iPhone or some Android

[Alrik Fassbauer]

iPhone or some Android

I highly recommend C-3PO.

 

[pibbuR]

Go to a store. Any.
See which phone is the cheapest one.
Buy.

You have a PC. I know you do.
Which phone you buy doesn't matter, it's all the same overrated and overexpensive bs with prices higher than a decent PC.

The question remains what to do with the money you didn't waste on a phone because you bought the cheapest one.
Invest into a microscope.

Spoiler

You are at age when a phone should not be fragile so much it reacts to a wrong stare and breaks on a whim.
Buy CAT.
It's not the cheapest offer, but would probably survive a nuclear war.

To some degree you make sense. What I need on a phone is practical apps, like apps for buying/showing tickets on trains and buses, a kindle app for reading books, a Bible app, Netflix, Prime, a couple of other streaming apps, in order to chromecast them on my TV. A scientific calculator, and actually also Mathematica. Polar Beat for tracking my exercising (no sharing with others). Several two factor authentication apps. And a couple of other things, all of them quite practical. These things don't require much of the phone (except being a smartphone).

Other things? It's my watch. And I use it as an WIFI->4G adapter when accessing the net from my laptop PC when away from home.

I don't use the phone for checking mail - yes, I've got a PC for that. And regarding surfing on the phone, it's mostly for Crossword solution helpers. And I post things on the Watch using my PC.

The most demanding part is playing music on the road, and for that I need at least 256 Gb storage, which probably will eliminate a lot of the cheaper phones.

pibbuR who wrote this on his PC.

PS: Never heard of the CAT phones, but I see that they are available from shops I use to buy things from in Norway. Might be an alternative, especially if they can survive falling into the toilet. DS.

 

[Ripper]

I will of course consider that option.

One phone I really would like to get is the Fairphone. This one is, unlike most phones, constructed so you can replace almost everything in it. I see that its now available in Norway. My youngest daughter has one. I'll take a closer look at that one, now that it's available in shops in Norway.

pibbuR

Yes, the earlier iterations looked a bit creaky, but it looks promising now. I believe they also have an option to come with e/os, which is another clean Android distro.

 

[Caddy]

There’s just so many pros and cons to list in the iPhone vs Android debate. But it sounds like your big hang up issue is your music collection. Seems like this is more of a special-case audiophile issue.

If I had that much music that cannot be streamed and needed to have access to it, I would probably just consider a dedicated iPod or other player. That way your not limiting yourself to a platform solely based on that.

 

[Ripper]

On the audio side, a pibbuR may be interested in Funkwhale. A Raspberry Pi ( or perhaps a NAS) can happily run a private pod, which would allow you (and your family) to stream your music to your devices, at whatever quality you wish, and also sync selections for offline use.

There's a lot of powerful server-based software that will cheerfully run on RPis, which could almost be powered by a potato. Even software that is primarily designed for a heavy load on powerful server will run well on a Pi when you're just serving yourself and your family. I've got a few of them doing various things, and you'd never know they were there. If you don't mind faffing around for a few hours on a rainy afternoon, you can get all sorts of things going.

A bit off-topic, I know, but it seemed somewhat relevant in that it's quite easy to run your own web-based services, so that you're not constrained by what's available on a particular phone platform.

 

[pibbuR]

There’s just so many pros and cons to list in the iPhone vs Android debate. But it sounds like your big hang up issue is your music collection. Seems like this is more of a special-case audiophile issue.

If I had that much music that cannot be streamed and needed to have access to it, I would probably just consider a dedicated iPod or other player. That way your not limiting yourself to a platform solely based on that.

Valid point of course. I had an 160Gb iPod (wife has it now). But I prefer having just one device in my pocket (in addition to my keys). And, I can get both iPhones and Android thingies with enough storage, so it doesn't affect choosing between them. The main effect is that I probably can't go for the cheapest phones.

pibbuR

PS. I probably in the discussion here has put too much weight on the music storage bit. I mentioned that aspect mainly to illustrate that an iPhone with sufficient storage capacity would be more expensive than a Samsung (and a few others) since those phones, even the non-top models, support SD cards which is cheap compared to internal storage. But if I go for the before mentioned almost-new campaign, the difference isn't that huge anymore. My main issue in this thread was actually privacy concerns between Apple and Google. DS.

 

[pibbuR]

I highly recommend C-3PO.

Nice one, Alrik. Would make communication in all parts of the world a breeze.

But if you allow me some nitpicking: C-3PO is a robot, not an android. As I understand the term, an android is an artificial human being (like those in Blade Runner), with artificial biology.

pibbuR who looks forward to be corrected in the UNLIKELY CASE HE'S WRONG!!!!

PS. Is the Terminator an android or a robot? He looks human (Well, actually, he looks like Arnold), but on the inside he's all mechanical. Off topic, but please, I welcome that. DS

 

[Caddy]

Nice one, Alrik. Would make communication in all parts of the world a breeze.

But if you allow me some nitpicking: C-3PO is a robot, not an android. As I understand the term, an android is an artificial human being (like those in Blade Runner), with artificial biology.

pibbuR who looks forward to be corrected in the UNLIKELY CASE HE'S WRONG!!!!

PS. Is the Terminator an android or a robot? He looks human (Well, actually, he looks like Arnold), but on the inside he's all mechanical. Off topic, but please, I welcome that. DS

So... Those aren't the droids you're looking for?

 

[sakichop]

iPhones are going to be more secure simply because it’s a closed source OS where as android is a “more” open source OS. Apple will only allow you to install apple approved app’s unless you jailbreak your phone. On android you can install custom roms, emulators and side load apps from unknown sources. So you have more chance of exposing your device to something nefarious. Honestly though if you’re knowledgeable and responsible you’ll probably be pretty safe on either.

Apple has shown a more anti-tracking stance lately which I suppose is good. I personally don’t worry to much about it. The worst I’ve seen is targeted ads which TBH I kind of like.

I switched to Apple several years ago mainly because I got tired of either waiting many months after release of the latest OS to get the update or not getting it at all despite buying a high end android phones.

Both IOS and android have their + and -‘s but at this point I’m so deep in to IOS monetarily that I probably would not go back to Android unless Apple really pissed me off.

 

[Ripper]

iPhones are going to be more secure simply because it’s a closed source OS where as android is a more open source OS.

I'd say that open-source is far preferred by most security folks. The transparency and open contributions to addressing weaknesses I think are a much better bet than trusting the secrecy (and unknown exploits) of closed-source proprietary software.

 

[txa1265]

I'd say that open-source is far preferred by most security folks. The transparency and open contributions to addressing weaknesses I think are a much better bet than trusting the secrecy (and unknown exploits) of closed-source proprietary software.

Agreed. IOS being more secure and having better personal and data privacy is not related to open/closed but rather to a focus on those things, whereas Android is based on being 'secure enough' while always being able to monetizing the user regardless of settings or preferences.

 

[Ripper]

IOS being more secure and having better personal and data privacy is not related to open/closed but rather to a focus on those things, whereas Android is based on being 'secure enough' while always being able to monetizing the user regardless of settings or preferences.

I'd actually disagree on that. The thing with Google, and most huge corpos, is that they're a confused mix of good and bad. I would say the design of Android, in terms of an OS security model, is solid. And the security-focused design of Pixel phones is pretty much top-of-table. Although Chromebooks are limited, I think they're leagues ahead in terms of a secure desktop OS.

Then, of course, there's the Tentacle Department, which puts all the disingenuous, privacy-invading monetisation on top of it. But, if you cut out the proprietary binaries, Android itself is good work.

 

[Carnifex]

My mobile is a Motorola, that my brother recommended to me. I immediately disabled the online feature and simply use it to make calls and texts, and it works much better at both than my previous model, which was a flip mobile that I owned for roughly ten years. I actually got the Motorola free from my carrier, they said I'd had the flip model for so long that they'd upgrade it, so it worked out well. I would highly recommend this mobile, although I couldn't say anything about how it functions online.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

But if you allow me some nitpicking: C-3PO is a robot, not an android. As I understand the term, an android is an artificial human being (like those in Blade Runner), with artificial biology.

This would be a topic for The Language Thread !

The word "android" comes - as far as I know - from a Greek word - and the "robots" in the "Star Wars" movies are called "Droids". As far as i know, there is even a trade mark on the word "Droid".

 

[Redglyph]

I'd say that open-source is far preferred by most security folks. The transparency and open contributions to addressing weaknesses I think are a much better bet than trusting the secrecy (and unknown exploits) of closed-source proprietary software.

Exactly, "security by obscurantism" is not an option and people should be educated against using it. The more peer review a system benefits from, the better it gets.

It's a key concept in cryptography (sorry for the pun).

 

[GothicGothicness]

I'd say that open-source is far preferred by most security folks. The transparency and open contributions to addressing weaknesses I think are a much better bet than trusting the secrecy (and unknown exploits) of closed-source proprietary software.

This is not completely true, that we rely so much on open source projects for security is very dangerous, there are several examples, this is a recent one:

https://thehackernews.com/2021/03/hackers-infecting-apple-app-developers.html

Another example is password managers, many rely on open source password managers, with not so many maintainers and peer reviews. It is quite easy for a hacker group or such to infiltrate an open source ring, and write some good which looks pretty friendly at a first glance, but would sneakingly send the passwords to the server or such….. yes it might be discovered after some time, but at that point it is already too late.

However for very big projects, like certain Linux builds that has a huge amount of peer reviews from trusted people, it is of course a good way to keep the system secure.

 

[danutz_plusplus]

Exactly, "security by obscurantism" is not an option and people should be educated against using it. The more peer review a system benefits from, the better it gets.

It's a key concept in cryptography (sorry for the pun).

In an ideal world, with ideally written code, indeed. Open source should lead to no vulnerability being exposed in the system, if the system was designed and implemented correctly. With a clear separation between secrets and public knowledge within the system.

Unfortunately we live in a world where bugs and improper implementations do exist. So open-sourcing cuts in two ways. It could lead to the bug/issue being discovered and fixed, since potentially more people are looking at it, but it could also lead to someone with mal-intent discovering it and abusing it before it's discovered by someone else.

Generally, I think I would also fall in the camp of open-sourcing, especially if it's a general purpose library that's used by a lot of interests. Theoretically that should lead to a lot of people looking at it, right? Well, the recent (a few years now I think) Heartbleed vulnerability in the openssl library (that's reportedly used by 2/3s of all webservers for SSL/TLS channels) kind of contradicts that. Apparently a single dude managed to commit a bug, and there was no one to review his work and catch the bug, iirc? How the hell does that happen? Well, it happens because we live in capitalism where every company just loves to use free open-source and not give it another thought, since security is not treated as an investment but as a cost. Until they get hit. After the incident I believe google is paying 2 engineers to work full-time on that library.

Microsoft uses their own closed-source implementation for SSL/TLS channels and they were not vulnerable to that. They most likely do have bugs and issues (I would imagine) but they're harder to find.

Again, in principle I think I would agree with open-source to expose vulnerabilities, but my point is that it's not as clear-cut. There's that principle that if everyone is responsible with something, no one really is. You don't know if there are enough people looking at it, if it's open-source. Unless you make the effort and get people to look, but you can do that with closed-source.

 

[Redglyph]

In an ideal world, with ideally written code, indeed. Open source should lead to no vulnerability being exposed in the system, if the system was designed and implemented correctly. With a clear separation between secrets and public knowledge within the system.

Nothing is perfect but I think it's a good principle that pays off on average.

You can't even tell if a closed system is sound, most of what I've seen or been asked to design - sadly, to protect hardware IPs with a smart secret sauce were just ridiculous hacks that wouldn't stand a chance against a determined attacker.

 

[Myrthos]

The benefits of open source in relation to security only pays of, if there are sufficient people reviewing the code, like with the Linux kernel. As has been mentioned here, an open source project with a very limited number of people reviewing the code is not by definition more secure than a closed source project.

 

[Redglyph]

That's why this practice is good and reduces the overall risk.

If many people are using an open system, there will be more chances to find security holes and the expected failure is balanced. The open systems also tend to have more developers, which makes the code exposed to more expertise.

If there aren't many users, it's less critical, the expected failure will remain about the same (higher probability of success but less individuals, and fewer attempts to make it fail). Except if the cost of failure - or the gain for the attacker - is high, so this is probably a bad situation - using a system with few users and for which a failure is catastrophic or which attracts more attackers. Usually in those case, there is enough at stake to require an audit.

In an obscure system, if there are many users, that will encourage more attempts to make it fail, but nothing will encourage to make it more secure. Moreover, those systems are usually developed or integrated by fewer individuals, typically a few employees of a company: the chance of spotting an issue is lower.