3 ms·

I have increasingly felt alienated in my relationship with my computing devices. I started in the mid 90s with Linux and Win95 and you owned and could understan

I have increasingly felt alienated in my relationship with my computing devices. I started in the mid 90s with Linux and Win95 and you owned and could understand the whole computer. iOS and the trend of walled computing gardens were ostensibly done for security and user experience, but users have lost control of their devices. Not everyone needs that of course, but I t is a big reason I migrated to Linux this year after having an off again on again relationship with Linux on my primary computing device. macOS is good, but it used to be great. Way too many technologists are eating up things like M1 / Apple silicon without asking if it’s a good thing. It performs great, but does it really matter? I’m pretty sure it doesn’t help me code or do things in emacs any more efficiently. After Apple hardware quality dropping a lot I just don’t feel the experience is good enough to justify it anymore. Maybe M1 will be a big evolutionary step that we simply can’t ignore, but I know I can do everything I need to for the next few years on my Linux laptop. I will evaluate again when it’s EOL. Mid-2015 Mac was the last great MacBook IMO. It’s been downhill from there. It’s been a slow incremental decline in quality of both the hardware and the OS. And I really loves my Mac and Apple ecosystem a lot, but the writing is on the wall for these walled gardens. iOS is still solid and my iPhone 12 is great... but it may be my last iPhone as well. Same with Windows, honestly. Win 7 was probably the last great windows operating system. Win10 has been very okay for me. All the forced reboots and telemetry in macOS and Windows... yuck.

EvanAnderson 6y ago
I feel like I'm going to end up being a veritable "hermit in a shack" because I won't tolerate the expectation of serfdom to our feudal hardware manufacturer and software developer overlords.
- bitexploder 6y ago
  Ultimately we need a world where more than just technologists can run on commodity hardware and free operating systems. Hardware reached a point where most people can do all their computing in cheap hardware and Linux is really quite sufficient for most people, but many small and some medium size issues combine to make it too hard for most folks to embrace.
- matheusmoreira 6y ago
  Sadly there is currently no hardware equivalent to free software. While anyone with a computer can learn programming and enrich the world by contributing, manufacturing modern hardware takes billions of dollars worth of equipment. We'll always be at the mercy of hardware manufacturers until we can make our own chips at home.
  - moring 6y ago
    I would argue that this is only half true. In the strictest sense, yes, we are at the mercy of hardware manufacturers. In practice, however, we can make chips at home, using FPGAs. For example, Lattice ECP5 offers capabilities beyond what can be reasonably expected from true DIY chips, can be programmed using a completely free toolchain, and let you design your hardware as RTL, which gives you all the freedom to build a free hardware layer for your free software stack. RTL designs in particular have a much reduced chance for FPGA-specific "closedness" to leak into the software stack, like it is the case with BLOB-based device drivers. While the designs will be FPGA-specific for performance reasons, they are not forced to be closed-source, nor will the specifics be visible outside the HDL. Again, in the strictest sense, Lattice chips are non-free too and you are at their mercy not to withdraw their support and tell their lawyers to go full nuclear on anyone working on the free toolchain, or free designs for their FPGAs. But then, with true DIY chips, the same could happen to your suppliers for wafers or chemicals. Or just other chipmakers threatening you with a lawsuit. I would definitely prefer "more open", but having to use an FPGA is not something I would consider a show stopper. Whatever holds back free hardware, I don't think this is it.
  - jrumbut 6y ago
    Given the complexity and specialization and massive physical plant required for modern hardware manufacturing I just can't get as worked up over their antics like I can with software.
ineedasername 6y ago
Windows95 and 98 were the last versions I really felt I could hold pretty much all of it in my head. I didn't let WindowsME anywhere near my brain's abstraction layer of OS functionality.
- girvo 6y ago
  Windows 2000 was that for me
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- userbinator 6y ago
  ME is pretty much 98SE with an attempt at hiding DOS from the user. Internally it identifies itself as "MS-DOS 8.0". They are all based on a hypervisor (VMM) and were actually quite ahead of the time. The NT line, on the other hand, is considerably different and much more similar to "traditional" OSs.

EvanAnderson 6y ago

I feel like I'm going to end up being a veritable "hermit in a shack" because I won't tolerate the expectation of serfdom to our feudal hardware manufacturer and software developer overlords.

bitexploder 6y ago
Ultimately we need a world where more than just technologists can run on commodity hardware and free operating systems. Hardware reached a point where most people can do all their computing in cheap hardware and Linux is really quite sufficient for most people, but many small and some medium size issues combine to make it too hard for most folks to embrace.
matheusmoreira 6y ago
Sadly there is currently no hardware equivalent to free software. While anyone with a computer can learn programming and enrich the world by contributing, manufacturing modern hardware takes billions of dollars worth of equipment. We'll always be at the mercy of hardware manufacturers until we can make our own chips at home.
- moring 6y ago
  I would argue that this is only half true. In the strictest sense, yes, we are at the mercy of hardware manufacturers. In practice, however, we can make chips at home, using FPGAs. For example, Lattice ECP5 offers capabilities beyond what can be reasonably expected from true DIY chips, can be programmed using a completely free toolchain, and let you design your hardware as RTL, which gives you all the freedom to build a free hardware layer for your free software stack. RTL designs in particular have a much reduced chance for FPGA-specific "closedness" to leak into the software stack, like it is the case with BLOB-based device drivers. While the designs will be FPGA-specific for performance reasons, they are not forced to be closed-source, nor will the specifics be visible outside the HDL. Again, in the strictest sense, Lattice chips are non-free too and you are at their mercy not to withdraw their support and tell their lawyers to go full nuclear on anyone working on the free toolchain, or free designs for their FPGAs. But then, with true DIY chips, the same could happen to your suppliers for wafers or chemicals. Or just other chipmakers threatening you with a lawsuit. I would definitely prefer "more open", but having to use an FPGA is not something I would consider a show stopper. Whatever holds back free hardware, I don't think this is it.
- jrumbut 6y ago
  Given the complexity and specialization and massive physical plant required for modern hardware manufacturing I just can't get as worked up over their antics like I can with software.

ineedasername 6y ago

Windows95 and 98 were the last versions I really felt I could hold pretty much all of it in my head. I didn't let WindowsME anywhere near my brain's abstraction layer of OS functionality.

girvo 6y ago
Windows 2000 was that for me
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
userbinator 6y ago
ME is pretty much 98SE with an attempt at hiding DOS from the user. Internally it identifies itself as "MS-DOS 8.0". They are all based on a hypervisor (VMM) and were actually quite ahead of the time. The NT line, on the other hand, is considerably different and much more similar to "traditional" OSs.