Root-related questions

[EskeRahn 5,427]

I don’t like when the system I use wants to protect me from myself especially if that also means my hands are hold down.

 

It is better that people that know what they are doing can lift the protection, than people not knowing what they are doing have to figure out how to apply protection..... IMHO

[VaZso 1,997]

It is better that people that know what they are doing can lift the protection, than people not knowing what they are doing have to figure out how to apply protection….. IMHO

 

Yes, exactly.

 

Also, the same applies to restrictive bank applications.

I understand the idea behind it, but independently of rooting - there are also risks in normal user applications which may have malicious codes included.

..but they chase rooted phones and prevent running on them.

Isn't it a false sense of security?

[EskeRahn 5,427]

..but they chase rooted phones and prevent running on them.

Isn’t it a false sense of security?

 

I guess that on rooted phones the risk of an app stealing entries to other programs -including credentials entered for bank apps- are higher, and it is to prevent that scenario, they reject running on a rooted device.

But of course that it is NOT roored does not remove all risks, but some risks are reduced.

 

So secure? Nah. But less insecure? Sure.

[VaZso 1,997]

I guess that on rooted phones the risk of an app stealing entries to other programs -including credentials entered for bank apps- are higher, and it is to prevent that scenario, they reject running on a rooted device.

 

That way the same issue may happen on every PC.

Why phones are that special (rhetorical question)?

[EskeRahn 5,427]

That way the same issue may happen on every PC.

Why phones are that special (rhetorical question)?

 

...And that is exactly why it is (also) a bad idea to have ordinary users work with an account with administrative rights in daily use. And also why 'newer' versions of windows give you a security prompt asking you to confirm that you really want to use this extra power at some situations. Like installing an app available for all users, and not just current user.

[VaZso 1,997]

…And that is exactly why it is (also) a bad idea to have ordinary users work with an account with administrative rights in daily use. And also why ‘newer’ versions of windows give you a security prompt asking you to confirm that you really want to use this extra power at some situations. Like installing an app available for all users, and not just current user.

 

This is what I called bad usage habit, but otherwise it has a historical reason. User should not use the computer as administrator privileges because an application has permissions that way which it should not have... but prior NT kernel (so Windows ME, 98, 95 ... 3.1 / DOS) every program had almost every rights. Later, from Windows NT (2000, XP, 8 and 10) had a correct permission system with multi-user support which allowed the user to log in as unprivileged and do the rest (like installing applications and do system-wide settings) as privileges user (Administrator).

 

However, lazy programmers did not really care about user rights which caused their program to not work as single user and lazy users did not want to handle things in two separate places.

Prior Windows NT (practically XP) the system was convenient but unstable and later, users wanted the same convenience but a more stable operating system and used almost every Windows XPs with Administrator as main user.

So the whole usage method was chaotic from the beginning.

Later, Microsoft tried to restrict Administrator users by UAC which was also switched off by some users - this is a restriction of Administrative user which should have not exists as users should not have been used the system as Administrator. Ever. It is a forced solution caused by not appropriate use of the system of practically everybody.

So, the whole idea how people using their Windows is wrong at the roots.

 

Under Linux, the whole usage system is different. User is really a user and not a privileged one called root.

The root user is unnecessary for usual use of the system, but still an important user if something went wrong or if system has to be modified or so on...

There are solutions how a user may have some kind (but restricted) of privileged access, but extremes are also exists like Ubuntu's idea of "sudo" every permissions which make me remember the bad side of Windows usage...

 

All in all, I would not like the system to decide if I am an ordinary or a "power" user - I would like to decide if I am.

[Hook 2,945]

I've rooted every phone I've had since my HTC Nexus One. The only thing that changed over the years was how fast I took to do it. I waited 2 years to root my Nexus One (largely because I had to research everything and make sure I knew what I was doing with a lot of help from folks at XDA), it was one week for my Nexus 6p (because by that time we had Nexus root toolkit and I had a very stable reliable alternate ROM, Dirty Unicorns). I haven't rooted my current Moto G6 I picked up for $99 when my 6p died last April, but that's because it is an interim phone and because I don't have high confidence in the posted methods for doing so.

 

I agree very much with VaZso. If I don't have complete control, it isn't mine. I won't take a week to root my Pro1 —I'll have to learn how to do it and again won't proceed until I am sure I know how to do it. I will also not do it until I am sure I can still update Android or that I can easily unroot if that is required for updates. I would hope that a manufacturer selling phones with unlocked or unlockable bootloaders would have OTA updates that wouldn't care about root status or even what recovery was on board. We will see. I would like it also if they made Android flashable without Gapps, but they may be prevented from doing that I suppose. That would allow for folks who just want to use Fdroid, but also folks who want to install very minimum Gapps.

 

I use both Windows and Linux. I confess I prefer Windows because I have been using it since 1996 and if something breaks I'm pretty good at fixing it. With linux, I prefer it while it's working, but when something goes wrong, I have to google and end up with some code I don't understand that I type in and pray it works. Probably if I forced myself to just stop using Windows except for the proprietary software I use, I would eventually learn enough to make Linux a smoother experience, but I'm too old for that stuff. ;-) So, on Pro 1 I'll be either Android or Lineage. I do not log into a Microsoft account and I use mostly non-microsoft software (I use Softmaker Office, no MS Office installed). I also use very few Google apps on Android when I can have control over what's installed. That was the whole reason I loved having a stable alternate ROM.

 

I plan on having the Pro 1 a long time even if I decide to buy a Pro 2 or Pro 3 or whatever they call their next phones. I will seek every means to have complete control. And, boy, do I hope they are successful enough to make more phones!

 

 

[zurvan2 125]

..but they chase rooted phones and prevent running on them.

 

Isn’t it a false sense of security?

 

I've heard it described (by my bank) that most root users are not running up-to-date software with security fixes. Since OTA updates don't generally work after rooting, this is a real issue, and also the original question in this thread!

Root users would probably be happy to be up-to-date if they could.

[VaZso 1,997]

. I haven’t rooted my current Moto G6 I picked up for $99 when my 6p died last April, but that’s because it is an interim phone and because I don’t have high confidence in the posted methods for doing so.

 

The same applies also for me. I have a Moto G6 since I have replaced my N900 one year and a month ago. It is currently not rooted and I use it as an interim phone while Pro1 is not here.

 

However, I am currently facing a problem that programs exists on Android which would allow me of reaching a device, but it is currently on a subnet which is different than the one I use on my own network.

In order to being able to modify its address, I would need to communicate with it through its current IP.

If I would have root access on my phone, I could simply add a secondary IP address temporarily and do the test / configuration (not as root, just as simple user - but configuration would need root access).

Instead, I am currently not able to reach the device because changing the whole network configuration (to the same subnet) is a really bad idea - I am the administrator at home but not the only user -, setting up another network on a router just for this is not an idea I currently like and it is going to be late for today.

 

This is one of the reasons why I hate that my phone is not really mine and the whole idea which holds my hands down.

[GameboyRMH 16]

I also plan to root my Pro1 as soon as I get it, I'll try rooting the stock OS first and if that isn't an option I'll try flashing it to LineageOS.

[madopiuter 0]

As I said on the title is possible root this phone since it do not have Lineage Os support yet.

 

ERROR: Forum ID is missing.

[Craig 1,435]

Yes, it has open bootloader, so that means getting root is trivial. You will need to freely available android tools (adb/fastboot) to install custom recovery, then flash supersu or magisk from your custom recovery.

 

The LOS devs have TWRP (custom recovery) working to the point it can flash stuff, but last I heard backup wasn't working, but that was a while ago.

 

tdm (los developer) posted yesterday's he's waiting on kernel source for LOS implementation.

 

 

My guess based on what limited knowledge I posses, is that kernel is usually customized for each device/android revision (and sometimes carrier), but source must be published under GPL. So LOS guys want the kernel source to make LOS work right with oem (fxtec) kernel. And if I'm right about that and understand his tweet, he's currently waiting on fxtec to provide it.