4 ms·

>I want them to _just work_, and I want to know who to call when they break. And in what way, shape or form does this require the device to be locked down to h

>I want them to _just work_, and I want to know who to call when they break. And in what way, shape or form does this require the device to be locked down to hell and back? That argument is a fallacy - correlation does not imply causation. The two things are completely unrelated to each other, yet people continue to assert that from one follows the other (locked -> just works), and that the opposite is also True (free -> doesn't just work). It's bullshit, and I'm sick and tired of hearing it. There's absolutely no reason for locking down a device besides wanting to restrict the user's freedom. This isn't about "just working", it isn't about better support, it's about unjustified control over the user's actions.

planb 15y ago
> This isn't about "just working", it isn't about better support... Tell that to the iOS developer who is getting bad reviews because the app does not run correctly on jailbroken devices where some system modification has been installed.
- slowpoke 15y ago
  Except this is a consequence of the device having to be jailbroken in the first place to work properly. You're attacking the symptom, not the cause.
  - Peaker 15y ago
    The restrictions on what users can do create a smaller set of possible configurations for authors to test their software with. In this sense, "Just works" relates to restrictions on users.
    - slowpoke 15y ago
      >In this sense, "Just works" relates to restrictions on users. No. Still attacking a symptom. Standard compliance solves the same problem, without having to lock down the system. If programmers are unable or unwilling to conform to standards, then this is again not the fault of the system[1]. Give up on arguing that there is any sort of causation between "locked" and "just works". It's wrong. [1] Actually, in this case it's the fault of the system. The lock places a false sense of security on programmers, which is pretty dangerous.
      - Peaker 15y ago
        I am very much against restrictive systems. But standards compliance is a sort of restriction on the apps the user can run. If you make the standards stricter and stricter, you restrict the space of configurations more -- and make it easier to get configurations that work together.
        slowpoke 15y ago
        The difference is that nobody forces you to comply to standards. If you want to hack around on your device, install third party software, concoct your own APIs and drivers or patch the kernel, nobody can stop you (and shouldn't be allowed to, either). While you can argue that a restrictive system is a sort of standard as well, you are forced to comply to that standard with no alternative, and that's bad. Besides, standards, at least open ones, are usually collaborative efforts of multiple actively involved parties, while restricted systems are controlled by a single entity - which again is bad.
- mikeash 15y ago
  What about the other direction? My jailbroken 3GS had a nifty app that would look up incoming calls in online phone books to tell me who it was even if it wasn't in my address book. It Just Worked pretty well. Now that I have a 4S, I have lost this functionality and can't add it back (at least until a proper publicly available jailbreak is ready). Jailbreaking and the third-party add-ons that it enables can increase the Just Works factor of a device.

planb 15y ago

> This isn't about "just working", it isn't about better support... Tell that to the iOS developer who is getting bad reviews because the app does not run correctly on jailbroken devices where some system modification has been installed.

slowpoke 15y ago
Except this is a consequence of the device having to be jailbroken in the first place to work properly. You're attacking the symptom, not the cause.
- Peaker 15y ago
  The restrictions on what users can do create a smaller set of possible configurations for authors to test their software with. In this sense, "Just works" relates to restrictions on users.
  - slowpoke 15y ago
    >In this sense, "Just works" relates to restrictions on users. No. Still attacking a symptom. Standard compliance solves the same problem, without having to lock down the system. If programmers are unable or unwilling to conform to standards, then this is again not the fault of the system[1]. Give up on arguing that there is any sort of causation between "locked" and "just works". It's wrong. [1] Actually, in this case it's the fault of the system. The lock places a false sense of security on programmers, which is pretty dangerous.
    - Peaker 15y ago
      I am very much against restrictive systems. But standards compliance is a sort of restriction on the apps the user can run. If you make the standards stricter and stricter, you restrict the space of configurations more -- and make it easier to get configurations that work together.
      - slowpoke 15y ago
        The difference is that nobody forces you to comply to standards. If you want to hack around on your device, install third party software, concoct your own APIs and drivers or patch the kernel, nobody can stop you (and shouldn't be allowed to, either). While you can argue that a restrictive system is a sort of standard as well, you are forced to comply to that standard with no alternative, and that's bad. Besides, standards, at least open ones, are usually collaborative efforts of multiple actively involved parties, while restricted systems are controlled by a single entity - which again is bad.
mikeash 15y ago
What about the other direction? My jailbroken 3GS had a nifty app that would look up incoming calls in online phone books to tell me who it was even if it wasn't in my address book. It Just Worked pretty well. Now that I have a 4S, I have lost this functionality and can't add it back (at least until a proper publicly available jailbreak is ready). Jailbreaking and the third-party add-ons that it enables can increase the Just Works factor of a device.