5 ms·

It may be hard to believe, but free software development stacks are a relatively new thing. When I was growing up, you had to buy the compiler, and the document

It may be hard to believe, but free software development stacks are a relatively new thing. When I was growing up, you had to buy the compiler, and the documentation for how to use the tools, and the language. (Though I think most 70s and 80s era computers came with BASIC) While I sympathize with the idea that this should be open and free and easy, there are too many bad actors out there, so we can’t have nice things. And for every “free” platform and language and toolset there is either a developer who’s being funded by some other source or not being paid at all.

jfoster 4y ago
But there might be alternate approaches that allow for more freedom. For instance, what if Google assessed the risk level of each app and presented that to users, rather than blocking publishing entirely? They could add all sorts of scary warnings in-between a user and a suspicious looking app, but eventually still allow both users & app developers to proceed if they have sufficiently high intent. They could even monetize it by getting developers to pay per update if they want a "detailed assessment" which was able to result in a "very low risk" rating, if passed.
- theamk 4y ago
  That already happens -- google already allows both users & app developers to proceed if they have sufficiently high intent. Here is one example: https://www.expressvpn.com/support/vpn-setup/enable-apk-installs-android/ https://www.expressvpn.com/support/vpn-setup/enable-apk-inst...
- tpxl 4y ago
  > They could add all sorts of scary warnings in-between a user and a suspicious looking app That's a nice looking app, would be a shame if it had a big scary warning on it. If they did that, they would rightfully be accused of running a racket.
  - jfoster 4y ago
    They currently block some apps from publishing altogether. Is that not worse?
    - tpxl 4y ago
      They'd block all the same apps, and some extra for the racket money. So no, current situation is not worse.
int_19h 4y ago
The tooling wasn't free because it costs money to develop - that is sensible. But it didn't limit what you could do with the stuff that you made with said tooling. You didn't have to pay all OS vendors for the privilege of them allowing your code onto user's devices. I think that's really what OP refers to, not the cost of tooling. And, yes, most computers from at least 1980s onwards came with something. DOS had BASICA first, then GW-BASIC, then QBasic - and these all were quite adequate for plenty of tasks, even games. By the 90s, we even had free 32-bit C++ compilers (DJGPP 1.03, 1991).

jfoster 4y ago

But there might be alternate approaches that allow for more freedom. For instance, what if Google assessed the risk level of each app and presented that to users, rather than blocking publishing entirely? They could add all sorts of scary warnings in-between a user and a suspicious looking app, but eventually still allow both users & app developers to proceed if they have sufficiently high intent. They could even monetize it by getting developers to pay per update if they want a "detailed assessment" which was able to result in a "very low risk" rating, if passed.

theamk 4y ago
That already happens -- google already allows both users & app developers to proceed if they have sufficiently high intent. Here is one example: https://www.expressvpn.com/support/vpn-setup/enable-apk-installs-android/ https://www.expressvpn.com/support/vpn-setup/enable-apk-inst...
tpxl 4y ago
> They could add all sorts of scary warnings in-between a user and a suspicious looking app That's a nice looking app, would be a shame if it had a big scary warning on it. If they did that, they would rightfully be accused of running a racket.
- jfoster 4y ago
  They currently block some apps from publishing altogether. Is that not worse?
  - tpxl 4y ago
    They'd block all the same apps, and some extra for the racket money. So no, current situation is not worse.

int_19h 4y ago

The tooling wasn't free because it costs money to develop - that is sensible. But it didn't limit what you could do with the stuff that you made with said tooling. You didn't have to pay all OS vendors for the privilege of them allowing your code onto user's devices. I think that's really what OP refers to, not the cost of tooling. And, yes, most computers from at least 1980s onwards came with something. DOS had BASICA first, then GW-BASIC, then QBasic - and these all were quite adequate for plenty of tasks, even games. By the 90s, we even had free 32-bit C++ compilers (DJGPP 1.03, 1991).