Tetsuo

I dont really have the time to participate in what looks like an interesting debate but I have a few notes on your post.

How do you expect to attempt to secure that many devices by allowing the platform to continue as it was?

Secure what? Against what type of threat? This type of vague question results in vague answers. If the threat is social engineering I would argue not many protection would be effective beside educating the user about that.

You call it dumbing down, which I understand, but how do you stop all the click-happy people from installing the next nefarious "game", when they already have little to no chance to avoid email spam and SMS scams, let alone LLM generated "custom targeted" exploits.

You don't stop them. You ask them and show them a disclaimer when they activate sideloading and that's it. They are on their own. If the user doesn't understand the risk after (skipping) the disclaimer. That's their own fault. I don't want to be put in prison just to make sure nothing bad ever happen to me. If a user purposefully disable protections they are on their own. But they should always be able to disable them.

I get that there are users who use this (now) vanishing functionality, but are they representative of the total user base, or edge cases? Neither you nor I have any hard data on that, but I know that as an ICT professional, I'm an outlier.

This is the openness of the OG Android. Welcoming as many users as possible even if they are not your mean average user. It doesn't matter if these user are a minority. They should be able to override any security they want. As long as they have acknowledged that they understand the risk and will not sue Google for it. I don't see the problem.

I have worked on a custom ROM based on AOSP and that's the other trend that worries me. The fact that less and less of "Android" seems to go to AOSP was already a concern years ago. Google wants to close their OS to better compete with Apple. This means severing those annoying minority power users from the rest of the community.

I see a very paradoxical response from you coming from Linux. If you enjoy Linux for its openness why would you accept Google rhetoric like that is really surprising. Let users do complicated stuff on your software as long as they have signed a virtual "I AM IN DANGER" form that's OK. If you remove these advanced settings features anyway then it's not for the user, it's a PR move to protect the perception of your software.

Sorry if this comment seems a bit aggressive. In my opinion you are arguing for Android to slowly transform into IOS and ad someone working on Linux for decades, this is very weird.

Ah I get it.

Anyway low consumption kind of mandates that kind of flash build IMO.

Isn't there any way you could stagger buying those SSD? Like you buy them one by one only on sales or refurbished hardware.

You could also maybe attempt a raid5 only with only 3 disks until you could buy a fourth one?

Anyway good luck!

I'm sorry if this is not relevant but I don't have the time to read that whole of text:

https://youtu.be/l30sADfDiM8

I think this is at least similar to what you want to achieve.

I just got to say this website is a nightmare. At least 4 popups overlays just opening the article. The remove ads button just leaves the article and offer you to pay to remove ads. There is also delayed popups appearing while you read the article...

Are they speedrunning obsolence by making sure nobody read their articles online?

This article was prepared with the assistance of an AI language model to ensure timely and relevant information.

And by assistance they mean no human was involved besides pushing the publish button.

No bundle deal?

To a large extent, the core personality of PC gaming is being niche.

What does that even mean?

What is a personality for PC gaming? I have never ever felt I was in a niche hobby or that PC gaming was even perceived as such and I have been playing for a long time.

This article is just bad I'm sorry.

A well intentioned but bad leader?

Thinking about Fallout 4 honestly there was major mistakes.

Pour moi ça c'est la rhétorique habituelle pour justifier ça mais ça va directement à l'encontre de mon expérience dans toute entreprise depuis que je bosse. En "ingénierie" à chaque fois que j'ai eu un manager qui ne voulait pas s'intéresser aux questions techniques ça ne marchait pas. Les projets trainaient, les objectifs changent et l'équipe se demotivait. Alors certes on ne manage pas un ministère comme une équipe dans une boite lamba mais quand même il y a des similitudes.

Un ministre de l'agriculture qui ne connait pas les produits saisonniers c'est caricatural mais en même temps c'est le genre d'infos que quelqu'un du milieu pourrait utiliser pour une décision bien plus macroscopique pour faire le bon choix.

Je veux des solutions pragmatiques issues de la technique. A mon sens les paramètres d'un problème guide vers une solution optimale et il n'y a que très rarement besoin d'arbitrer. Et cet arbitrage si il est fait par quelqu'un qui n'a pas baigné dans un milieu particulier sera probablement mauvais car loin de la réalité de ces métiers.

Aussi quelqu'un peut me poser la meilleur question du monde si il n'a pas le bagage technique je peux le balader sans problème car il n'aura pas cet appui technique pour jauger la qualité de la réponse apporté. Donc cette naïveté de nos décideurs sur les sujets qu'ils arbitrent est un danger et clairement les lobbies ne s'en privent pas pour l'exploiter. C'est ce bagage technique qui permet de porter un regard critique sur les solutions possibles.

Donc vraiment je serais vous je regarderai avec méfiance cette vision idéalisée du politique arbitre impartial et efficace alors qu'en pratique dans votre vie de tout les jours ça ne fonctionne pas bien.

Moi ça le fait penser au fait qu'ils sont interchangeables en plus. Une même personne peut être un coup à l'agriculture et au gouvernement suivant a l'éducation. C'est des Placeholders.

Il a un concept de plan peut-être ?