6 ms·

Not sure why the parent is being downvoted. Perhaps people don't like the read the truth, perhaps they are too young to remember a time of more computational fr

Not sure why the parent is being downvoted. Perhaps people don't like the read the truth, perhaps they are too young to remember a time of more computational freedom and openness. The majority of "computers" people own are already locked down, and it seems clear that things will only get worse -- hardware is increasingly opaque and designed to do things against the interest of the user (or, to say the least, without the consent of the user).

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
csydas 10y ago
I would wager that more than likely it's because it's a fairly insubstantial sarcastic post, and quite a few posters on HN prefer that posts have content that drive the discussion related to the topic as opposed to comments like the parent. From my point of view, the parent is somewhat incorrect in that we've always had companies trying really hard to lock down what we can and cannot do - since the NES/SNES days Nintendo was doing copy protection and restriction of their hardware, I believe the other players at the time did as well. Your comment is much more substantial in that it provides a point of discussion, despite the somewhat condescending "...perhaps they are too young to remember..." part. But ultimately entirely rhetorical comments usually are disapproved of, even if the consensus is that the idea behind it is agreed upon.
- ysavir 10y ago
  > I would wager that more than likely it's because it's a fairly insubstantial sarcastic post, and quite a few posters on HN prefer that posts have content that drive the discussion related to the topic as opposed to comments like the parent. Perhaps the content of my post was implicit rather than explicit, and I would not harbor a grudge against anyone that downvoted out of a preference for the latter, but my comment was neither sarcastic nor rhetorical.
pmarreck 10y ago
It's getting downvoted because there will always be open source OS'es that can run open-source emulators. Since all computers are also Turing machines. Dystopian reasoning in the 2 parent comments is slippery-slope fallacy.
- seba_dos1 10y ago
  Yeah. I'll sound cheesy now, but - open your eyes. There are plenty of locked down computers around us in everyday use that often need to be literally exploited in order to turn into something resembling a device controlled by its owner instead of manufacturer. One easily noticable group of them is called "mobile phones", for instance.
  - the8472 10y ago
    And even when you root your phone you still don't have full control over it. Just see the recent broadcom wifi exploit.
- JetSpiegel 10y ago
  It's already a reality on mobile, the slope is already greased.
- wpietri 10y ago
  I don't think "in theory you could be free, even if in practice you aren't" is much in the way of freedom. Is there even a full open-source OS for the iPhone? If so, I have never once seen anybody using it. In practice, Apple has full control over the apps their users run, and they are not shy about using it. It has been 10 years, and this picture has been getting worse, not better. Clearly other vendors have looked at that and said, "30% of tens of billions of dollars per year, plus the ability to screw over competitors? Yes please!" This is definitely not the slippery-slope fallacy, because all he's really positing is that corporate control will continue to tighten at the current rate. If you want to demonstrate otherwise, you have to prove it. And I think the only thing you've proven so far is that there will always be a few greybeards willing to boot up an old Linux kernel on obsolete hardware, which does not sound like true freedom to me.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

csydas 10y ago

I would wager that more than likely it's because it's a fairly insubstantial sarcastic post, and quite a few posters on HN prefer that posts have content that drive the discussion related to the topic as opposed to comments like the parent. From my point of view, the parent is somewhat incorrect in that we've always had companies trying really hard to lock down what we can and cannot do - since the NES/SNES days Nintendo was doing copy protection and restriction of their hardware, I believe the other players at the time did as well. Your comment is much more substantial in that it provides a point of discussion, despite the somewhat condescending "...perhaps they are too young to remember..." part. But ultimately entirely rhetorical comments usually are disapproved of, even if the consensus is that the idea behind it is agreed upon.

ysavir 10y ago
> I would wager that more than likely it's because it's a fairly insubstantial sarcastic post, and quite a few posters on HN prefer that posts have content that drive the discussion related to the topic as opposed to comments like the parent. Perhaps the content of my post was implicit rather than explicit, and I would not harbor a grudge against anyone that downvoted out of a preference for the latter, but my comment was neither sarcastic nor rhetorical.

pmarreck 10y ago

It's getting downvoted because there will always be open source OS'es that can run open-source emulators. Since all computers are also Turing machines. Dystopian reasoning in the 2 parent comments is slippery-slope fallacy.

seba_dos1 10y ago
Yeah. I'll sound cheesy now, but - open your eyes. There are plenty of locked down computers around us in everyday use that often need to be literally exploited in order to turn into something resembling a device controlled by its owner instead of manufacturer. One easily noticable group of them is called "mobile phones", for instance.
- the8472 10y ago
  And even when you root your phone you still don't have full control over it. Just see the recent broadcom wifi exploit.
JetSpiegel 10y ago
It's already a reality on mobile, the slope is already greased.
wpietri 10y ago
I don't think "in theory you could be free, even if in practice you aren't" is much in the way of freedom. Is there even a full open-source OS for the iPhone? If so, I have never once seen anybody using it. In practice, Apple has full control over the apps their users run, and they are not shy about using it. It has been 10 years, and this picture has been getting worse, not better. Clearly other vendors have looked at that and said, "30% of tens of billions of dollars per year, plus the ability to screw over competitors? Yes please!" This is definitely not the slippery-slope fallacy, because all he's really positing is that corporate control will continue to tighten at the current rate. If you want to demonstrate otherwise, you have to prove it. And I think the only thing you've proven so far is that there will always be a few greybeards willing to boot up an old Linux kernel on obsolete hardware, which does not sound like true freedom to me.