6 ms·

This is exactly the sort of stuff RMS was saying decades ago, but most people wrote it off as "unrealistic" and "paranoid". Its looking more like the right to r

This is exactly the sort of stuff RMS was saying decades ago, but most people wrote it off as "unrealistic" and "paranoid". Its looking more like the right to read every day. Control of Computers/information systems is going to become one of the only real ways to exercise control over people in the future, because it will encompass everything else. Its sad to see people welcome locked down shit like apple products, here with open arms.

maxniederhofer 15y ago
The main difference, to me, is that Doctorow has a less offensive way of making the case than RMS and hence might actually be taken seriously.
- click170 15y ago
  I don't find Doctorow 'less offensive' because I honestly didn't consider talks by RMS to be offensive at all, rather they were just a bit eccentric because he would go off on tangents about what might happen if we didn't align with his views, it felt a bit like an arrogant begrudged rant. But now we see bills like SOPA and ProtectIP, and now we already have computers that you can't run any program you want on it, and all these other stories hinting that there are companies out there as sinister as RMS suggested. I find RMS less and less eccentric with each of these things that comes to light.
  - SoftwareMaven 15y ago
    It's easier to write off RMS's eccentricities when you already agree with his message. It is also easier to write off his message because of his eccentricities if you don't. Yes, it is ad hominem, but it happens. That said, RMS has been able to get attention. Whether we would be in a better place with an "normal" RMS is impossible to say. Maybe having both Doctorow and RMS is critical to the fight.
avoutthere 15y ago
The critical difference between what Doctorow is saying and people buying Apple products is choice. Now you can choose an open solution without being a criminal.
- frou_dh 15y ago
  If Mac OS X goes awry in the future, I'll abandon it. For now, it's my favourite platform. Unless there's a transactional instant where evil descends and alternatives go poof, I'm not too worried.
  - throwaway64 15y ago
    its never like that, somebody doesn't just decide to flip the evil switch, and from that day forward everything is horrible. Its a long process of acclimatization, don't believe me? Take a look at android, which in most respects is far more locked down than any desktop operating system, yet is hailed as "open".
    - frou_dh 15y ago
      These "appliance-like" computers are a new category, and the ongoing topic of their ease-of-use vs. flexibility is not black and white. As long as I also have a proper computer, I welcome the simplicity of the tablet. If it looks like I will no longer have the option of buying or owning a proper computer, I'll join you with the pitchforks.
      - throwaway64 15y ago
        by that point, the interests have already become strongly entrenched, and its almost impossible to stop. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
      - freshhawk 15y ago
        ease-of-use vs. flexibility is a false dichotomy, at least in the way we're using "flexibility" here. Apple made it seem like ease of use and crippling software for lock-in and DRM reasons are in some way related because they did both of those things so well but they are independent decisions. It's a great argument for the anti-technology side because it seems to make sense to those that aren't technical, but let's not start spouting that fallacy on hacker news like it's actually true.
nextparadigms 15y ago
Well, Microsoft is locking down Windows 8 pretty hard, too. First with UEFI, then with the Windows 8 store where they'll only let you install apps from the market in "tile mode" and they'll even be able to remove apps from your PC. I know they still allow you to do everything in the non-tile mode now, but what happens when they remove that mode in the future? How long will it be until RIAA tells Congress that "Microsoft is not doing enough to stop piracy (even though they have the capability)", just like they are doing now with Google, and then gets them to remove "unlicensed" songs from your PC? I think stores are fine. They are a pretty good way to show you the best apps for the platform, and they also help a bit with safety, but they should still allow you to download and install whatever you want from the Internet if you choose to. Android has a pretty good model here. They have the Market, and then if you really want to, you can get apps from other sources, too. Although, I don't think they should even ask you if you want to "enable 3rd party sources" in Settings. It should be enabled by default, and maybe just give you a warning whenever you want to download a 3rd party app, just like they do in Chrome. The point is I don't want to lose any of the freedoms of what I can do with my computer, just for the sake of having a store that streamlines app discovery and makes me safer when I use it. I should have both.
- daeken 15y ago
  > First with UEFI I want to point out a couple things here, since there seem to be a lot of misconceptions. 1) UEFI is not the problem -- it's one specific feature called 'secure boot'; UEFI is a very good thing overall, so we should point out the bad part and not the awesome whole, 2) MS isn't requiring that secure boot be required, or even that they have a signing key for it -- they're purely requiring that it be on by default, 3) the reference implementation and all known shipping versions of secure boot have a switch to disable it if the user so chooses, so it's not much of a lock-in facility -- it could be in the future, but it's not now, and MS isn't making it into one. That said, despite being a huge Windows fanboy, Windows 8 is seriously making me consider switching back to Linux. This sort of lock-down is terrible for everyone, most people just don't realize how bad it is.
  - bitwize 15y ago
stcredzero 15y ago
Control of Computers/information systems is going to become one of the only real ways to exercise control over people in the future, because it will encompass everything else. What if another nation, say China, decides that it doesn't need to lock down general purpose computing, and instead promotes the availability of unfettered general purpose computing within their borders as a competitive advantage? (Though, sadly this might be due to the sufficiency of political/network dampers on freedom.) This would make for an interesting world: one divided between a totalitarian regime with free computing and democratic countries with locked down computing.
- throwaway64 15y ago
  Democratic countries are rapidly becoming "not"
astrodust 15y ago
It is unrealistic and paranoid. Do you complain that your microwave oven firmware isn't hackable? Do you think that it's no fun that you can't reprogram your car's fuel system? Do you bitch that your TV isn't user serviceable? How's that "locked down shit" HP calculator? A computer is no longer a general purpose tool but a special purpose appliance for most people. So long as there's a market for open systems, they will be made, but don't expect grandma to want one. Why is this so hard for some people to accept? For most people "open" means they'll have to assume responsibility for protecting themselves against threats and managing things they don't want to.

maxniederhofer 15y ago

The main difference, to me, is that Doctorow has a less offensive way of making the case than RMS and hence might actually be taken seriously.

click170 15y ago
I don't find Doctorow 'less offensive' because I honestly didn't consider talks by RMS to be offensive at all, rather they were just a bit eccentric because he would go off on tangents about what might happen if we didn't align with his views, it felt a bit like an arrogant begrudged rant. But now we see bills like SOPA and ProtectIP, and now we already have computers that you can't run any program you want on it, and all these other stories hinting that there are companies out there as sinister as RMS suggested. I find RMS less and less eccentric with each of these things that comes to light.
- SoftwareMaven 15y ago
  It's easier to write off RMS's eccentricities when you already agree with his message. It is also easier to write off his message because of his eccentricities if you don't. Yes, it is ad hominem, but it happens. That said, RMS has been able to get attention. Whether we would be in a better place with an "normal" RMS is impossible to say. Maybe having both Doctorow and RMS is critical to the fight.

avoutthere 15y ago

The critical difference between what Doctorow is saying and people buying Apple products is choice. Now you can choose an open solution without being a criminal.

frou_dh 15y ago
If Mac OS X goes awry in the future, I'll abandon it. For now, it's my favourite platform. Unless there's a transactional instant where evil descends and alternatives go poof, I'm not too worried.
- throwaway64 15y ago
  its never like that, somebody doesn't just decide to flip the evil switch, and from that day forward everything is horrible. Its a long process of acclimatization, don't believe me? Take a look at android, which in most respects is far more locked down than any desktop operating system, yet is hailed as "open".
  - frou_dh 15y ago
    These "appliance-like" computers are a new category, and the ongoing topic of their ease-of-use vs. flexibility is not black and white. As long as I also have a proper computer, I welcome the simplicity of the tablet. If it looks like I will no longer have the option of buying or owning a proper computer, I'll join you with the pitchforks.
    - throwaway64 15y ago
      by that point, the interests have already become strongly entrenched, and its almost impossible to stop. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
    - freshhawk 15y ago
      ease-of-use vs. flexibility is a false dichotomy, at least in the way we're using "flexibility" here. Apple made it seem like ease of use and crippling software for lock-in and DRM reasons are in some way related because they did both of those things so well but they are independent decisions. It's a great argument for the anti-technology side because it seems to make sense to those that aren't technical, but let's not start spouting that fallacy on hacker news like it's actually true.

nextparadigms 15y ago

Well, Microsoft is locking down Windows 8 pretty hard, too. First with UEFI, then with the Windows 8 store where they'll only let you install apps from the market in "tile mode" and they'll even be able to remove apps from your PC. I know they still allow you to do everything in the non-tile mode now, but what happens when they remove that mode in the future? How long will it be until RIAA tells Congress that "Microsoft is not doing enough to stop piracy (even though they have the capability)", just like they are doing now with Google, and then gets them to remove "unlicensed" songs from your PC? I think stores are fine. They are a pretty good way to show you the best apps for the platform, and they also help a bit with safety, but they should still allow you to download and install whatever you want from the Internet if you choose to. Android has a pretty good model here. They have the Market, and then if you really want to, you can get apps from other sources, too. Although, I don't think they should even ask you if you want to "enable 3rd party sources" in Settings. It should be enabled by default, and maybe just give you a warning whenever you want to download a 3rd party app, just like they do in Chrome. The point is I don't want to lose any of the freedoms of what I can do with my computer, just for the sake of having a store that streamlines app discovery and makes me safer when I use it. I should have both.

daeken 15y ago
> First with UEFI I want to point out a couple things here, since there seem to be a lot of misconceptions. 1) UEFI is not the problem -- it's one specific feature called 'secure boot'; UEFI is a very good thing overall, so we should point out the bad part and not the awesome whole, 2) MS isn't requiring that secure boot be required, or even that they have a signing key for it -- they're purely requiring that it be on by default, 3) the reference implementation and all known shipping versions of secure boot have a switch to disable it if the user so chooses, so it's not much of a lock-in facility -- it could be in the future, but it's not now, and MS isn't making it into one. That said, despite being a huge Windows fanboy, Windows 8 is seriously making me consider switching back to Linux. This sort of lock-down is terrible for everyone, most people just don't realize how bad it is.
- bitwize 15y ago

stcredzero 15y ago

Control of Computers/information systems is going to become one of the only real ways to exercise control over people in the future, because it will encompass everything else. What if another nation, say China, decides that it doesn't need to lock down general purpose computing, and instead promotes the availability of unfettered general purpose computing within their borders as a competitive advantage? (Though, sadly this might be due to the sufficiency of political/network dampers on freedom.) This would make for an interesting world: one divided between a totalitarian regime with free computing and democratic countries with locked down computing.

throwaway64 15y ago
Democratic countries are rapidly becoming "not"

astrodust 15y ago

It is unrealistic and paranoid. Do you complain that your microwave oven firmware isn't hackable? Do you think that it's no fun that you can't reprogram your car's fuel system? Do you bitch that your TV isn't user serviceable? How's that "locked down shit" HP calculator? A computer is no longer a general purpose tool but a special purpose appliance for most people. So long as there's a market for open systems, they will be made, but don't expect grandma to want one. Why is this so hard for some people to accept? For most people "open" means they'll have to assume responsibility for protecting themselves against threats and managing things they don't want to.