3 ms·

This is one of those comments we'll look back on in 30 years and say "what the hell were we thinking letting a company control our devices like that?".

minikites 12y ago
Do you miss the days where you had to manually adjust the choke while driving and decoke the engine every few thousand miles? I think we're going to look back on computers of the 90s and 2000s with a similar quaintness. More people care about a bullshit-free computing experience than an abstract concept of "freedom".
- nsxwolf 12y ago
  Yeah but when we can't make the computers do what we want it is a problem.
- ay1n 12y ago
  I think it's not a true comparison - freedom to modify your hardware doesn't have to imply that it's a hassle to use such hardware. In other words: does "bullshit-free computing experience" (or let's just say usability) have to exclude freedom (i.e. your options to freely modify hardware/software you own/use)? I'm thinking about that for some time and I think that (as most of the things) it's not a objective thing but dependend on the philosophy of the producer/maker. And I'm sure that there are people who want to produce well designed things (be that a phone or an app) that can be modified by users/owners (here comes the topic of ownership in the light of digital world, but that's another thing).
  - minikites 12y ago
    Is there a better way to prevent malware than a pretty basic review process (iOS/Mac App Store) and data sandboxing? And to continue the car analogy, lots of car modifications are illegal for safety and public health (smog) reasons. I think computers are headed in the same direction in the next 40-50 years. The children of tomorrow will think it's absolutely bananas that we used to run unsigned code, because malware behaves much like pollution.
    - ay1n 12y ago
      I think sandboxing is a quite good solution, but it doesn't mean that you can't have a root access. Consider jails in FreeBSD, where you can isolate a single process but at the same time you have a control over whole system. Your car analogy can provide insight into the consequences of a single insecure system in the network, but at the same time it's not valid when you consider that you can (should) control your systems and network if it has to fit your needs.

minikites 12y ago

Do you miss the days where you had to manually adjust the choke while driving and decoke the engine every few thousand miles? I think we're going to look back on computers of the 90s and 2000s with a similar quaintness. More people care about a bullshit-free computing experience than an abstract concept of "freedom".

nsxwolf 12y ago
Yeah but when we can't make the computers do what we want it is a problem.
ay1n 12y ago
I think it's not a true comparison - freedom to modify your hardware doesn't have to imply that it's a hassle to use such hardware. In other words: does "bullshit-free computing experience" (or let's just say usability) have to exclude freedom (i.e. your options to freely modify hardware/software you own/use)? I'm thinking about that for some time and I think that (as most of the things) it's not a objective thing but dependend on the philosophy of the producer/maker. And I'm sure that there are people who want to produce well designed things (be that a phone or an app) that can be modified by users/owners (here comes the topic of ownership in the light of digital world, but that's another thing).
- minikites 12y ago
  Is there a better way to prevent malware than a pretty basic review process (iOS/Mac App Store) and data sandboxing? And to continue the car analogy, lots of car modifications are illegal for safety and public health (smog) reasons. I think computers are headed in the same direction in the next 40-50 years. The children of tomorrow will think it's absolutely bananas that we used to run unsigned code, because malware behaves much like pollution.
  - ay1n 12y ago
    I think sandboxing is a quite good solution, but it doesn't mean that you can't have a root access. Consider jails in FreeBSD, where you can isolate a single process but at the same time you have a control over whole system. Your car analogy can provide insight into the consequences of a single insecure system in the network, but at the same time it's not valid when you consider that you can (should) control your systems and network if it has to fit your needs.