Will the banks in Korea, EU and many other areas where Samsung phones are very common keep that restriction if it meant alienating that many users? I doubt it. That’s why I think the support of a big player on this would be a killing move.

Also I’m not 100% convinced that it’s impossible to have some verification without it depending on this one change.

I mean, you can hack/root most devices, even right now. I expect that’s not changing.

Samsung s22 and s25

I’m still holding some hope that maybe Samsung’s flavor of the OS won’t have the restriction of requiring Google keys. Specially considering that Samsung has its own “Galaxy Store” with app submissions controlled by them, not Google.

Though it’s possible they might simply extend the signatures accepted to include also the ones signed by them ^^U …still it would give them a competitive edge to remove the restriction so they might be incentivized to do it.

I’ve commented it in the other post, but in my opinion, the issue of the “nothing to hide” -> “no worry in showing” statement is that in between lines (specially in the context for which it’s used) it seems to want to imply that having something to hide must be something rare or perhaps wrong… as if it were not possible to want to hide things that are good for society to keep hidden.

This isn’t a formal, logical fallacy, but an informal one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy

From a perspective free of presuppositions and biases, I don’t think the logic of the argument on itself is wrong, because of course I wouldn’t be worried about my privacy if I had no interest in keeping my private information hidden… but the premise isn’t true here! the context in which the argument is used is the problem… not the logic of it.

It’s not incorrect to say: “nothing to hide” -> “no worry in showing” …what’s incorrect is assuming that the “nothing to hide” antecedent is true for all law abiding citizens …as if people didn’t have an interest in keeping perfectly legal and legitimate things hidden and safe from as many prying eyes as possible. The fallacy is in the way that it’s used, they are pretending that this means people shouldn’t be worried, when in fact it means the opposite, since everyone does, in fact, have information that should remain hidden. For our own safety and the safety of our society! …so everyone should in fact be worried about breaches in privacy.

In my opinion, this looks more like an informal fallacy, the problem is in the context and the intent that is given to the statement, not so much in the logic of it.

The postulate has some ambiguity… because in between lines it seems to want to imply that having something to hide must be something rare or perhaps wrong… as if it were not possible to want to hide things that are good for society to keep hidden.

This isn’t a formal, logical fallacy, but an informal one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy

From a perspective free of presuppositions and biases, I don’t think the logic of the argument on itself is wrong, because of course I wouldn’t be worried about my privacy if I had no interest in keeping my private information hidden… but that premise isn’t true here! the context in which the argument is used is the problem… not the logic of it.

It’s not incorrect to say: “nothing to hide” -> “No worry for showing it” …what’s incorrect is assuming that the “nothing to hide” antecedent is true for all law abiding citizens …as if people didn’t have an interest in keeping perfectly legal and legitimate things hidden. So it’s not that the statement isn’t logically sound, the fallacy is in the way that it’s used, they are pretending that this means people shouldn’t be worried, when in fact it means the opposite, since everyone does, in fact, have information that should remain hidden. For our own safety and the safety of our society!

It’s more like calling “nazi” to all forms of authoritarian positions, even the left-wing authoritarians in the opposite side of the spectrum.

There’s a distinction between “informal fallacy” and “formal / logical fallacy”. Both have separate articles in wikipedia as well. Why not just call it “fallacy” without categorizing it into a specific subcategory it does not fit anyway?

And even if they did somehow manage to get permission to switch the license, all previous versions would still be open in perpetuity so a fork would come easily. Immich source isn’t only open, and not only GPL… but AGPL-3.0 which is as copyleft as you can get.

Did they work on developing new web standards to unlock that potential on the web?

Back then HTMLv5 wasn’t even a thing, there was no concept of video/microphone/gyroscope/gps access for webapps, notifications, web workers, web sockets, offline PWA webapps, etc. It was not a viable idea unless they actually were to invest big. They weren’t so committed. In Firefox OS even the dialer was a webapp, Mozilla brought forth a lot of innovative APIs to make it possible, many of which are in use today even after the OS was discontinued. And nowadays you even have things like Webassembly that allows you to code it in C or whatever low level language you want.

I feel Apple has always been more interested in their own ecosystem. Opening the web to have the same level of potential as the native apps from their walled garden goes against that strategy, so I don’t believe they were really serious about that approach, it’s always been more interesting for them to prioritize their native apps.

I wonder if resurrecting Firefox OS might still be an option. It was such an interesting idea having the webapps be first citizens.

There’s the KaiOS fork, but the direction is not really the same since it’s more targeted to low power keypad-based phones… and I believe they replaced much of the Gonk layer with a very stripped down low level Android base which isnt fully open source… maybe if they coordinated with the LibrePhone project and some hw manufacturers (like EU-based Nokia) we’d get a fully free stack.

I’m just explaining the reason why it’s more reddish (but not as red as others). It’s something most spreadsheet software (this was clearly MS Excel) can do automatically with numbers for visual indication so we can more easily see the distribution, it does not mean 8 years old is bad.

If there’s a big unbalance in color it would just make it more visible that there’s a big unbalance in ages. Probably if that had happened more colors could have been added to the gradient, maybe maroon->red->yellow->green->blue->white. But I think it was not seen as necessary in this case (or the author was lazy, since these are one of the defaults I believe).

I think it’s just a relative color scale from a spreadsheet… with the older being the greenest, the youngest the reddest, and the rest just fall in between. ProtonVPN just happens to be in between, it’s not as red as the others but also not as green as the ones that have been around for much longer.

The API specification is unaffected by this.

It only affects undocumented behavior, no documented behavior is being broken.

If you want to consider breakage of undocumented / unintended behavior as a major change, then every bug you fix would require a major version bump, since when you fix something you are essentially breaking compatibility for anyone who might have possibly relied on the existence of that unintended behavior.

Is the data and public keys being replicated in the communication between instances? it’s not made clear how the federation actually works, because “enabling users on different servers to share data with end-to-end encryption” (from https://foks.pub/) is something all services with TLS / HTTPS support already do…

Also… one big plus for the OpenPGP HKP protocol is that technically you can self-host your own key in a static HTTPS server with predefined responses and be able to have it interact with other servers and clients without issue. I’m expecting the more complex nature of FOKS might make self-hosting in this way difficult. I’d rather minimize the dynamic services I expose to the outside publicly if I’m self hosting.