7 ms·

Agreed. OP is one angry human being.

mindslight 8y ago
Are we really so far gone that expressing a strong opinion with a little hyperbole is interpreted as "anger" ? The adjective I'd use to describe OP's writing is "resolute". And in these days when surveillance and other corporate monsters continually bathe us in soft nudging to acquiesce to their agendas, it is a stance that's quite necessary.
- jayd16 8y ago
  But its totally misplaced emotion. The whole design goal of a chromebook is constantly push signed OTA updates. They give you a hardware switch to turn off the signature checks. His comment that a hardware key you'd certainly lose is better than a jumper is pretty weak. If you don't like them, fine, but this just comes off as nerd rage in an attempt at saying "I am very smart."
  - mindslight 8y ago
    Unfortunately the Arbiter of Emotion was not there to correct his frustration during the unlocking. The Chromebook's model is obviously consistent with Google's fleshed out security model. But this model is at odds with Free users, and there isn't one straightforward way to reconcile the two, but rather various ones that will each attract their own criticism. Individuals don't have the luxury of massaging their opinions with a PR department, and conflict (with the corporate narrative) draws attention to rough points. People aren't going to express things perfectly - one can either work to be tolerant of varying personalities and colorful overstating, or retreat to the safe space of sanitized corporate press releases. Ask yourself what is your motivation to shit on him with classical bullying ("nerd rage"). Some casual ranting about security models while tediously reflashing a BIOS is not an attempt to say "I am very smart".
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      Or they could have made their point without the rant and increased their chances of being taken seriously. As it stands, it’s not clear that the author understands why the things he’s annoyed about exist.
      - mindslight 8y ago
        It's amazing how these tone policing responses are coupled with patronizing endorsements of Google's security model... We get it. Google's (and Apple's, Intel's, etc) contemporary security model is to work to retain control over the device for themselves, taking end users under their wing to provide them security. For a non-technical person with no technical family, obtaining a device with this security model from Best Buy is likely the pinnacle of what can be done. But this is not the only device security model. And the idea of a manufacturer working against the owner of a device is abhorrent to the perspective of Freedom. Weighing Google's specific design decisions within their model is not terribly important if one is repudiating the entire model. I personally think a better synthesis could be found between the two models, but that was obviously not the point of the original post! I'm not personally a huge fan of blog posts / youtube / etc that just reiterate and editorialize information that is easily found elsewhere. But I do recognize that this is how many people learn - both the viewers and the authors. By picking on this post for not having the details fleshed out and stated in an impartial manner, all you're really doing is putting a veil of faux impartiality over shouting down the culture of Freeing computing devices.
        bubblethink 8y ago
        >We get it. Google's (and Apple's, Intel's, etc) contemporary security model is to work to retain control over the device for themselves This is exactly what you and likely the author of the post don't get. Google's security model is vastly different from Apple's or Intel's or anyone else's. In particular, the google security model is the only one of these which still ensures the ability for a user to take full control of the device (to the extent possible in current times). And they have gone through a lot of effort to do so. The easy way out is to do what every other manufacturer on the planet does.
  - craftinator 8y ago
    Really? The whole design goal? The design goal that Google's massive marketing department made up, or the design goal that was actually used in creating Chromebooks? And really, with what is common knowledge about Google, why would you ever trust them at face value?
    - tylerl 8y ago
      Google's marketing department doesn't give a flying f*k whether you install another os on your chromebook. Use it however you like, with their blessing and even their assistance to the degree that they can help. Your "common knowledge" notwithstanding, I can tell you with 100% certainty that the os protection features in chromeos devices are about security. More specifically, it's about creating a device that Google can use themselves for extremely high-security use cases. You can trust it, or not, doesn't matter. But for Google, the modern Chromebook is the only desktop environment where they can be absolute sure that all the software and all the hardware are clean. Turns out that other companies like this capability as well, so it's a general product feature. But if all you want is some cheap hardware where you can flash the bios and run Windows Vista, then you just go ahead and be you. That's fine.
- bubblethink 8y ago
  As the other comment said, the emotion is mostly misplaced. Quite a lot of effort has gone in to making chromebooks work the way they do. The documentation or the low level code may not be perfect from the standpoint of alternate OSes, but chromebooks are literally the most open laptops you can buy (barring a few niche products at the moment like purism's).
  - remyrd 8y ago
    Any laptop that allows dual boot is more open than a chromebook. And that's a Really big number
    - bubblethink 8y ago
      That's "missing forest for the trees". Most laptops ship with rubbish AMI bios and bootguard enabled making them objectively less open. Chromebooks let you do whatever you want, although google does not do a lot of heavylifting for you. There are apparently some plans in the works by google for making things like dual booting more convenient, but nothing official yet.
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      Chromebooks can be dual booted. So are they open enough for you?
- patient_zero 8y ago
  I'm in agreement with you, and its refreshing to see that view expressed on this site. The guy shouldn't have to go so far to do what he wants with hardware that he purchased. We have come so far away from the old concept of ownership and have for so long dealt with lackluster consumer protection that this simple concept is a radical one to some. It seems to me that there's a bit of a blind spot here on ycombinator, specifically for tech companies and developers that is, in assuming they are working in good faith. I guess it's that most people here work in tech or with said folks so I get why; it's just the way ycombinator swings.
  - bubblethink 8y ago
    Chromebooks would go down as one of those tragedies that were too ahead of their time because people have just stopped reading or doing any of their own research. >I guess it's that most people here work in tech or with said folks so I get why; it's just the way ycombinator swings. There is HN bias, but in this case it's the reverse bias, specifically because most folks DO NOT work in this sort of tech.
- rc-1140 8y ago
  The language one uses when writing, while not perfectly accurate, is a good indicator of how one carries themselves in real conversation with strangers. Repeated usage of phrases like "Google Spy Device" isn't indicative of someone who's assertive or "resolute", it's indicative of someone who is being emotional. If you're a regular here and part of the author's target audience, you know how awful Google is with regards to the user privacy sphere. You don't want to hear someone whinge about it every some-odd lines of a tutorial.
  - mindslight 8y ago
    Or "Google Spy Device" is simply an amateur attempt at reframing a paradigm. Those fall flat most of the time, but trying them out is still necessary to separate one's own and hopefully everyone's perspective from default Google. I personally appreciated "A Chromebook is an inexpensive data milking device and you are the cow". Rather than throwing everything at the wall and hoping something would stick, OP would have certainly benefited from some editing. But the bulk still shouldn't have been hard to read past. There is editorializing in every communique. IMHO the protests here say more about being acclimated to a culture of milquetoast-positivity corporatespeak than anything else.
    - rc-1140 8y ago
      > Or "Google Spy Device" is simply an amateur attempt at reframing a paradigm. That would require effort on the author's part. This is the equivalent of that guy who goes "gNu pLus LiNuX ;D" whenever someone simply says/mentions Linux as part of a larger conversation topic because they have nothing to contribute. > But the bulk still shouldn't have been hard to read past. It is difficult because the author has two simultaneous discussions going on: their actual work with the Chromebook and their banal google privacy comments which are intertwined with the actual interesting content. > IMHO the protests here say more about being acclimated to a culture of milquetoast-positivity corporatespeak than anything else. I clicked the link to read an article on getting ChromeOS off of a Chromebook. I didn't click the link to have to scrape aside the same wannabe revolutionary feel-good drivel that's been propagated on every common and tech-focused news site just to get at the content. If anything, the author writing the equivalent of "ha ha doodoo head google sheeple FITE DA POWA" and the volume of people defending it speaks volumes about what constitutes privacy advocacy in HackerNews comments.
asveikau 8y ago
It is on the other hand in some sense expressing hostility towards fellow humans for "don't be evil" Google to make this so hard to do. If they were more honest in that saying it would indeed be simpler, and that is probably why the author is disappointed.
- jayd16 8y ago
  In this case it feels really disingenuous. The Chromebook design goals are different than his wants. Its really nothing to get upset about.
  - deogeo 8y ago
    Why should we not get upset about design goals we dislike?
    - jayd16 8y ago
      Not every design is for you.
      - deogeo 8y ago
        And not every design is to the benefit of the consumer's it's targeted at - surely we should voice those concerns.
        vinkelhake 8y ago
        Chromebooks are arguably the most secure consumer devices out there. This security is very much by design, has been there from day one and is of tremendous benefit to its target users.
        deogeo 8y ago
        Why is it so popular to conflate security with lack of user control? Making Chromebooks tamper-evident is perfectly sufficient for security.

Are we really so far gone that expressing a strong opinion with a little hyperbole is interpreted as "anger" ? The adjective I'd use to describe OP's writing is "resolute". And in these days when surveillance and other corporate monsters continually bathe us in soft nudging to acquiesce to their agendas, it is a stance that's quite necessary.

jayd16 8y ago
But its totally misplaced emotion. The whole design goal of a chromebook is constantly push signed OTA updates. They give you a hardware switch to turn off the signature checks. His comment that a hardware key you'd certainly lose is better than a jumper is pretty weak. If you don't like them, fine, but this just comes off as nerd rage in an attempt at saying "I am very smart."
- mindslight 8y ago
  Unfortunately the Arbiter of Emotion was not there to correct his frustration during the unlocking. The Chromebook's model is obviously consistent with Google's fleshed out security model. But this model is at odds with Free users, and there isn't one straightforward way to reconcile the two, but rather various ones that will each attract their own criticism. Individuals don't have the luxury of massaging their opinions with a PR department, and conflict (with the corporate narrative) draws attention to rough points. People aren't going to express things perfectly - one can either work to be tolerant of varying personalities and colorful overstating, or retreat to the safe space of sanitized corporate press releases. Ask yourself what is your motivation to shit on him with classical bullying ("nerd rage"). Some casual ranting about security models while tediously reflashing a BIOS is not an attempt to say "I am very smart".
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    Or they could have made their point without the rant and increased their chances of being taken seriously. As it stands, it’s not clear that the author understands why the things he’s annoyed about exist.
    - mindslight 8y ago
      It's amazing how these tone policing responses are coupled with patronizing endorsements of Google's security model... We get it. Google's (and Apple's, Intel's, etc) contemporary security model is to work to retain control over the device for themselves, taking end users under their wing to provide them security. For a non-technical person with no technical family, obtaining a device with this security model from Best Buy is likely the pinnacle of what can be done. But this is not the only device security model. And the idea of a manufacturer working against the owner of a device is abhorrent to the perspective of Freedom. Weighing Google's specific design decisions within their model is not terribly important if one is repudiating the entire model. I personally think a better synthesis could be found between the two models, but that was obviously not the point of the original post! I'm not personally a huge fan of blog posts / youtube / etc that just reiterate and editorialize information that is easily found elsewhere. But I do recognize that this is how many people learn - both the viewers and the authors. By picking on this post for not having the details fleshed out and stated in an impartial manner, all you're really doing is putting a veil of faux impartiality over shouting down the culture of Freeing computing devices.
      - bubblethink 8y ago
        >We get it. Google's (and Apple's, Intel's, etc) contemporary security model is to work to retain control over the device for themselves This is exactly what you and likely the author of the post don't get. Google's security model is vastly different from Apple's or Intel's or anyone else's. In particular, the google security model is the only one of these which still ensures the ability for a user to take full control of the device (to the extent possible in current times). And they have gone through a lot of effort to do so. The easy way out is to do what every other manufacturer on the planet does.
- craftinator 8y ago
  Really? The whole design goal? The design goal that Google's massive marketing department made up, or the design goal that was actually used in creating Chromebooks? And really, with what is common knowledge about Google, why would you ever trust them at face value?
  - tylerl 8y ago
    Google's marketing department doesn't give a flying f*k whether you install another os on your chromebook. Use it however you like, with their blessing and even their assistance to the degree that they can help. Your "common knowledge" notwithstanding, I can tell you with 100% certainty that the os protection features in chromeos devices are about security. More specifically, it's about creating a device that Google can use themselves for extremely high-security use cases. You can trust it, or not, doesn't matter. But for Google, the modern Chromebook is the only desktop environment where they can be absolute sure that all the software and all the hardware are clean. Turns out that other companies like this capability as well, so it's a general product feature. But if all you want is some cheap hardware where you can flash the bios and run Windows Vista, then you just go ahead and be you. That's fine.
bubblethink 8y ago
As the other comment said, the emotion is mostly misplaced. Quite a lot of effort has gone in to making chromebooks work the way they do. The documentation or the low level code may not be perfect from the standpoint of alternate OSes, but chromebooks are literally the most open laptops you can buy (barring a few niche products at the moment like purism's).
- remyrd 8y ago
  Any laptop that allows dual boot is more open than a chromebook. And that's a Really big number
  - bubblethink 8y ago
    That's "missing forest for the trees". Most laptops ship with rubbish AMI bios and bootguard enabled making them objectively less open. Chromebooks let you do whatever you want, although google does not do a lot of heavylifting for you. There are apparently some plans in the works by google for making things like dual booting more convenient, but nothing official yet.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    Chromebooks can be dual booted. So are they open enough for you?
patient_zero 8y ago
I'm in agreement with you, and its refreshing to see that view expressed on this site. The guy shouldn't have to go so far to do what he wants with hardware that he purchased. We have come so far away from the old concept of ownership and have for so long dealt with lackluster consumer protection that this simple concept is a radical one to some. It seems to me that there's a bit of a blind spot here on ycombinator, specifically for tech companies and developers that is, in assuming they are working in good faith. I guess it's that most people here work in tech or with said folks so I get why; it's just the way ycombinator swings.
- bubblethink 8y ago
  Chromebooks would go down as one of those tragedies that were too ahead of their time because people have just stopped reading or doing any of their own research. >I guess it's that most people here work in tech or with said folks so I get why; it's just the way ycombinator swings. There is HN bias, but in this case it's the reverse bias, specifically because most folks DO NOT work in this sort of tech.
rc-1140 8y ago
The language one uses when writing, while not perfectly accurate, is a good indicator of how one carries themselves in real conversation with strangers. Repeated usage of phrases like "Google Spy Device" isn't indicative of someone who's assertive or "resolute", it's indicative of someone who is being emotional. If you're a regular here and part of the author's target audience, you know how awful Google is with regards to the user privacy sphere. You don't want to hear someone whinge about it every some-odd lines of a tutorial.
- mindslight 8y ago
  Or "Google Spy Device" is simply an amateur attempt at reframing a paradigm. Those fall flat most of the time, but trying them out is still necessary to separate one's own and hopefully everyone's perspective from default Google. I personally appreciated "A Chromebook is an inexpensive data milking device and you are the cow". Rather than throwing everything at the wall and hoping something would stick, OP would have certainly benefited from some editing. But the bulk still shouldn't have been hard to read past. There is editorializing in every communique. IMHO the protests here say more about being acclimated to a culture of milquetoast-positivity corporatespeak than anything else.
  - rc-1140 8y ago
    > Or "Google Spy Device" is simply an amateur attempt at reframing a paradigm. That would require effort on the author's part. This is the equivalent of that guy who goes "gNu pLus LiNuX ;D" whenever someone simply says/mentions Linux as part of a larger conversation topic because they have nothing to contribute. > But the bulk still shouldn't have been hard to read past. It is difficult because the author has two simultaneous discussions going on: their actual work with the Chromebook and their banal google privacy comments which are intertwined with the actual interesting content. > IMHO the protests here say more about being acclimated to a culture of milquetoast-positivity corporatespeak than anything else. I clicked the link to read an article on getting ChromeOS off of a Chromebook. I didn't click the link to have to scrape aside the same wannabe revolutionary feel-good drivel that's been propagated on every common and tech-focused news site just to get at the content. If anything, the author writing the equivalent of "ha ha doodoo head google sheeple FITE DA POWA" and the volume of people defending it speaks volumes about what constitutes privacy advocacy in HackerNews comments.

asveikau 8y ago

It is on the other hand in some sense expressing hostility towards fellow humans for "don't be evil" Google to make this so hard to do. If they were more honest in that saying it would indeed be simpler, and that is probably why the author is disappointed.

jayd16 8y ago
In this case it feels really disingenuous. The Chromebook design goals are different than his wants. Its really nothing to get upset about.
- deogeo 8y ago
  Why should we not get upset about design goals we dislike?
  - jayd16 8y ago
    Not every design is for you.
    - deogeo 8y ago
      And not every design is to the benefit of the consumer's it's targeted at - surely we should voice those concerns.
      - vinkelhake 8y ago
        Chromebooks are arguably the most secure consumer devices out there. This security is very much by design, has been there from day one and is of tremendous benefit to its target users.
        deogeo 8y ago
        Why is it so popular to conflate security with lack of user control? Making Chromebooks tamper-evident is perfectly sufficient for security.