3 ms·
>I know HN will see this as Apple further locking down the platform, but it's also plausible that they just want to reduce the number of ways the OS can be inst
by grawprog 6y ago
>I know HN will see this as Apple further locking down the platform, but it's also plausible that they just want to reduce the number of ways the OS can be installed and upgraded.
How is reducing the number of ways one can acquire or install something not further locking down a platform?
That's pretty much what 'locking down' a platform comes down to, reducing the number of ways you can install various kinds of software on said platform. An OS is still another piece of software.
- ben_w 6y agoSpeaking purely as personal opinion, the difference is “lockdown” -> they care; reducing options -> they don’t care. The effect is similar, unless you’re trying to find away around it.
- supplyOrKeynes 6y agoOk so you’re technically correct. Most users do not care. How is sitting on social media ranting about such things productive? This is how corporate works. Do something different politically if it matters.
- rgovostes 6y agoIt is reducing the number of supported configurations that need to be tested, which reduces the cost of shipping software updates. It seems to go hand in hand with making the root filesystem read-only. Users tend to be happy when their system is reliable. Perhaps this is incrementally progressing towards constant security updates like Chrome has had for some time.
- amelius 6y ago> Users tend to be happy when their system is reliable. Reliability is only one axis. Focus too much on one aspect, and increasingly fewer people will be happy.
- bredren 6y agoSecurity is another. If the last week has been any indicator, this property of software product value is very hard to provide and its value greatly underestimated.
- tshaddox 6y agoI don't think that reducing the number of ways to do the same thing is at all what people mean by "locking down a platform."