4 ms·

all this looks like points for open source. You can’t exactly stop someone from putting an open source OS on their hardware, and if the train software was open-

all this looks like points for open source. You can’t exactly stop someone from putting an open source OS on their hardware, and if the train software was open-source, then this “clawback code” nonsense would have been impossible to keep secret. and you’re right, OS/2 Warp WAS a great OS. As soon as it started losing market viability, it should have gone open source as a defensive self-preservation tactic. When LLaMa was released for free, it basically guaranteed it would never die a corporate death

Workaccount2 3y ago
Now we just need a a good open source OS made for lifelong windows/macOS users. Not one made for lifelong linux users.
- sonicanatidae 3y ago
  Sorry, best I can do is a Elementry OS Linux.
- goodpoint 3y ago
  Or not.
- pmarreck 3y ago
  IMHO, Apple should have open-sourced their OS a long time ago while offering "best" compatibility with their hardware. They would have expanded both markets tremendously. I'm currently a "NixOS" guy, and it feels like the "last distro hop" for me. There's a learning curve but it's kind of like "you get ALL the customization, plus seat belts in case something screws up". I still like Macs but I don't really like the direction Apple's taken recently with regards to locking down macOS hardware and system software. I'm a fan of things like Asahi Linux but even that depends on Apple's permission to work
  - ffgjgf1 3y ago
    > Apple should have open-sourced their OS a long time ago while offering "best" compatibility with their hardware That would’ve been a horrible idea considering that they make money selling hardware and macOS is one of their main selling points? > They would have expanded both markets tremendously. What would they ever gain from this? How does Google benefit from Android? Thankfully Apple is not an Ad company (and therefore their interests are still somewhat aligned to those of their users) like Google. Open sourcing macOS would only incentive them to pivot to user tracking, ads etc.
    - pmarreck 3y ago
      I'm thinking of it economically. The broadening of the MacOS market would more than make up for the initial loss in hardware sales. At the end of the day, Apple would be selling more Macs, because at least some of the hardware platforms not from Apple would have more problems than on Apple's hardware. This is the exact same thing that would have happened back when PowerComputing was making better Apples than Apple was. They were in the middle of expanding the Mac market, but because Apple itself was losing money, the news kept reporting on that, which in turn had the compound effect of affecting all Mac sales. (This was the first case of "fakenews" I had ever experienced, btw... "Why isn't the news reporting on the expanding Mac market instead of the temporarily-contracting Apple market? Ohhhh because bad news gets the eyeballs!!") So Steve Jobs came back, shut the clone program down (which, again, would have succeeded for Apple AND other players in the end, IMHO), and the rest is history. I discussed the idea with ChatGPT and here's how that went: https://chat.openai.com/share/db5f1ef7-82ac-4f4a-ac56-390f6b3f25ac https://chat.openai.com/share/db5f1ef7-82ac-4f4a-ac56-390f6b...
      - ffgjgf1 3y ago
        > The broadening of the MacOS market would more than make up for the initial loss in hardware sales. Why? I mean Android has a much bigger market share than iOS yet Google isn’t making any money (after costs) from it if we exclude ad revenue. > At the end of the day, Apple would be selling more Macs I really don’t think that would be the case unless Apple significantly reduced its profit margins to remain competitive. They would be making way less money. So again, why? > So Steve Jobs came back, shut the clone program down (which, again, would have succeeded for Apple AND other players in the end, IMHO), and the rest is history. Which was one of the smartest things he did (if we’re prioritizing Apple’s longterm financial success). Apple can only charge excessive premiums for its products compared to everyone else because there is no other way to use their software.. which is why they are a multi trillion dollar company it’s that simple. > I discussed the idea with ChatGPT and here's how that went: I’m sorry but that discussion seems to be worthless (also what’s wrong with it? Why is it using such a weird style?). Apple would have to throw away their entire business model to do this which is a massive risk on it’s own. Considering that Apple has been the most successful consumer hardware/software company in history in large part because of their current business model throwing that away to try and do something that many companies (including Apple) have tried and failed would be an extremely bizarre thing to do.
  - sonicanatidae 3y ago
    Timing would have been important here, if I recall correctly. I believe the Apple II was a 6502 chipset, which was common then. They diverged into Moto 68k series, while the rest went towards 8088. It's debatable, in my mind. Without Apple being unique, they wouldn't hold the niche they do today, but at the same time, had they made their OS Open Source, I suspect they would have had a great deal more Desktop Adoption, since for most, the barrier was/is price. $1200 Macbook or $400 laptop? *I know the technical differences, but a large portion of the buying public doesnt For me, I work in Windows a majority of the time, but being a career IT monkey, what I believe is the right tool for the right job, so it's not always Windows. :) I have old macbook that I use to stay up on the OS, at least as far as it can upgrade. I have a home server, with some windows instances, a couple *nix instances, etc.
  - WD40forRust42 3y ago
    Qubes OS guy here. Will probably stick to the hypervisor OS/virtualized components desktop computer model. Sure there's a performance hit, but honestly I haven't felt this comfortable and secure that my data at rest WILL STAY AT REST and not sprout wings to flutter away with...
- malermeister 3y ago
  ReactOS is the best we've got.
  - pmarreck 3y ago
    I think the issue with ReactOS is that it has to compete with similar (but possibly lesser or greater depending on use-case) solutions on 2 fronts: 1) Plain old virtual machines 2) Linux/Mac running Wine/Proton 3) Linux running equivalent software but skinned with a Windows-like UI
sonicanatidae 3y ago
OS/2 Warp is still used today, albeit in very limited situations. I managed IT at hospitals for a large part of my career. At one of them, they had a "Lanier transcription cluster". It was 6 systems. One of them was an OS/2 Warp install that managed the modem cards. It's apparently used to manage hardware, like those modem cards. Evidently, it does a great job of it. I agree with you though. I think that Open Source would have made it much more of a competitor to Windows, today. Then again, throw enough resources at anything and it could contend...ok.. not TempleOS, but everything else. ;)
ta1243 3y ago
> You can’t exactly stop someone from putting an open source OS on their hardware Of course you can. Have secure boot requiring a signed bootloader. Currently Microsoft are good enough to sign a linux bootloader so you can run things like ubuntu. Doesn't mean that in 73 years you'll have a situation where OSS is not only illegal, but you could not install one if you had one, without knowing your computer's root password. And neither the FBI nor Microsoft Support would tell you that [0] [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html
- pmarreck 3y ago
  Coreboot (which System76 and Framework use): Exists Love the GNU mentality though, but you don't need FUD to promote your ideas. Lots of problems would just disappear if most things went open-source, and the value proposition might shift but would still be there. The most valuable part of code is the people that create, understand and maintain it; not the code itself. The code itself is ephemeral. (I hate to admit this. Us coders love our brain-babies.) Note: I own a System76 Thelio Major and have a Framework laptop on order, so I am not just a non-participating bystander in my beliefs here
  - trinsic2 3y ago
    I agree. GNU rhetoric does not help their case. Much of it sounds very confrontational and whinny. I am a supporter of free software and open hardware, but I would never try to forcibly try to convince people with half-truths. BTW I don't think coreboot is really helpful in that it appears to me is more about controlling hardware access.
  - ta1243 3y ago
    That page was written way before most people had ever heard of linux, a decade before things like secureboot became a thing, and way before the most common personal computing device in the world was a choice of two locked down devices.
rollcat 3y ago
> You can’t exactly stop someone from putting an open source OS on their hardware [...] Of course you can. It's a train, not a PC. Its primary function is to *safely* get me from point A to point B. No safety certification for the whole thing (including software), means it doesn't go on tracks. The freedom of your fist ends where my nose begins, which means your freedom to mess up the train's software ends where I step on board. Poland has had its share of railroad catastrophes, and I very narrowly avoided being a victim - I got late for this train: <https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17248735 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17248735>. I no longer live there - I like trains, but the trains in Poland are an unmitigated disaster every single time I visit. > [...] and if the train software was open-source, then this “clawback code” nonsense would have been impossible to keep secret. There's two problems with that: 1. Just because it's open source, doesn't mean you get to load your own modified version (see above); which means the software that's actually running on the train can trivially be made different from the sources you were delivered; 2. Just because it's open source, doesn't mean it can't have a hardware backdoor, or some sort of manufacturer-installed APT. You can't even buy an Intel CPU that doesn't include an entire separate core, with its own Ethernet controller and OS - and that is the stuff that's actually documented and sold as an "enterprise" feature. Imagine an entire train of nooks and crannies to hide this sort of nonsense.
- pmarreck 3y ago
  Good thing we have open-source hardware out there and open-source CPU's on deck. And makers like System76 and Framework that at least use Coreboot. Wow re: train near-miss. Glad you're still here with us! That must have been terrifying to learn.
  - rjmunro 3y ago
    > Good thing we have open-source hardware out there and open-source CPU's on deck. Read "Reflections on Trusting Trust" by Ken Thompson. It describes how even recompiling all the sources isn't enough.
IcyWindows 3y ago
Google has agreements with TV manufacturers that provent it. https://www.techspot.com/news/84374-google-android-license-reportedly-prevents-tv-makers-partnering.html https://www.techspot.com/news/84374-google-android-license-r...
- pmarreck 3y ago
  Ha, wow. Good thing people can jailbreak these things!

Workaccount2 3y ago

Now we just need a a good open source OS made for lifelong windows/macOS users. Not one made for lifelong linux users.

sonicanatidae 3y ago
Sorry, best I can do is a Elementry OS Linux.
goodpoint 3y ago
Or not.
pmarreck 3y ago
IMHO, Apple should have open-sourced their OS a long time ago while offering "best" compatibility with their hardware. They would have expanded both markets tremendously. I'm currently a "NixOS" guy, and it feels like the "last distro hop" for me. There's a learning curve but it's kind of like "you get ALL the customization, plus seat belts in case something screws up". I still like Macs but I don't really like the direction Apple's taken recently with regards to locking down macOS hardware and system software. I'm a fan of things like Asahi Linux but even that depends on Apple's permission to work
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  > Apple should have open-sourced their OS a long time ago while offering "best" compatibility with their hardware That would’ve been a horrible idea considering that they make money selling hardware and macOS is one of their main selling points? > They would have expanded both markets tremendously. What would they ever gain from this? How does Google benefit from Android? Thankfully Apple is not an Ad company (and therefore their interests are still somewhat aligned to those of their users) like Google. Open sourcing macOS would only incentive them to pivot to user tracking, ads etc.
  - pmarreck 3y ago
    I'm thinking of it economically. The broadening of the MacOS market would more than make up for the initial loss in hardware sales. At the end of the day, Apple would be selling more Macs, because at least some of the hardware platforms not from Apple would have more problems than on Apple's hardware. This is the exact same thing that would have happened back when PowerComputing was making better Apples than Apple was. They were in the middle of expanding the Mac market, but because Apple itself was losing money, the news kept reporting on that, which in turn had the compound effect of affecting all Mac sales. (This was the first case of "fakenews" I had ever experienced, btw... "Why isn't the news reporting on the expanding Mac market instead of the temporarily-contracting Apple market? Ohhhh because bad news gets the eyeballs!!") So Steve Jobs came back, shut the clone program down (which, again, would have succeeded for Apple AND other players in the end, IMHO), and the rest is history. I discussed the idea with ChatGPT and here's how that went: https://chat.openai.com/share/db5f1ef7-82ac-4f4a-ac56-390f6b3f25ac https://chat.openai.com/share/db5f1ef7-82ac-4f4a-ac56-390f6b...
    - ffgjgf1 3y ago
      > The broadening of the MacOS market would more than make up for the initial loss in hardware sales. Why? I mean Android has a much bigger market share than iOS yet Google isn’t making any money (after costs) from it if we exclude ad revenue. > At the end of the day, Apple would be selling more Macs I really don’t think that would be the case unless Apple significantly reduced its profit margins to remain competitive. They would be making way less money. So again, why? > So Steve Jobs came back, shut the clone program down (which, again, would have succeeded for Apple AND other players in the end, IMHO), and the rest is history. Which was one of the smartest things he did (if we’re prioritizing Apple’s longterm financial success). Apple can only charge excessive premiums for its products compared to everyone else because there is no other way to use their software.. which is why they are a multi trillion dollar company it’s that simple. > I discussed the idea with ChatGPT and here's how that went: I’m sorry but that discussion seems to be worthless (also what’s wrong with it? Why is it using such a weird style?). Apple would have to throw away their entire business model to do this which is a massive risk on it’s own. Considering that Apple has been the most successful consumer hardware/software company in history in large part because of their current business model throwing that away to try and do something that many companies (including Apple) have tried and failed would be an extremely bizarre thing to do.
- sonicanatidae 3y ago
  Timing would have been important here, if I recall correctly. I believe the Apple II was a 6502 chipset, which was common then. They diverged into Moto 68k series, while the rest went towards 8088. It's debatable, in my mind. Without Apple being unique, they wouldn't hold the niche they do today, but at the same time, had they made their OS Open Source, I suspect they would have had a great deal more Desktop Adoption, since for most, the barrier was/is price. $1200 Macbook or $400 laptop? *I know the technical differences, but a large portion of the buying public doesnt For me, I work in Windows a majority of the time, but being a career IT monkey, what I believe is the right tool for the right job, so it's not always Windows. :) I have old macbook that I use to stay up on the OS, at least as far as it can upgrade. I have a home server, with some windows instances, a couple *nix instances, etc.
- WD40forRust42 3y ago
  Qubes OS guy here. Will probably stick to the hypervisor OS/virtualized components desktop computer model. Sure there's a performance hit, but honestly I haven't felt this comfortable and secure that my data at rest WILL STAY AT REST and not sprout wings to flutter away with...
malermeister 3y ago
ReactOS is the best we've got.
- pmarreck 3y ago
  I think the issue with ReactOS is that it has to compete with similar (but possibly lesser or greater depending on use-case) solutions on 2 fronts: 1) Plain old virtual machines 2) Linux/Mac running Wine/Proton 3) Linux running equivalent software but skinned with a Windows-like UI

sonicanatidae 3y ago

OS/2 Warp is still used today, albeit in very limited situations. I managed IT at hospitals for a large part of my career. At one of them, they had a "Lanier transcription cluster". It was 6 systems. One of them was an OS/2 Warp install that managed the modem cards. It's apparently used to manage hardware, like those modem cards. Evidently, it does a great job of it. I agree with you though. I think that Open Source would have made it much more of a competitor to Windows, today. Then again, throw enough resources at anything and it could contend...ok.. not TempleOS, but everything else. ;)

ta1243 3y ago

> You can’t exactly stop someone from putting an open source OS on their hardware Of course you can. Have secure boot requiring a signed bootloader. Currently Microsoft are good enough to sign a linux bootloader so you can run things like ubuntu. Doesn't mean that in 73 years you'll have a situation where OSS is not only illegal, but you could not install one if you had one, without knowing your computer's root password. And neither the FBI nor Microsoft Support would tell you that [0] [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html

pmarreck 3y ago
Coreboot (which System76 and Framework use): Exists Love the GNU mentality though, but you don't need FUD to promote your ideas. Lots of problems would just disappear if most things went open-source, and the value proposition might shift but would still be there. The most valuable part of code is the people that create, understand and maintain it; not the code itself. The code itself is ephemeral. (I hate to admit this. Us coders love our brain-babies.) Note: I own a System76 Thelio Major and have a Framework laptop on order, so I am not just a non-participating bystander in my beliefs here
- trinsic2 3y ago
  I agree. GNU rhetoric does not help their case. Much of it sounds very confrontational and whinny. I am a supporter of free software and open hardware, but I would never try to forcibly try to convince people with half-truths. BTW I don't think coreboot is really helpful in that it appears to me is more about controlling hardware access.
- ta1243 3y ago
  That page was written way before most people had ever heard of linux, a decade before things like secureboot became a thing, and way before the most common personal computing device in the world was a choice of two locked down devices.

rollcat 3y ago

> You can’t exactly stop someone from putting an open source OS on their hardware [...] Of course you can. It's a train, not a PC. Its primary function is to *safely* get me from point A to point B. No safety certification for the whole thing (including software), means it doesn't go on tracks. The freedom of your fist ends where my nose begins, which means your freedom to mess up the train's software ends where I step on board. Poland has had its share of railroad catastrophes, and I very narrowly avoided being a victim - I got late for this train: <https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17248735 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17248735>. I no longer live there - I like trains, but the trains in Poland are an unmitigated disaster every single time I visit. > [...] and if the train software was open-source, then this “clawback code” nonsense would have been impossible to keep secret. There's two problems with that: 1. Just because it's open source, doesn't mean you get to load your own modified version (see above); which means the software that's actually running on the train can trivially be made different from the sources you were delivered; 2. Just because it's open source, doesn't mean it can't have a hardware backdoor, or some sort of manufacturer-installed APT. You can't even buy an Intel CPU that doesn't include an entire separate core, with its own Ethernet controller and OS - and that is the stuff that's actually documented and sold as an "enterprise" feature. Imagine an entire train of nooks and crannies to hide this sort of nonsense.

pmarreck 3y ago
Good thing we have open-source hardware out there and open-source CPU's on deck. And makers like System76 and Framework that at least use Coreboot. Wow re: train near-miss. Glad you're still here with us! That must have been terrifying to learn.
- rjmunro 3y ago
  > Good thing we have open-source hardware out there and open-source CPU's on deck. Read "Reflections on Trusting Trust" by Ken Thompson. It describes how even recompiling all the sources isn't enough.

IcyWindows 3y ago

Google has agreements with TV manufacturers that provent it. https://www.techspot.com/news/84374-google-android-license-reportedly-prevents-tv-makers-partnering.html https://www.techspot.com/news/84374-google-android-license-r...

pmarreck 3y ago
Ha, wow. Good thing people can jailbreak these things!