3 ms·

Assuming this had at some point become the... The issue here is that in a world where this is the computing model, its not realistic for every new software ide

Assuming this had at some point become the... The issue here is that in a world where this is the computing model, its not realistic for every new software idea to start with "let me ship my own surrounding system including hardware". If this sort of model were ever to win, it would be hard to go back, users don't necessarily understand the argument of "openness". General computing cannot be replaced by... This argument is just "closed systems are not bad because there are also open systems". My point is simply that if closed systems win, then they are bad. So unless you are implying that its impossible for there only ever to be closed systems (which I wouldn't be so sure of), then we agree.

tbrownaw 17y ago
> If this sort of model were ever to win, it would be hard to go back, users don't necessarily understand the argument of "openness". But they do understand "that particular very useful software won't run on this machine". > So unless you are implying that its impossible for there only ever to be closed systems (which I wouldn't be so sure of), then we agree. That is what I'm saying. Some large fraction of software development is done in-house; closed platforms wouldn't allow this, and it's expensive enough that if it wasn't important it probably wouldn't be done now. In the past, sufficiently useful software has come with a bundled computer; if this had to be done regularly, someone would see an opportunity to sell an open computer that could run more than one kind of software.