adb shell pm list packages com.google.android.googlequicksearchbox(this lists it)
adb shell pm list packages -d com.google.android.googlequicksearchbox(this lists it)
adb shell "dumpsys package com.google.android.googlequicksearchbox | grep stopped="
adb shell am get-current-userThis reported that I'm user 0 when running adb
adb shell pm list usersUsers:
adb shell pm list packages --user 0 com.google.android.googlequicksearchbox(the package does NOT show up, which means it's not installe)
adb shell pm list packages --user 11 com.google.android.googlequicksearchbox(the package does show up, which means it is installed)
adb shell pm uninstall --user 11 com.google.android.googlequicksearchboxSuccess
adb shell pm list packages --user 11 com.google.android.googlequicksearchbox(the package does NOT show up, which means it's not installed)
adb shell cmd package install-existing com.google.android.googlequicksearchboxPackage com.google.android.googlequicksearchbox installed for user: 0
adb shell pm list packages --user 11 | findstr googlequicksearchbox(nothing was reported)
adb shell "run-as com.google.android.googlequicksearchbox cmd package install-existing com.google.android.googlequicksearchbox"run-as: package not debuggable: com.google.android.googlequicksearchbox
adb shell pm path com.google.android.googlequicksearchboxpackage:/product/priv-app/Velvet/Velvet.apk
adb pull /product/priv-app/Velvet/Velvet.apk .\velvet.apk/product/priv-app/Velvet/Vel... (276644880 bytes in 8.645s)
adb install --user 11 .\velvet.apkPerforming Streamed Install
adb shell pm list packages --user 11 | findstr googlequicksearchbox(it's there!)
adb shell pm uninstall --user 0 com.google.android.googlequicksearchboxSuccess
adb shell pm uninstall --user 11 com.google.android.googlequicksearchboxSuccess
adb shell pm list packages --user 0 com.google.android.googlequicksearchbox(nothing is reported)
adb shell pm list packages --user 11 com.google.android.googlequicksearchbox(nothing is reported)
In summary, this shows how Android works, where no other OS that I know of >works this way.
In summary, this shows how Android works, where no other OS that I know of >>works this way.
Are you saying that is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing?
To my knowledge, that's just one of the many things that Android does
which is unique to the Android operating system. No other OS does that, AFAIK.
To my knowledge, that's just one of the many things that Android does
which is unique to the Android operating system. No other OS does that,
AFAIK.
On Debian derivatives, while the original .deb package file is not saved
per se, it is possible to recreate it from the installed items with the dpkg-repack command.
A *huge* advantage of the APK always being there is it helps to populate another phone (or a billion other phones), since you can COPY that APK.
A *huge* advantage of the APK always being there is it helps to populate
another phone (or a billion other phones), since you can COPY that APK.
Why aren't the installer programs restricted only to the user's ID account?
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 20:09:49 -0600, Tango Romeo wrote :
A *huge* advantage of the APK always being there is it helps to populate >>> another phone (or a billion other phones), since you can COPY that APK.
Why aren't the installer programs restricted only to the user's ID
account?
That's a deceitful lock on installers that only Apple adds.
Nobody else but Apple prevents installer re-use on HW-compatible devices.
Just Apple. It's just one of the many ways Apple fucks their own customers.
On 2025-03-28 12:50, Marion wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 20:09:49 -0600, Tango Romeo wrote :
A *huge* advantage of the APK always being there is it helps toWhy aren't the installer programs restricted only to the user's ID
populate
another phone (or a billion other phones), since you can COPY that APK. >>>
account?
That's a deceitful lock on installers that only Apple adds.
Nobody else but Apple prevents installer re-use on HW-compatible devices.
Just Apple. It's just one of the many ways Apple fucks their own
customers.
How does it "fuck" them, exactly?
What's unique to Android that no other operating system does, is Android >>>> saves every installer automatically. The installer is always there.
And that's good.
Unless you need the space...
With many Android phones you can double the storage space in an instant.
Only, if you can use MicroSD cards *and* if you configure the card to be
used as "internal memory".
Otherwise they only get added as external storage and can *not* be
used to install apps on them.
And since MicroSD cards tend to work much less reliable than internal
memory, you may also experience problems when using them this way.
And
if the card does not work any longer, this usally means you have to
setup at least all affected apps again and sometimes your whole device starting with a fresh installation, because you can not just replace the
card *after* you have configured it as "internal memory".
A better approach is to get a device with enough internal memory for all
your apps and their data (even mainstream devices provide at least 128
GB or more nowadays) and use an MicroSD card for additional data like pictures, music etc. only.
We're talking about free app installers that the user downloads & installs. >>
We're talking about what's *different* about Android from other operating
systems, such as that installer APK is always sitting on the file system. >>> That's unique to Android.
And that's a good thing.
Because that free installer can be re-used at will.
Just keep in mind, that newer are not published using APK any longer but using AAB (Android Application Bundle). This means, the device only gets
an APK generated by Google with files required for that specific device configuration. This *may* work on other devices as well if they are
similar enough - but you also may have to download the app again on the
other device, for example when the app uses native code which needs to
be specific for the CPU architecture of the device.
Also see: <https://developer.android.com/guide/app-bundle>
Yup. The Android newsgroup discussed AAB's before that change happened.
*Google is moving away from APKs on the Play Store*
*for new apps as AABs starting in August 2021* (June 30, 2021)
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/yVBkScCyI_I/>
Has anything changed since June 30, 2021 on those details?
Specifically, now that we're four years later into AABs, what has changed?
For me, I haven't noticed anything detrimental. Have you?
On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 17:04:13 -0700, Alan wrote:
What's unique to Android that no other operating system does, is Android >>> saves every installer automatically. The installer is always there.
And that's good.
Unless you need the space...
With many Android phones you can double the storage space in an instant.
Here's a 128GB high quality SanDisk 200MB/s sdcard for twenty bucks. https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-128GB-Extreme-UHS-I-Memory/dp/B09X7FXHVJ/
If that is too small, here's a fast 512GB card for thirty-five bucks. https://www.amazon.com/SAMSUNG-microSDXC-Nintendo-Switch-MB-ME512SA-AM/ dp/B0CWPPMD8W/
How much does it cost to double storage space on a typical iPhone?
On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 11:04:51 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote:
What's unique to Android that no other operating system does, is Android >>>>> saves every installer automatically. The installer is always there.
And that's good.
Unless you need the space...
With many Android phones you can double the storage space in an instant.
Only, if you can use MicroSD cards *and* if you configure the card to be
used as "internal memory".
That's just wrong. https://www.samsung.com/uk/support/mobile-devices/using-an-sd-card/
Otherwise they only get added as external storage and can *not* be
used to install apps on them.
There are two use models for sdcards. Integrated Storage (also known as Internal Expansion) & Removable Storage (also known as Portable Storage). https://support.google.com/android/answer/12153449?hl=en
And since MicroSD cards tend to work much less reliable than internal
memory, you may also experience problems when using them this way.
While anything can fail, your argument against removable storage is first wrong, and now faulty. https://www.wikihow.com/Use-an-SD-Card-on-Android
Your argument is wickedly against trains because truck tires can go flat?
Your entire argument is first dead wrong & second overly pessimistic.
On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 17:04:13 -0700, Alan wrote:
What's unique to Android that no other operating system does, is Android >>> saves every installer automatically. The installer is always there.
And that's good.
Unless you need the space...
With many Android phones you can double the storage space in an instant.
Here's a 128GB high quality SanDisk 200MB/s sdcard for twenty bucks. https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-128GB-Extreme-UHS-I-Memory/dp/B09X7FXHVJ/
If that is too small, here's a fast 512GB card for thirty-five bucks. https://www.amazon.com/SAMSUNG-microSDXC-Nintendo-Switch-MB-ME512SA-AM/dp/B0CWPPMD8W/
How much does it cost to double storage space on a typical iPhone?
For me, I haven't noticed anything detrimental. Have you?
So you don't wish to have this mentioned this, just because years ago
this was already discussed?
How much does it cost to double storage space on a typical iPhone?
Very little since you can easily use any external drive, including
relatively dirt cheap, high capacity hard drives. At worst, you'll need
to add an adaptor to the price.
But of course, as the usual anti-Apple know-nothing troll, you don't
realise that actual fact nor the fact that most people simply don't
give a crap about increasing their device's storage capacity, whether
that is Apple or Android.
Your entire argument is first dead wrong & second overly pessimistic.
No, it is based on nearly 20 years of experience with that. Do you want
all my dead microSD cards? I can give you many examples of cards which
died over the years.
On 2025-03-31 00:16, Bill Powell wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 17:04:13 -0700, Alan wrote:
What's unique to Android that no other operating system does, is
Android
saves every installer automatically. The installer is always there.
And that's good.
Unless you need the space...
With many Android phones you can double the storage space in an instant.
But far from all.
And I bet there are a lot of users who don't realize they can do that.
But Apple is a commercial system. They do not provide free software.
Both Apple & Google don't want you to have inexpensive reliable storage.
Can you guess why?
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 13:33:43 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
But Apple is a commercial system. They do not provide free software.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Some Apple funding goes to LLVM and
CUPS, that I can think of. Does that count as “providing” Free software to
you?
I pay Google 2 bucks/mo US for 1GB.
Typo. Should be 100GB
Not a big $$$ deal for me. YMMV. I use
it for off site backup (like if the house burns down) and it is also
conveniently available to any of my devices pretty much anywhere if wanted >> or needed. A card just wouldn't provide the same service or use, although I >> do keep one locally in case Google burns down.
On 2025-04-02 04:10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 13:33:43 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
But Apple is a commercial system. They do not provide free software.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Some Apple funding goes to LLVM and
CUPS, that I can think of. Does that count as “providing” Free software to
you?
Ok, agreed, they do provide some free software.
The point was that Apple & Google don't put the sd card slot in phones for >>a reason, which is NOT that they want to give you the best phone possible.
Guess you missed my point (and fact). Unlike Apple iOS devices the vast vast
majority of Android phones (and tablets etc) that run Google accounts and
apps are NOT made by Google and thus Google has no say over whether the
device has a slot or not. That is the *individual manufacturers* choice...
So my statements remain backed up that Google & Apple don't provide what >>over three quarters of Samsung phones provide, and Samsung is clearly the >>best seller on the market bar none (Apple iPhones don't even come close).
I guess it's how one reads your original statement. When one compares Apple
and Google phones I think most folks think Android phones with Google
installed. But you are correct if you mean only Google Pixel phones. I
guess what threw me off is that would leave out the majority of the
non-Apple market, many with no slots. Shouldn't they have required some of
your wrath too?
I wonder if people buy Samsungs because they don't have the strategy of >>fleecing them by removing hardware so that the consumer has to buy it back?
I bought my Samsung phone over 5 years ago and I can't remember what my
reasons were for buying it over other brands. But I can tell you it is
still a virgin. I've never had any need to stick anything in it's slot...
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:34:53 +1300, Your Name wrote :
But Apple is a commercial system. They do not provide free software.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Some Apple funding goes to LLVM and >>>> CUPS, that I can think of. Does that count as ´providing¡ Free software to
you?
Ok, agreed, they do provide some free software.
Apple of course provides a ton of free software for users of Apple
devices, including iMovie, Garage Band, Mail, Safari, Passwords, Pages,
Numbers, Keynote, Music, Messages, Photos, Time Machine, etc. ... plus
the various Apple operating systems themselves.
There is a ton of "free software" for both iOS and for Android.
What's unique about iOS is that you can't re-use that free software.
That's bad.
On Apr 3, 2025, Alan wrote
(in article <vsmtpv$1kssr$5@dont-email.me>):
On 2025-04-02 16:38, Marion wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:34:53 +1300, Your Name wrote :
But Apple is a commercial system. They do not provide free software.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Some Apple funding goes to LLVM and
CUPS, that I can think of. Does that count as ´providing¡ Free software to
you?
Ok, agreed, they do provide some free software.
Apple of course provides a ton of free software for users of Apple devices, including iMovie, Garage Band, Mail, Safari, Passwords, Pages, Numbers, Keynote, Music, Messages, Photos, Time Machine, etc. ... plus the various Apple operating systems themselves.
There is a ton of "free software" for both iOS and for Android.
What's unique about iOS is that you can't re-use that free software. That's bad.
Hmm. Looks at nice shiny new iPhone 16, currently downloading all the stuff which was on the iPhone 11 which I had before updating to a 16. All of it. Looks at the old iPhone 11, sitting next to the 16. Is all my stuff still there? Why yes it is. I’m going to have to erase the 11 before sending it off to AT&T to get the refund to apply to the price of the 16. Until then, all my stuff, including all the free Apple stuff, will be on two phones. Hmm... now where is that... ah, there it is. My ancient iPhone 6, which had been too old to trade in on the 11. Let me plug it in and power it up... why there is all my stuff as it was before I got the 11. As the 6 no longer has a SIM, it can’t make calls... if it’s not on a network with a device with the same AppleID. Which it is. It can use my old stuff. It can be upgraded to the limits of the hardware. It can make calls. Why. all my old free Apple stuff is in _three_ places. Damn, that’s good for something which can’t be re-used...
Oh. Wait. I have an iPad. Did the stuff from the iPhone show on the iPad? Why yes it did. That’s _four_ places, all of which can be used, two of which can run all of the latest and greatest versions, one more of which can run most of the latest and greatest until I reformat it to send it to AT&T. And if I didn’t want AT&T’s bounty I’d be able to use the 11, just as I can still use the 6. Note that ’same network as a device with the same AppleID’ includes Macs and, to a limited extent, iCloud-equipped WinBoxen. I can use the 6 as a phone. Still. Even if I don’t have the 16, the 11, or the iPad. I can use the apps, including the Apple apps, on it...
And I can use iCloud web apps on the WinBoxen, including Find My, Maps, iWork, more... Damn. That’s _seven_ places, one made by ASUS, one. by Lenovo, one by MSI, not Apple! Damn! is there no limit to Apple’s perfidy? Forcing users to be able to use free Apple stuff ANYWHERE THEY BLOODY WANT TO? The horror. The horror.
It would be...
...if it were true...
...but it's false.
Alden’s an idiot.
On 2025-04-02 16:38, Marion wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:34:53 +1300, Your Name wrote :
But Apple is a commercial system. They do not provide free software.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Some Apple funding goes to LLVM and
CUPS, that I can think of. Does that count as ´providing¡ Free software to
you?
Ok, agreed, they do provide some free software.
Apple of course provides a ton of free software for users of Apple devices, including iMovie, Garage Band, Mail, Safari, Passwords, Pages, Numbers, Keynote, Music, Messages, Photos, Time Machine, etc. ... plus the various Apple operating systems themselves.
There is a ton of "free software" for both iOS and for Android.
What's unique about iOS is that you can't re-use that free software.
That's bad.
It would be...
...if it were true...
...but it's false.
There is a ton of "free software" for both iOS and for Android.
What's unique about iOS is that you can't re-use that free software.
That's bad.
Hmm. Looks at nice shiny new iPhone 16, currently downloading all the stuff which was on the iPhone 11 which I had before updating to a 16. All of it. Looks at the old iPhone 11, sitting next to the 16. Is all my stuff still there? Why yes it is.
I'm going to have to erase the 11 before sending it
off to AT&T to get the refund to apply to the price of the 16.
Until then,
all my stuff, including all the free Apple stuff, will be on two phones. Hmm... now where is that... ah, there it is. My ancient iPhone 6, which had been too old to trade in on the 11. Let me plug it in and power it up... why there is all my stuff as it was before I got the 11. As the 6 no longer has a SIM, it can't make calls... if it's not on a network with a device with
the same AppleID. Which it is. It can use my old stuff. It can be upgraded to the limits of the hardware. It can make calls. Why. all my old free Apple stuff is in _three_ places. Damn, that's good for something which can't
be re-used...
Oh. Wait. I have an iPad. Did the stuff from the iPhone show on the iPad? Why yes it did. That's _four_ places, all of which can be used, two of which
can run all of the latest and greatest versions, one more of which can run most of the latest and greatest until I reformat it to send it to AT&T. And if I didn't want AT&T's bounty I'd be able to use the 11, just as I can
still use the 6. Note that 'same network as a device with the same
AppleID' includes Macs and, to a limited extent, iCloud-equipped WinBoxen.
I can use the 6 as a phone. Still. Even if I don't have the 16, the 11, or the iPad. I can use the apps, including the Apple apps, on it...
And I can use iCloud web apps on the WinBoxen, including Find My, Maps, iWork, more... Damn. That's _seven_ places, one made by ASUS, one. by
Lenovo, one by MSI, not Apple! Damn! is there no limit to Apple's perfidy? Forcing users to be able to use free Apple stuff ANYWHERE THEY BLOODY WANT TO? The horror. The horror.
Apple of course provides a ton of free software for users of Apple
devices, including iMovie, Garage Band, Mail, Safari, Passwords, Pages, Numbers, Keynote, Music, Messages, Photos, Time Machine, etc. ... plus
the various Apple operating systems themselves.
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:34:53 +1300, Your Name wrote :
But Apple is a commercial system. They do not provide free software.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Some Apple funding goes to LLVM and >>>> CUPS, that I can think of. Does that count as ´providing¡ Free software to
you?
Ok, agreed, they do provide some free software.
Apple of course provides a ton of free software for users of Apple
devices, including iMovie, Garage Band, Mail, Safari, Passwords, Pages,
Numbers, Keynote, Music, Messages, Photos, Time Machine, etc. ... plus
the various Apple operating systems themselves.
There is a ton of "free software" for both iOS and for Android.
What's unique about iOS is that you can't re-use that free software.
That's bad.
What's common about all other operating systems is that you can.
That's good.
On 2025-04-03 01:38, Marion wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:34:53 +1300, Your Name wrote :
But Apple is a commercial system. They do not provide free software. >>>>>The two are not mutually exclusive. Some Apple funding goes to LLVM and >>>>> CUPS, that I can think of. Does that count as ´providing¡ Free software to
you?
Ok, agreed, they do provide some free software.
Apple of course provides a ton of free software for users of Apple
devices, including iMovie, Garage Band, Mail, Safari, Passwords, Pages,
Numbers, Keynote, Music, Messages, Photos, Time Machine, etc. ... plus
the various Apple operating systems themselves.
There is a ton of "free software" for both iOS and for Android.
What's unique about iOS is that you can't re-use that free software.
That's bad.
Then it is not Free software. Free as in Freedom.
What's common about all other operating systems is that you can.
That's good.
On 2025-04-02 16:38, Marion wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:34:53 +1300, Your Name wrote :
But Apple is a commercial system. They do not provide free software. >>>>>The two are not mutually exclusive. Some Apple funding goes to LLVM and >>>>> CUPS, that I can think of. Does that count as ´providing¡ Free software to
you?
Ok, agreed, they do provide some free software.
Apple of course provides a ton of free software for users of Apple
devices, including iMovie, Garage Band, Mail, Safari, Passwords, Pages,
Numbers, Keynote, Music, Messages, Photos, Time Machine, etc. ... plus
the various Apple operating systems themselves.
There is a ton of "free software" for both iOS and for Android.
What's unique about iOS is that you can't re-use that free software.
That's bad.
It would be...
...if it were true...
...but it's false.
"Free software" is usually open source and you can use the source code
for your own versions with any modifications you want to apply to it.
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 18:57:32 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
"Free software" is usually open source and you can use the source code
for your own versions with any modifications you want to apply to it.
Hi Arno,
I use iOS and Windows and Android concurrently, all day, every day.
Most people do not (and I used to use Linux all day, every day too).
So I know what's UNIQUE about iOS when it comes to Apple IPA locks.
You're apparently responding to Alan Baker, who, besides being an Apple
troll (i.e., one who brazenly denies everything he hates about Apple products), has never in his life ever used Windows, Linux or Android.
No other common consumer operating system restricts free app re-use.
Only Apple.
No other common consumer operating system restricts free app re-use.
Only Apple.
that defines that software as "non Free", period. Don't beat
around the bush. Meaning, don't write long explanations. That is not
Free software. It may be gratis, but it is not Free. Uppercase.
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 00:45:01 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
No other common consumer operating system restricts free app re-use.
Only Apple.
that defines that software as "non Free", period. Don't beat
around the bush. Meaning, don't write long explanations. That is not
Free software. It may be gratis, but it is not Free. Uppercase.
There is free open source software which does not cost money but when distributed by the Apple App Store, it's locked to a specific Apple ID.
No other operating system vendor does that for software that is free.
Only Apple.
Call it whatever you want to call it, but that's what Apple does to it.
There is free open source software which does not cost money but when
distributed by the Apple App Store, it's locked to a specific Apple ID.
No other operating system vendor does that for software that is free.
Only Apple.
AGAIN, that is not FREE Software.
Stop calling it Free. It ain't. This is serious, Arlen. Study it up. You claim to be clever. Be it.
Call it whatever you want to call it, but that's what Apple does to it.
I don't care who does it.
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 02:37:12 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
There is free open source software which does not cost money but when
distributed by the Apple App Store, it's locked to a specific Apple ID.
No other operating system vendor does that for software that is free.
Only Apple.
AGAIN, that is not FREE Software.
Stop calling it Free. It ain't. This is serious, Arlen. Study it up. You
claim to be clever. Be it.
Call it whatever you want to call it, but that's what Apple does to it.
I don't care who does it.
The fact that only Apple adds locks (to an Apple ID) on software that no other operating system locks is the technical point that matters here.
That lock goes on *all* software from Apple. Every single app. Every type.
No matter what type of app it is. It gets that unique lock only Apple does.
That's what's different. The lock. It's unique. Only Apple does that.
That lock prevents re-use. And that lock allows Apple to track you.
And that's what's bad.
The *reason* you can't re-use Apple IPAs is Apple locks the downloaded software to a specific unique Apple ID so that it can only be installed on devices with that specific unique Apple ID.
Am I mis-reading what is being posted here??
Both Marion *AND* Carlos E.R. seem to be suggesting that *only* Apple
locks a user into their/Apples system .... Other OSs/systems are not
locking their users into THEIR OSs/Systems.
Or am I mis-understanding what is being posted??
On 8/4/2025, Marion wrote:
The *reason* you can't re-use Apple IPAs is Apple locks the downloaded
software to a specific unique Apple ID so that it can only be installed on >> devices with that specific unique Apple ID.
What happens if you subsequently remove the Apple ID from the iOS device?
On 8/04/2025 4:07 pm, Marion wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 02:37:12 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :Am I mis-reading what is being posted here??
There is free open source software which does not cost money but when
distributed by the Apple App Store, it's locked to a specific Apple ID. >>>>
No other operating system vendor does that for software that is free.
Only Apple.
AGAIN, that is not FREE Software.
Stop calling it Free. It ain't. This is serious, Arlen. Study it up. You >>> claim to be clever. Be it.
Call it whatever you want to call it, but that's what Apple does to it. >>>I don't care who does it.
The fact that only Apple adds locks (to an Apple ID) on software that no
other operating system locks is the technical point that matters here.
That lock goes on *all* software from Apple. Every single app. Every
type.
No matter what type of app it is. It gets that unique lock only Apple
does.
That's what's different. The lock. It's unique. Only Apple does that.
That lock prevents re-use. And that lock allows Apple to track you.
And that's what's bad.
Both Marion *AND* Carlos E.R. seem to be suggesting that *only* Apple
locks a user into their/Apples system .... Other OSs/systems are not
locking their users into THEIR OSs/Systems.
Or am I mis-understanding what is being posted??
On 2025-04-08 11:19, Daniel70 wrote:
On 8/04/2025 4:07 pm, Marion wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 02:37:12 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :Am I mis-reading what is being posted here??
There is free open source software which does not cost money but when >>>>> distributed by the Apple App Store, it's locked to a specific Apple
ID.
No other operating system vendor does that for software that is free. >>>>> Only Apple.
AGAIN, that is not FREE Software.
Stop calling it Free. It ain't. This is serious, Arlen. Study it up.
You
claim to be clever. Be it.
Call it whatever you want to call it, but that's what Apple does to
it.
I don't care who does it.
The fact that only Apple adds locks (to an Apple ID) on software that no >>> other operating system locks is the technical point that matters here.
That lock goes on *all* software from Apple. Every single app. Every
type.
No matter what type of app it is. It gets that unique lock only Apple
does.
That's what's different. The lock. It's unique. Only Apple does that.
That lock prevents re-use. And that lock allows Apple to track you.
And that's what's bad.
Both Marion *AND* Carlos E.R. seem to be suggesting that *only* Apple
locks a user into their/Apples system .... Other OSs/systems are not
locking their users into THEIR OSs/Systems.
Or am I mis-understanding what is being posted??
No, I am saying nothing about the lock. I don't care, I don't have any
Apple.
What I say is that if there is a lock, the Apple software may be gratis,
but it is not Free (as in Freedom). Free means I am free to take the
source code, remove the lock, recompile, and sell it myself. With
variants in the details by the licensing.
This is very bad manners.
On 2025-04-08 04:06, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-04-08 11:19, Daniel70 wrote:
On 8/04/2025 4:07 pm, Marion wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 02:37:12 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :Am I mis-reading what is being posted here??
There is free open source software which does not cost money but when >>>>>> distributed by the Apple App Store, it's locked to a specific
Apple ID.
No other operating system vendor does that for software that is free. >>>>>> Only Apple.
AGAIN, that is not FREE Software.
Stop calling it Free. It ain't. This is serious, Arlen. Study it
up. You
claim to be clever. Be it.
Call it whatever you want to call it, but that's what Apple does
to it.
I don't care who does it.
The fact that only Apple adds locks (to an Apple ID) on software
that no
other operating system locks is the technical point that matters here. >>>>
That lock goes on *all* software from Apple. Every single app. Every
type.
No matter what type of app it is. It gets that unique lock only
Apple does.
That's what's different. The lock. It's unique. Only Apple does that.
That lock prevents re-use. And that lock allows Apple to track you.
And that's what's bad.
Both Marion *AND* Carlos E.R. seem to be suggesting that *only* Apple
locks a user into their/Apples system .... Other OSs/systems are not
locking their users into THEIR OSs/Systems.
Or am I mis-understanding what is being posted??
No, I am saying nothing about the lock. I don't care, I don't have any
Apple.
What I say is that if there is a lock, the Apple software may be
gratis, but it is not Free (as in Freedom). Free means I am free to
take the source code, remove the lock, recompile, and sell it myself.
With variants in the details by the licensing.
Carlos, you personally don't get to decide for the world what the word
"free" means.
Sorry to burst your bubble on this.
On 2025-04-08 04:06, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-04-08 11:19, Daniel70 wrote:Carlos, you personally don't get to decide for the world what the word
On 8/04/2025 4:07 pm, Marion wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 02:37:12 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :Am I mis-reading what is being posted here??
There is free open source software which does not cost money but
when distributed by the Apple App Store, it's locked to a specific >>>>>> Apple ID.
No other operating system vendor does that for software that is
free.
Only Apple.
AGAIN, that is not FREE Software.
Stop calling it Free. It ain't. This is serious, Arlen. Study it up. >>>>> You claim to be clever. Be it.
Call it whatever you want to call it, but that's what Apple does to >>>>>> it.
I don't care who does it.
The fact that only Apple adds locks (to an Apple ID) on software that
no other operating system locks is the technical point that matters
here.
That lock goes on *all* software from Apple. Every single app. Every
type.
No matter what type of app it is. It gets that unique lock only Apple
does.
That's what's different. The lock. It's unique. Only Apple does that.
That lock prevents re-use. And that lock allows Apple to track you.
And that's what's bad.
Both Marion *AND* Carlos E.R. seem to be suggesting that *only* Apple
locks a user into their/Apples system .... Other OSs/systems are not
locking their users into THEIR OSs/Systems.
Or am I mis-understanding what is being posted??
No, I am saying nothing about the lock. I don't care, I don't have any
Apple.
What I say is that if there is a lock, the Apple software may be
gratis,
but it is not Free (as in Freedom). Free means I am free to take the
source code, remove the lock, recompile, and sell it myself. With
variants in the details by the licensing.
"free" means.
Sorry to burst your bubble on this.
On 2025-04-08 18:42, Alan wrote:
On 2025-04-08 04:06, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-04-08 11:19, Daniel70 wrote:Carlos, you personally don't get to decide for the world what the word
On 8/04/2025 4:07 pm, Marion wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 02:37:12 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :Am I mis-reading what is being posted here??
There is free open source software which does not cost money but >>>>>>> when distributed by the Apple App Store, it's locked to a specific >>>>>>> Apple ID.
No other operating system vendor does that for software that is
free.
Only Apple.
AGAIN, that is not FREE Software.
Stop calling it Free. It ain't. This is serious, Arlen. Study it
up. You claim to be clever. Be it.
Call it whatever you want to call it, but that's what Apple does >>>>>>> to it.
I don't care who does it.
The fact that only Apple adds locks (to an Apple ID) on software
that no other operating system locks is the technical point that
matters here.
That lock goes on *all* software from Apple. Every single app. Every >>>>> type.
No matter what type of app it is. It gets that unique lock only
Apple does.
That's what's different. The lock. It's unique. Only Apple does
that.
That lock prevents re-use. And that lock allows Apple to track you.
And that's what's bad.
Both Marion *AND* Carlos E.R. seem to be suggesting that *only* Apple
locks a user into their/Apples system .... Other OSs/systems are not
locking their users into THEIR OSs/Systems.
Or am I mis-understanding what is being posted??
No, I am saying nothing about the lock. I don't care, I don't have any
Apple.
What I say is that if there is a lock, the Apple software may be
gratis, but it is not Free (as in Freedom). Free means I am free to
take the source code, remove the lock, recompile, and sell it myself.
With variants in the details by the licensing.
"free" means.
It is not my definition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software
*Free software*
Free software, libre software, libreware[1][2] sometimes known as freedom-respecting software is computer software distributed under terms
that allow users to run the software for any purpose as well as to
study, change, distribute it and any adapted versions.[3][4][5][6] Free software is a matter of liberty, not price; all users are legally free
to do what they want with their copies of a free software (including profiting from them) regardless of how much is paid to obtain the program.[7][2] Computer programs are deemed "free" if they give
end-users (not just the developer) ultimate control over the software
and, subsequently, over their devices.[5][8]
The right to study and modify a computer program entails that the source code—the preferred format for making changes—be made available to users of that program. While this is often called "access to source code" or "public availability", the Free Software Foundation (FSF) recommends
against thinking in those terms,[9] because it might give the impression
that users have an obligation (as opposed to a right) to give non-users
a copy of the program.
Although the term "free software" had already been used loosely in the
past and other permissive software like the Berkeley Software
Distribution released in 1978 existed,[10] Richard Stallman is credited
with tying it to the sense under discussion and starting the free
software movement in 1983, when he launched the GNU Project: a
collaborative effort to create a freedom-respecting operating system,
and to revive the spirit of cooperation once prevalent among hackers
during the early days of computing.[11][12]
Sorry to burst your bubble on this.
Sorry to burst yours.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software
On 2025-04-08 11:19, Daniel70 wrote:
On 8/04/2025 4:07 pm, Marion wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 02:37:12 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
There is free open source software which does not cost money but when >>>>> distributed by the Apple App Store, it's locked to a specific Apple ID. >>>>>
No other operating system vendor does that for software that is free. >>>>> Only Apple.
AGAIN, that is not FREE Software.
Stop calling it Free. It ain't. This is serious, Arlen. Study it up. You >>>> claim to be clever. Be it.
Call it whatever you want to call it, but that's what Apple does to it. >>>>I don't care who does it.
The fact that only Apple adds locks (to an Apple ID) on software that no >>> other operating system locks is the technical point that matters here.
That lock goes on *all* software from Apple. Every single app. Every type. >>> No matter what type of app it is. It gets that unique lock only Apple does. >>>
That's what's different. The lock. It's unique. Only Apple does that.
That lock prevents re-use. And that lock allows Apple to track you.
And that's what's bad.
Am I mis-reading what is being posted here??
Both Marion *AND* Carlos E.R. seem to be suggesting that *only* Apple
locks a user into their/Apples system .... Other OSs/systems are not
locking their users into THEIR OSs/Systems.
Or am I mis-understanding what is being posted??
No, I am saying nothing about the lock. I don't care, I don't have any Apple.
What I say is that if there is a lock,
the Apple software may be gratis, but it is not Free (as in Freedom).
Free means I am free to take the source code, remove the lock,
recompile, and sell it myself. With variants in the details by the
licensing.
There is no "lock". Purchases from Apple's App Store are linked to the
Apple user ID, but that's simply because not all apps on the App Store
are free, so they are all linked to an user ID. If you've bought an app
or downloaded a free app, then you can easily re-download it on any new device (assuming it works on it) at no cost simply by using the same
Apple user ID.
If it's a free app, then any other user can download it using their own
Apple user ID anyway.
It is of course just the usual anti-Apple, know-nothing trolls like
"Marion" making a massive mountain out of a grain of sand.
When an IPA is installed on an iOS device, it's signed with a provisioning profile that is tied to a specific Apple Developer account and a set of authorized devices. For apps downloaded from the App Store, this process is managed by Apple and linked to your Apple ID.
All apps, even those which might be considered "free & open source" suffer this process, since every single app ever downloaded from Apple's App Store restricts their usage to the Apple ID that originally downloaded them.
The question now arises as to *why* Apple adds your unique Apple ID to
every app installed from the Apple App Store, even those which you'd otherwise consider to be "free & open source". Note that Apple can track
not only your usage of that app, but meta data inherent in that usage.
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 00:45:01 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
No other common consumer operating system restricts free app re-use.
Only Apple.
that defines that software as "non Free", period. Don't beat
around the bush. Meaning, don't write long explanations. That is not
Free software. It may be gratis, but it is not Free. Uppercase.
There is free open source software which does not cost money but when distributed by the Apple App Store, it's locked to a specific Apple ID.
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 19:19:39 +1000, Daniel70 wrote :
Am I mis-reading what is being posted here??
Both Marion *AND* Carlos E.R. seem to be suggesting that *only* Apple
locks a user into their/Apples system .... Other OSs/systems are not
locking their users into THEIR OSs/Systems.
Or am I mis-understanding what is being posted??
Assuming compatible hardware & operating system APIs... it's a fact that...
1. On Windows, Linux, Android & to some extent macOS, if you download
any installer (from anywhere), that installer can (almost always)
be re-used on any other similar machine (assuming compatible hardware).
2. On iOS, it can't.
The *reason* you can't re-use Apple IPAs is Apple locks the downloaded software to a specific unique Apple ID so that it can only be installed on devices with that specific unique Apple ID.
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 13:07:50 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
This is very bad manners.
Speaking of bad manners, the point of this offshoot is about good & bad.
1. Only iOS *locks* every installer to a specific unique ID.
2. This is bad for two reasons, one of which is it prevents reuse.
On 2025-04-08 04:06, Carlos E.R. wrote:[...]
What I say is that if there is a lock, the Apple software may be gratis,
but it is not Free (as in Freedom). Free means I am free to take the
source code, remove the lock, recompile, and sell it myself. With
variants in the details by the licensing.
Carlos, you personally don't get to decide for the world what the word
"free" means.
On 8 Apr 2025 22:55:30 GMT, vallor wrote :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software
Since you and Carlos are the ones who know more than I do about this...
"LocalSend is fundamentally free and open-source software (FOSS).
This means its source code is publicly available, allowing anyone
to inspect, modify, and distribute it. This core principle
remains regardless of how it's distributed."
I aim for software that is akin to free beer, where I don't generally
modify that beer and then redistribute it, but, Apple seems to be doing
that in a way that is sanctioned by the provider of that free beer.
<https://github.com/localsend/localsend/>
That is, if we go to the web page for LocalSend, it has a privacy policy.
<https://localsend.org/>
Then, that LocalSend site has a link to an iOS section.
<https://localsend.org/download?os=ios>
Which then takes us to the suggested iOS IPA on the Apple App Store.
<https://apps.apple.com/us/app/localsend/id1661733229>
When you download that IPA, you can only do so with a valid Apple ID.
And then Apple unilaterally inserts not only a lock to that Apple ID,
but Apple also invasively tracks your every use of that software,
outside of the original privacy policy of the LocalSend web page.
Given those facts, now what would you call this software knowing that?
On 2025-04-08 11:06:55 +0000, Carlos E.R. said:
On 2025-04-08 11:19, Daniel70 wrote:
On 8/04/2025 4:07 pm, Marion wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 02:37:12 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :
There is free open source software which does not cost money but when >>>>>> distributed by the Apple App Store, it's locked to a specific
Apple ID.
No other operating system vendor does that for software that is free. >>>>>> Only Apple.
AGAIN, that is not FREE Software.
Stop calling it Free. It ain't. This is serious, Arlen. Study it
up. You
claim to be clever. Be it.
Call it whatever you want to call it, but that's what Apple does
to it.
I don't care who does it.
The fact that only Apple adds locks (to an Apple ID) on software
that no
other operating system locks is the technical point that matters here. >>>>
That lock goes on *all* software from Apple. Every single app. Every
type.
No matter what type of app it is. It gets that unique lock only
Apple does.
That's what's different. The lock. It's unique. Only Apple does that.
That lock prevents re-use. And that lock allows Apple to track you.
And that's what's bad.
Am I mis-reading what is being posted here??
Both Marion *AND* Carlos E.R. seem to be suggesting that *only* Apple
locks a user into their/Apples system .... Other OSs/systems are not
locking their users into THEIR OSs/Systems.
Or am I mis-understanding what is being posted??
No, I am saying nothing about the lock. I don't care, I don't have any
Apple.
What I say is that if there is a lock,
There is no "lock". Purchases from Apple's App Store are linked to the
Apple user ID, but that's simply because not all apps on the App Store
are free, so they are all linked to an user ID. If you've bought an app
or downloaded a free app, then you can easily re-download it on any new device (assuming it works on it) at no cost simply by using the same
Apple user ID.
If it's a free app, then any other user can download it using their own
Apple user ID anyway.
It is of course just the usual anti-Apple, know-nothing trolls like
"Marion" making a massive mountain out of a grain of sand.
the Apple software may be gratis, but it is not Free (as in Freedom).
Free means you don't pay any money for it. It has nothing to do with "freedom".
Free means I am free to take the source code, remove the lock,
recompile, and sell it myself. With variants in the details by the
licensing.
That is "open source", an entirely different thing. Plus "open source"
is not always actually free, since in some cases you actually still have
to pay for it.
This is very bad manners.
Speaking of bad manners, the point of this offshoot is about good & bad.
1. Only iOS *locks* every installer to a specific unique ID.
2. This is bad for two reasons, one of which is it prevents reuse.
Which is irrelevant for most cases, since installer files can not just
be copied from one iPhone to another anyway.
The *reason* you can't re-use Apple IPAs is Apple locks the downloaded
software to a specific unique Apple ID so that it can only be installed on >> devices with that specific unique Apple ID.
Yes - so what? Nobody will or can even copy installer files from one
iPhone or iPad to another to get them re-used with a different Apple ID.
There is free open source software which does not cost money but when
distributed by the Apple App Store, it's locked to a specific Apple ID.
Which is irrelevant, since you can just download it again, if needed.
simply a brainless anti-Apple know-nothing troll.
That is "open source", an entirely different thing. Plus "open source"or Family connection
is not always actually free, since in some cases you actually still have
to pay for it.
Additional power settings > Choose what the power button does >or (depending on your number of buttons)
Additional power settings > Choose what the power buttons do >
Change settings that are currently unavailable
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 09:45:51 +1200, Your Name wrote :
simply a brainless anti-Apple know-nothing troll.
These are technical newsgroups... and this is a technical subject.
The adults will notice we're talking how iOS is different from all other operating systems, e.g., an app backup is essentially impossible on iOS.
And yet, the Apple trolls (like Your Name) hate that we're discussing this technical feature of iOS which - let's face it - is unique among systems.
Only Apple doesn't allow iOS users the common decency of an app backup.
The only thing Apple allows the poor iOS user to back up is the app data.
But not the app.
And that's bad.
So, why does this matter? When you do a restore on an apple
gadget (Iphone, Ipad, etc), it downloads the latest version from the
apple "store". And since it DOES save the app's data, that will put
things back exactly as they were.
Only exception is if you were using an old version, no longer offered on
the "store" ... then you're just fucked.
On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 17:39:59 -0500, Hank Rogers wrote :
So, why does this matter? When you do a restore on an apple
gadget (Iphone, Ipad, etc), it downloads the latest version from the
apple "store". And since it DOES save the app's data, that will put
things back exactly as they were.
Only exception is if you were using an old version, no longer offered on
the "store" ... then you're just fucked.
Why does it matter? Are you nuts? It's extremely important to back up apps.
Think about what Windows?Android/Linux users would say if you told them
it's impossible for them to back up their saved program installers.
Think about what Windows?Android/Linux users would say if you told them
it's impossible for them to back up their saved program installers.
Ok, I understand your point.
However, I don't do backups/restore on Android either.
I simply let Google Play reinstall everything in the
list.
This is what most people do.
I do make backups.
That is, I connect the phone to the Linux computer
(some how, the method varies) and copy every file in sight.
Some files refuse to be copied, though.
adb pull /system/etc/hosts .\hosts.txt[That should copy the hosts file over even if you're unrooted.]
And this allows me to do a data restore of some apps.
Applies specially to photos and maybe to WhatsApp.
But a true backup/restore strategy like I have on Windows or Linux?
Nope.
adb pull $(adb shell pm path com.app) .
adb backup -apk com.your.app.package -f mydata.ab
adb restore com.app.ab
About Android saving the APK.
I have never used that to reinstall an app.
adb shell pm list packages | findstr osmand (or use grep on Linux)package:net.osmand.plus
In fact, there are cleaning utilities that delete the old APKs to
make up free space.
In fact, there are cleaning utilities that delete the old APKs toNo they don't. Not unless you're rooted.
make up free space.
In fact, there are cleaning utilities that delete the old APKs toNo they don't. Not unless you're rooted.
make up free space.
AFAIK the old ES Explorer or ES Admin did. The app was removed from the store, they did bad and illegal things, but I still have some old
version in an old phone (decommissioned, no SIM).
On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 12:37:51 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
This is very bad manners.
Speaking of bad manners, the point of this offshoot is about good & bad. >>>
1. Only iOS *locks* every installer to a specific unique ID.
2. This is bad for two reasons, one of which is it prevents reuse.
Which is irrelevant for most cases, since installer files can not just
be copied from one iPhone to another anyway.
The main point is that only Apple locks every IPA to a specific user.
And that's bad.
On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 12:35:58 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
The *reason* you can't re-use Apple IPAs is Apple locks the downloaded
software to a specific unique Apple ID so that it can only be installed on >>> devices with that specific unique Apple ID.
Yes - so what? Nobody will or can even copy installer files from one
iPhone or iPad to another to get them re-used with a different Apple ID.
What we're all trying to do is learn how the various systems work.
The original question was what was *different* & whether it was good or
bad, where what's different with iOS is Apple locks every installer to you.
If you happen to have installed on your Android the last known good version of any given app, you can re-install that app on *billions* of Androids.
The point not being the sheer number but the fact it's unrestricted re-use. However... that same scenario won't work for iOS owners. And that's bad.
Even an iTunes "backup" of that last known good version of an app does not contain a re-usable IPA to that last known good version of that iOS app.
The app backup only contains garbage such as meta data & app data.
But the app backup (even with iTunes) does NOT contain the full ipa file.
The Apple user is always fucked by Apple.
Every other operating system allows the user to re-install the last known good version after a factory reset (or crash, or whatever)... except Apple.
On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 12:31:12 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :
There is free open source software which does not cost money but when
distributed by the Apple App Store, it's locked to a specific Apple ID.
Which is irrelevant, since you can just download it again, if needed.
People on this newsgroup are supposed to understand that which they claim.
I don't think you yet understand that your statement is patently false.
Since these are technical newsgroups, it behooves you to understand iOS.
Let's take a simple example that has happened to all of us at some point.
a. Let's say you've got a free app on Windows, iOS and Android;
b. Let's say the "latest version" is not the "last known good version";
c. Let's say you've been diligent with the backups on all 3 platforms.
Sounds great so far, right?
Now... let's say something unforeseen happens & you do a factory reset.
Now what?
Please answer the question below.
Q: What happens on each operating system with respect to the re-install?
Choice A. You're fucked on iOS.
Choice B. You're fucked on iOS, but you're fine on Android.
Choice C. You're fucked on iOS, but you're fine on Windows.
Please choose any of the above which apply to that common situation.
You must choose at least one, where the best answer is choose all three.
The main point is that only Apple locks every IPA to a specific user.
And that's bad.
Which does not change, that you can not copy installer files from one
iOS device to another anyway.
Please choose any of the above which apply to that common situation.
You must choose at least one, where the best answer is choose all three.
All three are wrong or irrelevant.
The original question was what was *different* & whether it was good or
bad, where what's different with iOS is Apple locks every installer to you.
Yes - and?
If you can not copy installer files anyway, what's the matter then if
they get bound to a specific AppleID?
If you happen to have installed on your Android the last known good version >> of any given app, you can re-install that app on *billions* of Androids.
Yes, *if* you have the APK files.
Google Play itself does not provide
the option to install older versions - you can only download the latest version of an app which available for your device.
And if your device is
too old some apps may even not be available any longer, because the publishers decided not to support older Android versions etc.
The point not being the sheer number but the fact it's unrestricted re-use. >> However... that same scenario won't work for iOS owners. And that's bad.
For iOS owners many other things don't work the same way.
If you don't like that, just don't use it. Problem solved.
Even an iTunes "backup" of that last known good version of an app does not >> contain a re-usable IPA to that last known good version of that iOS app.
Yes, the same as in Android. Android backups do not backup everything
and apps installer files will not be backed up at all, just the list
which app should be installed.
The app backup only contains garbage such as meta data & app data.
But the app backup (even with iTunes) does NOT contain the full ipa file.
The same applies to Android.
Every other operating system allows the user to re-install the last known
good version after a factory reset (or crash, or whatever)... except Apple.
Nope. Android does not allow to do this either if you do not manually
extract APK files. And even then you can not be sure of the APK file
works on another device because the publisher uses AAB for publishing.
On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 09:36:39 +0200, Arno Welzel wrote :[...]
Yes, *if* you have the APK files.
Again I appreciate that you explain details that both of us are aware of,
but which the vast majority of people out there probably do not know.
We both agree that Google began requiring all new apps to be published
using the Android App Bundle (AAB) format on August 1, 2021.
I must disagree with your attitude that you feel there's no reason to understand anything that you simply happen to not like how it works.
Your admonition that if you don't like something, then you have no right to explain how that something works, is not an attitude that I share with you.
Yes, the same as in Android. Android backups do not backup everything
and apps installer files will not be backed up at all, just the list
which app should be installed.
While I understand what you claimed, most people will believe your words as stated to mean more than what you meant them to mean, so that's a problem.
The fact is Android already automatically saves every APK you install.
That base.apk is *always* there. All you have to do is copy it to the PC.
@echo off
echo Getting list of installed packages...
adb shell pm list packages -f > packages.txt
The app backup only contains garbage such as meta data & app data.The same applies to Android.
But the app backup (even with iTunes) does NOT contain the full ipa file. >>
That statement is not correct since the Android base apk is always there.
This does exist, I worked for a company which allowed PGP in their
corporate email, but using a doctored version that added a key owned by
the company, so that they could read any email.
Is that Free Software? Well, their PGP version was published, license unchanged, AFAIK.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 508 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 223:41:21 |
| Calls: | 9,976 |
| Calls today: | 7 |
| Files: | 13,833 |
| Messages: | 6,359,112 |
