3 ms·

I, for one, am happy that a war is being fought on general purpose computing because it seems to be the only way to make everything "just work" to an acceptable

I, for one, am happy that a war is being fought on general purpose computing because it seems to be the only way to make everything "just work" to an acceptable degree. The iPad is the least general and most locked down computer I've ever used but I love it because it just works. I've never had a problem with it. I was a diehard Linux guy for five or six years but now I run Windows 10 on all my computers and spend most of my time in the iPad anyways.

mpartel 8y ago
Curated stores are fine and can indeed improve quality, but it'll be a tremendously sad day when they'll be mandated by law. Adding a 30% tax and central control on all software just because we believe users can't be taught to not install random crap is a very bleak outlook indeed. Freedom is sometimes messy, but almost always worth it.
- wilsonnb 8y ago
  I do not support mandating those things by law. I am content with letting the Linux people do their thing while I do my thing. The only people I've only thought wanted to outlaw something are the most extreme Linux/GNU zealots who want to make it illegal for a company to lock down a computer even if it improves the user experience. It stands to reason that such zealots exist on the other side of the argument as well, but I've never encountered them.
  - mpartel 8y ago
    I didn't believe you would, but I fear it's a likely outcome if all that 99% of people ever use is a locked down system. Then misguided (or bribed) lawmakers will almost certainly start getting ideas about banning unlimited computers because "they're only used by hackers and pirates" or "because security" or something.
  - CalRobert 8y ago
    "I am content with letting the Linux people do their thing while I do my thing." The problem is that when it becomes too niche, it will be banned out of course. ("Do you have any idea what people can DO with those things??") Remember, encryption was a munition and controlled accordingly. The need for secure banking is about the only reason we're allowed that. That, and the efforts of people who demand ownership over their machines (or at least something close to it)
salawat 8y ago
That is by no means the case. It just takes a good number of people getting together and settling on a set of standards. The beauty of the general purpose computing device is it can support any and all at will. Until people start thinking that "it's better to just let the big companies lock down hardware, then everything will just work!", which leads to hardware impls or subsystems like UEFI that actively fight to deprive the User of their rights to total control of their tool. No thanks. My machine. My code, my rules, and my data. No one else's. i'll accept the onus of learning how to secure and safely use it. Convenience isn't worth the sacrifice of freedom.
- wilsonnb 8y ago
  >Until people start thinking that "it's better to just let the big companies lock down hardware, then everything will just work!" Do a large number of people not already think this? I'm pretty sure that's why Chromebooks and iPads are appealing to many people. Convenience is worth the sacrifice of freedom if you were never going to use the freedom anyways. It's not even a sacrifice if that's the case. If someone offers to pay my rent on the condition that I never climb Mt. Everest, I am technically sacrificing freedom for convenience but I'm still going to do it because I wasn't going to climb Mt. Everest anyways.

mpartel 8y ago

Curated stores are fine and can indeed improve quality, but it'll be a tremendously sad day when they'll be mandated by law. Adding a 30% tax and central control on all software just because we believe users can't be taught to not install random crap is a very bleak outlook indeed. Freedom is sometimes messy, but almost always worth it.

wilsonnb 8y ago
I do not support mandating those things by law. I am content with letting the Linux people do their thing while I do my thing. The only people I've only thought wanted to outlaw something are the most extreme Linux/GNU zealots who want to make it illegal for a company to lock down a computer even if it improves the user experience. It stands to reason that such zealots exist on the other side of the argument as well, but I've never encountered them.
- mpartel 8y ago
  I didn't believe you would, but I fear it's a likely outcome if all that 99% of people ever use is a locked down system. Then misguided (or bribed) lawmakers will almost certainly start getting ideas about banning unlimited computers because "they're only used by hackers and pirates" or "because security" or something.
- CalRobert 8y ago
  "I am content with letting the Linux people do their thing while I do my thing." The problem is that when it becomes too niche, it will be banned out of course. ("Do you have any idea what people can DO with those things??") Remember, encryption was a munition and controlled accordingly. The need for secure banking is about the only reason we're allowed that. That, and the efforts of people who demand ownership over their machines (or at least something close to it)

salawat 8y ago

That is by no means the case. It just takes a good number of people getting together and settling on a set of standards. The beauty of the general purpose computing device is it can support any and all at will. Until people start thinking that "it's better to just let the big companies lock down hardware, then everything will just work!", which leads to hardware impls or subsystems like UEFI that actively fight to deprive the User of their rights to total control of their tool. No thanks. My machine. My code, my rules, and my data. No one else's. i'll accept the onus of learning how to secure and safely use it. Convenience isn't worth the sacrifice of freedom.

wilsonnb 8y ago
>Until people start thinking that "it's better to just let the big companies lock down hardware, then everything will just work!" Do a large number of people not already think this? I'm pretty sure that's why Chromebooks and iPads are appealing to many people. Convenience is worth the sacrifice of freedom if you were never going to use the freedom anyways. It's not even a sacrifice if that's the case. If someone offers to pay my rent on the condition that I never climb Mt. Everest, I am technically sacrificing freedom for convenience but I'm still going to do it because I wasn't going to climb Mt. Everest anyways.