3 ms·

Whether the OS is proprietary isn't the important facet of this issue. The case for encouraging users to move off of Windows XP is the same as the case for enc

Whether the OS is proprietary isn't the important facet of this issue. The case for encouraging users to move off of Windows XP is the same as the case for encouraging users to move off of older GNU/Linux distributions: security updates. Even in a slow computing initiative, outside invention will continue. Take ASLR, DEP, and other memory corruption mitigations. The architects of the legacy, fixed-address systems didn't expect the large amount of vulnerability due to buffer overflows in programs that handle external input. The authors of these programs failed to write tests that exercised some edge cases of malformed input. While long/malformed input unit tests might seem germane today, they weren't then. Custom software initiatives make sense for people who have a high aptitude and the time to undertake them. This use case doesn't fit the vast majority of people who use computers. While Microsoft certainly deserved the $10k judgement against them, software authors have the duty to help mitigate past imperfections, errors, and lack of foresight in their software. Authors of free and proprietary software share this responsibility.

arximboldi 10y ago
> Whether the OS is proprietary isn't the important facet of this issue. The OS being proprietary is an important issue. With libre software, lightweight forks that still work in old hardware can be maintained. Also, the software stack can be customized. Note that it's not security patches what makes software slow, but the zillions of layers of indexers, UI frameworks written in three layers of dynamic languages, etc that are included in a desktop environment. A modern GNU/Linux distribution function decently on old hardware as soon as you swap the desktop environment. With either you upgrade to a 20GB OS with a desktop environment that requrires 2 gigs of ram and so on, or you are stuck with an unsupported Windows XP. > Custom software initiatives make sense for people who have a high aptitude and the time to undertake them. This use case doesn't fit the vast majority of people who use computers. The average american watches 4 hours of TV a day [1] and they spends more time on Facebook than taking care of their pets [2] and takes weeks of training in order to get a driving license. I think the average person has the time to spend one or two days, when they upgrade their computer, pairing with a technician to get to understand the software they have and how it works and how to protect themselves. It's a matter of priorities. Sadly, for a lot of the software industry, an empowered userbase is not in their best economic interest. [1] https://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html https://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html [2] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-23/americans-now-spend-more-time-on-facebook-than-they-do-on-their-pets http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-23/americans-...
- arximboldi 10y ago
  My friend sent me the link to the slow computing/technology sobereignty project: http://tianguis.cordoba.cc/que-hacemos/soberania-tecnologica/ http://tianguis.cordoba.cc/que-hacemos/soberania-tecnologica...

arximboldi 10y ago

> Whether the OS is proprietary isn't the important facet of this issue. The OS being proprietary is an important issue. With libre software, lightweight forks that still work in old hardware can be maintained. Also, the software stack can be customized. Note that it's not security patches what makes software slow, but the zillions of layers of indexers, UI frameworks written in three layers of dynamic languages, etc that are included in a desktop environment. A modern GNU/Linux distribution function decently on old hardware as soon as you swap the desktop environment. With either you upgrade to a 20GB OS with a desktop environment that requrires 2 gigs of ram and so on, or you are stuck with an unsupported Windows XP. > Custom software initiatives make sense for people who have a high aptitude and the time to undertake them. This use case doesn't fit the vast majority of people who use computers. The average american watches 4 hours of TV a day [1] and they spends more time on Facebook than taking care of their pets [2] and takes weeks of training in order to get a driving license. I think the average person has the time to spend one or two days, when they upgrade their computer, pairing with a technician to get to understand the software they have and how it works and how to protect themselves. It's a matter of priorities. Sadly, for a lot of the software industry, an empowered userbase is not in their best economic interest. [1] https://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html https://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html [2] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-23/americans-now-spend-more-time-on-facebook-than-they-do-on-their-pets http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-23/americans-...

arximboldi 10y ago
My friend sent me the link to the slow computing/technology sobereignty project: http://tianguis.cordoba.cc/que-hacemos/soberania-tecnologica/ http://tianguis.cordoba.cc/que-hacemos/soberania-tecnologica...