4 ms·

> Any device not allowing that is, simply put, not respecting the intelligence of the user. This is kind of a silly absolutist opinion. Sure, you should have a

> Any device not allowing that is, simply put, not respecting the intelligence of the user. This is kind of a silly absolutist opinion. Sure, you should have an option to have a completely open mobile OS... but to say that any OS with other priorities than complete “openness” is disrespectful is to throw literally every other consideration to the wind. I mean... really, what about security? Ideologues tend to forget about reality, sometimes, it seems. Verified app stores, for example, are about providing security to the end user, not about disrespecting the end user. I can’t help but feel like ideologically driven projects like often almost immediately discredit themselves with crap like this. Their software comes off as about making some statement, not providing something great, novel, and beneficial to people.

tathougies 7y ago
Um.... he's not saying OSes with other priorities are disrespectful. He's saying that devices that are designed to make it difficult for their owners to install their own software on it (sometimes going so far as to attempt to make it illegal) are being disrespectful to their purchasers.
- Tehchops 7y ago
  How do you reconcile that when it's very likely allowing even a small population of "owners" to install unverified software ends up directly harming the majority of the other "owners".
  - chriswarbo 7y ago
    I'm not sure why you put scare quotes around the word "owner". Personally, I'd like to know what "harm" you think is inflicted by, say, the presence of a hardware jumper. Also, in case you didn't know, there's been a lot of thought and effort expended over the decades about the philosophy, morals and implementation of ownership with regards to hardware and software. I recommend starting with a resource like http://www.gnu.org/philosophy http://www.gnu.org/philosophy
    - freehunter 7y ago
      Let's put it this way then: what's the harm in the Raspberry Pi to allow SSH right out of the box? That's up to the owner right? I shouldn't have to configure it, it should just work. Except people who aren't Linux or security experts leave it with the default config and the system quickly gets absorbed into a botnet that negatively impacts everyone else on the Internet. You can't think of anything connected to the Internet as completely "owned" by any one person. The Internet is a hivemind of machines and humans, and every single person has the ability to impact many other people. Even unintentionally, even unknowingly. If we want complete personal ownership of every device in our possession, I'm all for it. But that would require every person who owns a device connected to the Internet to take full personal responsibility for anything that happens on/from their device that negatively impacts others. Would you be okay with me suing you personally because one of your devices got infected with malware and slowed down my home Internet connection? Would you be okay with me suing your grandmother? There is hardware and software out there for people who can handle that responsibility. The majority of Internet users can't handle it, though. That's why the majority of Internet-connected devices don't allow people to meddle with things they can't understand. The GNU philosophy is a great ideal to strive for, but like with most ideals it doesn't handle reality very gracefully. With complete ownership comes complete responsibility, and very few people are ready to take complete responsibility for what their Internet-connected device does.
      - simion314 7y ago
        You are very extremist in your possition, you can have extreme safe configs by default, then give an escape from jail to power users like Crheombooks have done or other devices that give you the option to install a different OS , Is your grandma formatting her PC and installing Linux ? IF yes great but probably she is not and she will also not flash her iOS device with a different firmwere either.
        freehunter 7y ago
        Richard Stallman is very extreme in his position. I’m just stating the reason why the status quo is a good thing. Agreeing with the way things currently exist is not an extreme position.
t0astbread 7y ago
In the end both kinds of systems are necessary: Locked-down with trust managed by an authority for less tech-savvy users (or users who do not want to manage their own security and are okay with the drawbacks) and open systems with the responsibilities put into the user's hands.
naasking 7y ago
> Verified app stores, for example, are about providing security to the end user, not about disrespecting the end user. They quite literally cannot do that. It's security theatre.
gonvaled 7y ago
> Verified app stores, for example, are about providing security to the end user, not about disrespecting the end user. Everything a company does is for the bottom line. App stores are there for lock-in, and for taking a percent of the sale. The security features are a (fortunate) side effect: the company uses it as selling point.

tathougies 7y ago

Um.... he's not saying OSes with other priorities are disrespectful. He's saying that devices that are designed to make it difficult for their owners to install their own software on it (sometimes going so far as to attempt to make it illegal) are being disrespectful to their purchasers.

Tehchops 7y ago
How do you reconcile that when it's very likely allowing even a small population of "owners" to install unverified software ends up directly harming the majority of the other "owners".
- chriswarbo 7y ago
  I'm not sure why you put scare quotes around the word "owner". Personally, I'd like to know what "harm" you think is inflicted by, say, the presence of a hardware jumper. Also, in case you didn't know, there's been a lot of thought and effort expended over the decades about the philosophy, morals and implementation of ownership with regards to hardware and software. I recommend starting with a resource like http://www.gnu.org/philosophy http://www.gnu.org/philosophy
  - freehunter 7y ago
    Let's put it this way then: what's the harm in the Raspberry Pi to allow SSH right out of the box? That's up to the owner right? I shouldn't have to configure it, it should just work. Except people who aren't Linux or security experts leave it with the default config and the system quickly gets absorbed into a botnet that negatively impacts everyone else on the Internet. You can't think of anything connected to the Internet as completely "owned" by any one person. The Internet is a hivemind of machines and humans, and every single person has the ability to impact many other people. Even unintentionally, even unknowingly. If we want complete personal ownership of every device in our possession, I'm all for it. But that would require every person who owns a device connected to the Internet to take full personal responsibility for anything that happens on/from their device that negatively impacts others. Would you be okay with me suing you personally because one of your devices got infected with malware and slowed down my home Internet connection? Would you be okay with me suing your grandmother? There is hardware and software out there for people who can handle that responsibility. The majority of Internet users can't handle it, though. That's why the majority of Internet-connected devices don't allow people to meddle with things they can't understand. The GNU philosophy is a great ideal to strive for, but like with most ideals it doesn't handle reality very gracefully. With complete ownership comes complete responsibility, and very few people are ready to take complete responsibility for what their Internet-connected device does.
    - simion314 7y ago
      You are very extremist in your possition, you can have extreme safe configs by default, then give an escape from jail to power users like Crheombooks have done or other devices that give you the option to install a different OS , Is your grandma formatting her PC and installing Linux ? IF yes great but probably she is not and she will also not flash her iOS device with a different firmwere either.
      - freehunter 7y ago
        Richard Stallman is very extreme in his position. I’m just stating the reason why the status quo is a good thing. Agreeing with the way things currently exist is not an extreme position.

t0astbread 7y ago

In the end both kinds of systems are necessary: Locked-down with trust managed by an authority for less tech-savvy users (or users who do not want to manage their own security and are okay with the drawbacks) and open systems with the responsibilities put into the user's hands.

naasking 7y ago

> Verified app stores, for example, are about providing security to the end user, not about disrespecting the end user. They quite literally cannot do that. It's security theatre.

gonvaled 7y ago

> Verified app stores, for example, are about providing security to the end user, not about disrespecting the end user. Everything a company does is for the bottom line. App stores are there for lock-in, and for taking a percent of the sale. The security features are a (fortunate) side effect: the company uses it as selling point.