6 ms·

Why do you and many others treat software as if it is a sacred artefact that must be kept and preserved and be able to be run for all future generations? Human

Why do you and many others treat software as if it is a sacred artefact that must be kept and preserved and be able to be run for all future generations? Humans are producing so much content right now in the form of software, art, movies, writing. Does it really matter if we leave some behind? Do we need to preserve every piece of information we generate? I have software on the App Store that I cherish that unfortunately will never be updated past 32 bit (too much work). But I don't care, nor do I feel the need to preserve it. You say there is no benefit to this move. But this move significantly reduces Apple's technical debt and support requirements and is likely to be worth the tradeoff for future developers and future software on the platform.

wolfgke 10y ago
> Humans are producing so much content right now in the form of software, art, movies, writing. Does it really matter if we leave some behind? Do we need to preserve every piece of information we generate? Everybody should be able to decide for themself what they consider as important and what should be preserved. So I strongly oppose when the benevolent/malevolent dictator decides that you have to leave this piece behind. > I have software on the App Store that I cherish that unfortunately will never be updated past 32 bit (too much work). But I don't care, nor do I feel the need to preserve it. But others perhaps care. So I strongly encourage you to open-source it if you don't care about it anymore.
- mulletbum 10y ago
  No they shouldn't. Those people should either update their software or force their users to stay on legacy devices. It should not be Apple's responsibility to not move forward and continue to complicate their environment for the benefit of the few.
- interpol_p 10y ago
  > So I strongly oppose when the benevolent/malevolent dictator decides that you have to leave this piece behind. There is no one dictating that. The source code is still in the hands of developers, and your advice to me was to "open source it." All developers of 32 bit apps have that option, and they also have the option to maintain their source going forward. Apple's decision to shed technical debt shouldn't be seen as them eschewing some moral responsibility to support old software. > But others perhaps care. So I strongly encourage you to open-source it if you don't care about it anymore. I would consider it if I still had the source. But you should realise that saying "open source it" trivialises the amount of effort and emotion required to do so. Sharing your work with the world (especially if you are embarrassed by old code you have written) is not something that everyone finds easy to do. I would feel obligated to update the code, write build instructions and a readme file at the very least. That would take a good few days of my time to make the code "presentable" before I would be willing to share it. I don't have the mental or emotional energy to devote to that task.
  - wolfgke 10y ago
    > > So I strongly oppose when the benevolent/malevolent dictator decides that you have to leave this piece behind. > There is no one dictating that. Apple is.
    - interpol_p 10y ago
      > dictator decides that you have to leave this piece behind They aren't dictating that you have to leave this piece behind. They are dictating that you have 9 months to either port your code to 64 bit, leave it behind, open source it. Or whatever else you want to do.
      - hedora 10y ago
        They are dictating that the end user leave this piece behind. The developer could be dead or out of business. Granted, they have been doing this for a long time -- you can't easily install older versions of software, for example.
        scarface74 10y ago
        You can very easily install older versions of software. If you make a local iTunes backup, you can keep the apps and reinstall them locally. If you have an older device that doesn't support the newest version of the app, you will be prompted that there is an older version available that us compatible and be allowed to download it. The former option works on all iOS devices ever made, the latter works at least as far back as iOS 5 devices.
        LnxPrgr3 10y ago
        The former stopped working in iOS 9.
        scarface74 10y ago
        You can't restore local copies of apps that you backed up using iTunes in iOS 9? But you can download older copies of apps on a first gen iPad? That's weird if that's what you are saying. I was able to download older apps on my 1st gen iPad about a month ago. Edit: Are you sure it stopped working? You can't download an older version of an app on a non supported OS unless you either previously downloaded a version before on a compatible device or used iTunes and bought the app on a computer. Edit 2: Apparently you still can download the app to your computer directly using iTunes but you can't back it up to your device. https://www.google.com/amp/www.macworld.com/article/3125509/iphone-ipad/more-on-backing-up-your-ios-device.amp.html?client=safari https://www.google.com/amp/www.macworld.com/article/3125509/...
- wklauss 10y ago
  > So I strongly oppose when the benevolent/malevolent dictator decides that you have to leave this piece behind. You don't have to leave it, you just cannot sell it on the App Store or run it in modern devices. By all means, open source the code, publish it, archive it... do whatever you want with it.its not the end of the world and its a sensible decision.
- equalarrow 10y ago
  > But others perhaps care. So I strongly encourage you to open-source it if you don't care about it anymore. This is false thinking in my mind. Others may care, but that does not mean they have the right to guilt someone into releasing the source for _their creation_. On a grander scale - nothing lasts forever. Not even stars. So, we don't need to preserve everything - this is very egoic mind to me. It is ok to let things die and be forgotten. Software, art, ideas, songs, poems included. If the creator of these things decides to not release it to the world, that is _their_ prerogative.
ChrisRR 10y ago
The same reason you treat cinema and games the same way. It's not worth destroying all access to The Godfather just because "there's so many other films coming out nowadays"
- mulletbum 10y ago
  He isn't saying that. He is saying we shouldn't continue to support tape cassettes because the creator of the Godfather didn't want to update it to DVD.
  - falcolas 10y ago
    Stretching the metaphor a bit; but what if the creator is dead? Or can't afford to update it? Does it make the Godfather worthless because of its medium? The Mona Lisa is deteriorating. Should we also stop efforts to preserve it, because there's so many other paintings out there?
    - interpol_p 10y ago
      As long as there are people willing to preserve it, then we will preserve it. Few people would ever "stop" efforts to preserve something, it's just going to stop being preserved when there is no one around who cares about it anymore. There are many millions of paintings that have been lost to time, and there will be many more. Just because something isn't preserved doesn't mean it is worthless. The transience of human creativity is part of what makes it so beautiful. If the Godfather was to be removed from existence this instant it would still have value because it has already made a mark on the world and the memories of the people in the world. And will indirectly influence generations to come. Value accrues in the humans who experience the work, not in the work itself.
      - wolfgke 10y ago
        > As long as there are people willing to preserve it, then we will preserve it. As long as there are people willing to preserve it, there are still laws (e.g. DCMA) that prohibit people from doing it.
Spooky23 10y ago
It's a capricious decision that eliminates a bunch of actual useful applications with no consideration. Meanwhile, there are 10,000 fart apps.
peterclary 10y ago
I don't believe that you can be said to cherish something if you don't care if it goes and you don't feel the need to preserve it. cherish (verb): 1. to love, protect, and care for someone or something that is important to you: Although I cherish my children, I do allow them their independence. Her most cherished possession is a 1926 letter from F. Scott Fitzgerald. Freedom of speech is a cherished (= carefully protected) right in this country. 2. to keep hopes, memories, or ideas in your mind because they are important to you and bring you pleasure: I cherish the memories of the time we spent together.
- interpol_p 10y ago
  Why not? I have fond memories of it. I have the memories of sleeping in my car for weeks on end when I was building the software. I have memories of the two friends I built it with. I have fond memories of the bucket-based OpenGL render engine I wrote for it, the dynamic water system, the physically-driven character rig, the 3D models I made, memories of the art I painted. I also remember the blog posts I wrote about some of the complexities and fun problems we solved. I remember the reviews written about the product. I cherish it. I just don't care if I have the source code or a working binary (though I still have the latter until this 32 bit support is dropped!). I have the memories and experience and the desire to create more. Your quote says it all: > I cherish the memories of the time we spent together. I cherish the time I spent creating my software and putting it out into the world. Now I'm creating something else, and I'm happy with the memories.
  - VodkaHaze 10y ago
    So you cherish the memories, not the thing
    - interpol_p 10y ago
      I don't know if there is really a difference there.
- aseipp 10y ago
  It is absolutely possible to care, and love, and cherish something -- while also be willing to let it go, so you can move on to something else. And it's software, not a human child or something. These are absolutely not in conflict, at all. Why does this even need to be said? Are half the people here robots? Apparently they are, because the moment someone talks about throwing away some software, people begin making allusions to child rearing. Bringing out dictionaries is just a way of being an annoying pendant; nitpicking phrasing like "... and care for" in a Merriam Webster definition does not make you sound like someone enlightened "loving" or in tune. It makes you sound like that insufferable jackass, that guy everyone avoids, because they have to remind everyone "but what about the pedantry" anytime any complaint exists in the public sphere.
drzaiusapelord 10y ago
>Does it really matter if we leave some behind? Who decides? Popularity and economic benefit? So we get to keep Call of Duty video games, but apps that benefit a niche industry or are simply not very popular but considered important should be left behind? In other words, my Mona Lisa isn't your Mona Lisa. Not too long ago, maybe the mid/late 1990's, we had this battle with deteriorating celluloid from the earlier stages of Hollywood. The studios were happy to let many old movies that were never transferred to VHS or DVD just wither away because the cost of transfer would never be recouped. I remember a lot of petitions and outrage and the studios reversed their policy (perhaps with grants or other funding, I don't recall). It was a small controversy and most of those movies weren't critically acclaimed, but some were and they were all part of history. Not sure how well this analogy transfers to software but it always makes sense from a practical and moral perspective to save everything than to curate a few, especially in the age of automation and cheap computing.
lukeschlather 10y ago
We're not just talking about art here, and we're not talking about geological timescales either. I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that if I compile a program for an operating system, it will still run okay in twenty years on the latest version of that operating system. The Linux ecosystem (and Microsoft in a lot of ways is the best at this) manages this pretty well, and I think they're getting better at it. That's why people can safely build things like nuclear control systems on Linux or Windows, and not have to worry about recompiling every single binary every 3 years. (Now mind you, they should be recompiling every binary monthly, but OS vendors shouldn't be breaking everyone's builds unless security demands it.)

wolfgke 10y ago

> Humans are producing so much content right now in the form of software, art, movies, writing. Does it really matter if we leave some behind? Do we need to preserve every piece of information we generate? Everybody should be able to decide for themself what they consider as important and what should be preserved. So I strongly oppose when the benevolent/malevolent dictator decides that you have to leave this piece behind. > I have software on the App Store that I cherish that unfortunately will never be updated past 32 bit (too much work). But I don't care, nor do I feel the need to preserve it. But others perhaps care. So I strongly encourage you to open-source it if you don't care about it anymore.

mulletbum 10y ago
No they shouldn't. Those people should either update their software or force their users to stay on legacy devices. It should not be Apple's responsibility to not move forward and continue to complicate their environment for the benefit of the few.
interpol_p 10y ago
> So I strongly oppose when the benevolent/malevolent dictator decides that you have to leave this piece behind. There is no one dictating that. The source code is still in the hands of developers, and your advice to me was to "open source it." All developers of 32 bit apps have that option, and they also have the option to maintain their source going forward. Apple's decision to shed technical debt shouldn't be seen as them eschewing some moral responsibility to support old software. > But others perhaps care. So I strongly encourage you to open-source it if you don't care about it anymore. I would consider it if I still had the source. But you should realise that saying "open source it" trivialises the amount of effort and emotion required to do so. Sharing your work with the world (especially if you are embarrassed by old code you have written) is not something that everyone finds easy to do. I would feel obligated to update the code, write build instructions and a readme file at the very least. That would take a good few days of my time to make the code "presentable" before I would be willing to share it. I don't have the mental or emotional energy to devote to that task.
- wolfgke 10y ago
  > > So I strongly oppose when the benevolent/malevolent dictator decides that you have to leave this piece behind. > There is no one dictating that. Apple is.
  - interpol_p 10y ago
    > dictator decides that you have to leave this piece behind They aren't dictating that you have to leave this piece behind. They are dictating that you have 9 months to either port your code to 64 bit, leave it behind, open source it. Or whatever else you want to do.
    - hedora 10y ago
      They are dictating that the end user leave this piece behind. The developer could be dead or out of business. Granted, they have been doing this for a long time -- you can't easily install older versions of software, for example.
      - scarface74 10y ago
        You can very easily install older versions of software. If you make a local iTunes backup, you can keep the apps and reinstall them locally. If you have an older device that doesn't support the newest version of the app, you will be prompted that there is an older version available that us compatible and be allowed to download it. The former option works on all iOS devices ever made, the latter works at least as far back as iOS 5 devices.
        LnxPrgr3 10y ago
        The former stopped working in iOS 9.
        scarface74 10y ago
        You can't restore local copies of apps that you backed up using iTunes in iOS 9? But you can download older copies of apps on a first gen iPad? That's weird if that's what you are saying. I was able to download older apps on my 1st gen iPad about a month ago. Edit: Are you sure it stopped working? You can't download an older version of an app on a non supported OS unless you either previously downloaded a version before on a compatible device or used iTunes and bought the app on a computer. Edit 2: Apparently you still can download the app to your computer directly using iTunes but you can't back it up to your device. https://www.google.com/amp/www.macworld.com/article/3125509/iphone-ipad/more-on-backing-up-your-ios-device.amp.html?client=safari https://www.google.com/amp/www.macworld.com/article/3125509/...
wklauss 10y ago
> So I strongly oppose when the benevolent/malevolent dictator decides that you have to leave this piece behind. You don't have to leave it, you just cannot sell it on the App Store or run it in modern devices. By all means, open source the code, publish it, archive it... do whatever you want with it.its not the end of the world and its a sensible decision.
equalarrow 10y ago
> But others perhaps care. So I strongly encourage you to open-source it if you don't care about it anymore. This is false thinking in my mind. Others may care, but that does not mean they have the right to guilt someone into releasing the source for _their creation_. On a grander scale - nothing lasts forever. Not even stars. So, we don't need to preserve everything - this is very egoic mind to me. It is ok to let things die and be forgotten. Software, art, ideas, songs, poems included. If the creator of these things decides to not release it to the world, that is _their_ prerogative.

ChrisRR 10y ago

The same reason you treat cinema and games the same way. It's not worth destroying all access to The Godfather just because "there's so many other films coming out nowadays"

mulletbum 10y ago
He isn't saying that. He is saying we shouldn't continue to support tape cassettes because the creator of the Godfather didn't want to update it to DVD.
- falcolas 10y ago
  Stretching the metaphor a bit; but what if the creator is dead? Or can't afford to update it? Does it make the Godfather worthless because of its medium? The Mona Lisa is deteriorating. Should we also stop efforts to preserve it, because there's so many other paintings out there?
  - interpol_p 10y ago
    As long as there are people willing to preserve it, then we will preserve it. Few people would ever "stop" efforts to preserve something, it's just going to stop being preserved when there is no one around who cares about it anymore. There are many millions of paintings that have been lost to time, and there will be many more. Just because something isn't preserved doesn't mean it is worthless. The transience of human creativity is part of what makes it so beautiful. If the Godfather was to be removed from existence this instant it would still have value because it has already made a mark on the world and the memories of the people in the world. And will indirectly influence generations to come. Value accrues in the humans who experience the work, not in the work itself.
    - wolfgke 10y ago
      > As long as there are people willing to preserve it, then we will preserve it. As long as there are people willing to preserve it, there are still laws (e.g. DCMA) that prohibit people from doing it.

Spooky23 10y ago

It's a capricious decision that eliminates a bunch of actual useful applications with no consideration. Meanwhile, there are 10,000 fart apps.

peterclary 10y ago

I don't believe that you can be said to cherish something if you don't care if it goes and you don't feel the need to preserve it. cherish (verb): 1. to love, protect, and care for someone or something that is important to you: Although I cherish my children, I do allow them their independence. Her most cherished possession is a 1926 letter from F. Scott Fitzgerald. Freedom of speech is a cherished (= carefully protected) right in this country. 2. to keep hopes, memories, or ideas in your mind because they are important to you and bring you pleasure: I cherish the memories of the time we spent together.

interpol_p 10y ago
Why not? I have fond memories of it. I have the memories of sleeping in my car for weeks on end when I was building the software. I have memories of the two friends I built it with. I have fond memories of the bucket-based OpenGL render engine I wrote for it, the dynamic water system, the physically-driven character rig, the 3D models I made, memories of the art I painted. I also remember the blog posts I wrote about some of the complexities and fun problems we solved. I remember the reviews written about the product. I cherish it. I just don't care if I have the source code or a working binary (though I still have the latter until this 32 bit support is dropped!). I have the memories and experience and the desire to create more. Your quote says it all: > I cherish the memories of the time we spent together. I cherish the time I spent creating my software and putting it out into the world. Now I'm creating something else, and I'm happy with the memories.
- VodkaHaze 10y ago
  So you cherish the memories, not the thing
  - interpol_p 10y ago
    I don't know if there is really a difference there.
aseipp 10y ago
It is absolutely possible to care, and love, and cherish something -- while also be willing to let it go, so you can move on to something else. And it's software, not a human child or something. These are absolutely not in conflict, at all. Why does this even need to be said? Are half the people here robots? Apparently they are, because the moment someone talks about throwing away some software, people begin making allusions to child rearing. Bringing out dictionaries is just a way of being an annoying pendant; nitpicking phrasing like "... and care for" in a Merriam Webster definition does not make you sound like someone enlightened "loving" or in tune. It makes you sound like that insufferable jackass, that guy everyone avoids, because they have to remind everyone "but what about the pedantry" anytime any complaint exists in the public sphere.

drzaiusapelord 10y ago

>Does it really matter if we leave some behind? Who decides? Popularity and economic benefit? So we get to keep Call of Duty video games, but apps that benefit a niche industry or are simply not very popular but considered important should be left behind? In other words, my Mona Lisa isn't your Mona Lisa. Not too long ago, maybe the mid/late 1990's, we had this battle with deteriorating celluloid from the earlier stages of Hollywood. The studios were happy to let many old movies that were never transferred to VHS or DVD just wither away because the cost of transfer would never be recouped. I remember a lot of petitions and outrage and the studios reversed their policy (perhaps with grants or other funding, I don't recall). It was a small controversy and most of those movies weren't critically acclaimed, but some were and they were all part of history. Not sure how well this analogy transfers to software but it always makes sense from a practical and moral perspective to save everything than to curate a few, especially in the age of automation and cheap computing.

lukeschlather 10y ago

We're not just talking about art here, and we're not talking about geological timescales either. I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that if I compile a program for an operating system, it will still run okay in twenty years on the latest version of that operating system. The Linux ecosystem (and Microsoft in a lot of ways is the best at this) manages this pretty well, and I think they're getting better at it. That's why people can safely build things like nuclear control systems on Linux or Windows, and not have to worry about recompiling every single binary every 3 years. (Now mind you, they should be recompiling every binary monthly, but OS vendors shouldn't be breaking everyone's builds unless security demands it.)