master OS is an absurdly colossal compromise. The freedom you think you have is largely an illusion. Having only marginal control over a guest OS is atrocious.

Originally Posted by latepaul

He opposes the idea of copyright on software.

No he doesn't. Maybe software as tools, but software as video games, for example, is another matter. Video games are uniquely artistic, and should be treated similar to a painting, for example. rms acknowledges that the value in modifying and redistributing video games is less important than the same rights on software utilities. Stallman endorses the compromising consumer freedoms on video games.

Originally Posted by latepaul

By the way, he wouldn't thank you for comparing software copyright with copyright on movies, books etc. He specifically separates them, it's why he doesn't like the term "intellectual property" because it conflates what he sees as different things.

I'm impressed that you know that -- it confirms you are in fact familiar with his stance. However, nothing I said obviates the value of that separation. Of course the separate kinds of works and appropriate rights of each can of course be compared.

Originally Posted by latepaul

I propose that we do what we do in other areas of life and balance our freedoms against those of others.

So the status quo? IOW, letting lobbyists backed by big money interests continue to pressure congress to favor corporate greed? That's precisely what we do to get "balance", in all areas.

Originally Posted by latepaul

If I find that it's useful for me to give up the freedom to change some software in exchange for the usefulness it provides that that is a decision I am free to make.
I am therefore not against copyright on software.

That's actually very close to Stallman's (and my own) position. Stallman endorses giving up unimportant or insignificant freedoms in exchange for stimulating creation of works, and gaining access to them. The only difference, I sense, is that you're willing to give up important/significant consumer freedoms as well.

Originally Posted by latepaul

And in many ways I agree. I certainly agree it's time to look again at copyright lengths, especially for creative works. But I'm not against copyright per se, and I certainly am not against it for software.

So you endorse copyright on all software, with no separation and without regard to how it's used?

[Sgt.Stubby]

Originally Posted by ApK

You are aware that Amazon buys the 3G service from carriers, right?

Sure, but you don't explain why 5gb downloaded over a tether costs Amazon more than 5gb downloaded by a browser on a mobile device.

It could only "cost money" in the sense that someone tethering without paying for an extra "premium tethering feature" is not buying an extra feature.

It's analogous to Comcast blacklisting all their residential IP addresses in the DNSBL, and then charging customers more for their "business" service to get a non-blacklisted IP address.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sgt.Stubby

Sure, but you don't explain why 5gb downloaded over a tether costs Amazon more than 5gb downloaded by a browser on a mobile device.

It doesn't. The point is that you can't do anything except basic page browsing on the browser of a 3G Kindle, so you're never going to use more than a few MB in a month. Hack your Kindle so you can tether it to a PC and you can - and probably will - use many GB. This is not some harmless hack - it's a criminal act which costs Amazon real money, and a few mindless jerks were responsible for curtailment of the service for everyone. As always, it's the irresponsible morons who spoil things for everyone.

[Sgt.Stubby]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It doesn't. The point is that you can't do anything except basic page browsing on the browser of a 3G Kindle, so you're never going to use more than a few MB in a month. Hack your Kindle so you can tether it to a PC and you can - and probably will - use many GB. This is not some harmless hack - it's a criminal act which costs Amazon real money, and a few mindless jerks were responsible for curtailment of the service for everyone. As always, it's the irresponsible morons who spoil things for everyone.

Tethering is orthogonal to the consumption. Rendering a webpage on a tiny display consumes just as much broadband as rendering the webpage on a large screen - the only difference is what your eyes see. You are controlling the wrong variable here. I can easily do a lot more damage with the FrostWire android app than a desktop browser - in which case the tethering is moot.

If you want to stop someone downloading 5gb, you impose a 5gb limit. Simple.

You're blaming the wrong thing. Amazon's incompetence is where the blame belongs here. If you want to control consumption, then you control consumption, not try to enumerate apps the could be used harmfully, and then prohibit them even when they can be used harmlessly. It's a fools approach.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Sgt.Stubby

Tethering is orthogonal to the consumption. Rendering a webpage on a tiny display consumes just as much broadband as rendering the webpage on a large screen - the only difference is what your eyes see.

This is abject nonsense. I don't think it is possible to run a multiplayer HD game, or remote desktop into my work computers, on an eInk Kindle.

Your attempts to justify what is essentially theft are fooling only yourself.

Graham