Show HN: SimpleRT – reverse tethering utility for Android
github.com
github.com
it is a linux computer where you have absolutely no control over network. You must root to get a basic firewall, only because people used the firewall previously to block ads.
heck you can't even disable referrer headers on the browser (hint, that's how google get their share on ad clicks).
In comparison for example webOS and Maemo did the analogous thing by using mainline usbnet driver from kernel and configuring routing with standard route command etc. This is possible because they did not flinch from exposing the full power of the underlying system for those who want it.
> Also how often does your laptop have an Internet connection that you can't just join as well from the android device?
Corporate networks would be a common example. Or wired-only networks (yes, such things do exist still).
You can write an app to do something the designers of the system didn't anticipate. That's a mark of a versatile system.
> In comparison for example webOS and Maemo did the analogous thing by using mainline usbnet driver from kernel and configuring routing with standard route command etc. This is possible because they did not flinch from exposing the full power of the underlying system for those who want it.
I believe that, with root, you can install/load/configure kernel modules (mainline or otherwise) on Android as well. Here's a stackoverflow article talking about creating loadable kernel modules: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6282669/how-do-you-create...
You can see the underlying theme in virtually every interaction you have with Google these days, especially since ad blocking started becoming widespread. Every service they offer is structured so as to extract the maximum amount of personal information from the users of the service. Every design decision follows this underlying goal, even when doing so isn't necessary or even ideal. Everything they do is quid-pro-quo.
A tip: You can use GitHub Releases for the compiled APK instead of having it in source control.
Contrary to popular opinion, not specifying a license makes your code proprietary (though you did mention the license at the very end of your README, which is something).
Imagine a book including a copyright notice on very single page. The license was specified in the manner the author chose to specify it, and that is sufficient.
> the process involves adding two elements to each source file of your program: a copyright notice (such as “Copyright 1999 Terry Jones”), and a statement of copying permission, saying that the program is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (or the Lesser GPL).
Whatever you think about the GNU guys and the license, they do have good lawyers. If they say this is how you should apply GPL to your programs, they're most likely right.
1. Each page of a book is not meaningful in of itself in the same way that a particular function in a file is meaningful in of itself. So, there's no real worry that the text will be moved to another place without the appropriate notice being copied along with it (citations and quotations are usually under fair use, and citing a work is usually the only thing you need to do if you copy part of a work).
2. Pages in a book are not like files. If you were talking about pamphlets, the analogy would be more clear. It is not expected that people will tear out pages from a book and then stick them into a new book. It is also not expected that people will only be given a single chapter from a book rather than the whole book. If any of those cases were considered "normal use" of the book, then I would definitely expect people to put a copyright notice on every page.
In addition, it isn't common for people to apply different licenses to different pages of the same book. Usually the license and copyright are the same for the entire book.
Not to mention that IMO it is aesthetically pleasing to have a nice header in each file, and it doesn't have any ambiguity when you read the code of a project what license applies to which file.
Also, it's how all GNU projects do it and I trust their lawyers and opinion on how to correctly display licensing information. It also mentions that this is the recommended way of displaying the license in the actual license text itself. So there's that.
I may try it some day.
However, I guess, the importance here is that you get to intercept stuff on your PC, am I right?