Translating...

Cancel

Stephen Lau
1 year agoEditedPublic (locked)
THIS.

Not to bring anybody down... but seriously... we intentionally left the device unlocked so you guys could hack it and do crazy fun shit with it.  I mean, FFS, you paid $1500 for it... go to town on it.  Show me something cool.
Dan Morrill originally shared:
People. We need to talk.

This is not rooting. Nothing is rooted. There is no root here! This is 'fastboot oem unlock'. It's not rooting if they let you do it on purpose!

"Rooting" means the act of obtaining control of a process running with privileges of the root user. You root a device when you use a security exploit to take control of it; one of the things you can do with a rooted device is (in some cases) bootstrap to a different system image. So it's only rooting if you do it in spite of them.

Also, it's "Internet" not "internet". And "hacker" means a clever programmer, not a computer criminal. And it's Gmail, not GMail.

Plus, GET OFF MY LAWN.

http://9to5google.com/2013/04/26/hackers-confirm-google-glass-root-is-easy-let-the-modding-begin/

Hackers confirm Google Glass "root is easy", let the modding begin
9to5google.com
Jay Freeman1 year ago
OK, then how about you show me where I can find the Glass kernel code (complete with the config file, as required under GPL)? The ability to unlock the bootloader is cute and all, but it is kind of pointless if I don't have anything I can flash. Even more to the point (if you really want me to believe you when you say you wanted people to play with the thing) some stock images?

The lack of anything to make bootloader access useful is why, despite Dan's fundamental misunderstanding of the situation (and his amazingly condescending post), I felt forced to use an exploit (an old/well-known one, not one I came up with myself) to get root access on this device of yours. (Which yes, means even under these stricter definitions, I "rooted" the device: I still have a locked bootloader.)

(edit)

Some context, as someone on reddit said my comment makes me "come across as a douche": I'm one of the people mentioned in the original article (the one from 9to5google). First, Dan Morrill writes this emphatic post with statements like "GET OFF MY LAWN" and "This is not rooting. Nothing is rooted. There is no root here!", stating you can only say "rooting" when you are using a security exploit... something I actually did (the adb restore exploit).

Then, a ton of people in the comments on his post--which he apparently chose not to monitor in the slightest--get extra critical, making tons of jokes at my expense. Finally, Stephen decides to share it to his circles, saying "THIS", both agreeing with all of the incorrect ridicule and stating something that is clearly unhelpful to someone who actually wants to do "crazy fun shit" with this device :(. I do not think it is at all unfair, therefore, to "call him out" on this.
+284
hey jay :) glad you're still shaking things up - mitch+4
Mitch Bowman1 year ago
Capital-I Internet is some seriously '90s shit.+34
Mitch Bowman1 year ago
In fact, the New York Times changed from capital-I Internet to common noun internet over a decade ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/29/weekinreview/29SCHW.html
+16
Anthony W1 year ago
+Jay Freeman I didnt know you were from my city. GET ON MY LAWN! :D+3
Joel Schneider1 year ago
I myself am looking more towards Jay's "crazy fun shit" than Dan's! +5
Junhua Zhang1 year ago
oops +Jay Freeman is mad...

just read the origional post i cant stop lol hard

anyway i get the joke well as i have used cydia almost 3 years ago
+3
Dan McLaughlin1 year ago
Thanks for clarification +Stephen Lau, it looked clear to me that the back door was obviously left open which is why I didn't make a big stink about peeking under the hood. 

Actually I peeked under the hood even more than that, but I'll keep that quiet bwahaha
+2
Joel Schneider1 year ago
The back door was left open, saurik came in through a locked window however. +14
Daniel Berlin1 year ago
+Jay Freeman The GPL source should have been posted already (13 days ago, in fact), but it looks like the person who was to do it went on vacation first.  I'll drop a tarball somewhere until he gets back to push it.  In any case, you could have, you know,  nicely pointed out it wasn't there, or asked. It's not like we have ever tried to avoid GPL compliance or stonewalled folks asking for GPL source.   As for the rest, i'm not the right guy, I only do open source compliance.+55
Aaron Sherman1 year ago
+Daniel Berlin I find it hilarious that anyone would take such a hostile attitude with the world's most prolific open source contributors about releasing source. I mean if Google had suddenly about-faced in its policy, that's one thing, but being slow with a source dump for an unreleased product? That's hardly the end of the world.

Jay Freeman needs to relax. (edit, the G+ phone app hates making + links anywhere but at the start of a comment, and linked to the wrong person, so I unlinked his name) 
+15
Jay Freeman1 year ago
+Daniel Berlin Yes, I could have; in fact, that is what I probably would have ended up doing: I know many people at Google I could have, and would have, directly contacted. You will note that I actually didn't complain at all about the GPL compliance in my posts on Twitter or my replies on Hacker News about this until after my post here: I simply stated "hey, I did something cool to my Glass", and then I got downright slammed by +Dan Morrill and (transitively) +Stephen Lau (in public) as a response :(. One of the common topic threads that kept coming up on forums and on the various news articles hinged on whether that code is already released, so of course I have to reply with that question in public (if nothing else, people have been asking me that question in public...). Sadly, this became a public incident, with people linking and quoting these posts the entire night, but I definitely did not fire the first shot: I really just wanted to have some fun hacking the code on my Glass.+39
Jeff Beresford1 year ago
Stop crying.+12
Israel Knight1 year ago
+Stephen Lau  you have no idea how awesome your comment is to me. I have some stuff I'm dying to try on it....+3
Scott Frias1 year ago
He said AppleGlass.

Of course there is something high up in that Apple tree, but what shape the fruit will be remains a mystery.
+1
Henry Young1 year ago
Does Google Glass spray pepper spray in your eyes when used or are you all normally this bitchy?+4
Nerds. Who am I kidding, I wouldn't be here if... +1
Daniel Berlin1 year ago
+Jay Freeman 
Here you go: http://code.google.com/p/google-glass-kernel-source/

Past that, I am too close to all the folks involved, so i'm going to refrain from getting in the middle of this one, and let y'all work it out :)
+33
Josh Bashara1 year ago
+Mitchell Bowman The word "Internet" should still be capitalized, according to all major writing styles. The story you linked was about one professor who was trying to change that (he was unsuccessful).

The New York Times — along with every other professional publication — still capitalizes it, because that's the correct usage:

http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/internet/since1851/allresults/1/allauthors/newest/
+3
Scott Leonard1 year ago
All your source are belong to us :0+2
Chris French1 year ago
Dan Morrill must be loads of fun at parties.+2
paul snow1 year ago
+Daniel Berlin actually.... Google has stonewalled releasing GPL code.  Why would you say it hasn't?  See http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/8991.html+2
phreck p.1 year ago
Lol.
James Power1 year ago
+paul snow your own link complains of other companies failing to release GPL code in a timely manner and blames Google for not going after them, not for being the one doing the stonewalling.

Pretty big difference.
+5
Daniel Berlin1 year ago
+paul snow No, that article is about certain Android vendors (IE not Google) stonewalling folks, and people wanting us to force them to release source.   The problem I have with these kinds of arguments is that the GPL intentionally makes us not responsible for third party compliance:
"6. ... You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License."

This was put in the GPL for good reason. Contrary to the article's claims, we probably wouldn't be able to enforce their source compliance any more than anyone else.

It first suggests we could sue them for copyright infringement, without, among other things,mentioning the actual logistical realities of trying to enforce copyright actions in certain foreign countries, which any GPL author/org can tell you is "difficult" to say the least.

It also suggests we could use trademark, which is even harder to enforce in a lot of the same foreign countries (as Apple seems to have recently discovered)

Those things aside, it would take years for a lawsuit to resolve (Let's say we have a fast court, and say 3-5), plus you'd have to hope the court ordered them to release source, not just give money.   If they gave us money, it still wouldn't get you the source (and they'd likely just consider it the cost of doing business).  If we got you the source, it would be 3-5 years after it was useful.

The article also premises us having some moral obligation to enforce third parties compliance on the fact that we give the code away, and make money other ways.     This is a somewhat odd argument, since it is pretty much the ultimate free software ideal: We provide freedom to users (in the GNU sense) by giving them code, and find another way to make money.  

The whole complaint smacks of "I wish other people would comply, so i'm going to blame the original author for their noncompliance". 

Realistically, if he wants a license that forces people to try to ensure compliance by third parties, he should write one.  That license is not the GPL, however, and trying to make someone morally culpable for something the license was specifically written to allow seems wrong.     Even if someone did write that license, it would not change the legal realies of trying to obtain and enforce foreign court judgements.

I'm not belittling the author of course, he's entitled to his own opinion, and his viewpoint is not completely unreasonable.  I can definitely understand his frustration, and if i could wave a wand and make everyone else comply, i would.
However, I still disagree with a lot of the article.

In any case, we take this stuff very seriously, and comply ourselves, not just because we have to, but because we think it's the right thing to do. In that vein, if you ever find Google stonewalling you about a source release, you should immediately contact me.
+36
Robert Smith1 year ago
Both of you need to chill out. +Jay Freeman you do some great work I use quite a bit of it on a daily basis. +Dan Morrill I don't know much about you, but my opinion of you based on this single post is you're a douche, and I'd hate to see a cool product like this be shunned due to the lead being condescending to one of the most notable people in the Jailbreak/Root community.+10
Chris Crowder1 year ago
Googled FFS, wasn't disappointed.+6
Sean Murray1 year ago
best response ever +Stephen Lau 
Otto Solares1 year ago
This guy should return to jailbreak his iShi^WiDevices instead of "jailbreaking" a true open device which had 'fastboot oem unlock' ;)+3
James Power1 year ago
+Otto Solares Saurik has worked on Android since Android has been available, and even released at least one major exploit of his own for the Android OS.

Also, he didn't simply 'fastboot oem unlock' Glass, as he has mentioned in this comment thread.

Cripes this is terrible.

edit:

Just going to link to this comment by +Jay Freeman on reddit as I think it sums up everything:
http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1d79db/google_glass_jailbroken_by_creator_of_cydia/c9nrd6n
+10
Otto Solares1 year ago
+James Power Great that you care, but many people work with Android since it was available (even me when I created NITdroid) so tricking media attention via 'Wow I "jailbreak" the Glass' is sick IMHO because:

0. Glass developers were pissed off as no real cracking occur but media reported as it was real.
1. The device intentionally is open like Nexus (fastboot oem unlock).
2. The point that no kernel source was available is moot as Glass uses the same hw as other nexus which you could use/hack for a real hacker.
3. Running an existent exploit is... well is not the same as creating an exploit.

But the last point would deserve the media attention IMO.
+4
Sean Harlow1 year ago
+Daniel Berlin "It also suggests we could use trademark, which is even harder to enforce in a lot of the same foreign countries (as Apple seems to have recently discovered)"

I agree entirely for both trademark and copyright when we're talking about the random little vendors shipping the cheap end of Android hardware.  But we're not just talking about them.  We're talking about the big boys in the exact same way.  HTC, LG, Samsung, and even Google's own Motorola are all just as bad about the "we'll release source eventually" crap. (though credit where it's due, Samsung and HTC in particular have been better recently, at least on flagship devices)  You can't tell me that Google has no influence with them or that they'd be unresponsive to legal action in this country rather than wherever they built the device.

The diversions about the APL-licensed majority of Android are irrelevant.  Android is built on top of the Linux kernel.  The Linux kernel is GPLv2.  Google has made numerous contributions to the Linux kernel in the process of making Android what it is, therefore Google has GPL code included in every single Android or Android-derived device ever made.  Every single vendor who ships a device without providing buildable source for at least the kernel through the derivative works clause every kernel module is thus violating Google's copyright directly.  The APL code is irrelevant here.

No one is asking you to enforce compliance against the random $49 tablets imported cheap from companies with no US presence, but at least make sure your top-tier vendors are doing what they're supposed to.

edit: At least as of this writing I have been unable to find evidence for source releases on the Droid Razr HD line, released long after Google acquired the company.  Just try to make a convincing argument that Google can't influence their subsidiary Motorola in to compliance, I dare you.

edit2: WOW, even the "Developer Edition" doesn't have source.  I'm done even asking for an argument there, you guys are so wrong it's not funny to be selling a device marketed specifically for developers which contains piles of GPL code critical to its operation but does not have a source release.  I suggest any "our devices are open" high horses be put back in the stable until Motorola gets the message.

edit3: I should specify the CDMA variants of those models as it seems the GSM models do have some code releases.
Stephen Lau1 year ago
+Jay Freeman All fair points!  Sorry, my intent was not to slam you, but to slam the blog/media coverage I've read everywhere that keeps conflating the "fastboot oem unlock" with root'ing.  I inadvertently maligned you and your (notable) accomplishments, which I apologise for.

The kernel should always have been open sourced.  We went through a big firedrill in order to make sure we had everything ready and packaged before we launched, per our obligations to the GPL.  In the furor of the launch over the past couple of weeks, none of us went back to ensure that the bits we packaged and intended to publish had indeed gotten published.  Some of us might have been too busy (<cough> me <cough>) publishing leaky APKs and fixing that.  In any case, whether you (or anyone reading this) believes us or not - that really was a genuine oversight and not some sort of corporate evil.  I think +Daniel Berlin's quick response to getting that published attests to that.

To everybody else:
1) +Dan Morrill is an eminently nice guy, not a douche, and does a shit ton of stuff for Android behind the scenes.  Whether you know it or not, he's done a lot for you.  I can't speak for him, but I expect his "GET OFF MY LAWN" comment was taking the piss out of himself for acting like an old man given how long he's been involved with Android, not meant as a douchey comment directed towards +Jay Freeman.  I can't attest as to whether he is fun or not at parties.

2) Seriously?  Are you seriously arguing about 'internet' vs. 'Internet'?

3) I too, am looking forward to +Jay Freeman's crazy fun shit.  

4) Honestly I don't think anyone (myself, Jay or Dan came across as a douche).  People are passionate about their projects and their work, and defensive when their accomplishments are misinterpreted or overlooked.  I'm annoyed because we went out of our way to make sure Glass was not locked down, to make it relatively convenient to enable USB debugging and get an adb shell, etc. and a lot of the blogs I've read have attributed other incidents of 'fastboot oem unlock' as rooting.  "rooting" and "jailbreaking" are sexy words, and the media jumps at any opportunity to use them (see some of the coverage of other peoples abilities to merely type 'fastboot oem unlock', not the coverage of Jay's actual rooting).

5) Per the Reddit coverage.  I'm "a" technical lead, not "the" technical lead.  A project this large has many tech leads... I can't even get my dogs to follow me on a leash... please don't think I can lead this entire project.

6) It's the weekend.  Stop reading my whingy long rambling post, find something more fun to do.  Come find me at Google I/O and we can rant and be douchey to each other in person.  Or we can trade photos of puppies in pajamas. 
+69
Chris Spack1 year ago
Thank you for your hard work Stephen and the whole X team with this launch. I, for one, feel that Glass is the dog's pajamas and cant wait to see what everyone does with their Gleese.+1
Ted Sundström1 year ago
You... I like you.+1
PJ Cabrera1 year ago
+Stephen Lau trading puppies in pajamas photos at Google I/O? You're on! LOL @ inability to have dogs follow you on a leash. Silly dogs+2