[HN Gopher] We will win the war for general-purpose computing ___________________________________________________________________ We will win the war for general-purpose computing Author : d_h_j Score : 129 points Date : 2021-07-16 18:24 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (cheapskatesguide.org) (TXT) w3m dump (cheapskatesguide.org) | a3n wrote: | I just can't stop reading this ... | rektide wrote: | My biggest fear isn't technical, it's cultural. Computing doesn't | feel like it's winning hearts & minds. Computing gets further & | further away, less and less personal, less intelligible, more | mystical every year. We accept more magic into our lives, & the | sense of engagement, the sense of ownership, the idea of personal | computing feels like it's fading. | | I'm techno-optimist, but there's going to be such a huge lag | between the wins we start to make, the re-free-ing up of | computing, & any significance or adoption. We need to re-liberate | computing, make the technical victories, before we can even begin | to fight the real general-purpose computing war. The dream of | computing needs to be re-kindled. | user-the-name wrote: | Maybe you aren't winning hearts and minds because you aren't | actually offering something people want. Maybe you aren't going | to re-kindle any dreams because you are not offering anything | worth dreaming about. | rektide wrote: | > Maybe you aren't winning hearts and minds because you | aren't actually offering something people want. | | I feel like most people have no idea what tech is offering. | | There have been some special purpose projects (FreedomBox, | NextCloud, &c) that have specific ideas, but the relatively | new YUNoHost is a fairly new breed of examples to create an | easy to run way to get people started hosting their own | stuff. https://yunohost.org/ | | Federated model is interesting, in that it means not everyone | has to operate their stuff. Instead, we have protocols of | interoperability, and lots of hosts. That gives people the | experience faster, but yes, it's still currently sub-par. And | most importantly, there's no Competitive Compatibility | (ComCom, formerly called Adversarial Interopability), so most | things we write will not interlace with & work with people's | existing networks. | | > Maybe you aren't going to re-kindle any dreams because you | are not offering anything worth dreaming about. | | You're welcome to your opinion on that. Indeed right now is a | good time to question this. General purpose computing is a | very nebulous header, with a lot of different ideas. | Certainly there's the negative-liberties we can see slipping | away, as DRM, as cloud-computing removes us from power over | our systems. The appliance-ization of computing is indeed the | forefront of what people think about when they think about | general purpose computing, and I tend to agree, that a far | more revolutionary outlook with much further reaching | positive-liberties is what we ought to be dreaming about. The | difficulty is that these endless open frontiers are still | unsure: each of us has to carry our own little light, try to | figure out who elses light to join with, where-as the big | huge forces of the world & their snuffing-of-the-light is | much more visible, apparent, easy to rally around. So we need | to make some traction on the big dreams forwards, we need | something encompassing, and bold that floods people's | imagination with possibility & excitement. | | This is just my 2c, but the ubiquotous & pervasive computing | world, I think, spoke to a vector of computing as cross- | system, as connected, that currently is almost entirely anti- | General-Purpose. We don't have good open general systems for | working cross system. This is one hub of capability that we | need to encompass into our dreams, that needs to be part of | the General, for the General to get far. But it's just one | piece, just one aspect. The dream needs to immerse us fully. | | I think work's like Karli Coss's data-liberation is basically | the ground floor of where we need to start. This is still | early prototype stage, basically, but we need wide-spanning | access to a huge cross-section of the digital (in much easier | to pull off manners) to even begin to allow the interesting | dreaming to begin, to begin to inspire each other: | https://beepb00p.xyz/myinfra.html | jopsen wrote: | Perhaps the market for GP computing just is smaller than.. the | market for magic smartphone. | | We tend to think everyone needs to do computing, and understand | the technology they rely. But I don't understand the magic that | goes into the medicine I take. Nor do I have an understanding | of how the electricity grid operates. My computer just | magically gets power! | | The market for commoditized computing is just bigger than | general computing. That doesn't mean GP will go away. | rektide wrote: | I run into this all the time. but medicine doesn't get called | "bicycle for the mind". | | The question of market share is uninteresting to me, now. We | have zero idea what the market is. The ecosystem is | unhealthy, rotting, consumer dissent is skyrocketing (see the | Freedom Phone yesterday as a rife example). Fixing this | situation is not doable in 18 months though. We don't fix the | war on general purpose computing with a product launch | (although pinephone aloneight singlehandedly jump start the | sea change). This market based mentality though I find so | reductionist & off base, besides the point. We have so much | pioneering to do in computing. so much freeing people to | enable them to begin to think. | musicale wrote: | Steve Wozniak wanted - and built - a pre-assembled computer | for tinkerers and engineers; it also turned out to have some | mass market appeal as a game and spreadsheet machine, and | Apple made a fair amount of money selling it to hobbyists, | gamers, schools, and businesses. | | Steve Jobs realized that computing appliances (from computers | that you couldn't open up to handheld music/game/app/phone | devices) for people who typically had little or no interest | in tinkering or engineering ("the rest of us") was a much | larger market. Apple claimed the high margin section of that | market and became one of the wealthiest companies on the | planet. | | I recall a story about Jobs being opposed to hardware - and | software! - upgrades for the original Mac because "you don't | upgrade your toaster." That's precisely the thinking behind | the iPod, iPhone, iPad, and Apple watch - except Apple now | knows that you'll have to buy a new internet-connected | toaster every few years if they stop producing security bug | fixes for your old one. | collaborative wrote: | I enjoyed the first half but then it became a bit of a rant. It | also went from praising creativity to vilifying developers who | make you "require an internet connection". Everything is | connected nowadays, especially now that we are forced to offer | websites as "apps". And just as websites constantly change, so do | apps require regular updates. For basic reasons such as | compatibility, UX, etc It's not all black and white. But I agree, | we will win. And I suspect the big players already know this, | that might help explain their obsession to squeeze every cent | from their market dominance | eterevsky wrote: | > Climate change is in the process of teaching us that mono- | cultures built in the service of a few powerful industries are a | risk. | | Sorry for nitpicking but... Climate change is an indirect | consequence of industrial revolution. Industrial revolution has | saved orders of magnitude more lives and fed more people than | climate change is likely to affect. | Kototama wrote: | So let's say industrial revolution started 400 years ago (more | or less). How long you think climate change will impact life on | earth? | zmmmmm wrote: | I read through several pages before giving up and jumping to the | end ... but what I saw gave no objective reason that the war will | be won, this is pure hope or maybe a "call to arms". I actually | don't see any convincing reason why we'll "win" this war and in | fact I feel like we are on the precipice of becoming permanently | locked out from it ever being possible. The main reason is the | complex web of laws interacting established platforms that make | it effectively illegal for any new competitor to ever become | established. All over the world governments are starting to | regulate complex and specific requirements around security, | surveillance, encryption, etc that are fundamentally incompatible | with true "general purpose" computing. For example, if your | computer can encrypt things without a backdoor then authorities | cannot listen. But if it can't then by definition it is not a | general purpose computer. Which is it going to be? I think | governments will win and we will lose general purpose computing. | Taek wrote: | I think we will win because locked down platforms are | fundamentally less powerful and less suitable for innovation | than open platforms. | | We are reaching a turning point where even the brightest minds | struggle to generate major innovations on the locked down web. | You can't build "the next Facebook" on the web as it is today | because the incumbent powers suffocate you so effectively. | | Conversely, the dweb is flush right now with innovation and new | ideas, with an ecosystem of builders that are excited to share | and compound off of eachother's ideas. | | I believe that at maturity, the dweb will run absurd agile | circles around the lockdown web. | TrainedMonkey wrote: | Counterpoint: closed platforms will continue to account to | majority of users because innovation available to open | platforms is counterbalanced by massive amount of capital | available to closed platforms. | leereeves wrote: | > You can't build "the next Facebook" on the web as it is | today because the incumbent powers suffocate you so | effectively. | | TikTok and Zoom aren't exactly the next Facebook (yet), but | they both compete effectively against the incumbent powers. | lifeisstillgood wrote: | FYI: Dweb decentralised web. | | https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/sep/08/decentral. | .. | | I'm still not sure what it is but I kind of get the idea. | mftb wrote: | Right and that's one of the ways that we can recognize it's | an interesting area. Once it's understood, the problems | well-bounded, the window has generally closed. Of course | there is also risk, sometimes we've wandered too far afield | and we're just out in the weeds. | paulryanrogers wrote: | Where do you see the decentralized web innovating or winning? | aaron_m04 wrote: | > You can't build "the next Facebook" on the web as it is | today because the incumbent powers suffocate you so | effectively. | | I don't doubt this suffocation is real, but isn't it really | the strong network effects that Facebook benefits from which | stops somebody from "building the next FB"? | Taek wrote: | Facebook refuses to let anyone else tap those network | effects, that's what's suffocating. Remember when Facebook | and Twitter and everyone else had these amazing robust APIs | you could build entire startups on top of? Then when they | killed hundreds of companies overnight by turning them off? | | In the dweb, those APIs can't be shut off. Those hundreds | of innovative companies would still be alive and adding | value to the world. | Karrot_Kream wrote: | I love the dweb! At the risk of going a bit off-topic, | which dweb projects are you interested in? | MomoXenosaga wrote: | I don't see the point. You still have the network effect: | people aren't going to install 20 social media apps. | | Take WhatsApp: the technology behind it is ridiculously | simple. | megameter wrote: | The thing that has always defanged authorities of the past is | organizational inability to see where the game is changing. And | the game has gone on for a long time - villages would do all | sorts of things to operate outside of the vision of the local | lords. | | The probable source of disruption comes from people one step | removed from the top who see an opportunity to shake up the | system and turn an activist message into opportunistic gain. | This is why we often see waves of "anti-corruption" campaigns, | sudden policy shifts, etc. The politicians see a trend forming | and jump on to it. When they get in power they walk some of it | back, but they can't turn back the clock all the way. | | The source of a trend towards GPC comes from a series of "small | wins" like the recent breakthroughs in Right to Repair, from IP | that has recently expired, and from nationalistic | competition("world's free-est country" will always be a title | up for grabs). | | It only takes one little country that's a "hacker haven" to | jump ahead of the rest for a clamor to erupt. The dominant | players will conclude that the answer is to strongarm that | country into the hegemonic framework; others in weaker | positions will see opportunities in jumping on. Then the fight | is waged economically, and if the resulting products and | services are desirable, concessions are made. | bakugo wrote: | I agree. I think the reaction to the recent reveal of Windows | 11's TPM requirement shows that we have basically no chance of | winning this war because the average computer owner of the | 2020s is simply not intelligent or educated enough to know when | they're being screwed over. They hear "it's for your security!" | and immediately roll over like trained dogs. | [deleted] | darklion wrote: | What bothers me is the idea that we can only have one type of | computing--that for general-purpose computing to exist, we _have_ | to kill off every other kind of computing. | | This is not a zero-sum game. We can have console-style computers | _and_ general purpose computers, and they can both exist | simultaneously without one having to win and the other having to | lose. | ur-whale wrote: | >We can have console-style computers and general purpose | computers | | Up until the time you try to get your non-GP computer to do | something the manufacturer didn't want you to, such as | retrieving some data locked in your Android phone. | rhn_mk1 wrote: | The original essay about general purpose computing points out | that it's the underpinning of the "special-purpose computing", | and that the "general" part will always bubble to the surface, | unless users' freedom to own their devices is taken away. | | So the meaning of "war on general computing" is closer to "war | on ownership". Sure, owned and unowned computers can both | coexist, but it's not clearly a good thing to allow someone | else to control one's devices. | walterbell wrote: | The economics of mass-production don't work as market sizes | shrink, you can observe this by comparing MP3 player prices and | selection today vs a decade ago. | [deleted] | bakugo wrote: | >We can have console-style computers and general purpose | computers, and they can both exist simultaneously without one | having to win and the other having to lose. | | No, we really can't, and you probably didn't read the article | if you think we can. | | Making general purpose computers and the software to support | them is less profitable than making smartphone-ish locked down | computers. It's just a fact. The corporations will gravitate | towards the most profitable options, as they always do. | | "But as long as there's a market, even small, someone will make | them" you say. But you're forgetting that computers don't exist | in isolation. They just don't work that well on their own. The | main reason they're so useful is because of networking. You can | be running a computer with 100% free software, but you will | probably still use online services that are not free. You need | to use them to live a normal life in the world of today. | | But thanks to hardware DRM, you might not be able to use these | non-free services on a free device for much longer. Do you know | what happens when you try to open the McDonalds app on an | android phone running a custom operating system? It doesn't | run. The server tells you to fuck off. It sends a message to | your device's TrustZone, a black box security chip that you | have absolutely no control over, asking if the device is | running an original locked-down OS. The chip signs the response | with its own private keys that cannot be extracted and sends it | back to the server, which can then decide to reject you if it's | not the response it wants. This is the reality of smartphones. | It's not a joke. | | And now, with Windows 11 requiring a TPM chip which is just | TrustZone for x86, this is coming to desktops. And everyone is | eating it up, to the point where TPM expansion boards went up | in price after the announcement. Nothing will stop it. | | 10 years from now you will try to open some random popular | website on your linux computer and it will not work. It will | detect that you are not running an authorized system and reject | your request. Want to order food? Too bad, use a locked down | device. Want to buy something and have it delivered to you? Too | bad, use a locked down device. Want to access your bank's | website to check your account, or even just spend money? Too | bad, use a locked down device. The bank part is already a | reality, many banks today require verification using their app | before letting you make online purchases, and the app only | works on locked down smartphones. | | Eventually, when enough network services stop working on | "general purpose computers", 99.9% of the population will not | want to use them anymore and they will disappear. | dane-pgp wrote: | Unfortunately you are exactly right about what DRM/TPM is | going to do to computers. Once Windows 11 reaches 50% | marketshare, some Western government is going to demand that | ISPs in their country not allow anyone online unless they are | using a government-approved OS. Then they will require OSes | and app stores to ban Tor and E2E encrypted chat apps. | | Perhaps they won't go so far as to kick Windows 10 computers | off the internet, but they might at least restrict them to | certain sites and protocols. They could also say that people | running "unsafe" OSes must install a government-issued CA | certificate, to allow TLS interception. | A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: | I genuinely wish I could give more mod points. This is | already happening. If there is going to be a war, its outcome | is far from a given ( and I personally worry, general | computing will be on the losing side ). | | The only thing that could stop is us. We are still creating | the building blocks that make it all happen. It is not like | we do not stand a chance, but it is hard not to feel | pessimistic about the outcome since just about every | communication from the power centers can be summed up with | 'moar powah, moar'. | acomjean wrote: | You can start to see the restrictions creeping in. It seems | inexpensive tablets don't play videos from the the major | vendor (Netflix/amazon/hbo) if the hardware/os don't support | "Widevine" drm solution. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widevine | [deleted] | disabled wrote: | After about 50 installs of Ubuntu, I finally have the perfect | setup, with all of the packages and configurations I want. I have | an install script (executed using bash) to do all of the work). | | My configuration: Ubuntu with a QEMU/KVM Windows 10 GPU | Passthrough. I also have my [Ubuntu] desktop configured to look | like a Mac. It looks amazing! :-D See: https://ibb.co/WV97vnj | | But before I did all of that: When I would set up a new OS, one | of the first steps I do is install a screen recorder with webcam | recording. I would record the setup process with the screen | recorder and the webcam going and I would also talk through the | setup. But, the key is to put (copy/paste) all of your executed | scripts that you used during setup into a text file--and then | email it to yourself prior to abandoning the setup process). | Also, I upload the video to my NAS for later review, to help with | making more refined setups, and also to add notes/comments to the | bash setup script. | | With regards to my setup: the Ubuntu is the primary operating | system, but in reality, it works in tandem with the Windows 10. I | basically use Ubuntu and Windows 10 in tandem, and it works much | better than WSL 2 (Windows Subsystem for Linux 2). | | In fact, I can even play games in virtual reality with this | setup! (But, in reality: I only truly need Windows 10 for heavy | reading as I have a print-related disability known as severe | convergence insufficiency. The screenreaders in Linux just do not | cut it. Also MacOS screenreaders also do not cut it for STEM | work.) | | Anyways, here is a good rudimentary "guide" which illustrates the | thought process needed to create the QEMU/KVM Windows 10 | Passthrough. See: https://pastebin.com/5tuvWTMH | | As for making Ubuntu look like MacOS, see this (ignore the | dashboard part--as there is a better guide): | https://medium.com/@shahriarazizaakash/make-your-linux-ubunt... | | Here is the best guide for the MacOS dashboard (go to the "plank" | part and follow the instructions from there to create the best | and most realistic MacOS dashboard for Ubuntu): | https://linuxconfig.org/how-to-install-macos-theme-on-ubuntu... | Animats wrote: | I can see the day coming when few people will have general- | purpose computers. Those will be the people who make things, and | also have a good set of tools and maybe a milling machine. | | This has already happened with phones and tablets, after all. And | Chromebooks. And Windows 365. And Windows S. And locked-down | enterprise machines. | ur-whale wrote: | I can see the day coming when owning and operating one of those | will require the equivalent of a carry permit. | | And just like for weapons, none of the iphone and chromebook | users will understand what the fuss is all about, who would | want to use one of these anyways. | user-the-name wrote: | And is there really anything wrong with that? Every house | doesn't need a milling machine. Why should every house need a | general purpose computer? | rektide wrote: | > And is there really anything wrong with that? Every house | doesn't need a milling machine. Why should every house need a | general purpose computer? | | Why not have general purpose computing? Computers are vastly | powerful machines that could be useful over very very long | amounts of time. By allowing closed, proprietary locked down | applianceization of computing, we create expensive high-tech | consumer devices which seem to quickly (within 5 years) | become unsupported, obsolete, unmaintainable, & unrepairable. | | Computers have nearly endless uses & applications, until we | artificially restrict that. Society ought to try to keep | computing general, because it allows for us to adapt & update | systems along with the times. Nothing but general purpose | computing seems to be renewable. Why should we have other | forms of computing? | HideousKojima wrote: | If every house had a 3d printer, or a milling machine, or a | small chip fab, or insert home manufacturing machine here, | they would be far less dependent on a handful of established | players for things like replacement parts etc. And much more | immune against government regulation seeking to control thme | and what they can buy/own/do. | hytdstd wrote: | Yes, you're absolutely right. So what do _you_ think is | stopping every household from buying a 3d printer | /mill/whatever? | GekkePrutser wrote: | I don't think these are for every household. Right now a | 3D printer is incredibly useful if you're really willing | to put in the work to learn, optimise, and even design | your own parts. | | Joe soap is never going to do that or even want to do | that. He doesn't even have a need for parts, after all he | doesn't repair his stuff, he just throws it away and buys | new stuff. | | Perhaps he'll buy a 3D printer when he can go to Amazon | and click "print" instead of "order". But we're a long | way from there. | giantrobot wrote: | A 3D printer, chip fab, or CNC mill isn't useful without | feedstock, designs/models, and electricity. So even if | every household had a bunch of micro-fabrication devices | the government could still regulate whatever they pleased | by regulating access between your property and the outside | world. If everyone had a 3D printer and was manufacturing | things the government didn't like then PLA/ABS/resin would | quickly become regulated. | GekkePrutser wrote: | Not to mention the "printing cartridge model" that some | manufacturers are already trying to play at. | Unfortunately this is inevitable as the 3D printing | industry is getting more commoditised. | goatlover wrote: | A majority of people don't want to take the time to make | their own parts anymore than they want to repair their cars | or appliances. The article can put convenience in scare | quotes all it wants and blame mega corporations, but it's | the reality of consumer preference and specialization in | complex societies. People's time and motivation are | limited. Spend time fixing your own stuff or delegate it to | someone who does it as a profession? | user-the-name wrote: | They don't want to be. And that's _fine_. That is why we | even have a society. We can live better lives by relying on | others. | nonameiguess wrote: | I'm really not sure I see this. Enterprise devices are more | portable than they used to be, not less. Gone are the days of | science relying almost exclusively on supercomputers that could | only run specific proprietary Unixes and basically required | proprietary compilers. Connection hubs and DSPs doing signal | translation from various industrial devices and military and | space communications networks to IP networks have gone from | almost exclusively ASICs manufactured by one of two companies | to FPGAs, fully reprogrammable blank slates you can do pretty | much anything with. Phones and tablets are certainly less | general purpose than desktop and laptop PCs, but much more | general purpose than earlier incarnations of phones and tablet- | like devices such as Palm Pilots, digital address books, | graphing calculators, flip phones, land lines, things that | could only do one thing and couldn't have any type of extension | application installed at all from anyone, whether it was part | of a walled garden or not. If the average American teenager | today has nothing but an iPad and iPhone, that isn't completely | general purpose, but it's a huge improvement on when I was a | teenager 25 years ago and the closest thing my family had to a | computer at all was a word processor, not a software suite like | Word or Lotus but a specialized typewriter with some | proprietary embedded firmware and no writable memory at all. | pdonis wrote: | _> Those will be the people who make things_ | | Which includes programmers. | dane-pgp wrote: | As long as you have paid for your annual "software | development licence" from the government, and they haven't | revoked it after finding you breaking "best practices" like | producing or using encryption software without a government | backdoor. | nathanaldensr wrote: | I hope the software that blocks us from using computers doesn't | block enough people to where there are no more programmers. | rektide wrote: | > Those will be the people who make things, and also have a | good set of tools and maybe a milling machine. | | One of the chief things I hope that home-cloud operators get | to, quickly, is multi-tenancy. Given how easy it is to take | some Raspberry Pi's & build a home Kubernetes cluster (or to | spend $1000 & build a radically better version), the next | question is: how do we scale that impact? | | I'd love for my work to scale to my friends! I used to spend so | long trying to build ldap into the ftp, http, xmpp, &c self- | hosted systems I made, thinking one day it might help friends | too. And I still think that way, but now that vision is less | about building super-tip-top services to serve everyone, and | more about building a platform that my friends could run their | own services on easily, in a reasonable way. #selfhosted, I | hope, begins to federalize somewhat, that we can selfhost each | other, via some common, well known platforms that support these | endeavours to help us build together. | | Personally I like to imagine grade school having a half dozen | servers, and kids getting their own virtual clusters to operate | as they might, to learn about & immerse themselves in | computing. This kind of feels like a maker-space sort of idea: | a collectively owned means of production, an availability of | tools that is community owned & operated. Ideally in my school | server model, the kids themselves get the experience (at some | point) of bootstrapping their own clusters, get the end to end | experience (take one machine out, format the drive, compile a | linux kernel, install os, install cluster/platform software, | join another hardware unit to it). Similar to a rep-rap | producing another one, sort of; creating the chain of knowledge | to reproduce & understand. | | There's plenty of semi-interesting existing examples to cite | with regard to collective hosting: the SDF cluster, tilde.club, | &c. I guess I hope that we can virtualize a little more, give | more people something closer to their own sovereign little | spaces on computing hardware, where-as historically these have | been operated more akin to singular shared spaces. | quantum_state wrote: | What war? For GPC? So funny! | deregulateMed wrote: | I do my part by using FOSS. My only sin is using Windows at work | because it's what the Engineers use. | | My cellphone OS and web browser are FOSS. | | My personal and side project server is FOSS. | | I even used GIMP for 10+ years before finally giving adobe 10$ so | I could knock out a flyer real quick. | | I think we all know who the devil in the room is. FOSS fans know | who the sinners are. | novok wrote: | What is your cellphone OS? Is it kind of 'open source' like | android or something else entirely? How well does it work day | to day? | | Also why go with adobe when there are better companies out | there like Affinity or Pixelmator? | petermcneeley wrote: | "You think you have won! What is light without dark? What are | you without me? I am a part of you all. You can never defeat | me. We are brothers eternal!" | | https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089469/characters/nm0000347 | Karrot_Kream wrote: | Cool. Now how do we scale this to everyone else? | taylodl wrote: | *> "As users see their smartphones weaponized against them, and | find few real alternatives, some are expressing fears that Tech | Giants are plotting an oblique coup in all but name, and | positioning to usurp national governments with their own brands | of cybernetic governance. They are building in control and | exclusion, disinformation, private digital money and surveillance | capitalism into gadgets we seem unable to step away from. I | believe this threatens Western liberal democracy, fought for at | such cost 80 years ago." | | And with this hyperbole I stopped reading. | dane-pgp wrote: | You don't think that giving the government (or entities even | less accountable) complete control over online information, | discussion, and commerce, plus an almost perfect 24/7 | surveillance system, might weaken liberal democracy? | DantesKite wrote: | Wish I had GPT-3 to summarize this article for me. | mcint wrote: | This wasn't loading for me. Here's an archive link | https://web.archive.org/web/20210716183740/https://cheapskat... | halotrope wrote: | tldr; either you start giving a shit about gpc or it will be gone | for good. | dane-pgp wrote: | Program or be programmed. | [deleted] | boznz wrote: | Spot on. | | I spend 3-5 years getting the perfect PC setup only to have it | knocked down again every time I get a new PC and all the settings | have moved, half the programs that used to work now either wont | or has a replacement that's not quite what I want. | | I am not against progress but I just need to work so I now | specifically keep the last two generations of my PC offline just | so I can compile a clients firmware or modify a PCB with the same | environment I developed it on. The next generations of | development environments are going on-line so it may not be an | option for me. | | At one point I designed complex communications systems from ISO | layer 1 to layer 7 but these days I dont have a clue how to use | the top layers, they change daily and I the guy in the IT dept to | fix any issues with my smart phone or connecting to a clients | network so I feel everyones pain. | GekkePrutser wrote: | I personally don't mind rethinks. I do this myself often. New | insights come up all the time, I'm especially enamored with | tiling window managers right now. | | But what I do hate is taking away choice. A lot of these | 'updates' have actually significantly removed configurability. | "We removed this option because we don't think you need it" | happens way too often. A computer exists to serve us. Not for | us to bend to its will (or its manufacturer's). | chrisseaton wrote: | > I spend 3-5 years getting the perfect PC setup | | My solution is... don't try to get the perfect setup. | | Learn to just be happy with the defaults and get on with what | matters - the work you're using it for. I change maybe 1 or 2 | settings on a fresh macOS install and that's it. I don't even | change the wallpaper. | | > I just need to work | | So don't distract yourself with trying to create the perfect | setup! Worse is better. | dane-pgp wrote: | "Just let Apple decide everything for you, they know best!" | is exactly the sort of attitude that is causing us to lose | this war. | chrisseaton wrote: | I don't know if Apple know best or not - I didn't say I | thought that anywhere and I'm not sure who you're quoting - | the point is the opposite - I _don 't_ care. As long as the | system is usable, get on and use it and actually focus on | your work rather than tinkering for the sake of tinkering. | | The only war I'm fighting against is wasting my time with | system setup. | GekkePrutser wrote: | I think I agree with the article. However it rambles on too much | and the colour scheme is extremely hostile to my eyes. Sorry. I | think you have a good point but you need a TL;DR. And please, | white on hot pink is not a good choice. | [deleted] | marcodiego wrote: | I'm not so hopeful. To have some guarantee of rights and freedoms | today, some sacrifice in convenience is needed. Most people I | know who can understand what is at play are not willing so | sacrifice even a bit of convenience. | | The purpose-specific computing is more profitable right now. If | we make general-purpose computing more attractive, then we may | have a chance. But even then, compatibility maybe difficult. | api wrote: | > The purpose-specific computing is more profitable right now. | | If people paid for open general purpose systems and software | those would be more profitable because people use them more and | use them for more serious things. | | I am very close to deciding that the FOSS movement is partly | responsible for this dystopia. More specifically it's the | substituting of free "as in beer" for free "as in freedom." | These two are actually at odds. Free "as in beer" is the bait | on the hook for surveillance capitalism. | deregulateMed wrote: | Swap all that with "big marketing budget" | | You can see how easy politicians can conquer minds, it's no | surprise trillion dollar companies are able to sell anti | consumer products at luxury pricing. | | "convenience" is just marketing. | [deleted] | Karrot_Kream wrote: | This is the kind of thinking causing FOSS or other grassroots | movements to fail. Convenience is extremely important. Much | like you don't wake up every day taking pride in | understanding every aspect of the electrical and water | distribution to your house or how your car engine works, most | people don't want to understand how their software works. | That doesn't mean it shouldn't be easy for folks who _want to | understand_, but unfortunately a lot of grassroots software | just gatekeeps this way. The result is the slow death of GPC | as users use the thing that's easy and there's no privacy or | freedom-respecting alternatives that non-technical users can | actually use. | api wrote: | > "convenience" is just marketing. | | No, it isn't. This is intentional ignorance and if people | keep believing it we will absolutely lose. This kind of | thinking goes all the way back to the 1980s and 1990s when | people said "GUIs are for wimps" and became increasingly | irrelevant as everyone started using GUIs. | | When I am driving and need turn by turn directions, if I have | to take extra steps to get my maps app to work I might have | to pull over or might try to do it while driving and crash. | My map app must "just work." | | If I'm about to give a talk and I plug in the projector's | HDMI cable and my video driver crashes and I have to load up | a config file, I look amateurish. My video subsystem must | "just work." | | If I'm trying to close a deal and can't share a document, the | deal may fail and revenue could be lost. People might even | lose their jobs. My collaboration system must "just work." | | I could keep going. | | Convenience is extremely important in the real world. It | saves time, money, and even lives. | deregulateMed wrote: | Are you implying the heavily marketed alternative works | better? | | Haha I missed more streets with their map program, their | music store is more complicated, and their podcast app is | more buggy. | | It's marketing. | [deleted] | simonh wrote: | I agree, things people don't value themselves is often | dismissed as 'marketing'. No these are just things other | people value more than you do, and convenience is massively | important. Without a lot of effort put into convenience | there are lots of technologies many, even most non- | technical people would never be able to even use. | stadium wrote: | Google's project ara seemed like a good step in that direction, a | smartphone with modular and replaceable components. But it died. | | Anyone have lessons learned from that experiment? | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Ara | MomoXenosaga wrote: | The lesson is that cheap mass produced Chinese shit wins every | time over complicated hacker dreams. | | https://www.androidauthority.com/xiaomi-apple-europe-report-... | hytdstd wrote: | Maybe simplest is best: Google, the company with pockets deep | enough to develop and market Glass, couldn't see the business | proposition in Ara. | OnionBlender wrote: | I don't know why that project died but I'm not surprised. It | reminds me of how smart phones used to have removable batteries | and were easier to replace parts for but many consumers | preferred to buy slim phones that couldn't be opened. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-07-16 23:00 UTC)