3 ms·

Would you call it complicated to simply not be interested in software that reverts settings and babysits you, thwarting your control of the machine? Windows 10

Would you call it complicated to simply not be interested in software that reverts settings and babysits you, thwarting your control of the machine? Windows 10 and 11 do that and have telemetry baked in. I wouldn't consider valuing one's security or privacy as a complicated theory. Maybe you're more easily swayed but it takes more than a token "hey guiz we make repairable stuff" from the very firm that has tried to kill alternatives since its inception, to change my mind. It turns out that reputation matters for a business and I still remember the 90s.

MostlyStable 3y ago
You're letting perfect be the enemey of the good. It's possible to do two things at once: say good job on repairability and also, bad job on software.
- jfghi 3y ago
  I’d frame it more as describing inherent nature versus a minor attribute.
  - MostlyStable 3y ago
    Before this, your options were "Windows with lots of telemetry + non-repairable hardware". Today your option is "Windows with lots of telemetry + repairable hardware". That sounds like a strict improvement to me, even if I agree with you on the issues with Windows as an OS I am not personally in the market for these devices right now, but my work device is required to on Windows, and I am in a small enough org that my input would be sought if I needed a new device. I would very happily ask for a more repairable machine compared to a less repairable one, and having additional repairable options is a good thing. And if someone came to me asking for advice on what to get, but was unwilling to switch to linux, I'm glad that I have some new repairable options to provide them. Yes, the telemetry in windows is bad, but this is still a strictly superior situation that what we had previously, and it doesn't make the telemetry thing worse. I just don't get how bringing up other things that haven't improved (and may never improve!) invalidates the fact that this is better. Repairability seems to very slowly be becoming more common in consumer devices. Hopefully, it becomes standard enough that it's not something we have to be interested in, and focus can shift to things like software. But for now, both suck, and both need to get better, and I'm going to be happy any time either one of them improves.
  - wongarsu 3y ago
    Right, reparability is part of the inherent nature of a laptop, while user-hostile software is a minor attribute: it can be worked around (group policies rarely break) or replaced.
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  It is possible to do those things but they strike me as two positions that cancel each other out. Perfect is the enemy of the good, but not for the same reason most posit. Why settle for good enough when we can push companies to do better? Why settle for "at least I can repair it" when it's both possible and sustainable to ship quality hardware and software? Taking babysteps toward acceptability isn't really something I'm willing to budge on. Frogs are boiled incrementally, too.
  - tomcam 3y ago
    It’s possible you don’t have experience working in a large company? It’s a bit of a miracle that any hardware project gets done in my opinion. Delivering on time is enormously difficult. Adding “would be good“ features like maintainability means cutting something else, likely more cost, and a schedule hit. That costs the whole team at review time. Even the most devoted person can have trouble moving the needle without exquisite political sensibilities. There are plenty of people working in toward the goals you describe inside Microsoft already, but it’s insanely hard to get things like this to critical mass. Very often in real life we have only bad choices.

MostlyStable 3y ago

You're letting perfect be the enemey of the good. It's possible to do two things at once: say good job on repairability and also, bad job on software.

jfghi 3y ago
I’d frame it more as describing inherent nature versus a minor attribute.
- MostlyStable 3y ago
  Before this, your options were "Windows with lots of telemetry + non-repairable hardware". Today your option is "Windows with lots of telemetry + repairable hardware". That sounds like a strict improvement to me, even if I agree with you on the issues with Windows as an OS I am not personally in the market for these devices right now, but my work device is required to on Windows, and I am in a small enough org that my input would be sought if I needed a new device. I would very happily ask for a more repairable machine compared to a less repairable one, and having additional repairable options is a good thing. And if someone came to me asking for advice on what to get, but was unwilling to switch to linux, I'm glad that I have some new repairable options to provide them. Yes, the telemetry in windows is bad, but this is still a strictly superior situation that what we had previously, and it doesn't make the telemetry thing worse. I just don't get how bringing up other things that haven't improved (and may never improve!) invalidates the fact that this is better. Repairability seems to very slowly be becoming more common in consumer devices. Hopefully, it becomes standard enough that it's not something we have to be interested in, and focus can shift to things like software. But for now, both suck, and both need to get better, and I'm going to be happy any time either one of them improves.
- wongarsu 3y ago
  Right, reparability is part of the inherent nature of a laptop, while user-hostile software is a minor attribute: it can be worked around (group policies rarely break) or replaced.
zlg_codes 3y ago
It is possible to do those things but they strike me as two positions that cancel each other out. Perfect is the enemy of the good, but not for the same reason most posit. Why settle for good enough when we can push companies to do better? Why settle for "at least I can repair it" when it's both possible and sustainable to ship quality hardware and software? Taking babysteps toward acceptability isn't really something I'm willing to budge on. Frogs are boiled incrementally, too.
- tomcam 3y ago
  It’s possible you don’t have experience working in a large company? It’s a bit of a miracle that any hardware project gets done in my opinion. Delivering on time is enormously difficult. Adding “would be good“ features like maintainability means cutting something else, likely more cost, and a schedule hit. That costs the whole team at review time. Even the most devoted person can have trouble moving the needle without exquisite political sensibilities. There are plenty of people working in toward the goals you describe inside Microsoft already, but it’s insanely hard to get things like this to critical mass. Very often in real life we have only bad choices.