5 ms·

I see people saying things like > we need to make concessions with computers when we market them to the masses or > RMS's argument made a lot more sense when

by nsajko 5y ago

I see people saying things like > we need to make concessions with computers when we market them to the masses or > RMS's argument made a lot more sense when computers were a professional tool used by trained individuals. But that audience has changed a lot in the past 30 years. So the argument is that users shouldn't have control over their own devices because most don't want it? That seems like a non sequitur. 1. Why not just hide the controls in a hard-to-reach menu or similar, if the goal is just not to frighten the poor device owners/users with control they don't want? Instead systems are purposefully engineered to lock them down. 2. There definitely seems to be a trend to take away ever more control that device owners used to have over the past decades and years. Apple leads the way with their phones and laptops, but I think that e.g., getting the right to administrate the OS on Android phones is also getting more difficult in general. So how come the users got by fine 15 years ago, without getting heart attacks from all the control over their systems available back then (compared to a today's smartphone). 3. I think it's pretty obvious that users will get less accustomed to having control over their devices if that control ceases to be available in off-the-shelf products, so the it's kind of backwards to just say "the users can't handle it".

rightbyte 5y ago
> There definitely seems to be a trend to take away ever more control that device owners used to have over the past decades and years. The pre-smartphone phones were in practice frozen. I vaguely recall installing some game on the later ones via cable to the computer though. But anyways, smartphones are more open in practice than phones used to be. So not all bad developement. (I am not mentioning the privacy drawbacks etc of new phones.)
- teitoklien 5y ago
  > smartphones are more open in practise than phones used to be Thing is a smart doesn’t compete with just a phone , it competes with laptops , desktops too. A lot of people don’t bother buying laptops or desktops these days because they can do most of what they want on their phone
kube-system 5y ago
> Why not just hide the controls in a hard-to-reach menu or similar In the instance that the reason for not exposing the control is security, then, it's because obscurity is not a substitute for security. > users will get less accustomed to having control over their devices if that control ceases to be available in off-the-shelf products, so the it's kind of backwards to just say "the users can't handle it". I think there are enough examples of users compromising their own systems to demonstrate that it isn't being done without reason. Regardless of any of this, I wasn't suggesting that we shouldn't use FOSS. I'm simply saying that his argument isn't as impactful as it once was.
dngray 5y ago
> RMS's argument made a lot more sense when computers were a professional tool used by trained individuals. But that audience has changed a lot in the past 30 years. He mentions TPM, but there are modern examples of this. Try playing a modern UHD BluRay on your computer. Unless you have a drive that allows you to rip the BluRay (modified firmware) the only "legal" way to watch it at 4K is to use "specified software". One of those options being Cyberlink's PowerDVD, (yes that bloated video player that is 500MB from 2000). It requires Intel SGX/iGPU[1] and therefore won't work on AMD CPUs. This is because the firmware for the drive has encryption keys that only let certain software use it. [1] https://www.cyberlink.com/support/faq-content.do?id=19144 https://www.cyberlink.com/support/faq-content.do?id=19144 I think this is the exact sort of thing that Stallman was talking about when it comes to a computer not following your instructions because of DRM. HDCP being another one of these lame DRMs, except built into your monitor. I'd argue they don't prevent piracy at all, and don't really hinder it, but increase the cost of hardware because manufacturers have to pay for licensing. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_HD_Blu-ray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_HD_Blu-ray
atoav 5y ago
This is indeed a negative feedback cycle: 1. Don't educate people about how to use computers 2. People can't use computers 3. Because people can't use computers selflessly offer yourself to manage it for them (without a any monopolistic thoughts of course) 4. Because people now cannot use their own computers, even if they would know how they can't make mistakes, innovate or learn 5. GOTO 2 I really think we should consider teaching kids command line in school, just like we teach them how to write.

by nsajko 5y ago

rightbyte 5y ago

> There definitely seems to be a trend to take away ever more control that device owners used to have over the past decades and years. The pre-smartphone phones were in practice frozen. I vaguely recall installing some game on the later ones via cable to the computer though. But anyways, smartphones are more open in practice than phones used to be. So not all bad developement. (I am not mentioning the privacy drawbacks etc of new phones.)

teitoklien 5y ago
> smartphones are more open in practise than phones used to be Thing is a smart doesn’t compete with just a phone , it competes with laptops , desktops too. A lot of people don’t bother buying laptops or desktops these days because they can do most of what they want on their phone

kube-system 5y ago

> Why not just hide the controls in a hard-to-reach menu or similar In the instance that the reason for not exposing the control is security, then, it's because obscurity is not a substitute for security. > users will get less accustomed to having control over their devices if that control ceases to be available in off-the-shelf products, so the it's kind of backwards to just say "the users can't handle it". I think there are enough examples of users compromising their own systems to demonstrate that it isn't being done without reason. Regardless of any of this, I wasn't suggesting that we shouldn't use FOSS. I'm simply saying that his argument isn't as impactful as it once was.

dngray 5y ago

> RMS's argument made a lot more sense when computers were a professional tool used by trained individuals. But that audience has changed a lot in the past 30 years. He mentions TPM, but there are modern examples of this. Try playing a modern UHD BluRay on your computer. Unless you have a drive that allows you to rip the BluRay (modified firmware) the only "legal" way to watch it at 4K is to use "specified software". One of those options being Cyberlink's PowerDVD, (yes that bloated video player that is 500MB from 2000). It requires Intel SGX/iGPU[1] and therefore won't work on AMD CPUs. This is because the firmware for the drive has encryption keys that only let certain software use it. [1] https://www.cyberlink.com/support/faq-content.do?id=19144 https://www.cyberlink.com/support/faq-content.do?id=19144 I think this is the exact sort of thing that Stallman was talking about when it comes to a computer not following your instructions because of DRM. HDCP being another one of these lame DRMs, except built into your monitor. I'd argue they don't prevent piracy at all, and don't really hinder it, but increase the cost of hardware because manufacturers have to pay for licensing. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_HD_Blu-ray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_HD_Blu-ray

atoav 5y ago

This is indeed a negative feedback cycle: 1. Don't educate people about how to use computers 2. People can't use computers 3. Because people can't use computers selflessly offer yourself to manage it for them (without a any monopolistic thoughts of course) 4. Because people now cannot use their own computers, even if they would know how they can't make mistakes, innovate or learn 5. GOTO 2 I really think we should consider teaching kids command line in school, just like we teach them how to write.