6 ms·

Let me have a switch and require me to do some trivial but scary sounding procedure to enable the functionality so that idiots don't run across it - flash the f

Let me have a switch and require me to do some trivial but scary sounding procedure to enable the functionality so that idiots don't run across it - flash the firmware or something. Void the warranty when I do so to discourage the cautious, with appropriate warning labels to go back before doing so. If you protect the naive from the consequence of their actions forever, then you end up with a world where those who are not naive cannot do anything because of all the 'safety' that they have to fight through first.

chaz72 11y ago
The naive outnumber the skilled by so very many... perhaps the skilled need different devices and different operating systems?
- 6d0debc071 11y ago
  Maybe. It's not clear to me how many people would go to the bother of unlocking their devices and then complain to Apple when something went wrong if there was some trivial roadblock. I'd also, on an ideological note, be inclined to be cautious about separating the consumers and the producers any more than they already are. One of the big promises of computers is that you can automate so much - granted a lot of people are cut off from that power - and I'd want to be going in the direction of making that power more accessible to people rather than less. If I'd had to, for example, buy a specialised programming computer with a programming OS when I was young... I'd probably not be a programmer today. That sort of thing seems like it would be very expensive. But you may very well turn out to be right - maybe most people can't be allowed to have nice things. :/ Depressing, if true, but not entirely implausible.
  - chaz72 11y ago
    Unless you are trying to argue that iOS is replacing desktop operating systems, I don't see why the presence of a locked-down device is a threat to a general purpose computer. I find general purpose computers are not expensive at all and I don't particularly expect that to change.
- mikeash 11y ago
  This used to be Apple's key offering. They sold systems which were suitable for the skilled and the naive alike. It was wonderful because it meant that the naive could smoothly transition to being skilled, and the skilled could have all the comforts and ease of something suitable for the naive. Sadly, Apple seems to have given up on this and is now catering exclusively to the lowest common denominator. There's plenty of power left in their stuff, but it's all left over from better days, and is slowly slipping away.
  - copperx 11y ago
    It was Apple's offering only during OS X, and only because its BSD underpinnings. If Apple had chosen to build OS X on a homegrown kernel, Apple wouldn't have been appealing to the skilled.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      I disagree that it was only during OS X. Classic Mac OS, and going back further the Apple IIs, were great for power users. I also don't understand your counterfactual. Apple didn't build OS X from scratch, they took NeXT's OS and ported it to Mac hardware and tweaked it. The result was something both powerful and easy to use. Making UNIX easy to use is not a trivial accomplishment! Yes, if Apple had done something completely different for their next-generation OS then maybe they would have ended up with something worse. But they didn't.
    - Margh 11y ago
      Not sure why you're being downvoted, the only thing that convinced me to use a Mac (for a while) was the BSD base on some nice hardware. Without it it would be like trying to develop on iOS: slow, locked down and flashy.
  - chaz72 11y ago
    I wasn't sure how to answer this yesterday. I never experienced Apple's "better days" as I've been developing in Windows for the last 20 years. Apple's current days, well, they seem pretty good for my needs, but I wasn't paying attention during the times you're talking about. I suppose when I need real control I would look to, say, OpenBSD instead, which I prefer to use remotely from a very pleasant and very predictable - but not super-powerful - Apple machine. Our needs, I'm sure, are not the same.
analog31 11y ago
The switch could simply be downloading the development tools. Then you know that you're in development mode, and that things could break.

chaz72 11y ago

The naive outnumber the skilled by so very many... perhaps the skilled need different devices and different operating systems?

6d0debc071 11y ago
Maybe. It's not clear to me how many people would go to the bother of unlocking their devices and then complain to Apple when something went wrong if there was some trivial roadblock. I'd also, on an ideological note, be inclined to be cautious about separating the consumers and the producers any more than they already are. One of the big promises of computers is that you can automate so much - granted a lot of people are cut off from that power - and I'd want to be going in the direction of making that power more accessible to people rather than less. If I'd had to, for example, buy a specialised programming computer with a programming OS when I was young... I'd probably not be a programmer today. That sort of thing seems like it would be very expensive. But you may very well turn out to be right - maybe most people can't be allowed to have nice things. :/ Depressing, if true, but not entirely implausible.
- chaz72 11y ago
  Unless you are trying to argue that iOS is replacing desktop operating systems, I don't see why the presence of a locked-down device is a threat to a general purpose computer. I find general purpose computers are not expensive at all and I don't particularly expect that to change.
mikeash 11y ago
This used to be Apple's key offering. They sold systems which were suitable for the skilled and the naive alike. It was wonderful because it meant that the naive could smoothly transition to being skilled, and the skilled could have all the comforts and ease of something suitable for the naive. Sadly, Apple seems to have given up on this and is now catering exclusively to the lowest common denominator. There's plenty of power left in their stuff, but it's all left over from better days, and is slowly slipping away.
- copperx 11y ago
  It was Apple's offering only during OS X, and only because its BSD underpinnings. If Apple had chosen to build OS X on a homegrown kernel, Apple wouldn't have been appealing to the skilled.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    I disagree that it was only during OS X. Classic Mac OS, and going back further the Apple IIs, were great for power users. I also don't understand your counterfactual. Apple didn't build OS X from scratch, they took NeXT's OS and ported it to Mac hardware and tweaked it. The result was something both powerful and easy to use. Making UNIX easy to use is not a trivial accomplishment! Yes, if Apple had done something completely different for their next-generation OS then maybe they would have ended up with something worse. But they didn't.
  - Margh 11y ago
    Not sure why you're being downvoted, the only thing that convinced me to use a Mac (for a while) was the BSD base on some nice hardware. Without it it would be like trying to develop on iOS: slow, locked down and flashy.
- chaz72 11y ago
  I wasn't sure how to answer this yesterday. I never experienced Apple's "better days" as I've been developing in Windows for the last 20 years. Apple's current days, well, they seem pretty good for my needs, but I wasn't paying attention during the times you're talking about. I suppose when I need real control I would look to, say, OpenBSD instead, which I prefer to use remotely from a very pleasant and very predictable - but not super-powerful - Apple machine. Our needs, I'm sure, are not the same.

analog31 11y ago

The switch could simply be downloading the development tools. Then you know that you're in development mode, and that things could break.