zlacker

I genuinely can't think of anything else I'd rather use less than this.

I think MAC (Mandatory Access Control) applied to a desktop environment, picking a better language than C and actually thinking about stuff is more than sufficient to get around the existing problems...

Virtualization is just another pile of complexity and performance problems to deal with. It's not a magic bullet. Consider the following as well:

http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/archives/3651-Theo-de-Raadt-about-vi...

I really don't want this solution.

>>eckypt+(OP)
I will reserve judgement until I've given it a try. It might not be the ideal solution, but it looks like a nice stop-gap solution.

>>eckypt+(OP)
I really like the idea and I just can't wait for it to be more prevalent on mobile devices.

I'm sick of the lack of control over my data I have on android (not to mention iOS).

>>tjoff+m1
This is not a flame or a troll, but seriously try Windows Phone. It actually gets this spot on.

>>eckypt+f2
Can you say anything more about this or provide a link? I'm not familiar with this aspect of Windows Phone.

>>glhayn+La
Every interaction that it makes to the network is controllable via user preferences and is documented. It does not send data unless you allow it to. Each application is fully isolated from others so applications cannot read from each other by design as well.

Nice video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzviQLCPCG4

An application can read the unique ID of the device (which is used for session persistence between service calls) but not access any other information unless allowed to.

Effectively there is no way for it to steal all the data in that list unless you physically tell it that it's ok to do it.

It's the mobile platform that scares the shit out of me the least. They did good here.

>>eckypt+Hb
Thanks. That video seems to only show settings/confirmation-prompts for the usage of location data, but if you can control whether individual apps have access to the network, too, that's handy.