7 ms·

This is the same sort of logic that some people have that people shouldn't be allowed to make choices in life because they "might get it wrong". People should b

This is the same sort of logic that some people have that people shouldn't be allowed to make choices in life because they "might get it wrong". People should be allowed to make their own choices in what they believe to be their best interests and they should be allowed to get things wrong. > For most people, if there computer was ‘theirs’, it would be that way for about 10 minutes until it was pwned by a bad actor. This may have been true back in the early 2000s when people first had good broadband. However all the major operating systems have pretty decent security out of the box mainly due to the embarassment of events like MS Blaster Worm. > The general issue of other people (I.e. Apple et al) having a lot of control over your computer, is entirely valid even if some of the points in the piece are exaggerations. The problem is that if you buy a general purpose computing device. You should be able to run whatever you like on it. They should just have a button somewhere in whatever the equivalent of the BIOS on these machines is that says "I am an adult and I accept the risks of turning off these protections" and then let you install Temple OS if you so choose to. This is something that needs to be enforced by legal means IMO, something similar to right to repair. > The problem is that people want it that way. I don't know about that. They frequently get irritated by it and are just resigned to it IME. However the popularity of single board computers such as the Raspberry Pi, People building their own gaming rigs and people tinkering with gadgets goes someway in refuting this notion. There will be of course many people that just won't care and will use "iDevice" and that is fine, however there is a large spectrum between "I only run stuff from the app store" to "I run custom Arch Install with optimised kernel with tk kernel patches". > The presence of open software isn’t enough without a way for people to know what is trustworthy without being experts. I agree. This is a failing of the open source community. I've actually written a draft manifesto called "better than freedom". This may actually push me to at least have it critiqued by my friends. > Until we provide that, this situation cannot change. Something has to change. We are sliding back into the 1980s where all the computer hardware was incomptable with one another.

ernst_klim 6y ago
> People should be allowed to make their own choices in what they believe to be their best interests > You should be able to run whatever you like on it. You are contradicting yourself. People are explicitly choosing iphone, a walled garden. Then you say that that's a wrong choice because you believe it's a general purpose computing device and should work differently. If people buy it then, well, they are fine with it.
- forest_dweller 6y ago
  Those statements aren't mutally exclusive. People should as a matter of principle be able to run whatever they like, however if they want to stay in the walled garden they can. If you read the rest of my comment I specifically mentioned some sort of mechanism for turning off the walled garden protections. I would imagine it would work something like secure boot. I have a motherboard that lets me turn off that machanism if wanted to via the BIOS software. If the only way for it to happen is through lobbying politicians and requiring it by law (not a solution I would prefer) so be it. Also it is quiite clearly a general computing device as it has all the characteristics of one. It isn't a matter of belief.
  - ernst_klim 6y ago
    > People should as a matter of principle be able to run whatever they like Well you are free to provide a platform that is as convenient as ios and as free as linux. In practice that's not easy to say modestly since convenience require quite an investment in design and developement which free platforms tend to lack. So in reality it's either a well monetized platform (which is either a walled garden or just sells your data), or free platform which is far behind in terms of convenience and support. > Also it is quiite clearly a general computing device as it has all the characteristics of one. It isn't a matter of belief. No, it's exactly your belief. Apple doesn't advertise it to you that way, they doesn't say you'll be able to run whatever you'd like on it, so I dunno where did you get this misconception that they should provide you such an ability.
    - forest_dweller 6y ago
      > Well you are free to provide a platform that is as convenient as ios and as free as linux. Respectfully you obviously don't understand what I wrote. I was quite clearly talking about the ability to run an alternative OS on the platform. Not whether there Lineage OS or similar is as good as iOS. You can install whatever operating system you want on a Laptop or a PC. You can already run other ROM images on Android (though some phones you have to root the device which is not okay. It isn't about an OS already being there. It being able to run whatever OS might be available. > No, it's exactly your belief. Apple doesn't advertise it to you that way, they doesn't say you'll be able to run whatever you'd like on it, so I dunno where did you get this misconception that they should provide you such an ability. There is no misconception on my part. If you look up what makes a general purpose computer, that includes things such as PC, laptops, servers and smartphones. The iPhone has all the properties that make it one. So whether you like it or not, it fits all the criteria. It doesn't matter what Apple market it as or whether they artifically lock it down. That doesn't fundamentally make it a different thing.
oneplane 6y ago
This is hardly about choices and more about shared resources and interaction. You can do whatever you want, but you can't do it to whatever/whoever you want.
jb1991 6y ago
> This is the same sort of logic that some people have that people shouldn't be allowed to make choices in life because they "might get it wrong". No, it's not at all the same sort of logic. We are talking about technology here, not overall life experience. Everyone starts out life on the same footing, with zero experience, and has the innate potential to learn how to live it. But computers are a very specific, highly specialized machinery that the vast parts of the population will never be able to directly understand or fix. I can drive a car but I don't know the first thing about fixing it. You could claim that no one should own technology if they don't understand it intimately, but that is a different kind of logic and argument. It's silly to conflate the two.
- forest_dweller 6y ago
  All you are advocating for is a new priestly class. > Everyone starts out life on the same footing, with zero experience, and has the innate potential to learn how to live it. But computers are a very specific, highly specialized machinery that the vast parts of the population will never be able to directly understand or fix. I started off with zero experience and learned more over time to throw your own words back at you. I learned how to program on a computer when I was 10 years old (which was 28 years ago now) after my Grandfather (who was born in the 1920s) learned how to operate his own computer at home. We had manuals and trial and error and the library. It was much more difficult to learn back then because there was no internet, no youtube and almost nobody had a computer. Computers back then were a lot more difficult to use as well. So don't give me this nonsense about it being so opaque it is impossible for an ordinary person. Also most people will know a friend or relative that is handy with a PC or you could go to a local specialist for help. A large multi-billion company "looking out for the plebs" isn't required. Apple has been quite good it seems as selling this narrative. > I can drive a car but I don't know the first thing about fixing it. Plenty of people used to be able to work on their own cars in the past (and still do today). Most of them would be considered "laymen". Plenty of people fix their own phones and computers, or go to a repair shop where people have taught themselves to repair electronics and turned it into a business. Just because you choose to be ignorant (which is absolutely fine) doesn't mean other people aren't able or willing to.
crististm 6y ago
All your recent comments are dead. Don't bother. It's unfortunate that contrarian opinions are silenced but this is the result of another walled garden
zepto 6y ago
“This is the same sort of logic that some people have that people shouldn't be allowed to make choices in life because they "might get it wrong". People should be allowed to make their own choices in what they believe to be their best interests and they should be allowed to get things wrong.“ I am not making any argument that can be construed as this. You are misreading me if you think I am. I agree that people should be allowed to make their own choices which is why I strongly oppose government regulation of software distribution. It’s also why I support people’s right to choose platforms like iOS. “Something has to change. We are sliding back into the 1980s where all the computer hardware was incompatible with one another.” I’m not sure freedom and compatibility always go hand in hand, but I agree that something has to change. As to the tinkerers and people building their own rigs - the idea that there is a large spectrum. I potentially agree. Serving those people well is a hugely untapped potential. I used to believe that Apple would see this, but I no longer do. I suspect that Jobs would have done. I would like to think the open source community and commercial ecosystem outside of Apple and Microsoft can seize the opportunity. We won’t if we spend our time feeling victimized by corporations doing what corporations do.
- forest_dweller 6y ago
  > I am not making any argument that can be construed as this. You are misreading me if you think I am. I agree that people should be allowed to make their own choices which is why I strongly oppose government regulation of software distribution. It’s also why I support people’s right to choose platforms like iOS. Fair enough. I've read some of your other replies on here and I got the wrong end of the stick. As for the rest of your comment here. I agree.

ernst_klim 6y ago

> People should be allowed to make their own choices in what they believe to be their best interests > You should be able to run whatever you like on it. You are contradicting yourself. People are explicitly choosing iphone, a walled garden. Then you say that that's a wrong choice because you believe it's a general purpose computing device and should work differently. If people buy it then, well, they are fine with it.

forest_dweller 6y ago
Those statements aren't mutally exclusive. People should as a matter of principle be able to run whatever they like, however if they want to stay in the walled garden they can. If you read the rest of my comment I specifically mentioned some sort of mechanism for turning off the walled garden protections. I would imagine it would work something like secure boot. I have a motherboard that lets me turn off that machanism if wanted to via the BIOS software. If the only way for it to happen is through lobbying politicians and requiring it by law (not a solution I would prefer) so be it. Also it is quiite clearly a general computing device as it has all the characteristics of one. It isn't a matter of belief.
- ernst_klim 6y ago
  > People should as a matter of principle be able to run whatever they like Well you are free to provide a platform that is as convenient as ios and as free as linux. In practice that's not easy to say modestly since convenience require quite an investment in design and developement which free platforms tend to lack. So in reality it's either a well monetized platform (which is either a walled garden or just sells your data), or free platform which is far behind in terms of convenience and support. > Also it is quiite clearly a general computing device as it has all the characteristics of one. It isn't a matter of belief. No, it's exactly your belief. Apple doesn't advertise it to you that way, they doesn't say you'll be able to run whatever you'd like on it, so I dunno where did you get this misconception that they should provide you such an ability.
  - forest_dweller 6y ago
    > Well you are free to provide a platform that is as convenient as ios and as free as linux. Respectfully you obviously don't understand what I wrote. I was quite clearly talking about the ability to run an alternative OS on the platform. Not whether there Lineage OS or similar is as good as iOS. You can install whatever operating system you want on a Laptop or a PC. You can already run other ROM images on Android (though some phones you have to root the device which is not okay. It isn't about an OS already being there. It being able to run whatever OS might be available. > No, it's exactly your belief. Apple doesn't advertise it to you that way, they doesn't say you'll be able to run whatever you'd like on it, so I dunno where did you get this misconception that they should provide you such an ability. There is no misconception on my part. If you look up what makes a general purpose computer, that includes things such as PC, laptops, servers and smartphones. The iPhone has all the properties that make it one. So whether you like it or not, it fits all the criteria. It doesn't matter what Apple market it as or whether they artifically lock it down. That doesn't fundamentally make it a different thing.

oneplane 6y ago

This is hardly about choices and more about shared resources and interaction. You can do whatever you want, but you can't do it to whatever/whoever you want.

jb1991 6y ago

> This is the same sort of logic that some people have that people shouldn't be allowed to make choices in life because they "might get it wrong". No, it's not at all the same sort of logic. We are talking about technology here, not overall life experience. Everyone starts out life on the same footing, with zero experience, and has the innate potential to learn how to live it. But computers are a very specific, highly specialized machinery that the vast parts of the population will never be able to directly understand or fix. I can drive a car but I don't know the first thing about fixing it. You could claim that no one should own technology if they don't understand it intimately, but that is a different kind of logic and argument. It's silly to conflate the two.

forest_dweller 6y ago
All you are advocating for is a new priestly class. > Everyone starts out life on the same footing, with zero experience, and has the innate potential to learn how to live it. But computers are a very specific, highly specialized machinery that the vast parts of the population will never be able to directly understand or fix. I started off with zero experience and learned more over time to throw your own words back at you. I learned how to program on a computer when I was 10 years old (which was 28 years ago now) after my Grandfather (who was born in the 1920s) learned how to operate his own computer at home. We had manuals and trial and error and the library. It was much more difficult to learn back then because there was no internet, no youtube and almost nobody had a computer. Computers back then were a lot more difficult to use as well. So don't give me this nonsense about it being so opaque it is impossible for an ordinary person. Also most people will know a friend or relative that is handy with a PC or you could go to a local specialist for help. A large multi-billion company "looking out for the plebs" isn't required. Apple has been quite good it seems as selling this narrative. > I can drive a car but I don't know the first thing about fixing it. Plenty of people used to be able to work on their own cars in the past (and still do today). Most of them would be considered "laymen". Plenty of people fix their own phones and computers, or go to a repair shop where people have taught themselves to repair electronics and turned it into a business. Just because you choose to be ignorant (which is absolutely fine) doesn't mean other people aren't able or willing to.

crististm 6y ago

All your recent comments are dead. Don't bother. It's unfortunate that contrarian opinions are silenced but this is the result of another walled garden

zepto 6y ago

“This is the same sort of logic that some people have that people shouldn't be allowed to make choices in life because they "might get it wrong". People should be allowed to make their own choices in what they believe to be their best interests and they should be allowed to get things wrong.“ I am not making any argument that can be construed as this. You are misreading me if you think I am. I agree that people should be allowed to make their own choices which is why I strongly oppose government regulation of software distribution. It’s also why I support people’s right to choose platforms like iOS. “Something has to change. We are sliding back into the 1980s where all the computer hardware was incompatible with one another.” I’m not sure freedom and compatibility always go hand in hand, but I agree that something has to change. As to the tinkerers and people building their own rigs - the idea that there is a large spectrum. I potentially agree. Serving those people well is a hugely untapped potential. I used to believe that Apple would see this, but I no longer do. I suspect that Jobs would have done. I would like to think the open source community and commercial ecosystem outside of Apple and Microsoft can seize the opportunity. We won’t if we spend our time feeling victimized by corporations doing what corporations do.

forest_dweller 6y ago
> I am not making any argument that can be construed as this. You are misreading me if you think I am. I agree that people should be allowed to make their own choices which is why I strongly oppose government regulation of software distribution. It’s also why I support people’s right to choose platforms like iOS. Fair enough. I've read some of your other replies on here and I got the wrong end of the stick. As for the rest of your comment here. I agree.