2 ms·

1) When the user owns the device it is up to him to decide what to do with it and not the manufacturer. So while they may not have the need for it, they definit

1) When the user owns the device it is up to him to decide what to do with it and not the manufacturer. So while they may not have the need for it, they definitely have the right to it if they so desire. 2) No you cant. You must use exploits/vulnerabilities usually. The only vendor that I know of that just sends you unlock code on request is HTC. 3) Yesterday I played Diablo 1 on my windows 8 machine. 3 months before that - Lotus (the game). That is measured in decades. How backwards capability is debatable. 4) Yes linux is everywhere. But invisible - moving the servers, or hidden below deep layers of customized software in the consumer devices. The linux ideology - nowhere to be seen. Having the ability to run simple firewall to control what processes use your data plan is hardly absolutism. Or editing memory value of a running process. Edit: Do you support the Chinese Great Firewall - because there is no difference in restricting access to internet and to software in principle?

ebbv 13y ago
1) Your response has nothing at all to do with my original point. 2) I didn't say you can do it easily, I said you CAN do it. 3) Yes and I can run decades old UNIX software on OS X or Ubuntu. So what? My point about debatable backwards compatibility is that some old DOS software does NOT work well in modern Windows. Some does, some doesn't. If you haven't experienced problems, lucky you. 4) You made my point for me here. I'm not arguing any further, you're clearly a zealot, and have exactly the kind of attitude I was talking about.
- venomsnake 13y ago
  On number 2 - you also cannot do it legally not only easily. The legality of jailbraiking is quite grey territory.
- raylu 13y ago
  > That if something is not 100%, exactly, totally, purely aligned to your personal vision it's fucking garbage, or worse, evil and bad. > I'm not arguing any further, you're clearly a zealot
rubinelli 13y ago
On point (3), virtualization beats backwards compatibility. You can create a much closer replica of the original environment, without creating compromises that may affect stability, performance, and security of your new system.
- rgbrenner 13y ago
  You're going to create a virtualized replica of a system that is no longer supported, and that won't affect the security of your system??? Might want to rethink that one.
  - rubinelli 13y ago
    With proper sandboxing, it is safer than keeping deprecated, proven-unsafe APIs, and not even being able to fix bugs because some applications depend on them. In the worst-case scenario, you can restart the sandbox from a known-good snapshot. EDIT: I realize we may be imagining different scenarios. I was thinking about the example given, of running original DOS programs in modern computers.
    - asveikau 13y ago
      There seems to be a leap you've taken there. I don't think you've demonstrated that an old API is unsafe by virtue of being old. A platform company not wanting to maintain an API is not the same as that API being dangerous. This is the fallacy that some of the big guys have taken lately, to remove perfectly working stuff simply to be jerks.
keithpeter 13y ago
"1) When the user owns the device it is up to him to decide what to do with it and not the manufacturer. So while they may not have the need for it, they definitely have the right to it if they so desire." Is this not part of a wider discussion about ownership and 'unregulated rights' for stuff such as books, music, films as well as hardware? Global comment: Shuttleworth can do the public relations can't he?
- venomsnake 13y ago
  Okay - the problem is ownership. When you rent a car in Hertz you know that you cannot modify the vehicle and must return it. So is with the library book you borrow. But if Subaru tell you that you cannot tune aftermarket your Subaru or you must drive it only on Subaru approved roads in California (but not Nevada) it is stupid. Currently we are in the reverse dongle situation- in the 90s you need that dongle so your software (OrCAD back then) can work. Now is the opposite - you may like the hardware but we actively prevent you for using it with other software. The problem comes from the fact that modern devices are general purpose PCs in ultra small factors. You couldn't change nokia 3310 OS back then, but you needed not because the thing was a phonebook with antenna. But nowadays with so much of your life stored in the smartphone the idea that someone has higher privileges/easier access to your data than you is between repulsive and frightening.
randomsearch 13y ago
4) The linux ideology - nowhere to be seen. I think you're confusing Linux with the Free Software movement. Linux, the kernel, is all about open source producing high quality software - at least from Linus Torvalds' point of view.

ebbv 13y ago

1) Your response has nothing at all to do with my original point. 2) I didn't say you can do it easily, I said you CAN do it. 3) Yes and I can run decades old UNIX software on OS X or Ubuntu. So what? My point about debatable backwards compatibility is that some old DOS software does NOT work well in modern Windows. Some does, some doesn't. If you haven't experienced problems, lucky you. 4) You made my point for me here. I'm not arguing any further, you're clearly a zealot, and have exactly the kind of attitude I was talking about.

venomsnake 13y ago
On number 2 - you also cannot do it legally not only easily. The legality of jailbraiking is quite grey territory.
raylu 13y ago
> That if something is not 100%, exactly, totally, purely aligned to your personal vision it's fucking garbage, or worse, evil and bad. > I'm not arguing any further, you're clearly a zealot

rubinelli 13y ago

On point (3), virtualization beats backwards compatibility. You can create a much closer replica of the original environment, without creating compromises that may affect stability, performance, and security of your new system.

rgbrenner 13y ago
You're going to create a virtualized replica of a system that is no longer supported, and that won't affect the security of your system??? Might want to rethink that one.
- rubinelli 13y ago
  With proper sandboxing, it is safer than keeping deprecated, proven-unsafe APIs, and not even being able to fix bugs because some applications depend on them. In the worst-case scenario, you can restart the sandbox from a known-good snapshot. EDIT: I realize we may be imagining different scenarios. I was thinking about the example given, of running original DOS programs in modern computers.
  - asveikau 13y ago
    There seems to be a leap you've taken there. I don't think you've demonstrated that an old API is unsafe by virtue of being old. A platform company not wanting to maintain an API is not the same as that API being dangerous. This is the fallacy that some of the big guys have taken lately, to remove perfectly working stuff simply to be jerks.

keithpeter 13y ago

"1) When the user owns the device it is up to him to decide what to do with it and not the manufacturer. So while they may not have the need for it, they definitely have the right to it if they so desire." Is this not part of a wider discussion about ownership and 'unregulated rights' for stuff such as books, music, films as well as hardware? Global comment: Shuttleworth can do the public relations can't he?

venomsnake 13y ago
Okay - the problem is ownership. When you rent a car in Hertz you know that you cannot modify the vehicle and must return it. So is with the library book you borrow. But if Subaru tell you that you cannot tune aftermarket your Subaru or you must drive it only on Subaru approved roads in California (but not Nevada) it is stupid. Currently we are in the reverse dongle situation- in the 90s you need that dongle so your software (OrCAD back then) can work. Now is the opposite - you may like the hardware but we actively prevent you for using it with other software. The problem comes from the fact that modern devices are general purpose PCs in ultra small factors. You couldn't change nokia 3310 OS back then, but you needed not because the thing was a phonebook with antenna. But nowadays with so much of your life stored in the smartphone the idea that someone has higher privileges/easier access to your data than you is between repulsive and frightening.

randomsearch 13y ago

4) The linux ideology - nowhere to be seen. I think you're confusing Linux with the Free Software movement. Linux, the kernel, is all about open source producing high quality software - at least from Linus Torvalds' point of view.