3 ms·

I HATE this argument. If the PC had been locked down like smartphones are today, we would never have had Linux on the desktop. Also, replace "consumers" by "pe

I HATE this argument. If the PC had been locked down like smartphones are today, we would never have had Linux on the desktop. Also, replace "consumers" by "people" who might need to control their devices to do things that may be against the interests of the manufacturer, like removing ads and surveillance.

charcircuit 8mo ago
>we would never have had Linux on the desktop. In such an alternate timeline there may be another operating system even better than Linux.
- ulrikrasmussen 8mo ago
  I highly doubt that. Monopolies do not tend to develop what is best for consumers, but what is best for their bottom lines. It also depends on the criteria on which you judge it. I may be better in terms of compatibility because everything would be an expensive walled garden like Apple's. It would be worse in terms of choice because niche peripheral makers might not be able to enter the market at all. And it would certainly, almost guaranteed, be much much worse in terms of personal freedom because no-one would be allowed to modify any parts of any piece of software without some cryptographic hardware module stopping them. Imagine that situation, and then imagine how a government would use that to impose surveillance on all personal computing devices.
  - charcircuit 8mo ago
    There is no monopoly on operating systems. Anyone is free to implement one and anyone is free to implement the APIs of another to support the other's apps on their own.
hdgvhicv 8mo ago
we would never have had Linux at all Maybe sco and similar would have managed to fight against windows, but i suspect online would be decades behind what it is without the freedom we knew in the 80s and 90s that so many HN pundits are salivating to grow away. Maybe a minitel system would be better - we would t have the problems of social media at least.
- ulrikrasmussen 8mo ago
  Well, sure. But being free *from* a few bad things is rarely worth it when the price is giving up being free *to* do a lot of other good things.

charcircuit 8mo ago

>we would never have had Linux on the desktop. In such an alternate timeline there may be another operating system even better than Linux.

ulrikrasmussen 8mo ago
I highly doubt that. Monopolies do not tend to develop what is best for consumers, but what is best for their bottom lines. It also depends on the criteria on which you judge it. I may be better in terms of compatibility because everything would be an expensive walled garden like Apple's. It would be worse in terms of choice because niche peripheral makers might not be able to enter the market at all. And it would certainly, almost guaranteed, be much much worse in terms of personal freedom because no-one would be allowed to modify any parts of any piece of software without some cryptographic hardware module stopping them. Imagine that situation, and then imagine how a government would use that to impose surveillance on all personal computing devices.
- charcircuit 8mo ago
  There is no monopoly on operating systems. Anyone is free to implement one and anyone is free to implement the APIs of another to support the other's apps on their own.

hdgvhicv 8mo ago

we would never have had Linux at all Maybe sco and similar would have managed to fight against windows, but i suspect online would be decades behind what it is without the freedom we knew in the 80s and 90s that so many HN pundits are salivating to grow away. Maybe a minitel system would be better - we would t have the problems of social media at least.

ulrikrasmussen 8mo ago
Well, sure. But being free *from* a few bad things is rarely worth it when the price is giving up being free *to* do a lot of other good things.