zlacker

>>openge+(OP)
From the (current) final comment at https://github.com/syncthing/syncthing-android/issues/2064

> Nothing came of the discussions with google. Demands by Google for changes to get the permission granted were vague, which makes it both arduous to figure out how to address them and very unclear if whatever I do will actually lead to success. Then more unrelated work to stay on play came up (dev. verification, target API level), which among other influences finally made me realize I don't have the motivation or time anymore to play this game.

>>jasonj+25
I don't think Google was ever buy a "I don't want to use file APIs because writing the code would be hard." excuse for a security issue. I don't know what kind of exact "discussions" were possible here for "give me access to all user data, photos and everything because I don't think I want to use SAF APIs". It's like that dude in your company that will have a meltdown in PRs over his better way instead of fixing the comments and having code submitted.

Apple won't let you write into random directories past their APIs either, just because it would be too hard to use ObjC/Swift.

>>izacus+vb
On that note. what is with this modern trend of trying to pretend the filesystem does not exist.

why does google(or apple) need "special interfaces" to access the filesystem in a specific way, why don't they just use the existing file api and improve the file access permission system.

I think the unix single tree filesystem was one of their great innovations and see this multi tree api fragmentation bullshit as a sort of backwards regression.

>>somat+GD
> what is with this modern trend of trying to pretend the filesystem does not exist.

My cynical read is that the filesystem is user freedom, and the walled gardens don't want user freedom.