Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The coming civil war over general purpose computing

boingboing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 102 posts

Re: The coming civil war over general purpose computing

#81

Post by corporalagumbo »

Steko wrote: post #27
veidr wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ha ha, OK I admit that analogy was too heavy-handed for the context. It didn't feel so as I wrote it, maybe because I had already walked it back from 'Arbeit macht frei', which was the first thing to come to mind. The point I wanted to make was that it feels kinda creepy when people start believe the propaganda (of a government, corporation, cult, or whatever it may be) that calls it "freedom", when it's actually the…

You're right that it's certainly not freedom that Apple is selling. The correct counterargument to Doctorow et al has to take the freedom issue head on, it looks like this: When people move from the country to a small town they are forced to give up some freedoms. When the small town turns into a large town even more. A large city, even more. I can't crank the stereo to 11 and play it at all hours every night on my b…

So will we be able to have sex without the entire 3D full-sensory experience recording immediately being uploaded to 2050 Youtube?

Re: The coming civil war over general purpose computing

#82

Post by parasubvert »

blub wrote: post #54
parasubvert wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be under the impression that phones once were free & loose, and then Apple locked them down. Phones never were free - carriers controlled what went on them, and what features were used. Apple opened devices up to a level never before seen - no more carrier crap pre-loaded, and a serious push to improve data pipes and 3G availability throughout North America. Not to mention an app marketplace NOT controlle…

There are ways to offer predefined paths for those people that don't care about choice without taking away choice from everyone. Apple has completely failed at providing this because they're hungry for control and want to impose their will upon their customers. Ideally all people that use computers. >Firstly, you do realize that you have political freedom -- people are completely free to jailbreak their phones, no po…

> There are ways to offer predefined paths for those people that don't care about choice without taking away choice from everyone. Apple has completely failed at providing this because they're hungry for control and want to impose their will upon their customers. Ideally all people that use computers.

And their customers are thanking them for it. Apple's control is primarily about improving the overall experience of the user, and secondarily about extracting as much revenue as they can from the platform they created. Seems like a good tradeoff to iOS users (for now).

I completely agree there should be competitive alternatives to Apple's approach. My point is that openness is a feature, and the market should decide the level of openness that matters. So far the market seems to support the theory that a general purpose computing model like the PC world does not suit the mobile device world.

> There's a huge difference between not owning software and still controlling it because it's your machine and not owning software and being out of luck because Apple can remote-delete it.

And if they abuse that trust, they'll lose customers.

Re: The coming civil war over general purpose computing

#83

Post by parasubvert »

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #31
parasubvert wrote: post #13

The issue I have with arguments from folks such as Cory is that they presume too much in favour of openness. Many prefer to be regulated rather than have to make decisions on every little detail, that's arguably the whole Apple appeal in a nutshell vs. Linux, and why it's so productive. (Distros like Ubuntu arguably do this too at a much smaller scale.) Cory is effectively advocating "technology survivalism", where n…

"The issue I have with arguments from folks such as Cory is that they presume too much in favour of openness. Many prefer to be regulated rather than have to make decisions on every little detail, that's arguably the whole Apple appeal in a nutshell vs. Linux, and why it's so productive." I think that's a false dilemma. I agree that's the current state of things, but I don't think openness requires the burden of perv…

I wish you were right. It would be the best of all worlds.

Re: The coming civil war over general purpose computing

#84

Post by mindslight »

He lost my interest halfway through when talking about TPM and failing to examine Remote Attestation. Yes, owners having control of the platform verification keys is quite important. But even in that world, if the TPM has a user-inaccessible signing key, the battle is set to be lost. If the sheer majority of the consumer market trusts a handful of OSs, banks et al will start requiring use of those "trusted" OSs to access online services. We're then right back in the same situation with no control over the computer in front of you.

I think in the sheer majority of situations (excepting eg ATMs), fail-dead tamper resistance is a terrible goal. Ultimately, you either have to trust the physical security of the hardware in front of you or a third party service - there is no middle ground. Evil maid attacks are local, targeted, and user-mitigable through physical security and tamper-evidence. The requirements of trusted third parties are centrally developed, systematic, and mandatory.

Re: The coming civil war over general purpose computing

#85

Post by parasubvert »

blub wrote: post #55
parasubvert wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has nothing to do with Apple's money. The carrier's money, sure. And things like trust, battery life, etc. But that's everywhere.

Some really scary thought processes in these replies... Apple put functionality in their phones that blocks an EXISTING Wi-Fi hotspot feature for their customers at the will of the carriers. The carriers that I have already paid to get internet access. In my case I had a 5yr old feature phone that I could use to connect to the internet (wired) while the iPhone would not allow that because the carrier (EU, not US) com…

> Apple put functionality in their phones that blocks an EXISTING Wi-Fi hotspot feature for their customers at the will of the carriers.

Where was it pre-existing? Tethering != WiFi Hotspot.

Furthermore, carriers can change their minds. They did because the iPhone is taking up too much of their bandwidth due to its popularity.

If your phone is capable of creating a WiFi hotspot without requiring the carrier's permission AND they require you to have specific plans for activating such a feature, then you're basically violating their Terms of Service.

If your carrier allows you to run a WiFi hotspot on any plan, then you're on a great carrier and should continue to do business with them.

AT&T has the majority of iPhones in the USA, and they're not a great carrier. Thus Apple is going to bend an a few matters, because angry customers getting cut off is not in their interests (and AT&T is quite notorious for doing this - I was suspended once for using a Jailbreak WiFi hotspot in 2008, for example.)

Re: The coming civil war over general purpose computing

#86

Post by parasubvert »

klez wrote: post #61
parasubvert wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be under the impression that phones once were free & loose, and then Apple locked them down. Phones never were free - carriers controlled what went on them, and what features were used. Apple opened devices up to a level never before seen - no more carrier crap pre-loaded, and a serious push to improve data pipes and 3G availability throughout North America. Not to mention an app marketplace NOT controlle…

> All owners of that software have a restriction on your behaviour with that software, including free or open source software. Quoting the GNU GPL (v2, since it's less legalese-esque): > The act of running the Program is not restricted

But the act of copying, distributing, or modifying said software is restricted. Much more so than, say, the Apache license. Those are behaviours too.

The GPL controls you "in your own interests", or to quote them:

> To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.

The point is that you don't own the software you run, the owner has a claim on your freedom. In GPL's case it's for what they feel is the greater good (more free software, and limited free-loading).

Re: The coming civil war over general purpose computing

#87

Post by loup-vaillant »

demallien wrote: post #74
runn1ng wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To even be able to sign your application to run on OS X, you need to pay 99 dollars. And agree to Apple's terms. You have to agree to pages of Apple's terms if you want to let anyone to run your thing on iOS. "You only need a $99 membership, which is pretty affordable, compared to the past when it cost $500-$5,000 for such suites of software." - where do you get these numbers? You can put your software for free on so…

To even be able to sign your application to run on OS X, you need to pay 99 dollars. And agree to Apple's terms. This is pure FUD. You only need to sign apps if you are planning on distributing them as pre-compiled binaries, and even then the end user can deactivate gatekeeper in case you haven't signed your app. If you are writing apps for yourself, you can just compile normally, and deactivate Gatekeeper on your sy…

> This is pure FUD. You only need to sign apps if you are planning on distributing them as pre-compiled binaries, and even then the end user can deactivate gatekeeper in case you haven't signed your app.

Even then, the end user will have to do an extra step, and (I guess) face a Dread Warning against Infectious Diseases.

I say the hassle is big enough to repel nearly any user.

Re: The coming civil war over general purpose computing

#88

Post by mindslight »

nirvana wrote: post #28
fmstephe wrote: post #7

When I read articles like this my fears always move straight to a future where it has become harder to program for play. I appreciate that this concern is somewhat superficial compared with some of the issues raised in this article, but I feel profoundly grateful to be able to tinker with computers in my spare time. I feel this more deeply than the fear that my music collection might not survive a computer upgrade or…

This is one of the reasons I'm such a fan of Apple, despite all the misguided gruff they get here. Apple always ships free (or near free) development tools with their systems. In the Apple II days it was built in to the ROMS. Nowadays on the Mac AppStore you can download Xcode, for free. (though at one point I think it was $5 for some reason.) You can develop any mac apps you want, and run them to your hearts content…

It's very odd seeing these Apple apologist comments from someone who generally posts spot-on libertarian comments. I'll agree that the present-day behavior of Apple has had few explicit negatives compared to the positives from the curation and the general slickness/ease of use of their products. But pragmatism does not extrapolate into long-term behavior or philosophical justification.

(ps I would think the Google distortion field would complement the Apple one. Both companies are based on centralized control of computing, they just use different technologies to achieve this)

Re: The coming civil war over general purpose computing

#89

Post by mindslight »

runn1ng wrote: post #60
nirvana wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of the reasons I'm such a fan of Apple, despite all the misguided gruff they get here. Apple always ships free (or near free) development tools with their systems. In the Apple II days it was built in to the ROMS. Nowadays on the Mac AppStore you can download Xcode, for free. (though at one point I think it was $5 for some reason.) You can develop any mac apps you want, and run them to your hearts content…

To even be able to sign your application to run on OS X, you need to pay 99 dollars. And agree to Apple's terms. You have to agree to pages of Apple's terms if you want to let anyone to run your thing on iOS. "You only need a $99 membership, which is pretty affordable, compared to the past when it cost $500-$5,000 for such suites of software." - where do you get these numbers? You can put your software for free on so…

Take a look at how much compilers for various Unices cost a decade ago, and how much embedded development tools cost today. GCC was popular before Linux/*BSD/etc, and for a reason. Yes, free Free tools are widely available today, but $100 for a development environment is historically quite cheap.

Re: The coming civil war over general purpose computing

#90

Post by statictype »

snowwrestler wrote: post #75
statictype wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not $99 to distribute apps. It's $99 for putting software you wrote on any device, including the one you purchased and own. Yes, it may be still less than the cost of dev tools for other archaic platforms but please don't spin this as Apple doing a favor to the community. The iOs toolchain is business friendly (in that it's great for developers using it to make a living) but its absolutely not hacker friendly or…

This is not true. If you think it is, please provide a link to the Apple dev documentation that proves it. I'm not an OSX developer myself but plenty of my friends and colleagues have written "scratch the itch" Mac apps for themselves without paying $99.

I'm referring to iOS. Not OSX.
Post reply on HN