No Config for Old Men(datagubbe.se)
datagubbe.se
No Config for Old Men
https://datagubbe.se/noconf/
300 comments
It's not you, nor is it your age. We've given up on protecting our freedoms, and our devices aren't really our own anymore.
And you have people like the die hard Apple apologists / enablers that think it's fine you can't build stuff for iPhone without going through Apple.
We're about to enter a trusted computing dystopia. You won't be able to run software on your laptops or desktops, and everything will be tracked.
The web was the perfect platform and would have been utopia. Google sunk their claws in and neutered the browser, removing the concept of the URL, forced media companies to use AMP, and crippled ad/tracker blocking.
Silos like Facebook rank content that isn't hosted internally lower, so the open web has atrophied.
And iPhone has a shitty browser so it can favor apps.
I don't hate computers. I hate the grifters and gaslighters that have taken the good parts away and told us our way of thinking is the problem.
And you have people like the die hard Apple apologists / enablers that think it's fine you can't build stuff for iPhone without going through Apple.
We're about to enter a trusted computing dystopia. You won't be able to run software on your laptops or desktops, and everything will be tracked.
The web was the perfect platform and would have been utopia. Google sunk their claws in and neutered the browser, removing the concept of the URL, forced media companies to use AMP, and crippled ad/tracker blocking.
Silos like Facebook rank content that isn't hosted internally lower, so the open web has atrophied.
And iPhone has a shitty browser so it can favor apps.
I don't hate computers. I hate the grifters and gaslighters that have taken the good parts away and told us our way of thinking is the problem.
> and our devices aren't really our own anymore.
This is the case with virtually everything these days. Stallman is/was right about this. You only rent the movies on Netflix, the games on Steam, the books on Amazon Kindle, and so forth. Everything could be taken away from you for absurd reasons. Who would have thought that your account could be disabled for reasons that it could get disabled today? It is not going to get better. You cannot even play a single player game offline, without running Steam. Torrents/Warez will never go away thankfully. Screw DRM anyways.
This is the case with virtually everything these days. Stallman is/was right about this. You only rent the movies on Netflix, the games on Steam, the books on Amazon Kindle, and so forth. Everything could be taken away from you for absurd reasons. Who would have thought that your account could be disabled for reasons that it could get disabled today? It is not going to get better. You cannot even play a single player game offline, without running Steam. Torrents/Warez will never go away thankfully. Screw DRM anyways.
I know GPL 3 gets a lot of flak, but it made sense when I heard him talking once, and he said something like "and then I had to add freedom 0, which gave you the right to RUN your program".
Stallman gets a lot of hate, but time keeps vindicating him. As software gets used more and more in all kind of devices, the FSF freedoms are becoming the modern consumer rights. Without having the source code of your tractor's firmware, you depend on John Deere for support. Free software is required in order to truly own devices.
There still exist game platforms that provide offline downloadable game installs. GOG.com is one example. I know this is but one example but I think it's important people reward this behavior so companies know there is demand for this.
I bought a game on GOG recently. It funnelled me hard into getting their terrible launcher and now requires me to start the launcher to play the game, exactly like steam. I'm sure there is some way of avoiding this but it wasn't obvious at all.
Edit: according to this post on the forum the feature is not maintained or supported (as of 2016).
https://www.gog.com/forum/the_witcher_3_wild_hunt/how_can_i_...
Edit: according to this post on the forum the feature is not maintained or supported (as of 2016).
https://www.gog.com/forum/the_witcher_3_wild_hunt/how_can_i_...
The "downloader" mentioned in that forum was a separate piece of software for managing downloads, like a janky proto-steam. To download the offline installers, you just need to go to the games section of your account on their website, and you can click on a game to download the installation files.
Once you have the gog galaxy installed, though, even the "offline" install files of games will automatically get integrated into it. It's horrible.
It is possible that the game you refer to has some form of Galaxy integration (GOG Galaxy has its own APIs) when installed from the client. It might still work if you uninstall Galaxy however.
But Galaxy is optional, you can download the offline installers directly from the site. I have around 680 games on GOG and all of them are in my external HDD in their offline installers - i never installed Galaxy on my PC.
But Galaxy is optional, you can download the offline installers directly from the site. I have around 680 games on GOG and all of them are in my external HDD in their offline installers - i never installed Galaxy on my PC.
Chiming in to mention https://itch.io
Also Zoom Platform (unrelated to the videoconferencing program, AFAIK they even predate it): https://www.zoom-platform.com/
Its selection is small but it has a few exclusives - Alien Trilogy was released recently-ish there. Also they're the only place where you can find the original Duke Nukem 3D with all of its expansions due to some perpetual contracts they had with 3D Realms before the IP was acquired by Gearbox.
Its selection is small but it has a few exclusives - Alien Trilogy was released recently-ish there. Also they're the only place where you can find the original Duke Nukem 3D with all of its expansions due to some perpetual contracts they had with 3D Realms before the IP was acquired by Gearbox.
At least with music, you can still generally buy and download: I’m unaware of any legal way to do the same for high-resolution video.
This year I actually spent over half an hour searching for a
legal way to stream a certain series in my preferred language.
Which quickly turned out to be quite a task because some
streaming sites don't show non-registered visitors more than a
login screen, others don't show any language options or
information, and the remaining ones refuse service to my region
or don't have the content in their selection, at least at that
moment. Trying to find out if the search will be successful
feels like trying to solve the halting problem while illegal
sources offer DRM-free downloads with a single click on the
first link in the search results. The disparity is stunning.
You sure? Up to the platform, but generally it is not the case I think. I mean sure, I paid and downloaded albums from Bandcamp before, but I use YouTube the most for music. I do not use Spotify, or Apple Music. No idea if you can download songs from those platforms. I do use SoundCloud and YouTube. I must use youtube-dl to download music from those two places. SoundCloud gives the uploader the ability to allow the downloading of the uploaded song, but in many cases it is not allowed, so youtube-dl it is. Then you can also find torrents and download your favourite bands' music in FLAC format.
youtube-dl is amazing. It supports a lot of platforms, and you can download entire playlists by just using the URL to the playlist itself.
youtube-dl is amazing. It supports a lot of platforms, and you can download entire playlists by just using the URL to the playlist itself.
YouTube, SoundCloud, Spotify, and Apple Music are all streaming services, not places to buy music. However, you can buy digital music from Amazon, the iTunes Store, Bandcamp, and other places that give you DRM free audio files. I personally think this is a fair trade off because when you pay for a streaming service you are just renting access to their library while if you really want the music for keeps you can simply purchase the music.
The iTunes Store still exists and has a decent selection as does Amazon Music MP3 downloads, not to mention a bunch of smaller players like Qobuz that have FLAC and other audiophile formats. If you want to buy legally and download, it’s still possible for like 90% of the artists and genres I care about.
Ah, cheers!
The only reason I use Kindle vs., say, Kobo, is that with Kindle for PC 1.17 I can use Calibre to strip the DRM so I own the book outright.
Against the ToS? Perhaps. But it's my book, damnit.
Against the ToS? Perhaps. But it's my book, damnit.
It's possible with Kobo too, as I recall.
How do those of us inclined... commit, represent, and impact?
Vote with your wallet.
Only buy, fix and support those who have your ideals.
Only buy, fix and support those who have your ideals.
> We've given up on protecting our freedoms...
Wow, putting it like that makes me realize it's just part of the larger societal trend toward authoritarianism. I guess this is one of those 'Stallman was right' moments.
Wow, putting it like that makes me realize it's just part of the larger societal trend toward authoritarianism. I guess this is one of those 'Stallman was right' moments.
It is - in fact, it's kind of the main thing Stallman was writing about all these years. It didn't click for me until few years ago; as a young programmer, I was thinking in terms of "good vs. evil", then "idealists vs. pragmatists", which are wrong frames of mind. Once I learned to think in terms of market incentives, Stallman's arguments became somewhat obvious.
RE the wider trend toward authoritarianism, I'm not yet sure I see it clearly, at least outside the privacy space. But I do feel trends towards taking away end-user control and turning everything into a service, which are very much market-driven, though perhaps they also are a subset of authoritarianism.
RE the wider trend toward authoritarianism, I'm not yet sure I see it clearly, at least outside the privacy space. But I do feel trends towards taking away end-user control and turning everything into a service, which are very much market-driven, though perhaps they also are a subset of authoritarianism.
Just the sheer number of people calling for Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, etc to censor others is remarkable to me.
I came of age during a time when we on the left believed fiercely in personal freedoms, especially freedom of speech. We would blast music that would say things like, "F--k you I won't do what you tell me." [1]
Now the same left I loved can't erupt in protest fast enough when social media aren't censoring idiots. We used to all know that censoring of anybody was wrong, but also that it didn't work. Censoring was what corporations and authoritarian states did to people, and we hated it.
That's just one example of the change people have gone through.
[1] https://genius.com/Rage-against-the-machine-killing-in-the-n...
I came of age during a time when we on the left believed fiercely in personal freedoms, especially freedom of speech. We would blast music that would say things like, "F--k you I won't do what you tell me." [1]
Now the same left I loved can't erupt in protest fast enough when social media aren't censoring idiots. We used to all know that censoring of anybody was wrong, but also that it didn't work. Censoring was what corporations and authoritarian states did to people, and we hated it.
That's just one example of the change people have gone through.
[1] https://genius.com/Rage-against-the-machine-killing-in-the-n...
I see freedom of speech as a right that should be preserved at almost all costs.
And also, step back a bit and look at the state of digitally distributed disinformation. We've elected politicians that look like characters from an absurdist satire, loony conspiracy theories are going mainstream, climate change isn't real, the pandemic is a lie, a significant percentage of the US population thinks the presidental election was completely fraudulent... and so on.
Misinformation is a problem that genuinely threatens society. I'd love to think that if you let people figure things out for themselves they'll eventually manage it. That they'll eventually stop believing wild claims based on no evidence.
But we don't have time to test that theory.
Should the big platforms have the power over the digital public square that they do? Definitely not. But they do have it. Pressuring them to deal with misinformation is something I completely support.
The alternative is tech illiterate legislation because the misinformation problem isn't going to go away on it's own.
And also, step back a bit and look at the state of digitally distributed disinformation. We've elected politicians that look like characters from an absurdist satire, loony conspiracy theories are going mainstream, climate change isn't real, the pandemic is a lie, a significant percentage of the US population thinks the presidental election was completely fraudulent... and so on.
Misinformation is a problem that genuinely threatens society. I'd love to think that if you let people figure things out for themselves they'll eventually manage it. That they'll eventually stop believing wild claims based on no evidence.
But we don't have time to test that theory.
Should the big platforms have the power over the digital public square that they do? Definitely not. But they do have it. Pressuring them to deal with misinformation is something I completely support.
The alternative is tech illiterate legislation because the misinformation problem isn't going to go away on it's own.
"Misinformation is a problem that genuinely threatens society."
Misinformation is magnitudes of order less dangerous than restricting free speech.
The antidote to bad speech is more (hopefully good) speech, not less speech.
I like to be able to spot the idiots and know who they are and where they stand, not to put them underground where they inevitably fester into violence in their bubbles.
I like to be able to spot the idiots and know who they are and where they stand, not to put them underground where they inevitably fester into violence in their bubbles.
Misinformation is a problem orders of magnitude more dire than the worst 10% of purveys of lies being forced to leave youtube and facebook and promote their crap on bitchute and gab. The real degree of censorship is minimal and liable to remain such. You don't understand how societies process information in the context of our increasingly balkanized asylum.
Allowing the lunatics to spread their message via effective platforms that are designed to promote your brand of bullshit to the people most likely to be vulnerable to it does NOT stop it from festering it actually maximizes the spread of the cancer. If it spreads fast enough you wont have a society to inform anymore because fascists only believe in free speech when its their speech if they gain enough power they will quickly take yours from you.
Allowing the lunatics to spread their message via effective platforms that are designed to promote your brand of bullshit to the people most likely to be vulnerable to it does NOT stop it from festering it actually maximizes the spread of the cancer. If it spreads fast enough you wont have a society to inform anymore because fascists only believe in free speech when its their speech if they gain enough power they will quickly take yours from you.
This is laughable. If propaganda and advertising don't work, then why is everyone so invested in creating it?
This is laughable. If propaganda and advertising don't work, then why is everyone so invested in creating it?
The people creating propaganda are also interested in enforcing censorship if they are in the position to do so.
Propaganda and censorship work far better together than individually for groups that want to brainwash society into certain beliefs.
The people creating propaganda are also interested in enforcing censorship if they are in the position to do so.
Propaganda and censorship work far better together than individually for groups that want to brainwash society into certain beliefs.
Promoting free speech would be efficacious as a tool to stop such people if it had any "staying power" to linger on as a defense-in-depth tool to fight them after they assume power - that it would take a while for them to get rid of it. Unfortunately, I believe it could get shut down almost immediately.
The trick is simply keeping people like that out of power.
The trick is simply keeping people like that out of power.
I guess we all imagined that multi-billion dollar advertising industry then...
I need more context or detail to understand the point you a trying to get at. I really do, because otherwise I am just trying to guess what you mean, or even how it correlates to what I said at all. Without further clarification, it seems to be tangential to me.
Who is "they"? Who apparently represents all global advertising interests, and also represents all who desire to censorship for any reason?
They work best when there's no one around to rebut, or no one allowed to.
>I like to be able to spot the idiots and know who they are and where they stand, not to put them underground where they inevitably fester into violence in their bubbles.
This idea, that "sunlight is the best disinfectant" does not seem to have much evidence going for it. In fact, surely we're owed some justification for the principle - does exposing widespread misinformation correct the bad effects before it was exposed? Some harm has already been done, and I'm not sure how that is justified by the principle.
I think that principle is lacking in empirical evidence, and theoretical justification for the harms it allows, which seem to be based on a shaky idea of the greater good.
This idea, that "sunlight is the best disinfectant" does not seem to have much evidence going for it. In fact, surely we're owed some justification for the principle - does exposing widespread misinformation correct the bad effects before it was exposed? Some harm has already been done, and I'm not sure how that is justified by the principle.
I think that principle is lacking in empirical evidence, and theoretical justification for the harms it allows, which seem to be based on a shaky idea of the greater good.
I've never seen any evidence that not censoring is worse than censoring. However there is strong evidence of those who instated censorship creating vast swathes of human destruction.
The most egregious I can think of is the Russian government after the Bolshevik revolution. It had the death penalty for being in possession of certain books. In the end these censorship loving people (for other people, not them) killed tens of millions of people they governed (gulags, deliberate starvation of masses of people for instance), yet it is hardly talked about.
These bad effects of not censoring that people talk about seem so pitiful and small compared to what has happened when people willing to censor other people have got into power. Seriously, people stating things like 'sunlight is the best disinfectant" does not seem to have much evidence going for it' are promoting things that totalitarian groups are very pleased to have, and despite asking for evidence, they provide no evidence that what they are trying to push is not far worse than what they are purportedly against. Along with the destruction of freedom that censorship brings to all the people that it applies to. Those that promote censorship can not be hypocritical and start with themselves first, but they won't, I'm sure they will scream loudest about how horrible censorship is if some other group got the power to censor what they may want to say.
The most egregious I can think of is the Russian government after the Bolshevik revolution. It had the death penalty for being in possession of certain books. In the end these censorship loving people (for other people, not them) killed tens of millions of people they governed (gulags, deliberate starvation of masses of people for instance), yet it is hardly talked about.
These bad effects of not censoring that people talk about seem so pitiful and small compared to what has happened when people willing to censor other people have got into power. Seriously, people stating things like 'sunlight is the best disinfectant" does not seem to have much evidence going for it' are promoting things that totalitarian groups are very pleased to have, and despite asking for evidence, they provide no evidence that what they are trying to push is not far worse than what they are purportedly against. Along with the destruction of freedom that censorship brings to all the people that it applies to. Those that promote censorship can not be hypocritical and start with themselves first, but they won't, I'm sure they will scream loudest about how horrible censorship is if some other group got the power to censor what they may want to say.
> The antidote to bad speech is more (hopefully good) speech, not less speech.
I used to think that humans could convince each other of facts using logic and rhetoric. Disagreements would get aired out, and the better "done in good faith" argument would win.
I think our problem is that, as you know, humans are subject to a ton of logical fallacies and 'hack vectors' of rhetoric (see also Shopenhauer's 38 strategems). If we, participating in or viewing an argument, fight to overcome these, we're able to have debates of rhetoric - the "truth" wins out in a debate.
But it's a lot worse than a situation where some number of people didn't learn this in school, or can't be bothered to cut through the logical fallacies. Rather, the problem is that these particular kind of lies have a seductive capacity - they 'feel right', because they operate in the part of human speech and human logic that's driven by our instinct, rather than driven by learned behavior. People aren't neutral, and evenly likely to pick the lies versus the truth - they're overwhelmingly more likely to pick the lies, unless they've both deliberately trained themselves not to, and also personally value objective truth over feeling good. Most people don't - even scientists struggle with this.
Not all lies are seductive like this - but the kind that slot into "tricks of debate" absolutely are. They're the bread and butter of con men.
This is why every formal "forum of debate" - in the sciences or academia et al, has it as just a basic rule that they can just get shown the door immediately if they're caught lying. If you just straight-up-lie on a paper getting submitted to i.e. Nature, it can ruin your career. It's why perjury is a crime - because lies of that type just have far stronger evolutionary fitness compared to truth. It's because the rule-setters in these fields care more about reaching the objective truth than they do about feeling good - and they know how dangerous this is, so they treat it with a scorched earth policy.
---
I believe we've been able to get away with free speech because - thus far - most of our media wasn't censored, so much as it was mandated to be "true". You could say whatever you wanted as long as it was plausibly true - people fudged stuff all the time but it generally couldn't be bald-faced lies. As long as that was enforced, then what you said about "good speech being the antidote to bad speech" could work.
But for a few decades, we've had no such enforcement of truth in lots of our media, especially the internet, and I believe the number of people believing outright falsehoods has gotten an awful lot worse. Dangerously so.
I used to think that humans could convince each other of facts using logic and rhetoric. Disagreements would get aired out, and the better "done in good faith" argument would win.
I think our problem is that, as you know, humans are subject to a ton of logical fallacies and 'hack vectors' of rhetoric (see also Shopenhauer's 38 strategems). If we, participating in or viewing an argument, fight to overcome these, we're able to have debates of rhetoric - the "truth" wins out in a debate.
But it's a lot worse than a situation where some number of people didn't learn this in school, or can't be bothered to cut through the logical fallacies. Rather, the problem is that these particular kind of lies have a seductive capacity - they 'feel right', because they operate in the part of human speech and human logic that's driven by our instinct, rather than driven by learned behavior. People aren't neutral, and evenly likely to pick the lies versus the truth - they're overwhelmingly more likely to pick the lies, unless they've both deliberately trained themselves not to, and also personally value objective truth over feeling good. Most people don't - even scientists struggle with this.
Not all lies are seductive like this - but the kind that slot into "tricks of debate" absolutely are. They're the bread and butter of con men.
This is why every formal "forum of debate" - in the sciences or academia et al, has it as just a basic rule that they can just get shown the door immediately if they're caught lying. If you just straight-up-lie on a paper getting submitted to i.e. Nature, it can ruin your career. It's why perjury is a crime - because lies of that type just have far stronger evolutionary fitness compared to truth. It's because the rule-setters in these fields care more about reaching the objective truth than they do about feeling good - and they know how dangerous this is, so they treat it with a scorched earth policy.
---
I believe we've been able to get away with free speech because - thus far - most of our media wasn't censored, so much as it was mandated to be "true". You could say whatever you wanted as long as it was plausibly true - people fudged stuff all the time but it generally couldn't be bald-faced lies. As long as that was enforced, then what you said about "good speech being the antidote to bad speech" could work.
But for a few decades, we've had no such enforcement of truth in lots of our media, especially the internet, and I believe the number of people believing outright falsehoods has gotten an awful lot worse. Dangerously so.
I completely agree with your first section. In fact I couldn't have written it better myself.
That said, you seem to have presupposed that the people doing the censoring are always (or mostly) right. Why? Because they happen to be in power?
Twitter (and I think Facebook) censored the New York Post, even disabling their account, over a major news story that turned out to be true. It went against thev censor's preconceived ideas of how the world is, and they smashed that button as fast as they could.
What makes you think the people doing the censoring are somehow unbiased righteous purveyors of truth, absent their own instinctive biases that mislead then into censoring unfairly? Surely history has shown that to rarely if ever be the case.
I totally agree with your analysis of the problem, but I follow it to a much different conclusion: humans can't be trusted to wield power of speech over others. They are too subject to their own instinctive and emotional reactions to information they don't like.
That said, you seem to have presupposed that the people doing the censoring are always (or mostly) right. Why? Because they happen to be in power?
Twitter (and I think Facebook) censored the New York Post, even disabling their account, over a major news story that turned out to be true. It went against thev censor's preconceived ideas of how the world is, and they smashed that button as fast as they could.
What makes you think the people doing the censoring are somehow unbiased righteous purveyors of truth, absent their own instinctive biases that mislead then into censoring unfairly? Surely history has shown that to rarely if ever be the case.
I totally agree with your analysis of the problem, but I follow it to a much different conclusion: humans can't be trusted to wield power of speech over others. They are too subject to their own instinctive and emotional reactions to information they don't like.
I don't trust the folks who tag information as "misinformation". I would rather that be left to my research and judgement.
Good luck holding this worldview on places like twitter. I feel like certain kinds of individuals think that they have social momentum on their "side" which brings out their true colors: they don't care. In other words they feel that they are "winning". They are the insufferable authoritarians that polluted the right many years ago in their rigid thinking but they are now a very vocal minority on the left. At least I hope they are a minority but I wonder.
The internet has made outcomes immediate. The internet has also removed the human element of social interaction. I think these two mix in a terrible way. I have no idea what can or should be done about it though.
The internet has made outcomes immediate. The internet has also removed the human element of social interaction. I think these two mix in a terrible way. I have no idea what can or should be done about it though.
It's not a right or left thing. The natural human tendency, the base state, is fundamentally tribal in nature and the objective is to win, to beat the other tribes.
The recent push to censor and silence dissent isn't an anomaly: the several hundreds years post enlightenment that gave us the ideas of individual rights and freedoms were the anomaly.
I also do not believe anyone advocating the censoring of others has been themselves censored, or put in a minority position where they were afraid to express dissent. Because if you have that experience, it tends to give one a dim view of censorship.
The recent push to censor and silence dissent isn't an anomaly: the several hundreds years post enlightenment that gave us the ideas of individual rights and freedoms were the anomaly.
I also do not believe anyone advocating the censoring of others has been themselves censored, or put in a minority position where they were afraid to express dissent. Because if you have that experience, it tends to give one a dim view of censorship.
The natural human tendency, the base state, is fundamentally tribal in nature
[citation needed]
The problem with your statement isn't the claim that tribal behaviours are a natural tendency in humans. Of course they are. The problem is your claim that they are somehow primary. There are many other tendencies of comparable weight, and how strongly they are expressed relative to each other depends very much on the individual.
Not to mention that when it comes to tribal instincts, there's a huge difference between individuals as to what they perceive their tribe to be. Their nuclear family? Their town/state/country? Their profession? Participants in their hobby? Their "race"? All of humanity?
[citation needed]
The problem with your statement isn't the claim that tribal behaviours are a natural tendency in humans. Of course they are. The problem is your claim that they are somehow primary. There are many other tendencies of comparable weight, and how strongly they are expressed relative to each other depends very much on the individual.
Not to mention that when it comes to tribal instincts, there's a huge difference between individuals as to what they perceive their tribe to be. Their nuclear family? Their town/state/country? Their profession? Participants in their hobby? Their "race"? All of humanity?
> [citation needed]
Pretty much the whole of human history? There's no shortage of examples. To the contrary, it's more difficult to find examples that do not demonstrate tribalism.
> difference between individuals as to what they perceive their tribe to be
This is a recent luxury that hasn't existed for more than a century. Other than a few cultures here and there that encouraged blended demographics (usually as a consequence of conquest, think Rome).
Pretty much the whole of human history? There's no shortage of examples. To the contrary, it's more difficult to find examples that do not demonstrate tribalism.
> difference between individuals as to what they perceive their tribe to be
This is a recent luxury that hasn't existed for more than a century. Other than a few cultures here and there that encouraged blended demographics (usually as a consequence of conquest, think Rome).
Humans aren't THAT tribal - if they were civilization would never grow beyond small kingdoms, yet here we are with nations in the millions (one in the billions).
It's not perfect there but most of the world is currently functioning.
It's not perfect there but most of the world is currently functioning.
Thankfully that's just Twitter and isn't representative of the wider population.
I think it's not so easy. I think it's first important to remember that the concept of freedom of speech is not an end goal by itself. It was always just a tool for people to be able to point out unfairness/wrong things in society. It was deemed necessary for criticism to be able to done freely for improvements to society to be possible.
Now what we are seeing with social media platforms (and I ould argue it started already earlier with the raise of fox news) at the moment is that we see that there are elements of society who found that facts and truth don't matter and freedom of speech doesn't matter if you have big enough pockets and use the right psychological strategies. Essentially the way society and particulary social media is set up is, that the richest voice gets heard (at least by some people) and the truth of what is being said is not important anymore. In other words the platform are used for controlling us (not by the government, but vested interests) and destroying society, freedom of speech is not helping against this if anything it's a hindrance because it assumes all speech is equal, which it isn't.
I don't have a solution and I would like a way to defend us without destroying freedom of speech, but I don't have a good solution.
Also these platforms have been "censoring" for a long time, nobody was batting an eyelid when Isis accounts and videos were removed. In fact many of the outlets who are now screaming about censorship were shouting that twitter et al. were not doing enough. That tells you a lot about howmuch they care about freedom of speech.
Now what we are seeing with social media platforms (and I ould argue it started already earlier with the raise of fox news) at the moment is that we see that there are elements of society who found that facts and truth don't matter and freedom of speech doesn't matter if you have big enough pockets and use the right psychological strategies. Essentially the way society and particulary social media is set up is, that the richest voice gets heard (at least by some people) and the truth of what is being said is not important anymore. In other words the platform are used for controlling us (not by the government, but vested interests) and destroying society, freedom of speech is not helping against this if anything it's a hindrance because it assumes all speech is equal, which it isn't.
I don't have a solution and I would like a way to defend us without destroying freedom of speech, but I don't have a good solution.
Also these platforms have been "censoring" for a long time, nobody was batting an eyelid when Isis accounts and videos were removed. In fact many of the outlets who are now screaming about censorship were shouting that twitter et al. were not doing enough. That tells you a lot about howmuch they care about freedom of speech.
We didn't censor the peddlers of not so much alternative opinions as elaborate hate fueled fantasies in which real people feature as alternative versions of themselves dressed in pedophile drag which are conspiring against the rest of us and if you visit the places where these degenerates congregate they happily talk about how people guilty of imaginary crimes ought to be imprisoned or murdered.
Some of them have taken the cues and actually committed such murders. The problem is there is money and importance to be earned by trivial to construct lies that a functioning marketplace of ideas would trivially discard but it turns out ours really doesn't work so well and freedom without responsibility is a clusterfuck.
We let the liars run wild and ended up with a reality TV star killing hundreds of thousands of people with his incompetence and working hard to start a war that would kill hundreds of thousands more in the last days of his regime. Perhaps visualize every one of those corpses stacked one in a reeking pile and realize that censorship may be the lesser of two evils.
Some of them have taken the cues and actually committed such murders. The problem is there is money and importance to be earned by trivial to construct lies that a functioning marketplace of ideas would trivially discard but it turns out ours really doesn't work so well and freedom without responsibility is a clusterfuck.
We let the liars run wild and ended up with a reality TV star killing hundreds of thousands of people with his incompetence and working hard to start a war that would kill hundreds of thousands more in the last days of his regime. Perhaps visualize every one of those corpses stacked one in a reeking pile and realize that censorship may be the lesser of two evils.
There is far more censoring of much more mainstream opinions than you seem to realize. If it was just the crazies you are talking about I would mostly agree. It's not.
Can you give me an example please?
Yes definitely, I was on mobile earlier otherwise I would have. The New York Post had a major story censored a few weeks ago. I have no love for the NYP (I think they sensationalize news), but they are not some scummy right wing conspiracy machine. I pretty much agree with Glenn Greenwald here: https://theintercept.com/2020/10/15/facebook-and-twitter-cro...
They also suspended an account of a sitting state senator in Pennsylvania who was holding a hearing on alleged election fraud: https://www.ntd.com/twitter-suspends-account-of-state-senato...
They also suspended an account of a sitting state senator in Pennsylvania who was holding a hearing on alleged election fraud: https://www.ntd.com/twitter-suspends-account-of-state-senato...
The Hunter Biden laptop story was literally the results of a scummy right wing conspiracy with little supporting evidence laundered though the credentials of a mediocre publication in order to attempt to effect the results of the election so as to assist a Mussolini like figure intent on dismantling democracy as we know it.
There is no valid theory of morality which allows one to simply disregard predicable consequences of ones actions in preference for purely theoretical considerations.
This is why many other publications refused to run with this story because merely presenting "both sides" would not in fact be morally neutral it would have been wrong.
In the same vein Sen. Doug Mastriano was not presenting legitimate concerns about election fraud. There isn't any evidence for such it is literally a smokescreen for a desired takeover of the American government by a hostile minority.
The nypost and Mastriano are traitors in the old and simple constitutional sense of conspirators against the legitimate form of government on which all other freedoms hinge. It isn't that they are attacking Biden he like all leaders will be a transitory feature in our system of government here today and gone tomorrow. What they are attacking is a democratic form of government by polluting the essential contest by which we choose our leaders with lies about candidates and lies about the process in order to undermine the whole thing.
The fact that such actions aren't sufficiently clear cut to rise to prosecutable crimes doesn't mean we ought to forget their betrayal. It is OK if twitter doesn't lend its microphone to Mastriano or the nypost. Let them rent their own website if they prefer. Ntd.com is incidentally a laughable source that nobody ought to credit. For gods sake the story you linked is actually them reporting on a story from the epoch times. For the record the real and complete story is that twitter NEVER suspended the senators government account and says that it suspended the personal account because someone reported it for impersonating the senator and it was reinstated.
Presumably a more reliable source would have included the entire story.
There is no valid theory of morality which allows one to simply disregard predicable consequences of ones actions in preference for purely theoretical considerations.
This is why many other publications refused to run with this story because merely presenting "both sides" would not in fact be morally neutral it would have been wrong.
In the same vein Sen. Doug Mastriano was not presenting legitimate concerns about election fraud. There isn't any evidence for such it is literally a smokescreen for a desired takeover of the American government by a hostile minority.
The nypost and Mastriano are traitors in the old and simple constitutional sense of conspirators against the legitimate form of government on which all other freedoms hinge. It isn't that they are attacking Biden he like all leaders will be a transitory feature in our system of government here today and gone tomorrow. What they are attacking is a democratic form of government by polluting the essential contest by which we choose our leaders with lies about candidates and lies about the process in order to undermine the whole thing.
The fact that such actions aren't sufficiently clear cut to rise to prosecutable crimes doesn't mean we ought to forget their betrayal. It is OK if twitter doesn't lend its microphone to Mastriano or the nypost. Let them rent their own website if they prefer. Ntd.com is incidentally a laughable source that nobody ought to credit. For gods sake the story you linked is actually them reporting on a story from the epoch times. For the record the real and complete story is that twitter NEVER suspended the senators government account and says that it suspended the personal account because someone reported it for impersonating the senator and it was reinstated.
Presumably a more reliable source would have included the entire story.
You are on to something important here:) If you want to know how we are will be "happy by owning nothing" read this "masterpiece" of socialized corporatism https://www.amazon.co.uk/COVID-19-Great-Reset-Klaus-Schwab/d... .
Installing Linux, Mate, Firefox, clearing cookies, learning tricks to use or get around biases, etc. I can make my computer more or less "mine". Mine in the ways that are worth it to me.
But your point is well taken in that the way the computer and the stream of data isn't owned by the average user has a serious impact on society. The way the Youtube algorithm pushes people towards extremism is the most extreme, obvious example.
People with the weakest filters seem like they're the victim of this stuff. But overall, the problem is the situation doesn't teach people to have filters.
But your point is well taken in that the way the computer and the stream of data isn't owned by the average user has a serious impact on society. The way the Youtube algorithm pushes people towards extremism is the most extreme, obvious example.
People with the weakest filters seem like they're the victim of this stuff. But overall, the problem is the situation doesn't teach people to have filters.
> But overall, the problem is the situation doesn't teach people to have filters.
Filtering and ranking (and their visual presentation to the user) are the most prized aspects of Google, Twitter and Facebook for their impact in advertising and activism. Everyone wants attention, attention is money and power. Attention is the value system on the internet.
So of course they don't want to share it, not even with the user. But we want to have a say about content evaluation as well, we have our own values.
Perhaps the best way to neuter Google, FB and Twitter is to spin out the ranking/filtering/presentation part and make many of them. I don't care about the indexer too much, it can stay in one piece. But for ranking and filtering I'd like to select other settings than they allow. Maybe settings proposed by EFF or other NGO's I trust more than a for profit company.
It used to be that we only had the option of a few channels to watch and newspapers to read. You could switch but they would be very restrictive in the choice of content. Internet gave us freedom and a high variety of options, but now ranking and filtering take them back. They want to take choice from us and impose theirs.
Filtering and ranking (and their visual presentation to the user) are the most prized aspects of Google, Twitter and Facebook for their impact in advertising and activism. Everyone wants attention, attention is money and power. Attention is the value system on the internet.
So of course they don't want to share it, not even with the user. But we want to have a say about content evaluation as well, we have our own values.
Perhaps the best way to neuter Google, FB and Twitter is to spin out the ranking/filtering/presentation part and make many of them. I don't care about the indexer too much, it can stay in one piece. But for ranking and filtering I'd like to select other settings than they allow. Maybe settings proposed by EFF or other NGO's I trust more than a for profit company.
It used to be that we only had the option of a few channels to watch and newspapers to read. You could switch but they would be very restrictive in the choice of content. Internet gave us freedom and a high variety of options, but now ranking and filtering take them back. They want to take choice from us and impose theirs.
Yeah, this computer is more or less mine, in all fairness. My phone, much less so.
I know how to take these steps, too, but it's not possible on cutting edge hardware. You're mostly stuck on slower lower-res stuff that's usually made out of plastic.
All of the really good hardware is cryptographically locked to software that you can't alter.
All of the really good hardware is cryptographically locked to software that you can't alter.
I would add games to this list. Most games for iOS or Android these days are pay to win.
Sure, they may not be as important as the things you mention, but when you start hating something that its main purpose is to be fun, is very telling of the situation.
Sure, they may not be as important as the things you mention, but when you start hating something that its main purpose is to be fun, is very telling of the situation.
On that topic, if you're looking for games that don't form such abusive relationship with their players, 'StavrosK is maintaining a list of "no-bullshit games" for both mobile platforms: https://nobsgames.stavros.io/.
Was looking for something like this. Thanks so much!
> I would add games to this list. Most games for iOS or Android these days are pay to win.
They are also free to play and usually not in a minor way. Some of the latest Gacha games have a dozen hours of storyline (or more) before starting the infinite grind.
> when you start hating something that its main purpose is to be fun
People have hated games forever so that isn't much of a barometer. Not commenting on whether P2W is more problematic but people have been listing forever the things that got in the way of their fun.
They are also free to play and usually not in a minor way. Some of the latest Gacha games have a dozen hours of storyline (or more) before starting the infinite grind.
> when you start hating something that its main purpose is to be fun
People have hated games forever so that isn't much of a barometer. Not commenting on whether P2W is more problematic but people have been listing forever the things that got in the way of their fun.
>We're about to enter a trusted computing dystopia. You won't be able to run software on your laptops or desktops, and everything will be tracked.
This situation is entirely the fault of web developers at large tech firms who have been pushing "the web as app publishing platform".
It used to be that you'd install a program and run it locally but of course javascript developers didn't want to learn C++ and here we are.
This situation is entirely the fault of web developers at large tech firms who have been pushing "the web as app publishing platform".
It used to be that you'd install a program and run it locally but of course javascript developers didn't want to learn C++ and here we are.
I definitely prefer native to web apps but I wonder if it is fair to attribute fault to web developers actively pushing web apps when the convenience factors are so overwhelmingly against installing native apps.
>the convenience factors are so overwhelmingly against installing native apps.
Citation needed. I can think of precious few applications that are better in the browser than native.
MS Office and Libre Office are significantly better than the horrid google docs experience.
Not a single web-based text or code editor is worth a damn.
Games are better, more featureful and more performant as native than in the browser.
Web based CAD is a joke.
Almost every major application is inferior as a web app. Gmail on desktop is about the only thing that's better than the native experience, at least that I can think of.
Citation needed. I can think of precious few applications that are better in the browser than native.
MS Office and Libre Office are significantly better than the horrid google docs experience.
Not a single web-based text or code editor is worth a damn.
Games are better, more featureful and more performant as native than in the browser.
Web based CAD is a joke.
Almost every major application is inferior as a web app. Gmail on desktop is about the only thing that's better than the native experience, at least that I can think of.
> Citation needed. I can think of precious few applications that are better in the browser than native.
Imagine you’re a small business owner without an IT staff. Do you spend your time dealing with corrupted installations, malware, reinstalling after hardware fails, backup data and then verifying backups, or do you pay someone else a monthly fee to deal with all that and just worry about having an iPad with a working internet connection?
If your device breaks, you toss it, switch to another machine, go to a browser, type in the website, login, and you’re good to go again within seconds. That seems a lot better and faster than paying for in house IT.
Of course, the downside is you have ceded some control over to someone else and are now paying them rent and possibly getting locked in, but you have limited resources to allocate, and you decide going to see your kids’ performance is more important.
Imagine you’re a small business owner without an IT staff. Do you spend your time dealing with corrupted installations, malware, reinstalling after hardware fails, backup data and then verifying backups, or do you pay someone else a monthly fee to deal with all that and just worry about having an iPad with a working internet connection?
If your device breaks, you toss it, switch to another machine, go to a browser, type in the website, login, and you’re good to go again within seconds. That seems a lot better and faster than paying for in house IT.
Of course, the downside is you have ceded some control over to someone else and are now paying them rent and possibly getting locked in, but you have limited resources to allocate, and you decide going to see your kids’ performance is more important.
That's great marketing copy for spyware^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hsoftware as a service but my father owns a small business staffed with some of the least tech savvy people I've ever met and I can tell you:
- corrupted installs aren't really a thing any more
- hardware failures happen at about the same rate as hardware goes obsolete. If the hardware fails you're buying a new ipad anyways, and unlike a commodity windows PC the iPad can't be repaired.
- malware is still a threat if you have a spyware solution like O365
- as google demonstrates on a regular basis, you can't trust that you'll have access to your cloud backups. If you have data that you actually need, then you need to back it up yourself. Restoring backups takes maybe a few hours a year. Not an issue.
- an iPad is not a substitute for a desktop workstation
>If your device breaks, you toss it, switch to another machine, go to a browser, type in the website, login, and you’re good to go again within seconds. That seems a lot better and faster than paying for in house IT.
Sure until google locks you out of your account for no reason or you realize you're paying insanely high fees per year when your strategy could be to buy a prebuilt system from Dell once or twice a year and copy your backup data from a USB hard drive. For a business of 30 people or so this is perfectly viable.
- corrupted installs aren't really a thing any more
- hardware failures happen at about the same rate as hardware goes obsolete. If the hardware fails you're buying a new ipad anyways, and unlike a commodity windows PC the iPad can't be repaired.
- malware is still a threat if you have a spyware solution like O365
- as google demonstrates on a regular basis, you can't trust that you'll have access to your cloud backups. If you have data that you actually need, then you need to back it up yourself. Restoring backups takes maybe a few hours a year. Not an issue.
- an iPad is not a substitute for a desktop workstation
>If your device breaks, you toss it, switch to another machine, go to a browser, type in the website, login, and you’re good to go again within seconds. That seems a lot better and faster than paying for in house IT.
Sure until google locks you out of your account for no reason or you realize you're paying insanely high fees per year when your strategy could be to buy a prebuilt system from Dell once or twice a year and copy your backup data from a USB hard drive. For a business of 30 people or so this is perfectly viable.
And here's an example from a hotel:
Instead of having an onsite server running property management system software that has to synchronize inventory with the central reservation system, a web based property management system you can access via a browser has the following benefits for the hotel owner:
1) Don't have to worry about server HDD failures, or any other hardware failures.
2) If power goes out, just browse to the website with a mobile device.
3) Never any inventory issues since there is no synchronization that needs to be done.
4) Revolving door of minimum wage front desk workers who install malware on your Windows computers can't do that anymore if using an iPad or iPad like device, and if they do, it wouldn't result in liability due to theft of people's data. See Marriott/IHG data leaks a few years ago.
5) Lowers labor costs since you don't need someone to troubleshoot technical stuff, other than get a device with an internet connection and a browser.
6) Can move towards a self check in check out system where the guest can basically do it all via an app or the hotel's website, further reducing labor costs.
7) Features can be updated and implemented far more easily when hardware features don't have to be worried about.
Instead of having an onsite server running property management system software that has to synchronize inventory with the central reservation system, a web based property management system you can access via a browser has the following benefits for the hotel owner:
1) Don't have to worry about server HDD failures, or any other hardware failures.
2) If power goes out, just browse to the website with a mobile device.
3) Never any inventory issues since there is no synchronization that needs to be done.
4) Revolving door of minimum wage front desk workers who install malware on your Windows computers can't do that anymore if using an iPad or iPad like device, and if they do, it wouldn't result in liability due to theft of people's data. See Marriott/IHG data leaks a few years ago.
5) Lowers labor costs since you don't need someone to troubleshoot technical stuff, other than get a device with an internet connection and a browser.
6) Can move towards a self check in check out system where the guest can basically do it all via an app or the hotel's website, further reducing labor costs.
7) Features can be updated and implemented far more easily when hardware features don't have to be worried about.
Ok if your argument is that CRUD apps are well suited to web over desktop, I'll concede that point.
I stand by my earlier point that few applications are actually superior on web compared to native.
Edit: autocorrect
I stand by my earlier point that few applications are actually superior on web compared to native.
Edit: autocorrect
It’s the friction of launching a new application the first time. It requires like four more clicks to run an unsigned executable on Windows, two of which are to bypass a scary “this is probably malware” dialog box.
Get your exe signed?
I dunno, number of clicks seems like a weak argument in favour of web to me.
Start -> type "f-i-r-e" -> click Firefox -> click bookmark in the menubar
That's still 3 clicks. Doublclicking the icon on the desktop maybe but that's 3 as well. Launching a native app would be no different.
I dunno, number of clicks seems like a weak argument in favour of web to me.
Start -> type "f-i-r-e" -> click Firefox -> click bookmark in the menubar
That's still 3 clicks. Doublclicking the icon on the desktop maybe but that's 3 as well. Launching a native app would be no different.
> Not a single web-based text or code editor is worth a damn.
codesandbox.io is actually very good for web development. If I didn't have access to a native code editor I would be pretty content with just using codesandbox. I think it uses a modified version of VS Code.
codesandbox.io is actually very good for web development. If I didn't have access to a native code editor I would be pretty content with just using codesandbox. I think it uses a modified version of VS Code.
Exactly. It gives me the shivers every time an Apple fanboy tells me something along the lines of "But Apple is just the best, you don't need to modify it"
But it in a sense is. I am or was using linux, windows, osx, ios, android for prolonged times and yesterday I unpacked and updated my iMac'10 (job reasons) and it still kicks ass. Of course it could be more configurable and less authoritarian, but nobody sold me an alternative that feels better just out of the box. I'm a full time user of windows and android right now, if that helps with "fanboy" part. It's not that configurability lacks smoothness and fell. It just happens that best ui provider/supervisor also happens to be the most walled garden, and competition is far behind. If only a part of efforts that e.g. gnome spends on removing settings went on making gnome better looking than apple... They had a decade and became "apple minus ux/ui".
It isn't the best UI for me. I use Ubuntu and Cinnamon or KDE.
Gnome is shit for sure.
Gnome is shit for sure.
> We've given up on protecting our freedoms, and our devices aren't really our own anymore.
And yet TFA's entire point seemed to apply equally to a self-built machine running any OS (including any Linux) that you could name. So this really seems to have almost nothing to do with Apple or MS.
And yet TFA's entire point seemed to apply equally to a self-built machine running any OS (including any Linux) that you could name. So this really seems to have almost nothing to do with Apple or MS.
I do agree with your point, in particular with the last part about the grifters. But I think this was bound to happen, just as it happens in pretty much any domain that is no longer a niche. Companies see a way to make a quick buck and move in.
However, I see this as something of a new development that didn't actually remove what was before. You can still run Linux if you like, just as you could 10-20 years ago. You don't have access to UHD Netflix, but... you never had. They didn't take this away, it was never given in the first place.
Granted, the fact that Apple goes downhill is, I think, a net negative for the computing world. Ditto for the tracking embedded in windows 10.
Regarding Linux, there's the UEFI / SecureBoot situation, but even on "enterprise" HP hardware this can not only be disabled but I can actually load my own keys, so I don't perceive this as a threat for the moment.
The deeper problem, to me, is that all this works because there are enough people who, for some reason, don't care. Maybe they're not educated enough / don't know better, maybe they actually want it, maybe they're not aware. But the fact remains that there are many, many people who buy the iPhone, who use windows 10, who use facebook, who buy echos, etc. So, aside from "doing the right thing", what incentives do these companies have to stop doing what they do?
[] I actually do own an iPhone but I treat it like an appliance. I install next to no apps, so I really don't care about who can install what on it. I do care that my 4 yo phone got the latest major upgrade and it works as well as the day I brought it home.
However, I am pissed that LittleSnitch is unable to filter all traffic on my Big Sur Mac. But I basically no longer use the Mac, so I'm doing something about it.
However, I see this as something of a new development that didn't actually remove what was before. You can still run Linux if you like, just as you could 10-20 years ago. You don't have access to UHD Netflix, but... you never had. They didn't take this away, it was never given in the first place.
Granted, the fact that Apple goes downhill is, I think, a net negative for the computing world. Ditto for the tracking embedded in windows 10.
Regarding Linux, there's the UEFI / SecureBoot situation, but even on "enterprise" HP hardware this can not only be disabled but I can actually load my own keys, so I don't perceive this as a threat for the moment.
The deeper problem, to me, is that all this works because there are enough people who, for some reason, don't care. Maybe they're not educated enough / don't know better, maybe they actually want it, maybe they're not aware. But the fact remains that there are many, many people who buy the iPhone, who use windows 10, who use facebook, who buy echos, etc. So, aside from "doing the right thing", what incentives do these companies have to stop doing what they do?
[] I actually do own an iPhone but I treat it like an appliance. I install next to no apps, so I really don't care about who can install what on it. I do care that my 4 yo phone got the latest major upgrade and it works as well as the day I brought it home.
However, I am pissed that LittleSnitch is unable to filter all traffic on my Big Sur Mac. But I basically no longer use the Mac, so I'm doing something about it.
> And you have people like the die hard Apple apologists / enablers that think it's fine you can't build stuff for iPhone without going through Apple.
This hasn't been true for several years. Yes, distributing an app requires a paid membership, but you can build and run your app on your own device just fine.
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/running_your...
> We're about to enter a trusted computing dystopia.
Tell this to the young kids coming up - I'm in my mid-30's now - and explain that there existed a time when most sites were served over plain-old, unencrypted HTTP. They either won't believe you, will be horrified at the security hole here, or both.
> The web was the perfect platform and would have been utopia. Google sunk their claws in and neutered the browser, removing the concept of the URL, forced media companies to use AMP, and crippled ad/tracker blocking.
In retrospect, it isn't surprising that Google - a company that makes its real money off of ads - went down this road. It stinks, but I don't know if they had any better options to protect this revenue stream in the face of tech that lets people subvert it getting better all the time.
> And iPhone has a shitty browser so it can favor apps.
In some ways, I do wish that Apple put more effort into the web app side of things, but the key victory of the App Store can't be ignored.
If you make software easier to acquire, install, and remove, people will use more of it. With few exceptions, I would posit that most people who aren't nerds didn't use much software because these guardrails weren't there, and that they might "screw up their phone/computer."
As a result of this progress, that fear has been largely eliminated, even if it means people give up some access to the nuts and bolts of how the software stack works.
This hasn't been true for several years. Yes, distributing an app requires a paid membership, but you can build and run your app on your own device just fine.
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/running_your...
> We're about to enter a trusted computing dystopia.
Tell this to the young kids coming up - I'm in my mid-30's now - and explain that there existed a time when most sites were served over plain-old, unencrypted HTTP. They either won't believe you, will be horrified at the security hole here, or both.
> The web was the perfect platform and would have been utopia. Google sunk their claws in and neutered the browser, removing the concept of the URL, forced media companies to use AMP, and crippled ad/tracker blocking.
In retrospect, it isn't surprising that Google - a company that makes its real money off of ads - went down this road. It stinks, but I don't know if they had any better options to protect this revenue stream in the face of tech that lets people subvert it getting better all the time.
> And iPhone has a shitty browser so it can favor apps.
In some ways, I do wish that Apple put more effort into the web app side of things, but the key victory of the App Store can't be ignored.
If you make software easier to acquire, install, and remove, people will use more of it. With few exceptions, I would posit that most people who aren't nerds didn't use much software because these guardrails weren't there, and that they might "screw up their phone/computer."
As a result of this progress, that fear has been largely eliminated, even if it means people give up some access to the nuts and bolts of how the software stack works.
I somehow like both Apple and my ten+ years old XFCE installations (until they removed menu configurability in 4.6). It's not appleness of apple itself that is sad, but the fact that everyone jumped that boat of "knowing what's better for you" and then started to push it over the limit of sanity. Commercial effort is understandable, they do private business at least, but even free/open software catched that disease.
> We've given up on protecting our freedoms
Now "we" bloody haven't! You may have, I and others have not and will not. Decades ago people were literally fighting fascism and dying for it, these days whiners can't manage to install linux, VMs or blocklists.
You chose. You can unchoose.
Now "we" bloody haven't! You may have, I and others have not and will not. Decades ago people were literally fighting fascism and dying for it, these days whiners can't manage to install linux, VMs or blocklists.
You chose. You can unchoose.
Isn't this really how Capitalism suppose to work. Anything that can be milked for money would be done. Reducing control/choice(freedom) of consumer will always lead to more power for the vendor leading to more potentials for money and so it will be done. An individual consumer was always be in such a power imbalance and now with the trillion or 100s of billions of dollar companies on one side the balance is ultra skewed. You have regulation as a potential recourse but then the political systems are also controlled by money and they themselves love the lack of freedom leading to more political control. And perhaps the most critical is how the social media and media is encouraging an unthinking herd mentality that is making any change in the status quo all the harder.
Spot on.
HN is interesting sometimes. So many on here make a crap ton of money, way more than most other industries, and then go on to complain about FB, MSoft, Apple, Google, etc. But they all want their money and gladly take it, many working for these same companies.
No one wants to make decentralized software because there's no money in that, and no money means no fancy Tesla, or expensive restaurants, or nice condos.
HN is interesting sometimes. So many on here make a crap ton of money, way more than most other industries, and then go on to complain about FB, MSoft, Apple, Google, etc. But they all want their money and gladly take it, many working for these same companies.
No one wants to make decentralized software because there's no money in that, and no money means no fancy Tesla, or expensive restaurants, or nice condos.
It’ll be awful just like that car dystopia where no one changes their oil, and the recycling is handled in an organized way.
Your way of thinking is the problem. You’re a minority of users and not entitled to mass production of goods that fit your intentions alone.
Reality moved on as physics obliges it to do.
Go buy a Dell and install Linux. Go buy an Rpi. When did MS or Apple ever cater to open source opinions on computing?
Did a golden age end or were you all distracted and simply forgot these companies were awful back then too?
Better juice those stocks gains though!
Your way of thinking is the problem. You’re a minority of users and not entitled to mass production of goods that fit your intentions alone.
Reality moved on as physics obliges it to do.
Go buy a Dell and install Linux. Go buy an Rpi. When did MS or Apple ever cater to open source opinions on computing?
Did a golden age end or were you all distracted and simply forgot these companies were awful back then too?
Better juice those stocks gains though!
Why do you feel the need to pick on Apple when:
a) their updates require consent
b) their telemetry is less invasive than Google's or Microsoft's and at least they explain what they're collecting in most of their apps and allow one to turn off some things
c) they do offer power user options such as allowing kexts like the one from Little Snitch. https://www.obdev.at/support/littlesnitch/245913651253917
d) generally add functionality
?
a) their updates require consent
b) their telemetry is less invasive than Google's or Microsoft's and at least they explain what they're collecting in most of their apps and allow one to turn off some things
c) they do offer power user options such as allowing kexts like the one from Little Snitch. https://www.obdev.at/support/littlesnitch/245913651253917
d) generally add functionality
?
Apple doesn't let you run software Apple hasn't approved on most Apple devices (Phones and Ipads). On the remaining devices Apple doesn't let you run software Apple has blacklisted.
Apple won't approve software that uses non-apple-approved services, like payment providers. Apple won't approve software that dares to inform users of these limitations. Apple won't approve third party browsers. Apple demands payment in order for them to approve software. Etc.
Apple apparently has been silently and without permission or an off switch sending the name of the developer of literally every app you launch to Apple. This is far more invasive than anything I've heard of Google or Microsoft doing - not that I'm a fan of their telemetry either. Microsoft in particular also gives you tools to examine what they're sending in detail: https://www.howtogeek.com/348699/how-to-see-what-data-window...
On Apple devices which allow power user options (the minority of devices), they are still limited. For example Apple was (is?) making their own traffic bypass Little Snitch.
Apple generally seems to remove functionality in the name of "design" and "safety" as far as I can see... I'm not sure how you think they're generally adding functionality.
Apple won't approve software that uses non-apple-approved services, like payment providers. Apple won't approve software that dares to inform users of these limitations. Apple won't approve third party browsers. Apple demands payment in order for them to approve software. Etc.
Apple apparently has been silently and without permission or an off switch sending the name of the developer of literally every app you launch to Apple. This is far more invasive than anything I've heard of Google or Microsoft doing - not that I'm a fan of their telemetry either. Microsoft in particular also gives you tools to examine what they're sending in detail: https://www.howtogeek.com/348699/how-to-see-what-data-window...
On Apple devices which allow power user options (the minority of devices), they are still limited. For example Apple was (is?) making their own traffic bypass Little Snitch.
Apple generally seems to remove functionality in the name of "design" and "safety" as far as I can see... I'm not sure how you think they're generally adding functionality.
>Apple doesn't let you run software Apple hasn't approved on most Apple devices (Phones and Ipads). On the remaining devices Apple doesn't let you run software Apple has blacklisted.
It's not like Apple forced you to buy a Mac or an iPhone. If anything you have to go out of your way to get one, because you see some appeal in them - as otherwise they're more expensive, with limited model choice, less bang for the buck, and a minority market share wise compared to most PC/Android stuff.
So, perhaps those buying them know what they're doing? Walled garden (aka "curation") for many is part of the appeal.
It's not like Apple forced you to buy a Mac or an iPhone. If anything you have to go out of your way to get one, because you see some appeal in them - as otherwise they're more expensive, with limited model choice, less bang for the buck, and a minority market share wise compared to most PC/Android stuff.
So, perhaps those buying them know what they're doing? Walled garden (aka "curation") for many is part of the appeal.
By buying an Apple, you're hurting the rest of us.
How is a person’s preference more important than another's?
Who decides?
Who decides?
Don't let the door hit you on your way out...
You're just regurgitating a bunch of stuff without rhyme or reason. It's very tiresome to answer such comments and frankly not worth anybody's time.
iDevices always worked like you're describing. You can get a dev cert and install whatever you like, but these devices are not general computing devices. They're a different kind of device for those that don't want to admin their phone and instead want Apple to take care of it.
You obviously didn't even read my link because there it says exactly how Apple offers a power user option which allows an older version of Little Snitch to capture that traffic.
I have a Windows machine and I've looked at how they behaved with their telemetry from the beginning. They were so secretive and malicious that it beggars belief. An EU government even had to reverse engineer their telemetry communication because they wouldn't say what's in it. You're coming after the dust has settled and draw conclusions from there.
Google... where to even begin. What a complete waste of time this was.
iDevices always worked like you're describing. You can get a dev cert and install whatever you like, but these devices are not general computing devices. They're a different kind of device for those that don't want to admin their phone and instead want Apple to take care of it.
You obviously didn't even read my link because there it says exactly how Apple offers a power user option which allows an older version of Little Snitch to capture that traffic.
I have a Windows machine and I've looked at how they behaved with their telemetry from the beginning. They were so secretive and malicious that it beggars belief. An EU government even had to reverse engineer their telemetry communication because they wouldn't say what's in it. You're coming after the dust has settled and draw conclusions from there.
Google... where to even begin. What a complete waste of time this was.
> You can get a dev cert and install whatever you like, but these devices are not general computing devices.
You mean $buy$ a dev cert, yearly.
> They're a different kind of device for those that don't want to admin their phone and instead want Apple to take care of it.
And if you want both, FUCK yourself right ?
You mean $buy$ a dev cert, yearly.
> They're a different kind of device for those that don't want to admin their phone and instead want Apple to take care of it.
And if you want both, FUCK yourself right ?
> Why do you feel the need to pick on Apple
I, a person with a modest net worth, am picking on trillion dollar Apple? That's so backwards it's funny.
This is a company that erodes computing freedom and ownership. They've co-opted the commons, and they built it all on the back of open source. And I'm picking on them?
Apple fans will say that Apple created billions of dollars of commerce opportunity. But it would have happened anyway without Apple.
We'd be in a better world if we had an open app standard that worked cross-device and consumers had choice in distribution channels.
We don't need to be "protected" by a company or big brother. Especially if such protection is just a cover story for controlling commerce.
I, a person with a modest net worth, am picking on trillion dollar Apple? That's so backwards it's funny.
This is a company that erodes computing freedom and ownership. They've co-opted the commons, and they built it all on the back of open source. And I'm picking on them?
Apple fans will say that Apple created billions of dollars of commerce opportunity. But it would have happened anyway without Apple.
We'd be in a better world if we had an open app standard that worked cross-device and consumers had choice in distribution channels.
We don't need to be "protected" by a company or big brother. Especially if such protection is just a cover story for controlling commerce.
> and they built it all on the back of open source.
That is exactly the point of permissive open source licenses. Freelancers and commercial companies can build stuff on top of it that makes them money and brings real benefits to paying users.
Windows, MacOS, and iOS/Android would all be stinking piles of hot garbage if it weren't for open source, but then again Linux or the *BSD operating systems wouldn't be where they are today without contributions from companies acting to make a profit.
That is exactly the point of permissive open source licenses. Freelancers and commercial companies can build stuff on top of it that makes them money and brings real benefits to paying users.
Windows, MacOS, and iOS/Android would all be stinking piles of hot garbage if it weren't for open source, but then again Linux or the *BSD operating systems wouldn't be where they are today without contributions from companies acting to make a profit.
> Windows, MacOS, and iOS/Android would all be stinking piles of hot garbage if it weren't for open source, but then again Linux or the *BSD operating systems wouldn't be where they are today without contributions from companies acting to make a profit.
The open source part doesn't change anything. Windows has so many hooks that 1984 (the book, not the year) is now a reality in 2020 with DLP software watching employees. Apple's walled garden is not there to encourage growth inside the walls but to extract profit from those that flourish inside of it. And linux is so fragmented because everyone has a great new idea which requires a new X where X is a UI, library, window manager, etc.
Interesting that back in 1980's the Apple II line was frankly pretty darn well open. Sure Apple had copyrights on the assembly, but if you looked at the magazines at the time there were lots of articles giving annotated disassembly of Apple's object code. And yet, Apple sold a bunch of computers anyway. Wow. Fucking genius.
Sure Apple is fighting the Good Fight with privacy (and I've yet to see that it's anything different than pure marketing). But I ask why should Apple need to market "privacy first" when they can just open up their software and show us directly? Let's start by open sourcing any telemetry they send back to the mothership. Is that reasonable perhaps?
The open source part doesn't change anything. Windows has so many hooks that 1984 (the book, not the year) is now a reality in 2020 with DLP software watching employees. Apple's walled garden is not there to encourage growth inside the walls but to extract profit from those that flourish inside of it. And linux is so fragmented because everyone has a great new idea which requires a new X where X is a UI, library, window manager, etc.
Interesting that back in 1980's the Apple II line was frankly pretty darn well open. Sure Apple had copyrights on the assembly, but if you looked at the magazines at the time there were lots of articles giving annotated disassembly of Apple's object code. And yet, Apple sold a bunch of computers anyway. Wow. Fucking genius.
Sure Apple is fighting the Good Fight with privacy (and I've yet to see that it's anything different than pure marketing). But I ask why should Apple need to market "privacy first" when they can just open up their software and show us directly? Let's start by open sourcing any telemetry they send back to the mothership. Is that reasonable perhaps?
Free software licenses permit this, too: you can build stuff on top of it that makes you money and brings real benefits to paying users. You just can't restrict their ability to do exactly what you did.
The Linux and *BSD communities wouldn't be where they are today without those contributions, no. But they would be somewhere else. Not as far down the road, but down a different road; who's to say that would've been worse?
The Linux and *BSD communities wouldn't be where they are today without those contributions, no. But they would be somewhere else. Not as far down the road, but down a different road; who's to say that would've been worse?
I don't know why you list the only major internally developed OS as if it is the same as the ones that were transformed from open source offerings.
Sure DOS was akin to open source and formed the basis of Windows way back when but the decades of development have left little left (except what exists to support backwards compatability)
Sure DOS was akin to open source and formed the basis of Windows way back when but the decades of development have left little left (except what exists to support backwards compatability)
Hold on mate... yes... you're picking on them :) I'm not saying you're crushing them with your righteous anger and to please have mercy on them, just that it's a tad odd to single out one particular trillion dollar company that is at least trying to do something in all the areas the original poster was complaining about.
And I do feel that we should focus on the biggest offenders (i.e. Google and Facebook) first, because if there's a precedent the others will get the message quite fast.
And I do feel that we should focus on the biggest offenders (i.e. Google and Facebook) first, because if there's a precedent the others will get the message quite fast.
> we should focus on the biggest offenders
Apple is the worst of the lot, by far the most culpable, as they're directly attacking the notion of ownership and computing freedom. They're their own government that has somehow snuck under the radar of the DOJ. They behave like the mafia and offer "protection".
Google is next for the harm they've done to the web. I think we can agree how bad they've bloodied it up.
How can you put Facebook ahead of Apple? They're creepy and invasive, but they're not redefining what we can and cannot do, and they're the easiest to remove from our daily lives and industry.
I want to distribute software and I still have to pay the Apple tax and jump through their hoops, and I'm left without a relationship with my customers. On the other side of the coin, as an owner I can't repair my device or run my own software. Facebook has little impact on my life, meanwhile Apple is a gravitational distortion in our industry.
Apple is the worst of the lot, by far the most culpable, as they're directly attacking the notion of ownership and computing freedom. They're their own government that has somehow snuck under the radar of the DOJ. They behave like the mafia and offer "protection".
Google is next for the harm they've done to the web. I think we can agree how bad they've bloodied it up.
How can you put Facebook ahead of Apple? They're creepy and invasive, but they're not redefining what we can and cannot do, and they're the easiest to remove from our daily lives and industry.
I want to distribute software and I still have to pay the Apple tax and jump through their hoops, and I'm left without a relationship with my customers. On the other side of the coin, as an owner I can't repair my device or run my own software. Facebook has little impact on my life, meanwhile Apple is a gravitational distortion in our industry.
I would put Microsoft before Google, some of us remember the 90's and 00's and even the early 10's and all of the crap they pulled, they may not be pushing the authoritarian envelope now but they pioneered all of these methods apple google and Facebook and others have now perfected.
It took the DOJ hammer to reform Microsoft. It clearly worked. They're not a force for evil, and they're still worth a trillion dollars.
We should do the same to Apple, Google, and the others. It clearly doesn't erode stock value.
We should do the same to Apple, Google, and the others. It clearly doesn't erode stock value.
Wait, what do you mean? The latest Windows is worse than previous versions with its telemetry, Cortana, updates reverting your preferences and so forth. I do not think Microsoft is reformed at all. I think they are just as bad as the rest of the companies mentioned. Why do you seem to be giving them a free pass or calling them reformed? You seem to behave similarly to the Apple guy you dislike for his views on Apple. Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook... I would even include Canonical here (Ubuntu), just take a look at everything they touched, and take a really close look at Snap.
Based on their statements about Microsoft, I think OP's very eager to fix things, but rather clueless about what needs fixing and how to do it :-)
> as an owner I can't repair my device or run my own software
I wish people stopped buying phones with non-removable battery. I sure as hell will not buy a phone if I cannot replace its battery. On the other hand, I think it makes the device thinner, and weighs less, so some people prefers that over being able to replace the battery. Not sure what to do here than to accept their preference.
I wish people stopped buying phones with non-removable battery. I sure as hell will not buy a phone if I cannot replace its battery. On the other hand, I think it makes the device thinner, and weighs less, so some people prefers that over being able to replace the battery. Not sure what to do here than to accept their preference.
meh if replacing a battery is a once every two year operation that you can pay a shop $2-40 + $10 of battery cost to do it in 30 minutes depending on the cost of labor where you are, is it really that big of a deal?
Key word is repairability here, not necessarily user swapable. You can go buy chunky construction worker edition if you want all the swapabillity if you want to.
Key word is repairability here, not necessarily user swapable. You can go buy chunky construction worker edition if you want all the swapabillity if you want to.
> Apple is the worst of the lot, by far the most culpable, as they're directly attacking the notion of ownership and computing freedom.
How are they worse than Microsoft?
How are they worse than Microsoft?
Because I'm looking at real harm, not "what if..." harm. Google & Facebook have implemented the largest mass surveillance apparatus in the history of mankind. Not even in their wildest dreams could the STASI or KGB expect to be able to access the intimate thoughts, pictures and communication of pretty much everyone on the planet.
You complaining about paying 99 bucks per year and comparing it with the above is seriously mind-bending. No wonder our privacy's so fucked...
You complaining about paying 99 bucks per year and comparing it with the above is seriously mind-bending. No wonder our privacy's so fucked...
If you think Apple isn't tracking your every move and handing that information over to the government, then you're choosing your facts to support your favorite company.
Apple is just as evil in tracking and even more evil in taking freedom away.
I didn't say Google was blameless. Google is horrifically evil. You're just mad I'm also implicating Apple.
You love Apple. And you love it enough to overlook the incredible harm they're doing.
Stop loving a company that doesn't give a shit about anything but profit. The feelings and pleasure you derive is just Apple fitting to the gradient slopes of profit maximization within the market they've carved out. It's engineered, and you're falling for it.
Use your device for what it is, and be happy in the capabilities it gives you, but be a good citizen to your fellow persons. Not a company. Don't overlook their grievances. Hope for a better, more equitable tomorrow so that everyone in our industry can thrive and can do so without being extractive.
Edit: Downvotes from Apple fans making it further in the thread than those that overwhelmingly agree with my parent comments.
Downvotes from those that disagree with "Hope for a better, more equitable tomorrow so that everyone in our industry can thrive and can do so without being extractive."
Astonishing.
Apple is just as evil in tracking and even more evil in taking freedom away.
I didn't say Google was blameless. Google is horrifically evil. You're just mad I'm also implicating Apple.
You love Apple. And you love it enough to overlook the incredible harm they're doing.
Stop loving a company that doesn't give a shit about anything but profit. The feelings and pleasure you derive is just Apple fitting to the gradient slopes of profit maximization within the market they've carved out. It's engineered, and you're falling for it.
Use your device for what it is, and be happy in the capabilities it gives you, but be a good citizen to your fellow persons. Not a company. Don't overlook their grievances. Hope for a better, more equitable tomorrow so that everyone in our industry can thrive and can do so without being extractive.
Edit: Downvotes from Apple fans making it further in the thread than those that overwhelmingly agree with my parent comments.
Downvotes from those that disagree with "Hope for a better, more equitable tomorrow so that everyone in our industry can thrive and can do so without being extractive."
Astonishing.
I've been carefully observing how privacy was worn down piece by piece for more than 10 years now and you come of as a bit clueless if you're putting Apple in the same bucket as Google. They're not saints, but they're playing in a different league. I don't have time to correct all your misconceptions: read about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism if you truly want to understand this topic.
Also don't pretend to know what people feel just because they buy products from a company. It's ridiculous how you're claiming what I love when you don't even know me.
Also don't pretend to know what people feel just because they buy products from a company. It's ridiculous how you're claiming what I love when you don't even know me.
No down vote from me.
This reads like something on /. fifteen years ago. The anti Apple crowd always was louder than the mythical Apple fanboys.
The argument is not “did Apple create a walled garden and rule it like the actual Chinese Communist Party” because yes it did. The question is, are they alone in doing it, or just successful?
I think the latter, you think the former it seems.
The argument is not “did Apple create a walled garden and rule it like the actual Chinese Communist Party” because yes it did. The question is, are they alone in doing it, or just successful?
I think the latter, you think the former it seems.
Because most windows/android users would love to jump to apple for their privacy friendly and user-unhostile approach to updates but resent the idea that they would have to give up their app freedom to do so.
So i can either install any app i want into my factory installed spyware ridden forced updating android phone and windows desktop machine, or give up the ability to control what software I can install my machine in order to gain privacy by switching to apple.
We want both damn it.
And in my case I'll begrudgingly take windows and android over apple, but I don't like it.
So i can either install any app i want into my factory installed spyware ridden forced updating android phone and windows desktop machine, or give up the ability to control what software I can install my machine in order to gain privacy by switching to apple.
We want both damn it.
And in my case I'll begrudgingly take windows and android over apple, but I don't like it.
I mean, you literally are not even mentioning the option that has exactly what you want defined as it's core values.
Whenever I hear all this lamenting about Apple this, Microsoft that, Google rablerablerable ... we have been told about all of this sine at least 1989! I'm full-time, work and private, on a Free desktop OS since 10 years +. Just put your money and effort into the Free alternative.
Whenever I hear all this lamenting about Apple this, Microsoft that, Google rablerablerable ... we have been told about all of this sine at least 1989! I'm full-time, work and private, on a Free desktop OS since 10 years +. Just put your money and effort into the Free alternative.
I have a rooted and custom rom android phone running an official lineage os release
It still can't make phone calls without cycling airplane mode between calls.
The one before that would crash if I paired a bluetooth device while connected to one already.
Both of them bootloop at the power off battery charge screen, which basically means i couldn't turn my phone on while plugged in, and unless its a fast charger, the act of repeatedly booting up keeping the phone screen on ends up draining power faster then it can charge.
So. Tell me again about these free and open options.
It still can't make phone calls without cycling airplane mode between calls.
The one before that would crash if I paired a bluetooth device while connected to one already.
Both of them bootloop at the power off battery charge screen, which basically means i couldn't turn my phone on while plugged in, and unless its a fast charger, the act of repeatedly booting up keeping the phone screen on ends up draining power faster then it can charge.
So. Tell me again about these free and open options.
Not my experience with LineageOS. My biggest problems with my phone with LineageOS is that I cannot use a microSD card as more internal disk space, not a problem with LineageOS itself, but a problem with Android 6 and above on my phone. The other problem is LineageOS not having an update for my phone for 2 or 3 years, as mine is an old budget phone from 2014.
On the whole I have been very happy with LineageOS as it has allowed me to continue to use my phone for years longer than I would have with the simply bad manufacturer updates that almost completely filled the internal disk space and stopped updating something like 2015 with Android 5. Less unnecessary expense, less eWaste, thumbs up.
For me, I would definitely go with a phone manufacturer that supports rooting their device and put LineageOS on it if I think I need it. I may not install it, but the option for the future is the main thing.
On the whole I have been very happy with LineageOS as it has allowed me to continue to use my phone for years longer than I would have with the simply bad manufacturer updates that almost completely filled the internal disk space and stopped updating something like 2015 with Android 5. Less unnecessary expense, less eWaste, thumbs up.
For me, I would definitely go with a phone manufacturer that supports rooting their device and put LineageOS on it if I think I need it. I may not install it, but the option for the future is the main thing.
And you will have similar justifications for using Windows instead of Linux, I presume.
It is interesting how it works for some people, and for other people their device literally explodes.
It is interesting how it works for some people, and for other people their device literally explodes.
Even veteran Linux users face absurd shortcomings in interoperability. Sleep mode being a trivial example, or using bluetooth headsets at all.
Currently use both a bluetooth headset and a bluetooth speaker with my nvidia optimus laptop.
There are occasional issues, but nothing showstopping for me.
There are occasional issues, but nothing showstopping for me.
What are those Android phones with forced updates?
Wasn't the problem originaly that Android phones didn't have any updates?
Wasn't the problem originaly that Android phones didn't have any updates?
My LG android phone periodically forces updates and accompanying restarts usually triggering at the least opportune time.
Really? TIL.
However, that's still not something being common among Android phones; if the original poster pointed out specific vendors, that would be OK. But saying that it is a common trait shared by all Androids is incorrect.
However, that's still not something being common among Android phones; if the original poster pointed out specific vendors, that would be OK. But saying that it is a common trait shared by all Androids is incorrect.
You can AFAIK install what you want as long as you're willing to pay for a developer cert.
But it's easier to just think of iThings as appliances with lots of cool use cases instead of general computing machines.
But it's easier to just think of iThings as appliances with lots of cool use cases instead of general computing machines.
I share this feeling, and I've found some relief by reducing the complexity of my configuration by an order of magnitude.
I only do computing on 3 platforms: A text-mode Lisp VM (Emacs), the Web (Firefox) and Unix (Xterm).
My Linux configuration is really simple. No desktop enviroment. Just a simple manual tiling window manager. StumpWM is my favorite option, but ExWM or dwm also work fine.
I could use macOS or Windows, but with Linux I can simplify furhter. In some distributions, there's a minimal layer between me and upstream. Just creating binaries and dealing with dependencies. An easy litmus test for a good distribution is to set up the above configuration and check what is running with e.g. htop. Is it clean, with nothing added by me?
I have learned not to change defaults till I understand why they are there. That's an intance of Chesterton's fence, a very useful heuristic. Owing to this, I have very few dotfiles, which are ~100 LOC. They are completely trivial. I almost know them by heart.
NixOS and GuixSD are an interesting alternative. They make simple things very simple. You can set up your whole machine in a declarative manner with a few LOC placed in a single file. Nothing breaks, it's functional. You can rollback anytime. However, some complicated things require a lot more work than with a normal setup, others less.
I only do computing on 3 platforms: A text-mode Lisp VM (Emacs), the Web (Firefox) and Unix (Xterm).
My Linux configuration is really simple. No desktop enviroment. Just a simple manual tiling window manager. StumpWM is my favorite option, but ExWM or dwm also work fine.
I could use macOS or Windows, but with Linux I can simplify furhter. In some distributions, there's a minimal layer between me and upstream. Just creating binaries and dealing with dependencies. An easy litmus test for a good distribution is to set up the above configuration and check what is running with e.g. htop. Is it clean, with nothing added by me?
I have learned not to change defaults till I understand why they are there. That's an intance of Chesterton's fence, a very useful heuristic. Owing to this, I have very few dotfiles, which are ~100 LOC. They are completely trivial. I almost know them by heart.
NixOS and GuixSD are an interesting alternative. They make simple things very simple. You can set up your whole machine in a declarative manner with a few LOC placed in a single file. Nothing breaks, it's functional. You can rollback anytime. However, some complicated things require a lot more work than with a normal setup, others less.
You could (sort of) reduce it to two, at least in terms of interfaces by using vterm in emacs [https://github.com/akermu/emacs-libvterm] rather than xterm.
> Using computers is significantly less enjoyable for me now than it used to me.
I'm with you on this. And not just because of the reasons you listed. Everything surrounding computers has become so focused on making money that it really, really bothers me. There isn't a single thing on my computer anymore that hasn't been optimized to the n'th degree either to weasel more money out of me (F' you, Apple TV, Apple Music), or built in a way which optimized as much money out of the process as possible (F' you, Mozilla, every single one of you Electron apps out there).
We've become so utterly focused on money and optimizations that the fun and value has been sucked right out of the software - both front and back.
I'm with you on this. And not just because of the reasons you listed. Everything surrounding computers has become so focused on making money that it really, really bothers me. There isn't a single thing on my computer anymore that hasn't been optimized to the n'th degree either to weasel more money out of me (F' you, Apple TV, Apple Music), or built in a way which optimized as much money out of the process as possible (F' you, Mozilla, every single one of you Electron apps out there).
We've become so utterly focused on money and optimizations that the fun and value has been sucked right out of the software - both front and back.
Maybe you were a kid then, but selling home PCs back in the 80s and 90s was derided by adults as a cash grab.
They were business tools! Omgurd! You’re just trying to get kids addicted to media!
It’s pretty fascinating being older and watching these arguments repeat themselves.
In case you haven’t noticed, political life is all about ownership. You’re sold disposable garbage on a cadence by people that own the machines that make it.
Your agency was sold to suppliers. Computing as a system of doing has matured.
They were business tools! Omgurd! You’re just trying to get kids addicted to media!
It’s pretty fascinating being older and watching these arguments repeat themselves.
In case you haven’t noticed, political life is all about ownership. You’re sold disposable garbage on a cadence by people that own the machines that make it.
Your agency was sold to suppliers. Computing as a system of doing has matured.
I don't know. I spend a lot less money on software compared to twenty years ago. So much of what I use is available for free or a nominal amount. When was the last time you paid for a compiler?
FWIW, never. Not in my ~25 years of programming. GCC, Perl, and Python meant never purchasing a compiler.
And purchasing, well, it's the lesser of evils these days. Purchasing at least gave you vitually cart blanche access to software on your computer with time limits imposed only by processing architectures.
Now, in contrast, everything is moving towards subscriptions. 1Password. Microsoft Office. Photoshop. Sublime Text (professional). Apple Music (or Spotify, et.al.). Apple TV (or Netflix, et.al.). Novlr (a word processor).
All expect me to shell out anything from $1 to upwards of $50 a month in perpetuity for the right to borrow their software. And that's not even mentioning microtransactions, for things like alternate brushes in PS.
And purchasing, well, it's the lesser of evils these days. Purchasing at least gave you vitually cart blanche access to software on your computer with time limits imposed only by processing architectures.
Now, in contrast, everything is moving towards subscriptions. 1Password. Microsoft Office. Photoshop. Sublime Text (professional). Apple Music (or Spotify, et.al.). Apple TV (or Netflix, et.al.). Novlr (a word processor).
All expect me to shell out anything from $1 to upwards of $50 a month in perpetuity for the right to borrow their software. And that's not even mentioning microtransactions, for things like alternate brushes in PS.
It's not you. The computing industry is actively trying to hide the computer. Naturally, people who love computers are left out.
I found this article on Stallman's website and it was enlightening for me:
http://contemporary-home-computing.org/RUE/
> This approach leads to some great products on screen and IRL, but alienates as well.
> Robotics doesn’t give us a chance to fall in love with the computer if it is not anthropomorphic. Experience design prevents from thinking and valuing computers as computers, and interfaces as interfaces.
> It makes us helpless. We lose an ability to narrate ourselves and — going to a more pragmatic level — we are not able to use personal computers anymore.
> For government agencies, the destruction of hardware is a routine procedure. From their perspective, the case of deletion is thoroughly dealt with when the media holding the data is physically gone. They are smart enough to not trust the “empty trash” function.
> Of course the destruction made no sense in this case, since copies of the files in question were located elsewhere, but it is a great symbol for what is left for users to do, what is the last power users have over their systems: They can only access them on the hardware level, destroy them.
> Since there is less and less certainty of what you are doing with your computer on the level of software, you’ll tend to destroy your hard drive voluntarily every time you want to really delete something.
> Every victory of experience design: a new product “telling the story,” or an interface meeting the “exact needs of the customer, without fuss or bother” widens the gap in between a person and a personal computer.
> The morning after “experience design:” interface-less, desposible hardware, personal hard disc shredders, primitive customization via mechanical means, rewiring, reassembling, making holes into hard disks, in order to to delete, to logout, to “view offline.”
I found this article on Stallman's website and it was enlightening for me:
http://contemporary-home-computing.org/RUE/
> This approach leads to some great products on screen and IRL, but alienates as well.
> Robotics doesn’t give us a chance to fall in love with the computer if it is not anthropomorphic. Experience design prevents from thinking and valuing computers as computers, and interfaces as interfaces.
> It makes us helpless. We lose an ability to narrate ourselves and — going to a more pragmatic level — we are not able to use personal computers anymore.
> For government agencies, the destruction of hardware is a routine procedure. From their perspective, the case of deletion is thoroughly dealt with when the media holding the data is physically gone. They are smart enough to not trust the “empty trash” function.
> Of course the destruction made no sense in this case, since copies of the files in question were located elsewhere, but it is a great symbol for what is left for users to do, what is the last power users have over their systems: They can only access them on the hardware level, destroy them.
> Since there is less and less certainty of what you are doing with your computer on the level of software, you’ll tend to destroy your hard drive voluntarily every time you want to really delete something.
> Every victory of experience design: a new product “telling the story,” or an interface meeting the “exact needs of the customer, without fuss or bother” widens the gap in between a person and a personal computer.
> The morning after “experience design:” interface-less, desposible hardware, personal hard disc shredders, primitive customization via mechanical means, rewiring, reassembling, making holes into hard disks, in order to to delete, to logout, to “view offline.”
> loss of functionality when features I use aren't popular enough to warrant continued inclusion in products
Jeus Fcking Ch*ist THIS.
Especially with trivial things like a lite-mode vs this strange fad of dark-mode by default. Dark mode was created to save energy in CRTs. And anyways it gives some people headaches, like me.
Jeus Fcking Ch*ist THIS.
Especially with trivial things like a lite-mode vs this strange fad of dark-mode by default. Dark mode was created to save energy in CRTs. And anyways it gives some people headaches, like me.
Dark mode saves energy on OLED displays. It also saves energy on FALD backlights and will save energy with upcoming microLED displays. It's also nice when your looking at your device in a dark room. Light mode is nice when your in a bright room or outdoors during the day.
I think apple started the trend because their devices were going OLED to improve battery life. I think dark and light mode are good and basically all apps should have both. That way if you hate one or the other you can always turn on the mode you like.
I think apple started the trend because their devices were going OLED to improve battery life. I think dark and light mode are good and basically all apps should have both. That way if you hate one or the other you can always turn on the mode you like.
Apple didn’t start any dark mode trend. They’ve actually been on the trailing edge in such matters, rather than the leading edge. There’s been a repeating cycle of rigidity, followed by flexible theming support, then back to rigidity by way of allowing apps to control things, then introducing a new kind of theming support (always weaker than the last iteration); and each time you introduce the new hotness, it’s touted as a groundbreaking revolution, completely ignoring the fact that ten and twenty years ago the system probably had the same functionality. Windows has gone through a couple of iterations of this loop; Android has as well; macOS has too, though it was never as strong as Windows’; Windows Phone was always dark; iOS never really gave the flexibility before last year. In the current cycle, Windows and Android both had it for more than a year before Apple.
I think the dark mode theming capacity will probably be more permanent this time through, but it could still fizzle out within ten years.
I think the dark mode theming capacity will probably be more permanent this time through, but it could still fizzle out within ten years.
Of course, nobody seems to remember Android 4's design language, Holo, had a light and a dark theme. For the exact same reason too: the Nexus phones were pioneering OLED displays.
> Dark mode was created to save energy in CRTs.
It's one possible use. But the recent trend is about esthetics / usability, not energy savings. Some people prefer light some dark. It probably mostly depends on their work desk environment/lighting. Ideally apps should support both and take the cue from the system settings - we've got proper APIs for that.
It's one possible use. But the recent trend is about esthetics / usability, not energy savings. Some people prefer light some dark. It probably mostly depends on their work desk environment/lighting. Ideally apps should support both and take the cue from the system settings - we've got proper APIs for that.
Dark/light mode is just the most minimal version of theme support possible. It is a small bounce-back from the transition that happened about 10 years ago, from themeable pick-your-everything GUIs like winXP to our-designers-know-best unconfigurables like iOS.
Is it really trivial to support both dark and light interfaces though? It may be for command line interfaces, but for anything with a GUI and custom colours it means creating every element twice. Things like shadow work on light interfaces, but not on dark.
It used to be trivial, because the OS had a configurable palette for GUI elements, which every single program followed, because it used the standard platform GUI toolkit. So going dark or light mode for the entire desktop was as trivial as choosing it from a drop-down menu. Or you could have it pink or green or a horrible mishmash of colour that made you go crosseyed. You could even change font sizes so if you had trouble seeing, like maybe you had cataracts, you could have huge letters on highly contrasting background.
This has never been true if your computer ran "creative" software.
Video editing, music creation tools almost never used "the standard platform GUI toolkit" (even Apple has/had their own internal kit used for apps like Logic).
It also stopped being true (or became less true) when cross-platform development became important to some developers and some users, meaning that deeply integrating your application with whatever system a particular platform had was less important than making sure it ran reasonably consistently across platforms.
Video editing, music creation tools almost never used "the standard platform GUI toolkit" (even Apple has/had their own internal kit used for apps like Logic).
It also stopped being true (or became less true) when cross-platform development became important to some developers and some users, meaning that deeply integrating your application with whatever system a particular platform had was less important than making sure it ran reasonably consistently across platforms.
If you use Qt it will use your system theme and colours no matter which OS you run your app on, unless you (the dev) overrides the style manually. I'd believe that's the case for wxWidgets too.
It's not about Qt's ability to pick up system theme & colors (although not also that the configurability mentioned in TFA goes somewhat beyond what is typically offered by modern desktop environments).
It's about whether or not the application uses custom elements (or even just puts everything in a Canvas and draws everything itself).
It's about whether or not the application uses custom elements (or even just puts everything in a Canvas and draws everything itself).
A platform native video editor (no cross platform capability), which uses native GUI toolkit would look something like this:
https://discuss.haiku-os.org/uploads/default/original/2X/9/9...
https://discuss.haiku-os.org/uploads/default/original/2X/9/9...
All the visual effects software I use have light and dark modes.
Sonic Foundry (then to some extent Madison, then Sony, then MAGIX) made creative tools that used the native widgets to a pretty good extent.
In context, this is about continuing to support pre-existing light vs dark mode rather than removing it; meaning the non-trivial stuff has already been solved and implemented. If done correctly, continuing to support it should be trivial. Whether it is in practice...
FFS in windows 95 I could make my whole OS pink if I wanted. Why would that be complicated ? E.g. in Linux I set a dark mode in KDE and all the apps I use follow it and it works just fine. What kind of weird UI has shadows ? Apps are not websites.
even on windows 95 it didn't always work very well. The main problem is getting people to actually test their custom widgets under different color schemes.
At the risk of failing a turing test and being lectured about human eyeballs:
What people asked for: choose between black on white or white on black.
What people got: dark gray on off color gray mode, or light gray on off color gray mode.
Simply having + honoring a system color scheme is a 100% solution, but then the designers and marketing folks wouldn’t have anything to focus on while they avoid improving the actual product.
What people asked for: choose between black on white or white on black.
What people got: dark gray on off color gray mode, or light gray on off color gray mode.
Simply having + honoring a system color scheme is a 100% solution, but then the designers and marketing folks wouldn’t have anything to focus on while they avoid improving the actual product.
From one elder statesmen to another- it’s not us. The industry as a whole has lost a lot of the excitement and novelty it evoked in the 80s, early 90s and (after a somewhat down period in the mid 90s) the late 90s to mid 2000s.
In a way, Pangaea has split. Massively profitable giants have emerged as the foundations of the industry have hardened. The industry is mature, but the amount of truly exciting work has dwindled. Microsoft at it’s peak never felt as well-entrenched as today’s tech giants.
I briefly came out of retirement a few years ago to work on a blockchain-related company, which presented an energy akin to the Macintosh or Java, but ultimately it was clear that the industry as a whole has shifted priorities by so much - beyond the point of no return- for better or for worse.
In a way, Pangaea has split. Massively profitable giants have emerged as the foundations of the industry have hardened. The industry is mature, but the amount of truly exciting work has dwindled. Microsoft at it’s peak never felt as well-entrenched as today’s tech giants.
I briefly came out of retirement a few years ago to work on a blockchain-related company, which presented an energy akin to the Macintosh or Java, but ultimately it was clear that the industry as a whole has shifted priorities by so much - beyond the point of no return- for better or for worse.
This isn’t a solution but it might bring you some cheer: buy yourself a few[1] of these:
https://learn.adafruit.com/adafruit-circuit-playground-expre...
They have a killer feature: infrared send and receive. Making a network of weird flashy lights is all the joy of computing without any of the “this feels like my job” crap[8].
Press a button and the device appears as a USB drive. You build your project at https://makecode.adafruit.com/ into a firmware file ending in .UF2 and upload it the device.
[1] ...and some battery packs, cable ties, USB A to micro B leads if you don’t have twelve billion already.
[8] You might be tempted by the third party firmware/UF2 called “Circuit Python”, which lets you then code on the device directly in a cutdown version of Python3. For me, that felt too much like my day job :)
https://learn.adafruit.com/adafruit-circuit-playground-expre...
They have a killer feature: infrared send and receive. Making a network of weird flashy lights is all the joy of computing without any of the “this feels like my job” crap[8].
Press a button and the device appears as a USB drive. You build your project at https://makecode.adafruit.com/ into a firmware file ending in .UF2 and upload it the device.
[1] ...and some battery packs, cable ties, USB A to micro B leads if you don’t have twelve billion already.
[8] You might be tempted by the third party firmware/UF2 called “Circuit Python”, which lets you then code on the device directly in a cutdown version of Python3. For me, that felt too much like my day job :)
Time to switch to Linux and regain your lost freedom.
Yes seriously. I wanted more control in the mid 1990s and happily made the jump. Now you can buy machines with Linux /preinstalled/ and /supported/.
99.9% of what you use the computer for is online and websites work great on Linux. Seriously, it's one of the best times in my life to have a computer in my control.
I've never had to make fewer sacrifices to run what I like than today.
Even the phone scene is starting to look like it's going to be opening up in the next few years.
99.9% of what you use the computer for is online and websites work great on Linux. Seriously, it's one of the best times in my life to have a computer in my control.
I've never had to make fewer sacrifices to run what I like than today.
Even the phone scene is starting to look like it's going to be opening up in the next few years.
What I want from an OS, is if I do nothing, nothing should happen. Listening on network interfaces, you can see how your OS is integrating itself to the Borg collective.
You are not wrong, buy it is an easy fix, just install Linux and take back your computer! You might loose a little comfort initially but that will soon come back.
Personally, I've also removed Linux from my hardware because there's too much black magic going on with dbus/logind (quick question: what's the permission model used for seat management and where do I configure it?).
I've gone back to running OpenBSD/FreeBSD on the hardware and relegating Linux to VMs only, with all the hardware pains that used to plague Linux 15 years ago. But at least my OS is predictable and reliable again, and doesn't patronize me.
I've gone back to running OpenBSD/FreeBSD on the hardware and relegating Linux to VMs only, with all the hardware pains that used to plague Linux 15 years ago. But at least my OS is predictable and reliable again, and doesn't patronize me.
I think the days of understanding your stack top to bottom are gone, unfortunately, but at least with Linux I am not being spied on, bullied into installing updates I do not want, prevented from installing things I do want, and in general being treated as cattle.
Linux doesn't require you to use dbus/logind though so it seems weird to throw out the kernel (including the HW support you mentioned) just to move to a different userspace.
You hit the nail on the head saying that some computers are not "for you" anymore.
When I am on Windows or Mac, both of which I loved for a long time, and still do in certain versions, I feel like I never know what's coming next.
One moment you like me, next time you don't. One day you want to be the quiet nerdy kid who's always got my back, that's really nice. But the next day you want to please everyone, rearrange all my shit, and gossip about me to all your MLM friends.
One moment you want to be predictable, dependable, usable. Then the next day you want to interrupt my work while you do your hair.
And I get it, you're trying to figure yourself out, you've got bills to pay, that's totally fine. However, I just won't be able to spend as much time with you anymore, because I'm trying to get some work done. It's not you, it's me.
Maybe we can still hang out sometimes? I'll make some space for you in a VM.
When I am on Windows or Mac, both of which I loved for a long time, and still do in certain versions, I feel like I never know what's coming next.
One moment you like me, next time you don't. One day you want to be the quiet nerdy kid who's always got my back, that's really nice. But the next day you want to please everyone, rearrange all my shit, and gossip about me to all your MLM friends.
One moment you want to be predictable, dependable, usable. Then the next day you want to interrupt my work while you do your hair.
And I get it, you're trying to figure yourself out, you've got bills to pay, that's totally fine. However, I just won't be able to spend as much time with you anymore, because I'm trying to get some work done. It's not you, it's me.
Maybe we can still hang out sometimes? I'll make some space for you in a VM.
You should try Linux. The small price you pay by having to hold just a little more symbols in your head gives you an OS outside of reach of normal people and all these "improvements" pushed onto normal people by the executives and large corps.
> Updates being installed without my consent, telemetry and surveillance being forced upon me,
Maybe you need to change OS.
Maybe you need to change OS.
Same, I'm about to quit computers and just go all in on my child and live at home with my family.
You can have fun with computers without the internet. A computer is just a tool, you choose how it affects you. You can kill someone with a hammer or use it to build a home, it's all in how you use the tool.
Which is why I run Mint.
> Updates being installed without my consent,
This is not true. You explicitly consented to it by voluntarily installing software that has this (horrific) feature.
This is not true. You explicitly consented to it by voluntarily installing software that has this (horrific) feature.
Let's just say this consent isn't exactly enthusiastic and ongoing.
I feel like more laws should be like the GDPR and recognize that consent is only really given when you have the option to not give it without the loss of functionality.
If you really need to , install Arch Linux and set it up yourself.
In my younger days I had the patience to install Ubuntu over and over again. In my 30s I simply no longer have the heart for it. My M1 mac just works out the box and I can spend more time working on my games and music.
I still enjoy building PCs from time to time, but even then I just install Windows and move on with my day
In my younger days I had the patience to install Ubuntu over and over again. In my 30s I simply no longer have the heart for it. My M1 mac just works out the box and I can spend more time working on my games and music.
I still enjoy building PCs from time to time, but even then I just install Windows and move on with my day
I recently moved back to Arch Linux after spending the last few years using a hackintosh full time. There shouldn't be any reason to need to keep installing an OS; if you're competent, you should be able to correct any issues.
For many peoples workflows including my own, Windows would pose a far greater headache to get to a productive state. macOS works great, up to the point where you want to enjoy freedom to use your computer as you see fit, certainly less hassle for development (in general) than Windows though imo :)
For many peoples workflows including my own, Windows would pose a far greater headache to get to a productive state. macOS works great, up to the point where you want to enjoy freedom to use your computer as you see fit, certainly less hassle for development (in general) than Windows though imo :)
Congrats, you’ve come to understand a free commodities market doesn’t curate itself to one generation forever.
It’s hardware that does the real work. The software fetish of tricking a limited machine into variety is now full of variety by default as the hardware is much less limited.
No matter the language it’s physics.
Unix is still there. You’re acting entitled to have others sell only what you want.
Just like an old person. Let’s bring back pagan gods and horse and buggy, too, eh? There’s freedoms being trampled somewhere because those aren’t being fetishized at scale.
It’s the arithmetic of a society.
It’s hardware that does the real work. The software fetish of tricking a limited machine into variety is now full of variety by default as the hardware is much less limited.
No matter the language it’s physics.
Unix is still there. You’re acting entitled to have others sell only what you want.
Just like an old person. Let’s bring back pagan gods and horse and buggy, too, eh? There’s freedoms being trampled somewhere because those aren’t being fetishized at scale.
It’s the arithmetic of a society.
Did... you just imply monotheism represents progress?
A lot of people on Hacker News are, I imagine, in a place of relative computing privilege. You probably have root / super user status on your work machine.
I do not. The IT department is the super user. Everything is a battle. Nothing gets changed without a multi-hour / -day back and forth with the “IT service team”. To be charitable they could be described as a very resource limited team who are forced to ruthlessly prioritize requests. Realistically they are power drunk gatekeepers. The answer is usually always “no”.
It’s a whole new world of bullshit that I’d forgotten existed. The last time I encountered this was in the education sector in 2004.
I do not. The IT department is the super user. Everything is a battle. Nothing gets changed without a multi-hour / -day back and forth with the “IT service team”. To be charitable they could be described as a very resource limited team who are forced to ruthlessly prioritize requests. Realistically they are power drunk gatekeepers. The answer is usually always “no”.
It’s a whole new world of bullshit that I’d forgotten existed. The last time I encountered this was in the education sector in 2004.
As a developer (native code, admittedly), I refuse to work for any company who does not give me root/administrative privileges on my work machine.
In your situation, my advice is to make management very aware that it's wasting time, hurting productivity, and ultimately the company's bottom line. Something that impacts profitability is going to get more attention.
In your situation, my advice is to make management very aware that it's wasting time, hurting productivity, and ultimately the company's bottom line. Something that impacts profitability is going to get more attention.
The problem is that IT departments are really good at coming up with excuses why they need to lock everything down (eg. because of GDPR compliance), so the usual result is that employees just use web apps instead of more secure local apps that they can't install, or just use their personal devices instead.
You’ve perfectly captured the nature of this problem. Thank you, I really appreciate your comment.
A powerful and dysfunctional IT department is indeed a horrible business practice.
The transactions between IT and staff are glibly treated as some sort of internal vendor/client relationship. But the vendor (IT) isn’t responsible to the client (me.) The vendor’s performance is reviewed by their management, and their management’s management.
At some point up the tree the reporting structures do converge, but that nexus is sufficiently distant that any technical feedback is weeks old and diluted.
Luckily, the battle with IT is such a tiny part of my job that I’ve decided to just check out completely. For part of my work I provide my own devices, network, and software and I’m quite open (constructively, with my manager) about the fact that I do so, and why.
I’m stoic about how the org chooses to interpret me voting with my feet like this. Meanwhile I can focus on doing work, which is mostly what I care about.
Sometimes though, the idea of working at such a dysfunctional org makes me feel a deep unease. My employer might also feel unease. We may choose, unilaterally or bilaterally, to terminate our relationship and find partners that are a better fit. Life’s too short to fight all the time.
A powerful and dysfunctional IT department is indeed a horrible business practice.
The transactions between IT and staff are glibly treated as some sort of internal vendor/client relationship. But the vendor (IT) isn’t responsible to the client (me.) The vendor’s performance is reviewed by their management, and their management’s management.
At some point up the tree the reporting structures do converge, but that nexus is sufficiently distant that any technical feedback is weeks old and diluted.
Luckily, the battle with IT is such a tiny part of my job that I’ve decided to just check out completely. For part of my work I provide my own devices, network, and software and I’m quite open (constructively, with my manager) about the fact that I do so, and why.
I’m stoic about how the org chooses to interpret me voting with my feet like this. Meanwhile I can focus on doing work, which is mostly what I care about.
Sometimes though, the idea of working at such a dysfunctional org makes me feel a deep unease. My employer might also feel unease. We may choose, unilaterally or bilaterally, to terminate our relationship and find partners that are a better fit. Life’s too short to fight all the time.
> employees just use web apps
It’s all fun and games until IT ticks the “filesharing sites” option in their censorware proxy config, and poof, no Dropbox, no Drive, no Gmail...
It’s all fun and games until IT ticks the “filesharing sites” option in their censorware proxy config, and poof, no Dropbox, no Drive, no Gmail...
I'm convinced that a substantial part of the popularity of SaaS is because people can bypass IT and its sehnanigns.
And now enterprise permission features like ACLs creep into web apps because companies think web apps are popular for other reasons and we start the whole thing all over again.
The startup I work at got such a policy instituted such a policy (mainly because the CEO got hypervigilent about IT and IP theft), and I managed to get that changed back so now effectively everyone has admin access (though through a seperate password prompt, which is reasonable increase over window's default). I think it really helped though that the IT which had admin access was outsourced and each (pretty frequent) ticket came with a bill for $XXX.
You talk as if developers don't ruthlessly prioritize and gatekeep too. Departments have to do this all the time because we have limited resources and shit needs to get done. The real problem is that IT people (and that includes developers) have a nasty habit of looking down on anyone that isn't them and believing themselves superior in every way, so they're unwilling to empathize or reason with the people who's jobs their policies are interfering with.
Luckily I need to do research on my desktop so always insist on Linux, which the IT department isn't able to administer.
I made the mistake of asking for a windows laptop once even though it was supposedly for research and I had admin access (and they promised not to install anything unless I asked for it). They still installed some remote monitoring/admin crap on it that reinstalls virus protection and other crap whenever I remove it.
I made the mistake of asking for a windows laptop once even though it was supposedly for research and I had admin access (and they promised not to install anything unless I asked for it). They still installed some remote monitoring/admin crap on it that reinstalls virus protection and other crap whenever I remove it.
I worked at a company like that. They worked on top secret projects so everything was locked down as tight as you would imagine. I literally couldn't install anything that wasn't in the approved software library/installer. I had them add a few things (which took weeks) that I used. I enjoyed the programming but ultimately I got tired of it and moved on.
I'm amused when companies don't give developers root powers, but then lets them run docker which .. can give them root powers in a single command.
> can give them root powers in a single command
On Linux. Given that businesses run Windows or macOS, at least those with an IT dept., root in a VM has little more privileges than any other user mode executable.
On Linux. Given that businesses run Windows or macOS, at least those with an IT dept., root in a VM has little more privileges than any other user mode executable.
A friend of mine has similar issue and solved that by running Linux in a Virtualbox (and doing most work there).
Let me defend the current situation (more of a devil's advocate, actually, but still: this helps me think about it).
The general level of programmer ability is lower than it used to be (and this is a good thing IMHO) at the same time the number of degrees of freedom has increased. Thus the more customization points, the more opportunities for something to go wrong because of some unwitting assumption made elsewhere. Just look at how many problems we still have with i18n: not enough room allocated for strings; grammar assumptions, and let's not get into BIDI. So reduced options will reduce the percentage and total number of user problems.
A corollary to this is the deployment of servers: once every server was a snowflake with its own lovingly-chosen name. Nowadays servers are spun up, configured, and then erased and repurposed in an instant with nobody thinking about it.
Then there's the spam and attack vectors: no longer to we craft amusing response text to server handshakes ("username accepted -- socket to me!"). You can't just operate an open SMTP server as a favor to someone who might need it. And the fact is >99% of all people cannot defend themselves against a phishing attack or avoid downloading malware that will attack someone else.
Finally: the number of possible customization points has actually increased dramatically on the highly personal devices like phones: in those cases rather than expose the options (which can interact in weird ways) they are just continuously automatically tuned based on observing my use. It's all in the name of being more custom to me but I don't like it.
====
All that being said, I agree with the author that it's a shame. But my response has been different: taking a cue from the servers, I try to use as little customization as possible, both so I can switch from machine to machine easily and to avoid the problems of poorly-coded machinery. Even my emacs init file is surprisingly short (and in the 1970s my EMACS init file was a binary image memory mapped into EMACS and (as I later learned) used by a lot of people. Well those days are over.
The general level of programmer ability is lower than it used to be (and this is a good thing IMHO) at the same time the number of degrees of freedom has increased. Thus the more customization points, the more opportunities for something to go wrong because of some unwitting assumption made elsewhere. Just look at how many problems we still have with i18n: not enough room allocated for strings; grammar assumptions, and let's not get into BIDI. So reduced options will reduce the percentage and total number of user problems.
A corollary to this is the deployment of servers: once every server was a snowflake with its own lovingly-chosen name. Nowadays servers are spun up, configured, and then erased and repurposed in an instant with nobody thinking about it.
Then there's the spam and attack vectors: no longer to we craft amusing response text to server handshakes ("username accepted -- socket to me!"). You can't just operate an open SMTP server as a favor to someone who might need it. And the fact is >99% of all people cannot defend themselves against a phishing attack or avoid downloading malware that will attack someone else.
Finally: the number of possible customization points has actually increased dramatically on the highly personal devices like phones: in those cases rather than expose the options (which can interact in weird ways) they are just continuously automatically tuned based on observing my use. It's all in the name of being more custom to me but I don't like it.
====
All that being said, I agree with the author that it's a shame. But my response has been different: taking a cue from the servers, I try to use as little customization as possible, both so I can switch from machine to machine easily and to avoid the problems of poorly-coded machinery. Even my emacs init file is surprisingly short (and in the 1970s my EMACS init file was a binary image memory mapped into EMACS and (as I later learned) used by a lot of people. Well those days are over.
I think of the opening to the show Weeds:
Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes made of ticky tacky
Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes all the same
The song, quite popular in the 1960s among some, is titled “Little Boxes”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boxes
From which I learned that no less than Tom Lehrer, someone else youngsters should know about, thought it was “the most sanctimonious song ever written”. And he was right.
On the plus side, great children’s tune and the simplicity of the lyrics match the melody and provide a nice counterpoint to the message.
It perfectly captures the sour, smug, almost elitist cultural tone set by US 60s coastal urban intellectuals that hasn’t aged well over the years. I suppose you had to have been there.
Surprised no one has written a parody lampooning the cultural elites of the era with the same song and lyrical structure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boxes
From which I learned that no less than Tom Lehrer, someone else youngsters should know about, thought it was “the most sanctimonious song ever written”. And he was right.
On the plus side, great children’s tune and the simplicity of the lyrics match the melody and provide a nice counterpoint to the message.
It perfectly captures the sour, smug, almost elitist cultural tone set by US 60s coastal urban intellectuals that hasn’t aged well over the years. I suppose you had to have been there.
Surprised no one has written a parody lampooning the cultural elites of the era with the same song and lyrical structure.
> It perfectly captures the sour, smug, almost elitist cultural tone set by US 60s coastal urban intellectuals...
That song was about San Francisco specifically (as you drive out on 280).
That song was about San Francisco specifically (as you drive out on 280).
> I'm working against the system instead of with it, and someone else is trying to boss me around.
This resonates with me a lot.
I started my first "proper" job this year, and the dev env we use is pretty run-off-the-mill: docker, TS, AWS... But there is one big issue and that is that I had to switch to Windows a while back for driver reasons (looking at you, Dell and Intel) and this is the first time in over 9 year that I have used Windows proper. Not a fault of my employer I should add.
In academia, and at home, I have been running Linux for ~14 years by now, so I had skipped Windows 8 and this is my first contact with Windows 10. And while I appreciate how much more stable this system is than my XP from way back when, it feels horrible, and pretty much for the reasons described here.
It's not that Linux was always smooth sailing, or that it was easy, or user friendly in the conventional sense. But there is a huge difference in my relationship to the system:
On Linux (and generally with FOSS software) whenever I hit a problem, if something didn't work, I could be sure that it was not there because someone didn't want me to be able to do it like that. It was always a lack of resources or insight, or both. And people and systems in FOSS are built to enable me to change things.
Working on windows, I tried setting up my PC in the way described in the article. Halfway through I realized that I was just fighting against the system, trying to make it do something it didn't want.
Needless to say, MacOS is not an alternative to Windows for me. They're both dead to me. Lesson learned, gonna vote with my money from now on. I started by ordering an MNT Reform for my personal use (not speedy enough for work) and I have been getting more into Rust and other tech that should allow me to get more and more of my daily activities out of the realm of "will only run on top notch hardware because we couldn't be arsed to think about performance."
This resonates with me a lot.
I started my first "proper" job this year, and the dev env we use is pretty run-off-the-mill: docker, TS, AWS... But there is one big issue and that is that I had to switch to Windows a while back for driver reasons (looking at you, Dell and Intel) and this is the first time in over 9 year that I have used Windows proper. Not a fault of my employer I should add.
In academia, and at home, I have been running Linux for ~14 years by now, so I had skipped Windows 8 and this is my first contact with Windows 10. And while I appreciate how much more stable this system is than my XP from way back when, it feels horrible, and pretty much for the reasons described here.
It's not that Linux was always smooth sailing, or that it was easy, or user friendly in the conventional sense. But there is a huge difference in my relationship to the system:
On Linux (and generally with FOSS software) whenever I hit a problem, if something didn't work, I could be sure that it was not there because someone didn't want me to be able to do it like that. It was always a lack of resources or insight, or both. And people and systems in FOSS are built to enable me to change things.
Working on windows, I tried setting up my PC in the way described in the article. Halfway through I realized that I was just fighting against the system, trying to make it do something it didn't want.
Needless to say, MacOS is not an alternative to Windows for me. They're both dead to me. Lesson learned, gonna vote with my money from now on. I started by ordering an MNT Reform for my personal use (not speedy enough for work) and I have been getting more into Rust and other tech that should allow me to get more and more of my daily activities out of the realm of "will only run on top notch hardware because we couldn't be arsed to think about performance."
Would this influence future employment decisions?
I'm not GP, but not being able to use a Linux box for work would be a big negative in a future employment decision for me. It's not just a matter of style, but also ergonomics and efficiency (also somewhat in terms of hardware when it comes to Macbook). While I'm open to change that brings improvement, a job forcing me to use tools that I've tried and know will get in my way will make me less inclined to pick it.
Yes. I have been forced to use Windows for communication, and especially the trifecta of Outlook, Teams and Word opened my eyes as to why a lot of my colleagues weren't getting stuff done and were always hung up on weird problems I couldn't understand. Like "why is the reply on this email TOFU and doesn't even answer half the questions asked below": well, because writing proper replies in Outlook is impossible. "Why does this document look like crap even after someone has spent a week editing in all suggested changes?": well, Word doesn't do proper merging of stuff or proper templates. "Why didn't he answer my chat questions from yesterday?": well, because no proper highlights or working history in teams chats...
I feel for all people forced to work like this. I cannot understand employers accepting the massive suck on productivity this causes. For my own sanity, I will charge a premium or avoid such environments altogether.
Btw., if possible a workaround for a lot of the usual driver/VPN/that-one-special-application headaches that force employees to use windows is to get approval for vmware, virtualbox or something, install yourself a linux VM and use that in fullscreen for most things. But of course that is not always possible.
I feel for all people forced to work like this. I cannot understand employers accepting the massive suck on productivity this causes. For my own sanity, I will charge a premium or avoid such environments altogether.
Btw., if possible a workaround for a lot of the usual driver/VPN/that-one-special-application headaches that force employees to use windows is to get approval for vmware, virtualbox or something, install yourself a linux VM and use that in fullscreen for most things. But of course that is not always possible.
I'm personally thanking god^Wsome good folks at MS for WSL2. Which, from my understanding, is a very well integrated VM, really. But even so, the performance of that thing is just not what it should be.
WSL2 doesn't really cut it. Can't use my own window manager/desktop environment, graphics are kinda slow and sluggish, hardware passthrough is worse than in vmware, etc.
It might be ok for the occasional Linux tool, but I want the other thing: the occasional windows tool, but the rest to be Linux.
It might be ok for the occasional Linux tool, but I want the other thing: the occasional windows tool, but the rest to be Linux.
Hadn't really crossed my mind that the vmware vm might be more performant than the one baked into windows by MS. That's a bit embarassing, isn't it? :P
Ever since I realized I was fighting a system I have no intention of mastering anymore (my brain cycles are too dear to me for that) I stopped engaging and just accepted it as the nuisance it is.
But "just use vmware" seems like an easy enough fix that I might actually go down that route from now on, thanks!
Ever since I realized I was fighting a system I have no intention of mastering anymore (my brain cycles are too dear to me for that) I stopped engaging and just accepted it as the nuisance it is.
But "just use vmware" seems like an easy enough fix that I might actually go down that route from now on, thanks!
It would, but I want to stress again that this was not a fault of my employer, nor is it permanent.
It was basically the fault of Dell/Intel to provide proper drivers with my hardware, combined with the worst of timings: the first French started on the day after my hardware arrived, and I had to hastily relocate after picking it up, to avoid being stuck in a tiny temporary housing. This was then the only work-capable hardware in the house. So I couldn't just send it back when I noticed the problems, because it would have meant literally not being able to work for a while. Although with the time I spent trying to make it work on linux, then the nerves/mental health I've spent on using Windows on it, that would have been the better call in hindsight.
Anyhow, given that on-premise work is still not exactly around the corner, I'll build a ryzen workstation as soon as parts become available here, and be done with this. And I'll avoid Dell/Intel from now on.
It was basically the fault of Dell/Intel to provide proper drivers with my hardware, combined with the worst of timings: the first French started on the day after my hardware arrived, and I had to hastily relocate after picking it up, to avoid being stuck in a tiny temporary housing. This was then the only work-capable hardware in the house. So I couldn't just send it back when I noticed the problems, because it would have meant literally not being able to work for a while. Although with the time I spent trying to make it work on linux, then the nerves/mental health I've spent on using Windows on it, that would have been the better call in hindsight.
Anyhow, given that on-premise work is still not exactly around the corner, I'll build a ryzen workstation as soon as parts become available here, and be done with this. And I'll avoid Dell/Intel from now on.
Not GP but not being able to run Linux is weighted pretty heavily in my criteria when looking for a new job.
> On Linux (and generally with FOSS software) whenever I hit a problem, if something didn't work, I could be sure that it was not there because someone didn't want me to be able to do it like that.
You must be dealing with different FOSS software than I usually am. Software quite frequently refuses to let me do things "for security reasons" or because "why would you want to do that". It is very tiring.
You must be dealing with different FOSS software than I usually am. Software quite frequently refuses to let me do things "for security reasons" or because "why would you want to do that". It is very tiring.
For Years Mac OS was "the promised land" with acceptable defaults and way for power user to customise almost everything (https://macgui.com/downloads/?cat_id=10). Even iPhone was designed with idea of web apps. After invention of Apple App Store things slowly started to rot. And now we are in moment where after one or two Mac OS iterations you will be totally closed in predictable UX patterns inside walled garden for Security reasons, etc.
I am a long time Apple user and I understand that this platform is not for me anymore. Apple undoubtedly will have expansion of user base, M2 will be monster of processor and will eliminate the idea of Mac Pro tower. But trade off will be: no user control over software and hardware. For general user base this is not a problem. They feel at home because this is nothing new for them. This is iPhone and iPad experience all over.
So what is the solution? The solution for me is to relearn computing. Actually things that I cannot live behind (yet) are Affinity Designer and Logic.
Linux is the way for power user. Arch, Gentoo, Debian, Fedora. Plenty of choices.
I discovered that learning Emacs is investment in future in which I will not depend on corporate idea of "user interface". As a long time designer I sketch and draw on paper with pencil and ink brush. In the past I successfully shipped designs with Inkscape (people were unaware of SVG) so in near future my work (if is any left) will be done without new Apple.
I am a long time Apple user and I understand that this platform is not for me anymore. Apple undoubtedly will have expansion of user base, M2 will be monster of processor and will eliminate the idea of Mac Pro tower. But trade off will be: no user control over software and hardware. For general user base this is not a problem. They feel at home because this is nothing new for them. This is iPhone and iPad experience all over.
So what is the solution? The solution for me is to relearn computing. Actually things that I cannot live behind (yet) are Affinity Designer and Logic.
Linux is the way for power user. Arch, Gentoo, Debian, Fedora. Plenty of choices.
I discovered that learning Emacs is investment in future in which I will not depend on corporate idea of "user interface". As a long time designer I sketch and draw on paper with pencil and ink brush. In the past I successfully shipped designs with Inkscape (people were unaware of SVG) so in near future my work (if is any left) will be done without new Apple.
Even Linux has its issues. The groups competing for "the one right way" to do things. And the ever present issue that you are one update away from breaking something.
> The groups competing for "the one right way" to do things.
I don't want to be in a position where the developers of the currently most installed desktop environment GNOME are calling the shots.
GNOME is removing instead of adding features left and right and as a power user I get treated like a toddler that's being told what's good for me.
I don't want to be in a position where the developers of the currently most installed desktop environment GNOME are calling the shots.
GNOME is removing instead of adding features left and right and as a power user I get treated like a toddler that's being told what's good for me.
I haven't used gnome since I tried version 2, and KDE was before then. I spent years on icewn, blackbox and fluxbox, but now I'm happy enough with xfce.
I haven't customised things like colours on my user interface since the days on windows 3.1 though. Mouse focus, click to hover, highlight to copy, various keyboard shortcuts for sticking windows in the right place (top left, bottom right, full screen, half screen, etc) sure, but colours?
I haven't customised things like colours on my user interface since the days on windows 3.1 though. Mouse focus, click to hover, highlight to copy, various keyboard shortcuts for sticking windows in the right place (top left, bottom right, full screen, half screen, etc) sure, but colours?
So, macOS is too restrictive and Gnome should not be in a position where somebody 'calls the shots'.
Seems like any way you see it you still have no control over your machine. May I suggest you write your own desktop environment?
Seems like any way you see it you still have no control over your machine. May I suggest you write your own desktop environment?
No need to be snarky. KDE is perfectly fine and suits my needs. The window handling is amazing and I can fix sizes, positions, z-indeces, transparency, and tiling however I want without anybody telling me that I'm using it wrong. The same is valid for other free window managers like fluxbox or xfce.
I am aware of this. But at least there is no one with "Hands gathered for prayer" to babysit me with good intentions(by creating vertical integration and using slaves to maximise profit --- https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/11/20/apple-u...). And there is always option to save image of working setup to restore from. This is personal decision and it is a result of slow and painful realisation of reality imposed by Apple ideas for UX over pro user base. And it is simple, it's a choice in experience, when I drive my car I know that I am in control and have responsibility. I just want this feeling to be present when I work - this is my computer and I have a right to control it. Apple idea of personal computer is to be a "licensed dongle" for software access. Yep, it is not exciting experience for me.
Isn't that exactly the point? Multiple groups can develop their "right way" and you can pick and choose which way you prefer.
As for being "one update away from breaking" this is an issue on any OS, at least with Linux you have the choice not to update or even roll back.
As for being "one update away from breaking" this is an issue on any OS, at least with Linux you have the choice not to update or even roll back.
> Isn't that exactly the point? Multiple groups can develop their "right way" and you can pick and choose which way you prefer.
In theory. In reality you just end up having to deal with all of them simultaneously to get your workflow going because you're using tools from different authors who all have their opinion of what "the right way" is.
> As for being "one update away from breaking" this is an issue on any OS, at least with Linux you have the choice not to update or even roll back.
Again, in theory but not in practice. Because of the repo/pacakge manager model that Linux systems insist on using, and because there's no such thing as a separation between 'system' and 'application', failure to update often means you are unable to use up-to-date software entirely. Well, unless you want to set up a build environment and compile your own version of that software, which is utterly ridiculous.
In theory. In reality you just end up having to deal with all of them simultaneously to get your workflow going because you're using tools from different authors who all have their opinion of what "the right way" is.
> As for being "one update away from breaking" this is an issue on any OS, at least with Linux you have the choice not to update or even roll back.
Again, in theory but not in practice. Because of the repo/pacakge manager model that Linux systems insist on using, and because there's no such thing as a separation between 'system' and 'application', failure to update often means you are unable to use up-to-date software entirely. Well, unless you want to set up a build environment and compile your own version of that software, which is utterly ridiculous.
> you're using tools from different authors who all have their opinion of what "the right way" is.
This is in fact an issue on any platform right now.
> there's no such thing as a separation between 'system' and 'application', failure to update often means you are unable to use up-to-date software entirely.
Isn't that why Flatpak was invented?
This is in fact an issue on any platform right now.
> there's no such thing as a separation between 'system' and 'application', failure to update often means you are unable to use up-to-date software entirely.
Isn't that why Flatpak was invented?
Mint have system restore shipped with installation. Other distros also let you rollback now.
I think the entire 'web apps' thing was lying dodge for Steve Jobs until they were actually ready to put out a real API with iPhoneOS 2.0 . The iPhone 1 in many ways was rushed, and once they saw how much traction it got, iPhone 2.0 opened the floodgates.
API v1 was hacky and rushed and it changed a lot in v2.
API v1 was hacky and rushed and it changed a lot in v2.
Nah, the hype on webapps was huge at the time. Even when native apps appeared on mobile and were on another planet of performance, a lot of people insisted webapps were the real future. That’s the movement that eventually gave us Electron and similar runtimes. This goes all the back to the late ‘90s, see for example this influential essay from Spolsky in 2004 [0]: “The new API is HTML, and the new winners in the application development marketplace will be the people who can make HTML sing.”
If anything, the steer to traditional native development was a classic example of Jobs being ready to deny everything he had sworn on until a minute before, just because he had found a new option that was more favorable to his profits.
[0] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/06/13/how-microsoft-lost...
If anything, the steer to traditional native development was a classic example of Jobs being ready to deny everything he had sworn on until a minute before, just because he had found a new option that was more favorable to his profits.
[0] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/06/13/how-microsoft-lost...
I feel this article actually does not go far enough, or perhaps is not really intended to reach the designers of linux distros, but I certainly feel it today. I am an old hat linux admin, started in 1992 from minix when I read the announcement on usenix. I have been using linux probably since day 2...
I recently installed the shiny new Mint 20. I have a lot of experiences that the fictitious cook with the kitchen inspector has. Am I just getting old? Do I just want the kids off my lawn? Why is it so damn hard to find anything now? Case in point, I was using a pretty old distro on my computer, one of those dang mini-itx jobs where the BT and WIFI are impossible to turn off from the bios, but you turn them off in software. Of course, on the old linux, they were just off, you had to configure them. Well, I am hardwired in my house (again, maybe I am too old and need to be killed?) and I do not use wifi for my servers/workstations. Install Mint 20, well, first off, it wants to do WIFI, nope. Hrm, open a terminal, why isn't the wired connection getting an IP? I know, beyond all reason, that my dhcp server is working. I try to do my normal config or look in /etc... nope. It is controlled by some kind of automagic thing now. Ill just get on the inter... oh, yeah, its off. So I look around the gui, that config does not show why it is not coming on?
Where is the normal "turn this on/off button in the gui? Why am I using the gui? Oh, right, my old method is long gone now"
I feel like although this example could be trivial, but a lot of things seemed to have gone away. I will not rehash the systemd vs init discussion here, but it sure seemed like a lot of configs used to be easier. Here are a few that come to mind:
My dns was just one text file away.
My network config was a very simple cli change away.
I want to change my prompt... wow, why is it referenced in 5 places in this bash file now?
My path is referenced all over the place... what happened here, I will just check with the set command. OMG, what is all this stuff now?
I think in our quest to make things "easier" for people, we made it a lot more difficult for those who want to change a few things and use the computer.
I recently installed the shiny new Mint 20. I have a lot of experiences that the fictitious cook with the kitchen inspector has. Am I just getting old? Do I just want the kids off my lawn? Why is it so damn hard to find anything now? Case in point, I was using a pretty old distro on my computer, one of those dang mini-itx jobs where the BT and WIFI are impossible to turn off from the bios, but you turn them off in software. Of course, on the old linux, they were just off, you had to configure them. Well, I am hardwired in my house (again, maybe I am too old and need to be killed?) and I do not use wifi for my servers/workstations. Install Mint 20, well, first off, it wants to do WIFI, nope. Hrm, open a terminal, why isn't the wired connection getting an IP? I know, beyond all reason, that my dhcp server is working. I try to do my normal config or look in /etc... nope. It is controlled by some kind of automagic thing now. Ill just get on the inter... oh, yeah, its off. So I look around the gui, that config does not show why it is not coming on?
Where is the normal "turn this on/off button in the gui? Why am I using the gui? Oh, right, my old method is long gone now"
I feel like although this example could be trivial, but a lot of things seemed to have gone away. I will not rehash the systemd vs init discussion here, but it sure seemed like a lot of configs used to be easier. Here are a few that come to mind:
My dns was just one text file away.
My network config was a very simple cli change away.
I want to change my prompt... wow, why is it referenced in 5 places in this bash file now?
My path is referenced all over the place... what happened here, I will just check with the set command. OMG, what is all this stuff now?
I think in our quest to make things "easier" for people, we made it a lot more difficult for those who want to change a few things and use the computer.
> I feel this article actually does not go far enough [...] I think in our quest to make things "easier" for people, we made it a lot more difficult for those who want to change a few things and use the computer.
IMO, if the article didn't "go far enough" because it didn't talk about something like this, then the article made the right choice. "Using Linux" doesn't mean "using linux mint".
For example: The three or four times I've bothered to reinstall my OS in the past eight years, I just install the minimal, CLI version of debian, and then proceed to install exclusively what I want on top of it. Seems like that's more or less what you would want to do.
Of course, your situation might be different and you might not have the opportunity to do that, but I hope this helps at least somewhat.
IMO, if the article didn't "go far enough" because it didn't talk about something like this, then the article made the right choice. "Using Linux" doesn't mean "using linux mint".
For example: The three or four times I've bothered to reinstall my OS in the past eight years, I just install the minimal, CLI version of debian, and then proceed to install exclusively what I want on top of it. Seems like that's more or less what you would want to do.
Of course, your situation might be different and you might not have the opportunity to do that, but I hope this helps at least somewhat.
TBH you made the decision to install a distro that literally markets itself as 'easy to use'
There are plenty of ancient distros that still need tons of manual janitoring. Slackware is still updated. OpenBSD exists. LFS is always an option. Go out and make your graybeard UNIX dreams of lovingly handcrafted network configs a reality!
There are plenty of ancient distros that still need tons of manual janitoring. Slackware is still updated. OpenBSD exists. LFS is always an option. Go out and make your graybeard UNIX dreams of lovingly handcrafted network configs a reality!
This is really just the age old "you chose the wrong distro!" argument that Linux evangelists have used for 2 decades now to dismiss criticism.
If parent had instead said that they were having trouble getting some software working because of a system library conflict, you'd admonish them for using a distro meant for hackers instead of one of the "easy" distros.
The point being: why should anyone have to choose between these two extremes? Why can't things be both simple and functional?
If parent had instead said that they were having trouble getting some software working because of a system library conflict, you'd admonish them for using a distro meant for hackers instead of one of the "easy" distros.
The point being: why should anyone have to choose between these two extremes? Why can't things be both simple and functional?
Simple and functional are completely subjective. To answer your question: they have to choose because there are dozens, if not hundreds of options to choose from. That is like one of the most common espoused benefits of the platform, from Linux evangelists and open source maximalists alike!
Apparently you are unable to differentiate between nostalgia and an actual technical issue. Yeah, I remember sysv init too! Why should I have to choose between that and systemd??? That isn't exactly the same as having a library issue. hth
Apparently you are unable to differentiate between nostalgia and an actual technical issue. Yeah, I remember sysv init too! Why should I have to choose between that and systemd??? That isn't exactly the same as having a library issue. hth
[deleted]
Exactly. You don't even need to go "ancient" to get that level of manual control, Arch exists, Gentoo exists, Debian is pretty close.
I have used Gentoo since 2000, takes too long now, I am too busy... Debian does not have the audio stuffs I need, and getting caught in compile dependency circles was bad. For some reason, even the maintainers and the audio software group could not get the package working on Debian. I had to back off and go to Mint.
I suppose this sounds like a counter argument to me wanting control... but I will admit I am in a special situation in that I want more control, but I use very specialized software that has issues with old or very bleeding edge distros.
I suppose this sounds like a counter argument to me wanting control... but I will admit I am in a special situation in that I want more control, but I use very specialized software that has issues with old or very bleeding edge distros.
This do sound like OMG something changed. Get off my lawn!
Only thing I had to do with my Mint install is workaround some sound issue. Mileage may vary though, and this has been true since day 2.
In order to have something work smoother, ie. supporting laptop/tablet usage, something had to change. It's always been annoying but at least you can even recompile the kernel.
Only thing I had to do with my Mint install is workaround some sound issue. Mileage may vary though, and this has been true since day 2.
In order to have something work smoother, ie. supporting laptop/tablet usage, something had to change. It's always been annoying but at least you can even recompile the kernel.
I'm a relative newcomer to the world of DIY computing. I had always been a Windows user growing up, didn't know how to program, and didn't know what open source was. It wasn't until 2016 when I watched Snowden that I became extremely conscious about taking control of my own devices, but it required a lot of time and effort to even know where to start.
I installed Arch Linux and had to learn everything from scratch. I didn't know anything about UNIX, security, config files, environmental variables, compiling code, git, terminals, window managers, ssh, bash scripting, user groups, access control, boot options, or anything else. I wouldn't trade the time I've invested in learning how to operate and customize an open system, but the amount of upfront effort is very intimidating. I can say with confidence that if I hadn't simultaneously developed an obsession with programming that I would have very quickly given up.
> The system came with a reasonable set of defaults and when or if they grew more proficient and wanted to change something about their daily working environment, they had the option to do so.
This is the root of the issue in my mind, what are the 'sane defaults' for a UNIX system to someone completely uninitiated in how software works? There's so much 'don't know what you don't know' for people that only knew Windows and Mac growing up. I can't imagine anyone that doesn't work with computers professionally or as a hobbyist ever thinking that spending years learning open systems is worth the opportunity cost of the other things they could be doing with their lives.
I installed Arch Linux and had to learn everything from scratch. I didn't know anything about UNIX, security, config files, environmental variables, compiling code, git, terminals, window managers, ssh, bash scripting, user groups, access control, boot options, or anything else. I wouldn't trade the time I've invested in learning how to operate and customize an open system, but the amount of upfront effort is very intimidating. I can say with confidence that if I hadn't simultaneously developed an obsession with programming that I would have very quickly given up.
> The system came with a reasonable set of defaults and when or if they grew more proficient and wanted to change something about their daily working environment, they had the option to do so.
This is the root of the issue in my mind, what are the 'sane defaults' for a UNIX system to someone completely uninitiated in how software works? There's so much 'don't know what you don't know' for people that only knew Windows and Mac growing up. I can't imagine anyone that doesn't work with computers professionally or as a hobbyist ever thinking that spending years learning open systems is worth the opportunity cost of the other things they could be doing with their lives.
It's the benefits that counts, learning and being the master of your own domain. The "cost" of learning and self-sufficiency? Sheesh!
Sometimes you want to use your computer for other things than tinkering with your computer, though.
But if you have the knowledge then these other things become much easier. When I was younger I used to obsessively "configure" my environment(s)... Now I usually roll with the defaults, but the fact that I've been exposed to the paradigms and methods for tinkering with my computer means it's much easier to make a minor tweak when some other task requires it, or even realize that such a tweak may be possible.
Computers used to be new, and you used to have to do a lot yourself to make it work. This is no longer the case, which has a side-effect of taking that 'self-made' feeling away from it. This is no different than not building your own car anymore or not building your own house from scratch. While it's still possible, it's no longer viable for normal use due to the immense scale and integration required for the mass market.
The only way back would be to destroy the mass market and make it small again, but that has its own drawbacks.
The only way back would be to destroy the mass market and make it small again, but that has its own drawbacks.
Locking users in, removing configuration options and just focusing for the lowest common denominator skill set has nothing to do with “self-made feeling”. The author’s annoying clerk analogy really summarises it well.
The author’s annoying clerk analogy completely misses the point. The computer isn't a kitchen, it's the oven. Or the fridge. Those are built to spec and regulation, and if you want to serve others from those you get checkups and clerks all the same.
The feeling was that it is 'your domain', which it isn't as soon as you take part in a larger ecosystem (i.e. networked and vendor-supported with many users and shared services).
The feeling was that it is 'your domain', which it isn't as soon as you take part in a larger ecosystem (i.e. networked and vendor-supported with many users and shared services).
I used to love customizing my system as well, but I've grown out of it.
A highly customized environment is a timesink of its own, a source of frustration whenever you have to work in a different environment, and 90% of the customizations are pretty meaningless anyway.
Give me reasonable defaults and I'm happy.
A highly customized environment is a timesink of its own, a source of frustration whenever you have to work in a different environment, and 90% of the customizations are pretty meaningless anyway.
Give me reasonable defaults and I'm happy.
I feel this way for 95% of my system, but the last 5% is important for my ability to focus and work efficiently. An underappreciated aspect of customizability is that you don't have to learn new habits when the defaults change. You can't know your tools if they're constantly changing in ways you can't control or override. I feel like just another dumb user. I've been using VSCode a lot recently, and I just don't feel the motivation to learn anything about it. Learning a tool is for suckers. Just google for what you need right now. No sense going out of your way to remember anything if they're going to pull the rug out from under you next month.
Not a knock against VSCode; I acquired this attitude before I started using it. Maybe if I invested in learning VSCode thoroughly, the investment would pay off. I've just been so thoroughly trained not to treat anything outside the terminal as stable that I can't bring myself to do it anymore.
Not a knock against VSCode; I acquired this attitude before I started using it. Maybe if I invested in learning VSCode thoroughly, the investment would pay off. I've just been so thoroughly trained not to treat anything outside the terminal as stable that I can't bring myself to do it anymore.
Why can't there be reasonable defaults and also the ability to customize/override on your own box? Profiles can always be used for if you need to use a different environment and want to use the default.
The point is that while that is your choice, it might not be some one else's.
Not only that, but it's a choice for "lowest-common-denominator" users, not power users. So they will by definition make a trade off in lower real-world functionality in return for ease of basic use or other things. Like the cooking example in the article. Another example would be to replace your steering wheel without your consent with some stupid new gui and removing the option to put the steering wheel back. It works great for people who don't really know how to drive and would never be able to drive at highway speeds. Of course it does severely limit the places and speeds you can drive in your car now.
Oh and of course it causes your car to crash constantly now.
Oh and of course it causes your car to crash constantly now.
Tough luck if it's not your system. Only way forward seems to be FOSS.
Same thing here. Infinitely customizable doesn't matter to me anymore, sane defaults do.
I think it was putting work into a vimrc that finally changed my mind. It was great customizing vim, getting it to be just right for myself. But there were a few things that ended up bothering me over time:
* No end state meant I was just constantly toying with it and wasting time. Sometimes the changes would be minor things that barely mattered, but I couldn't decide which way I liked things more * Not always available, leading to needing to essentially remember two different versions of vim. Mine, and the default. * Keybind clashes. Bringing in new plugins was always a pain because there was a good chance that one of my custom keybinds clashed with the plugin, requiring me to make a mess of the plugin's default bindings or to reassign and relearn the colliding binding.
With sane defaults, these problems nearly disappear.
I think it was putting work into a vimrc that finally changed my mind. It was great customizing vim, getting it to be just right for myself. But there were a few things that ended up bothering me over time:
* No end state meant I was just constantly toying with it and wasting time. Sometimes the changes would be minor things that barely mattered, but I couldn't decide which way I liked things more * Not always available, leading to needing to essentially remember two different versions of vim. Mine, and the default. * Keybind clashes. Bringing in new plugins was always a pain because there was a good chance that one of my custom keybinds clashed with the plugin, requiring me to make a mess of the plugin's default bindings or to reassign and relearn the colliding binding.
With sane defaults, these problems nearly disappear.
I've kind of shifted in the same direction too. I used to build a custom launcher/theme/background widget setup, now I tend to even keep the stock background because I basically never see it anyway. Same with customising apps. I tend to just learn the defaults and then it works wherever I use it.
That said there are certain customisations which do really impact my productivity, and they tend to be ones which are 'off the beaten path', so I'm very much in favour of keeping software configurable. There are also tools which I spend a lot of effort hammering into a usable state using their options and extension support, and I wish they would take a more 'toolkit and framework' approach (as opposed to thousands of ad-hoc options), and/or present a more useful default.
That said there are certain customisations which do really impact my productivity, and they tend to be ones which are 'off the beaten path', so I'm very much in favour of keeping software configurable. There are also tools which I spend a lot of effort hammering into a usable state using their options and extension support, and I wish they would take a more 'toolkit and framework' approach (as opposed to thousands of ad-hoc options), and/or present a more useful default.
What! A default, non-personalised vim setup?!
My experience in the last few years has been the opposite. I've recently found that my stubbornness has resulted in me investing in alternative solutions to my problems that are hand-tailored to exactly what I want. Some examples:
- I take notes profusely, but I'm dissatisfied with every note taking app. I have rigged up Typora (a Markdown editor) to an Alfred workflow to build exactly the solution that I want. I guess Alfred is the "saving grace" here.
- I can't find a good podcasting app (I want to listen on my Mac, not on my phone). Eventually I just settled on The Old Reader subscribing to the podcast RSS and download the files manually to play in VLC. Works great, if you don't want a seamless UI.
- I, like I'm guessing everyone in this thread, have a very customized terminal shell. The customization environment here is thriving more than ever before and doesn't show signs of being trampled by any integrated solution.
What's the common thread? GUIs. GUIs are hard to make customizable, and the returns on doing so rapidly diminish with the number of non-power-users. If you discount GUIs, there's tons of customization to be had on your computer right now.
- I take notes profusely, but I'm dissatisfied with every note taking app. I have rigged up Typora (a Markdown editor) to an Alfred workflow to build exactly the solution that I want. I guess Alfred is the "saving grace" here.
- I can't find a good podcasting app (I want to listen on my Mac, not on my phone). Eventually I just settled on The Old Reader subscribing to the podcast RSS and download the files manually to play in VLC. Works great, if you don't want a seamless UI.
- I, like I'm guessing everyone in this thread, have a very customized terminal shell. The customization environment here is thriving more than ever before and doesn't show signs of being trampled by any integrated solution.
What's the common thread? GUIs. GUIs are hard to make customizable, and the returns on doing so rapidly diminish with the number of non-power-users. If you discount GUIs, there's tons of customization to be had on your computer right now.
Can you tell more about your Alfred workflow? What problem does it solve and why do you prefer it to a scripted solution?
I published it here, actually: https://github.com/CGamesPlay/pilikino#alfred-workflow
That is the repository for a Markdown full-text search engine that I use, although if you wanted you could modify it to use the normal Spotlight search.
That is the repository for a Markdown full-text search engine that I use, although if you wanted you could modify it to use the normal Spotlight search.
The choices are still available; it's just hidden beneath layers and layers of commoditization. Gone are the days when we could grow our own spices. Not really: you just have to move out of the city, to a nice European suburb and you can have a garden. Gone are the days when we could forge our own knives. Again, not really. You have to move to some kind of village, where you have access to the local smithy. Let's talk about a trade-off that most people actually face: in the US, they drive in their oversized cars to a mega-super-market and shop for the week. In Paris, I go to my local bucherie for my meats, my local boulangerie for my breads, my local poissonorie for my seafood, and my local fruit and légume marché for my fruits and vegetables. I shop once every few days. It's a big deal for me. I get really high-quality food at good prices, with a personal touch. You'd lament about not having this choice in most parts of the US.
Yes, computers have reached a new level of commoditization. So much so, that many users just use a smartphone and tablet. It's a lot more convenient than sitting at a terminal and with a cherry MX keyboard. But those choices are very much available; they just aren't available to everyone. If you really wanted, you can even design your own processor die based off RISC-V designs. And yes, you can totally build your own Linux system from scratch: I'd argue that's there's a lot more choice available in this regard. Remember the days of the simplistic GNU Stow? Today, there's Nix, and you can base your entire system on it. And use XMonad, rxvt-unicode and zsh, if you so desired; they're still maintained, last I checked. I'm sure there are packages for eccentric people to design their own cursors. FreeBSD and OpenBSD exist, and are quite viable. You could even base a system on SeL4, if you're into that sort of thing.
I wholeheartedly agree that this kind of commoditization is actively harmful and stifles creativity. Cashiers and librarians are walled into their little interface; in the best case, they might figure out how to play a game of Freecell. It's sad, but this is the price we pay to put multiple little computers in everyone's hands. Choices create fragmentation, and with fragmentation, there's little incentive to keep fixing the bugs on esoteric fragments. Every choice increases the testing burden exponentially, and to avoid special-casing each combination of choices, software ends up being written for the lowest common denominator. The result is something like Linux on laptops today: the defaults are so terrible that you're forced to mess with the touchpad driver to get basic usability.
Yes, computers have reached a new level of commoditization. So much so, that many users just use a smartphone and tablet. It's a lot more convenient than sitting at a terminal and with a cherry MX keyboard. But those choices are very much available; they just aren't available to everyone. If you really wanted, you can even design your own processor die based off RISC-V designs. And yes, you can totally build your own Linux system from scratch: I'd argue that's there's a lot more choice available in this regard. Remember the days of the simplistic GNU Stow? Today, there's Nix, and you can base your entire system on it. And use XMonad, rxvt-unicode and zsh, if you so desired; they're still maintained, last I checked. I'm sure there are packages for eccentric people to design their own cursors. FreeBSD and OpenBSD exist, and are quite viable. You could even base a system on SeL4, if you're into that sort of thing.
I wholeheartedly agree that this kind of commoditization is actively harmful and stifles creativity. Cashiers and librarians are walled into their little interface; in the best case, they might figure out how to play a game of Freecell. It's sad, but this is the price we pay to put multiple little computers in everyone's hands. Choices create fragmentation, and with fragmentation, there's little incentive to keep fixing the bugs on esoteric fragments. Every choice increases the testing burden exponentially, and to avoid special-casing each combination of choices, software ends up being written for the lowest common denominator. The result is something like Linux on laptops today: the defaults are so terrible that you're forced to mess with the touchpad driver to get basic usability.
The first paragraph confused me until I read you live in Paris, I assume in or around what they are calling Paris Centre now. Relatively few (3%) Americans live in the sort of density you would find in Paris (25K/sq mi, Commune of Paris, NUT-3 statistical area). Most Americans have the kind of space to allow them to grow their own veg and herbs, or even forge a knife. (Paris should steal an idea from their more enlightened brethren in the UK and offer allotments in urban areas.) Sadly too few baguettes...
Don’t be mislead by US government stats about rural v. urban population. Their definition overstates the number of Americans who live in (what Europeans would define sociologically as) urban areas. I discovered this when I perused a list of US Census urban clusters and discovered Zuñi Pueblo listed there.
I can’t see how hobbyist computing with open source operating systems and legacy hardware will ever go away, and with a thriving community of interest to boot. Analog ports forever and confusion to the usurper Apple slabs...
The convergence (a big fad term of the 1990s) into infocomputotainment will eventually cloy and kids will rediscover the real world, as they did in the 1970s back-to-the-land movement rebelling against conventional TV culture.
Don’t be mislead by US government stats about rural v. urban population. Their definition overstates the number of Americans who live in (what Europeans would define sociologically as) urban areas. I discovered this when I perused a list of US Census urban clusters and discovered Zuñi Pueblo listed there.
I can’t see how hobbyist computing with open source operating systems and legacy hardware will ever go away, and with a thriving community of interest to boot. Analog ports forever and confusion to the usurper Apple slabs...
The convergence (a big fad term of the 1990s) into infocomputotainment will eventually cloy and kids will rediscover the real world, as they did in the 1970s back-to-the-land movement rebelling against conventional TV culture.
Fwiw, I've lived in New York, Boston, and the Bay Area too. Four and a half years in the US in total ;)
I want something in the middle. I want semi-configurable software with boring UIs.
Boring because I want predictable, predictable because I want to spend the effort to learn something once and then not have to worry about learning it again.
Boring because I want predictable, predictable because I want to spend the effort to learn something once and then not have to worry about learning it again.
It’s odd, I am aiming for almost the exact opposite. Avoid custom configs as much as possible. And stick with the defaults as much as reasonably possible. To continue the kitchen analogy, there is no point of having your oven have a ton of custom configurations: it confuses people who are going to use your kitchen (other softwares which expect download folder to be in a specific spot.) and when you do use someone else kitchen (like pair programming or being a on a virtual severs) you’re lost.
I think there should be a compromise. Use your own config but be ready to switch quickly to a more "common" config and know how to use it (whatever common means in your context, just adapt to your team).
For example I use i3, and I switch ctrl and caps lock. During my first pair programming experience my colleague was struggling with all that and I was feeling quite guilty ("maybe this need to fine-tune everything is just immature after all"). After this I made sure to be able to switch quickly to a "vanilla" Gnome setup.
Although coming back to Gnome after using i3 is quite easy since the Gnome paradigm is quite universal, there are some alternative "configs" that I am afraid to adopt, such as exotic keyboard layouts ("bepo" in french instead of "azerty"). Losing the ability to type on this de facto standard layout would be quite problematic.
For example I use i3, and I switch ctrl and caps lock. During my first pair programming experience my colleague was struggling with all that and I was feeling quite guilty ("maybe this need to fine-tune everything is just immature after all"). After this I made sure to be able to switch quickly to a "vanilla" Gnome setup.
Although coming back to Gnome after using i3 is quite easy since the Gnome paradigm is quite universal, there are some alternative "configs" that I am afraid to adopt, such as exotic keyboard layouts ("bepo" in french instead of "azerty"). Losing the ability to type on this de facto standard layout would be quite problematic.
The article correctly argues that we should be able configure computer interfaces to our liking, something that I gave up years ago and now stick to defaults (including non-invert of the yolk in video games).
Since accepting the default state when there's an update and the interface changes for the third time in a year I just get on and learn whatever I am confronted with and as a result I have lower blood pressure.
The only constant is change. Go with the flow. Yadadadaaa
Since accepting the default state when there's an update and the interface changes for the third time in a year I just get on and learn whatever I am confronted with and as a result I have lower blood pressure.
The only constant is change. Go with the flow. Yadadadaaa
Yes. After removing "3D Objects" and other stupid useless folders from File Explorer too many times and having the re-appear randomly some time later, it's easier to just give up and just try to tune out all the rubbish they shove at you.
I feel the same way many times. I use what I have to for work, but I'd love to dive back into FreeBSD or NetBSD if I had spare time. They seem like they're much closer to what I used to want in computers
I really do the like the BSD's, but you have to be vary conscious of the hardware you run it on, as HW support for it can be rough even if it exists.
The issue I have with the *nix variants is the multi-user bit. This bit is for a completely different use case than personal computing.
The great beast of late stage capitalism is devouring computers just as it does everything else. You don’t need to control your computer sweetie just come to the store and pay us $200 to do it for you.
Collectively, devs have decided that a high paying salary at FAANG justifies whatever trash they inflict upon the world. Even a highly sought after programmer is only a programmer, one cog in the machine.
Keep pissing in the common pool and stuffing your own pockets. Keep dissolving every semblance of community (as a force for collective action on the world, not just buddies having a drink). This is what a divided society looks like. Easily controlled by whichever crooks happen to be in charge.
Collectively, devs have decided that a high paying salary at FAANG justifies whatever trash they inflict upon the world. Even a highly sought after programmer is only a programmer, one cog in the machine.
Keep pissing in the common pool and stuffing your own pockets. Keep dissolving every semblance of community (as a force for collective action on the world, not just buddies having a drink). This is what a divided society looks like. Easily controlled by whichever crooks happen to be in charge.
I view it as more like developing country capitalism.
I remember a BBC description several years ago about what the internet was like in the middle east and India. It was awash with annoying ads and privacy violation but people didn't seem to care, presumably since it was all they knew and so much better than going without. With technology changing extremely-fast now, it is the wild west here too. Once AI is a commodity every can profit from, including on the defense side in finding you content without needed to give your data away, it will probably settle down again.
I remember a BBC description several years ago about what the internet was like in the middle east and India. It was awash with annoying ads and privacy violation but people didn't seem to care, presumably since it was all they knew and so much better than going without. With technology changing extremely-fast now, it is the wild west here too. Once AI is a commodity every can profit from, including on the defense side in finding you content without needed to give your data away, it will probably settle down again.
lol what does this even mean? When was anything you said not the case?
Were computers more democratic when they were obscenely expensive time-sharing mainframes living at places like universities and Bell Labs? Were developers ever anything other than a 'cog in the machine' at any point during the 20th century? You can't just say 'late stage capitalism' and somehow have it morph into a meaningful (or even coherent) point jfyi
Were computers more democratic when they were obscenely expensive time-sharing mainframes living at places like universities and Bell Labs? Were developers ever anything other than a 'cog in the machine' at any point during the 20th century? You can't just say 'late stage capitalism' and somehow have it morph into a meaningful (or even coherent) point jfyi
Computers were more open and about as powerful for a brief period a few years ago, say 2012-2018. They were certainly more open for the many decades between when PCs came out and now. We didn’t just jump straight from time shared mainframes to modern PCs...
Yes, great developers were much more powerful than cogs in the machine until recently. Being a dev was not a mainstream, sexy, or high paid career until recently. So the kinds of people the profession attracted were quite different.
Maybe you feel anything with the words late-stage capitalism can be discarded immediately. Maybe it sounds hysterical or anti-progress. But we certainly can make technology better for non technical people without taking away configurability and freedom for experts to truly own their machine as well.
Yes, great developers were much more powerful than cogs in the machine until recently. Being a dev was not a mainstream, sexy, or high paid career until recently. So the kinds of people the profession attracted were quite different.
Maybe you feel anything with the words late-stage capitalism can be discarded immediately. Maybe it sounds hysterical or anti-progress. But we certainly can make technology better for non technical people without taking away configurability and freedom for experts to truly own their machine as well.
Software Development and IT weren't sexy or mainstream during the Dot Com bubble? That is quite an ahistorical opinion imo. I'm old enough to remember the mountain of 'Learn Java in 24 Hours' books at every bookstore in the 90s.
> Hey, enjoy the ten new folders we've littered your home directory with! They all start with capital letters: designed for typing convenience in a case sensitive file system.
This bothers me too. Is there some history to using capital letters for home folder names? It seems really out of place in case-sensitive file systems.
This bothers me too. Is there some history to using capital letters for home folder names? It seems really out of place in case-sensitive file systems.
My guess is the directory names are meant to resemble what most people consider to be proper nouns. Like, capitalizing proper nouns is the convention, so not so much a computer thing, but a human thing. (Idk about all human languages but I think you get what I mean)
Using Arch Linux+X11+i3 WM. I believe I can configure pretty much everything. Didn't try to change the cursor though, but I can't think why it wouldn't be possible.
Related to this topic, check out this lecture from a designer with GE appliances...
https://youtu.be/TfCn4B8QzXg?list=PLbnsTpgUhcOfzC4qbV3n3R55Z...
> Now imagine if you couldn't organize your kitchen to your heart's content. Not because you're lacking the funds or skills, but because some federally appointed clerk is constantly coming to inspect it.
It turns out we live in this world more than we realize :-)
You can buy a handmade car from http://themetalsurgeon.com ...and they’re amazing! Yet, most people buy prebuilt cars from dealers, choosing from just a few options.
https://youtu.be/TfCn4B8QzXg?list=PLbnsTpgUhcOfzC4qbV3n3R55Z...
> Now imagine if you couldn't organize your kitchen to your heart's content. Not because you're lacking the funds or skills, but because some federally appointed clerk is constantly coming to inspect it.
It turns out we live in this world more than we realize :-)
You can buy a handmade car from http://themetalsurgeon.com ...and they’re amazing! Yet, most people buy prebuilt cars from dealers, choosing from just a few options.
And yet, there is a pretty intense car aftermarket (minus the now sudden shift to having DRM on engine components). I think you are conflating "able to be modified by the hand of the owner" with "able to be modified at the direction of the owner": the intrinsic complexity increase leading to the former sometimes being unrealistic doesn't imply the latter is as well... my mother didn't build her kitchen cabinets, but she definitely directed the process, and she did not need permission from the company from whom she bought her house.
> The base level of creative computer use is no longer exploring programming or graphics or music, but photographing a meal someone else has prepared and then applying a predefined sepia filter to said photo.
Well said. The kitchen analogy is too long. I skipped most of it.
Well said. The kitchen analogy is too long. I skipped most of it.
Except that it's only true because way more people use computers now than back then.
There might be more indie developers making wonky stuff out there now, that there were programmers altogether in the early 90's.
There might be more indie developers making wonky stuff out there now, that there were programmers altogether in the early 90's.
The kitchen analogy was not too long as the people who need to read this didn't come into the article agreeing but need to be convinced; if anything I could see the article needing more analogies, but I felt this article struck a good enough balance that I could see recommending it to people who insist on "opinionated software" to seed an argument.
UI developers tell us how an app should look, never mind how you would like it to appear...
Snap developers tell us they won't let you disable an update on our own systems, never mind if we don't want to update...
It feels almost like there is some arrogance going on nowadays in the industry.
Nowadays, if software is not customizable or if it forces updates, I will look elsewhere for alternatives. It has actually started to inspire me to start some new side projects.
Snap developers tell us they won't let you disable an update on our own systems, never mind if we don't want to update...
It feels almost like there is some arrogance going on nowadays in the industry.
Nowadays, if software is not customizable or if it forces updates, I will look elsewhere for alternatives. It has actually started to inspire me to start some new side projects.
This just reads like someone who needs to install Arch one weekend. It's configurable to your heart's content. Right now my clock is a notification I bring up using a key-bind to a bash command to send the time to my pop-up server (which I also chose). It's absolutely useless and my previous status bar was better but it is configurable.
It's so true for me. 4 years ago I was just unable to work in new company where they forced me to use Mac (never used it before). I had very hard tasks and this MacBook Pro looking all sexy and shiny but unconfigurable. I'm using Linux since 10 years and Windows since 25 years. I always used "Power Tools" to configure my Windows instance, Linux has also many tools to change settings. Now in that advent of Apple Silicon I just made sight (because Apple just did beautiful revolution) and told myself "it's sorry it will never run Linux"
Sadly you missed the golden era for the Mac. Back in the PowerPC days there were lots of developers making fun and useful tweaks and there was a fair amount of configurability built in. It really was a professional's Unix OS back then. Over the past decade or so I've watched the possibilities narrow with every passing version.
Having computers that work well for casual users is actually pretty important. Too many people here are dismissive. Anyone who has had to help elderly relatives should know the value of computers that works like an appliance and can't easily be screwed up.
Having our own computers customized to our every whim is less important because we can cope. By contrast, when something little goes wrong for less technical people, they might be blocked entirely.
Having our own computers customized to our every whim is less important because we can cope. By contrast, when something little goes wrong for less technical people, they might be blocked entirely.
> Anyone who has had to help elderly relatives should know the value of computers that works like an appliance and can't easily be screwed up.
The problem is they are still having trouble but I cannot help them as often as I used to.
The problem is they are still having trouble but I cannot help them as often as I used to.
Well the "Today, I can't even change the system font in Windows. I can select an "accent color", but most applications completely ignore it."
part is a bit ambivalent. Doesnt this actually mean, that the programmers have the freedom to ignore the 'accent color' which the article is somehow arguing for. (the alternative would be that the OS mandates functionality of app in a very intrusive way)
part is a bit ambivalent. Doesnt this actually mean, that the programmers have the freedom to ignore the 'accent color' which the article is somehow arguing for. (the alternative would be that the OS mandates functionality of app in a very intrusive way)
Using stock Ubuntu LTS is a good middle ground between configurability and usability for me. I don't really configure anything, except a few power settings and I disable the animations. It works with my stuff out of the box.
And if I want to make a change, I can apt-get to my heart's desire. I don't really take advantage of the freedom, but it's enough knowing that I could.
And if I want to make a change, I can apt-get to my heart's desire. I don't really take advantage of the freedom, but it's enough knowing that I could.
I gave up on Ubuntu when I had a virtual machine running stock Ubuntu, where I didn't do anything with it except keep it updated, and upgrading to newer versions rendered the machine unbootable. Twice.
Security and Configurability are not in conflict. But we need "developer unlock modes" where we can prototype desirable workflows and associated MAC policy.
On iOS devices, Apple Configurator is a good start and the XML policy files can be generated by OSS software. But there's currently no user-controlled way to prototype and request new policies, outside of jailbreaking.
On iOS devices, Apple Configurator is a good start and the XML policy files can be generated by OSS software. But there's currently no user-controlled way to prototype and request new policies, outside of jailbreaking.
As functionality increases, configuration knobs cause a combinatorial explosion in testing and compatibility concerns, which disincentivises them.
As an alternative, I choose to use stable platforms that are designed with modularity, strong abstractions and internal programmability, so I can choose when to keep a particular workflow/UX, and when to adopt a newer style.
That platform is Emacs.
As an alternative, I choose to use stable platforms that are designed with modularity, strong abstractions and internal programmability, so I can choose when to keep a particular workflow/UX, and when to adopt a newer style.
That platform is Emacs.
Conversely, I feel like a lot of time configuration is lazyiness on the part of the designer of the software.
Like "can't workout the best way to do this that works for everyone. Screw it lets put in all the options we can think of and make the user chose and we will have a default of disabling this feature."
Things made to lock out makers are a slippery slope:
loss of the right to configure
leads to loss of the right to tinker
leads to loss of right to fix
Apple, which used to be for hackers, did this when they started selling a machine with no schematics available: the 1984 Macintosh.
No schematic, no expansion slots, and a case sealed with security screws.
This seems like the complete opposite of this post, which was on the front page yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25232989
[deleted]
Be careful to mid the gap between personal preference and obsessive/compulsive like behaviors. When personal preferences start to become a burden it time to re-evaluate them. Some preferences will be worth keeping but many will not.
I fully agree with this story, it's dear to my heart. There's little point in me detailing the various issues as everyone has already done that. So let me give you a very brief overview of my approach to this problem. Here, I'll leave my Linux configurations aside and only comment on Microsoft Windows (for me, installing a Windows O/S is serious business). In brief, these are the steps:
• The latest version of Windows that I use (and I'm ever likely to use) is Windows 7.
• I turn off Automatics Updates off by default and disable them from starting.
• Occasionally, I have to turn on Automatic Updates on to install some stuff, even if the internet is not required/or not connected (Virtual XP mode for example).
• When I do this, I occasionally forget that I have left Updates on and connect to the internet. If Updates go so much as even near a Microsoft server site then I erase everything and start again (if that happens I deem the system to be 'unclean' and thus I can no longer depend upon it).
• I start with a 'clean' Windows 7 installation disk, specifically one with a Windows 7-sp3 on it.
• I have a separate collection of 'known' KB security patches and a few other KB files, such as files associated Windows XP Mode/MS Virtual Machine, that I install. These I install first up.
• I then do preliminary/rough settings such as configuring the attributes of the command box, change the Environmental settings so as the TEMP files are in the Root Directory, C:\TEMP etc. (so I can always gain access to them in a split second).
• Here, I also do dozens of other tweaks and settings, the first of which is to get Explorer to display 'details' mode everywhere (in some instances this is damn nigh on impossible (why do the pathetically-little-mined authoritarian Microsoft programming Nazis shits insist that we cannot display files the way we want to)? Damn Them! Even after I tweak Explorer, I install probably the best file manager there is, Directory Opus (I can configure that mostly to the way I want).
• I then nuke the following useless crap (for me anyway—I never use them), partial list only: Recovery/Restore point, Action Center, Windows Security Center, UAC/User Account Control; then I Kill and disable multiple services (too detailed to mentioned here except to mention that Windows Update is turned off and defaulted 'disabled' (I always put a note on my screen to ensue that I never accidentally enable it.)
• I then install one of the greatest and most reliable freeware programs of all time — Ivo Beltchev's wonderful Classic Shell so I get my XP/Windows 2000 looks back — or I should rightly say I revert as close as is possible to IBM's CUA (Common User Access) User Interface. (Incidentally, I've put Ivo Beltchev's Classic Shell on dozens of machines and never, ever had a single moment's trouble with it. When installed, you'd think that how Win 7 came, as it integrates so well and it's so unobtrusive that it becomes 'invisible'. You can go years without realizing it's there. 'Tis a shame that many others don't use it as an example of how to do brilliant programming/programming design.)
• I then install another truly essential utility for Windows, ERU for NT (ERUNT). This program automatically backs up the registry for past 30 days and allows it to be resorted instantly (it's saved me many times).
• I then install other important O/S related utilities such as Nir Sofer's NirSoft utilities, Sysinternals utilities and Raspopov's excellent USB Oblivion which nukes all that Windows remembers about USB dives (it removes details about which USB drives have been inserted, etc.).
• After everything is tweaked and rechecked, I consider State 1 installation to be complete. I then do a mirror backup image of the drive.
• From State 1, I then proceed through various stages until I get to Stage 5, that's when I consider everything to be installed. With each stage, I install programs that progress from small, essential, reliable and stable (well know utilities etc. such as David Carpenter's Everything which I couldn't live without), through to large unstable programs such as Gimp, LibreOffice and MS Office (only up to 2003 ver however), etc.
• This exercise takes me about three weeks to fully complete and involves literally thousands of .reg registry patches (of which I have a documented library of thousands).
• Each stage is backed up separately, this means that if I discover a significant problem in Stage 4, I can reload Stage 3 and then reinstall Stages 4 and 5 from there (this saves a great deal of time as one doesn't have to start from scratch). Also, it's worth noting that the majority of installation time is taken up with fiddly, time consuming O/S adjustments, these mostly in occur in the early Stages 1 & 2. (In one machine, Stage 1 has not required tweaking since 2015, as all other tweaks could be made further up the line.)
•Windows is configured so no essential user data resides on the Operating system drive.
That's the brief version. Oh, BTW, every change on the O/S is documented, which amounts to several reams/over a 1000 pages of info.
Whenever, I blow up Windows or it gets too dirty, it only takes me about 6/7 minutes to stream a fresh working copy of say Windows 7-Stage 5 and I'm up and running again (it's really dead easy and very quick to be back in business). Right, this is one hell of an exercise, but over the years it's paid off big-time.
Now you ask yourself, would I ever upgrade to another crappy version of Windows again when these days that exercise would be nigh on impossible with Win 10. Not in you damn life I wouldn't!
Right, I'm stuck on Windows 7 forever. Next time I have to upgrade, I rekcon I'll only be left with Linux and its kludged brother, Android.
Bye, bye Microsoft.
Oh, I forgot to mention the obvious, which is that most of this messing about would not have be necessary if Microsoft had made it easy to configure the Windows Operating System from the outset.
• The latest version of Windows that I use (and I'm ever likely to use) is Windows 7.
• I turn off Automatics Updates off by default and disable them from starting.
• Occasionally, I have to turn on Automatic Updates on to install some stuff, even if the internet is not required/or not connected (Virtual XP mode for example).
• When I do this, I occasionally forget that I have left Updates on and connect to the internet. If Updates go so much as even near a Microsoft server site then I erase everything and start again (if that happens I deem the system to be 'unclean' and thus I can no longer depend upon it).
• I start with a 'clean' Windows 7 installation disk, specifically one with a Windows 7-sp3 on it.
• I have a separate collection of 'known' KB security patches and a few other KB files, such as files associated Windows XP Mode/MS Virtual Machine, that I install. These I install first up.
• I then do preliminary/rough settings such as configuring the attributes of the command box, change the Environmental settings so as the TEMP files are in the Root Directory, C:\TEMP etc. (so I can always gain access to them in a split second).
• Here, I also do dozens of other tweaks and settings, the first of which is to get Explorer to display 'details' mode everywhere (in some instances this is damn nigh on impossible (why do the pathetically-little-mined authoritarian Microsoft programming Nazis shits insist that we cannot display files the way we want to)? Damn Them! Even after I tweak Explorer, I install probably the best file manager there is, Directory Opus (I can configure that mostly to the way I want).
• I then nuke the following useless crap (for me anyway—I never use them), partial list only: Recovery/Restore point, Action Center, Windows Security Center, UAC/User Account Control; then I Kill and disable multiple services (too detailed to mentioned here except to mention that Windows Update is turned off and defaulted 'disabled' (I always put a note on my screen to ensue that I never accidentally enable it.)
• I then install one of the greatest and most reliable freeware programs of all time — Ivo Beltchev's wonderful Classic Shell so I get my XP/Windows 2000 looks back — or I should rightly say I revert as close as is possible to IBM's CUA (Common User Access) User Interface. (Incidentally, I've put Ivo Beltchev's Classic Shell on dozens of machines and never, ever had a single moment's trouble with it. When installed, you'd think that how Win 7 came, as it integrates so well and it's so unobtrusive that it becomes 'invisible'. You can go years without realizing it's there. 'Tis a shame that many others don't use it as an example of how to do brilliant programming/programming design.)
• I then install another truly essential utility for Windows, ERU for NT (ERUNT). This program automatically backs up the registry for past 30 days and allows it to be resorted instantly (it's saved me many times).
• I then install other important O/S related utilities such as Nir Sofer's NirSoft utilities, Sysinternals utilities and Raspopov's excellent USB Oblivion which nukes all that Windows remembers about USB dives (it removes details about which USB drives have been inserted, etc.).
• After everything is tweaked and rechecked, I consider State 1 installation to be complete. I then do a mirror backup image of the drive.
• From State 1, I then proceed through various stages until I get to Stage 5, that's when I consider everything to be installed. With each stage, I install programs that progress from small, essential, reliable and stable (well know utilities etc. such as David Carpenter's Everything which I couldn't live without), through to large unstable programs such as Gimp, LibreOffice and MS Office (only up to 2003 ver however), etc.
• This exercise takes me about three weeks to fully complete and involves literally thousands of .reg registry patches (of which I have a documented library of thousands).
• Each stage is backed up separately, this means that if I discover a significant problem in Stage 4, I can reload Stage 3 and then reinstall Stages 4 and 5 from there (this saves a great deal of time as one doesn't have to start from scratch). Also, it's worth noting that the majority of installation time is taken up with fiddly, time consuming O/S adjustments, these mostly in occur in the early Stages 1 & 2. (In one machine, Stage 1 has not required tweaking since 2015, as all other tweaks could be made further up the line.)
•Windows is configured so no essential user data resides on the Operating system drive.
That's the brief version. Oh, BTW, every change on the O/S is documented, which amounts to several reams/over a 1000 pages of info.
Whenever, I blow up Windows or it gets too dirty, it only takes me about 6/7 minutes to stream a fresh working copy of say Windows 7-Stage 5 and I'm up and running again (it's really dead easy and very quick to be back in business). Right, this is one hell of an exercise, but over the years it's paid off big-time.
Now you ask yourself, would I ever upgrade to another crappy version of Windows again when these days that exercise would be nigh on impossible with Win 10. Not in you damn life I wouldn't!
Right, I'm stuck on Windows 7 forever. Next time I have to upgrade, I rekcon I'll only be left with Linux and its kludged brother, Android.
Bye, bye Microsoft.
Oh, I forgot to mention the obvious, which is that most of this messing about would not have be necessary if Microsoft had made it easy to configure the Windows Operating System from the outset.
This sounds like a buggy system that takes WAY too much effort for no support. Install Windows 10 or a Linux you aren’t doing yourself any favors using that.
Wrong. Not at all, in fact it's so reliable that sometimes when I want to make changes I have to refer to my notes because I've forgotten what I'd done five, six or years ago.
I've only done the full exercise twice since 2012 (there's been no need to do more). The second was in 2015 when I fine tuned my installation and it has run like silk ever since. (I don't consider doing other machines as fully redoing the exercise as I've a record of most of the adjustments from the original machine which I apply to the second, and so on.)
It's not any more buggy than any other Windows system and the machine's drivers stabilized years ago. If you got the buggy idea from my comment about me blowing Windows up then it's not the machine's fault. I probably do more varied work on this machine than most, one moment it can be used as a prototyping test bed for some electronic project with the covers off and wires hanging out, another I'll be experimenting with Windows' internals, and the next I'll likely be writing a 20/30 page report where I cannot afford crashes to happen under any circumstances.
It's easy for me to crash Windows, and I do so often! If I get the notion that, say, I cannot uninstall some part of Windows because Microsoft won't let me do so from within the O/S, then I'll just load a Linux based utility like Parted Magic and simply remove the associated files anyway (and this includes all the file repositories and Windows 'self-awareness'/protection stuff which gets in the way when you're testing things out — Windows starts complaining when you do this, so the solution is to also kill off the complaining/monitoring bits). Sometimes this approach can be very successful, sometimes it isn't. What I'm saying is that I've no qualms about pulling Windows' internals apart bit by bit to get it to do my bidding. Clearly, this can cause trouble and sometimes it does.
However, it's never an issue because no useful user data ever resides on the O/S drive and I can stream a complete, fully-installed working backup and I can be up and running within 6/7 minutes. Alternatively, if I'm running multiple projects at once I just swap out the O/S drive for another disk that already has the identical Windows O/S installed and fully pre-configured.
BTW, I've found from testing it's amazing what one can actually do with W10 going down that path, but that's another story. Even though it can be 'tamed' considerably by using unorthodox methods, frankly, I've lost interest in Windows and Microsoft (so have the industries I work with). I've wasted too much of my life mucking about with Microsoft's proprietary code that's written primarily to benefit Microsoft at the users' expense.
Oh, I forgot your point about support. I've used MS products for an awfully long time and I've NEVER received any support from Microsoft (and I wouldn't take it even if it were offered). If you consider automatic updates as support then so be it. If I buy any other type of product I don't have to use it with an umbilical cord connected to the Manufacturer because it was so shoddy when it left the factory, so why do I have to do it with software? Patches and automatic updates are con jobs by a software industry who's convinced everyone that updates are necessary to cover up their crappy/sloppy workmanship—or these days to add in spyware that they forgot to install in the first place (witness Windows 10). QED!
I've only done the full exercise twice since 2012 (there's been no need to do more). The second was in 2015 when I fine tuned my installation and it has run like silk ever since. (I don't consider doing other machines as fully redoing the exercise as I've a record of most of the adjustments from the original machine which I apply to the second, and so on.)
It's not any more buggy than any other Windows system and the machine's drivers stabilized years ago. If you got the buggy idea from my comment about me blowing Windows up then it's not the machine's fault. I probably do more varied work on this machine than most, one moment it can be used as a prototyping test bed for some electronic project with the covers off and wires hanging out, another I'll be experimenting with Windows' internals, and the next I'll likely be writing a 20/30 page report where I cannot afford crashes to happen under any circumstances.
It's easy for me to crash Windows, and I do so often! If I get the notion that, say, I cannot uninstall some part of Windows because Microsoft won't let me do so from within the O/S, then I'll just load a Linux based utility like Parted Magic and simply remove the associated files anyway (and this includes all the file repositories and Windows 'self-awareness'/protection stuff which gets in the way when you're testing things out — Windows starts complaining when you do this, so the solution is to also kill off the complaining/monitoring bits). Sometimes this approach can be very successful, sometimes it isn't. What I'm saying is that I've no qualms about pulling Windows' internals apart bit by bit to get it to do my bidding. Clearly, this can cause trouble and sometimes it does.
However, it's never an issue because no useful user data ever resides on the O/S drive and I can stream a complete, fully-installed working backup and I can be up and running within 6/7 minutes. Alternatively, if I'm running multiple projects at once I just swap out the O/S drive for another disk that already has the identical Windows O/S installed and fully pre-configured.
BTW, I've found from testing it's amazing what one can actually do with W10 going down that path, but that's another story. Even though it can be 'tamed' considerably by using unorthodox methods, frankly, I've lost interest in Windows and Microsoft (so have the industries I work with). I've wasted too much of my life mucking about with Microsoft's proprietary code that's written primarily to benefit Microsoft at the users' expense.
Oh, I forgot your point about support. I've used MS products for an awfully long time and I've NEVER received any support from Microsoft (and I wouldn't take it even if it were offered). If you consider automatic updates as support then so be it. If I buy any other type of product I don't have to use it with an umbilical cord connected to the Manufacturer because it was so shoddy when it left the factory, so why do I have to do it with software? Patches and automatic updates are con jobs by a software industry who's convinced everyone that updates are necessary to cover up their crappy/sloppy workmanship—or these days to add in spyware that they forgot to install in the first place (witness Windows 10). QED!
> ...The second was in 2015 when I fine tuned my installation and it has run like silk ever since.
> ..
> ...It's easy for me to crash Windows, and I do so often!
I get your point, but those two statements are in a bit of tension with each other.
> ..
> ...It's easy for me to crash Windows, and I do so often!
I get your point, but those two statements are in a bit of tension with each other.
If you're going to a fancy dress party you wear fancy dress clothes. I only ever crash Windows when undetaking work that is liable to do so. This is the anthesis of my reliable mode, I never do both together.
> It's not any more buggy than any other Windows system and
Incorrect. Not all bugs are UI errors and you’re missing out on critical updates in order to use an out of date OS.
Incorrect. Not all bugs are UI errors and you’re missing out on critical updates in order to use an out of date OS.
Can't you understand that's my very point, which is that I don't give a damn if my system has ten thousand high-end bugs or not. It's completely irrelevant as the system works and never gives me any trouble. Why temp fate by letting Microsoft near it?
The point is that ongoing updates and upgrading Windows is a much worse option since Microsoft began stealing user information.
As I mentioned, my bugs are friendly ones in that they've not caused me any significant problem since 2012!
As for security, I couldn't give a damn about security updates, everything is backed up and there's no user data of any significane on the machine worthy of stealing. (One way to ensure private information can't be stolen is not to put machines containing it onto the net. I observe this rule and have always done so.)
The fact is that by not using JavaScript, I likely have better protection anyway.
Addendum, another way of looking at the problem is that I no longer have a relationship with Microsoft. I paid them good money for multiple copies of Windows in 2012 and as far as I'm concerned that's the end of it. Finito.
This ongoing umbilical tethering of software after it's purchased is something I'm strongly against, especially so with software from Big Tech, they're forever adding stuff in patches that benefits them well ahead of the user. I want no part of that type of operation.
The point is that ongoing updates and upgrading Windows is a much worse option since Microsoft began stealing user information.
As I mentioned, my bugs are friendly ones in that they've not caused me any significant problem since 2012!
As for security, I couldn't give a damn about security updates, everything is backed up and there's no user data of any significane on the machine worthy of stealing. (One way to ensure private information can't be stolen is not to put machines containing it onto the net. I observe this rule and have always done so.)
The fact is that by not using JavaScript, I likely have better protection anyway.
Addendum, another way of looking at the problem is that I no longer have a relationship with Microsoft. I paid them good money for multiple copies of Windows in 2012 and as far as I'm concerned that's the end of it. Finito.
This ongoing umbilical tethering of software after it's purchased is something I'm strongly against, especially so with software from Big Tech, they're forever adding stuff in patches that benefits them well ahead of the user. I want no part of that type of operation.
This doesn't seem healthy.
You have to post some of these notes you reference to a Github, for posterity.
Right, perhaps so. I gave it some thought previously but I didn't think anyone would be interested. I'll give it some more thought (and I've a Github acct.). Thanks for the suggestion.
I'd go nuts without my arch linux and i3 for this very reason.
Maybe this is what linux desktop needed to finally break through. But not yet, only after everyone realizes how much freedom they gave up in a couple more years
just migrate to Linux.
> Linux is, considering what's going on with the major distributions, desktop environments and UI toolkits, seemingly heading the same way. Sure, pick your own window manager, see if we care - we've got client side decorations! Want to theme your GUI? Yeah, but not in our Snap packages you won't! Want to turn off cursor blinking? Mmmmyyeeaahhh, not too sure about that. Oh, you started a GUI file manager? Hey, enjoy the ten new folders we've littered your home directory with! They all start with capital letters: designed for typing convenience in a case sensitive file system.
Those are weird complaints when talking about lack of customisation. Snaps are not enforced - you can run all of that software without them. Terminals will have their own cursor blinking config - worst case change your terminal. File manager creates directories? Disable that, or if you can't, change the manager, or if you can't configure system to deny creating them, or compile your own version which doesn't do it.
The options are all there. I get the complaint about the lack of configuration on popular systems. But you can't have it both ways and then complain that Linux doesn't expose the options you really want. Every person will have something they'd like to do and you can't realistically expose millions of options without killing usability - but if you really want to adjust something, and are willing to put in some effort, you can.
The options are all there. I get the complaint about the lack of configuration on popular systems. But you can't have it both ways and then complain that Linux doesn't expose the options you really want. Every person will have something they'd like to do and you can't realistically expose millions of options without killing usability - but if you really want to adjust something, and are willing to put in some effort, you can.
That's way too high a bar. Linux for a personal computer is often a nightmare for professional programmers like me; for the average user it can be really miserable. Last time I used Linux as my primary environment a decade ago I ended up quitting after two years thanks to Pulse Audio and basically being able to play music 50% of the time.
I think we are better off focusing on content generation tools- ie geocities, garageband, gimp, and software that is customizeable by the end user, even if they aren't a programmer- for example being able to skin the UI, or lay things out a certain way.
I think we are better off focusing on content generation tools- ie geocities, garageband, gimp, and software that is customizeable by the end user, even if they aren't a programmer- for example being able to skin the UI, or lay things out a certain way.
26.6% of developers in the StackOverflow Developer survey use Linux. (vs 45.8% Windows and 27.5% Mac).
https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2020#technology-de...
https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2020#technology-de...
You are very wrong. Perhaps you were right once, but definitely not in 2020. Linux is, by far, the best environment for professional programmers, unless of course the programmers target the Mac or Windows exclusively.
Well I think that's just it - if you want everything to be perfect it's going to be very high bar. It shouldn't come as a surprise you can't have the simplicity and control of an Amiga and the functionality of a modern computer without setting the bar very high. It's not necessarily a failure of anything in the same way it's not a failure of space rocketry to be vastly different than how you could use a bike even though they are both transport technologies we put together.
This is a fair point. Pulseaudio should be purged.
Using computers is significantly less enjoyable for me now than it used to me. Updates being installed without my consent, telemetry and surveillance being forced upon me, loss of functionality when features I use aren't popular enough to warrant continued inclusion in products, and software developers who are actively hostile toward allowing "power users" configuration options all detract from the enjoyment I used to have.