by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Sunday November 06, 2016 @04:46PM (#53224437)
At one point in time every kind of personal computer you could buy would be yours.
Then people started buying locked down devices, which became a bigger and bigger part of the market. Because why not? People buy them, and it's better for the selling company to maintain control of the device so they can exfiltrate your data, lock you into their software store to reap a cut off the top, or disable the device remotely.
But, generally, you could still get past against-the-owner security in various ways. But companies are learning from the holes, and each generation is more difficult to bypass. Even whitebox PCs are moving in this direction.
The ownership-era for general purpose computing devices is drawing to a close. Step back to 1970's someone playing with their Apple II or C= Pet and try to explain to them that someday, their computer will take orders from someone else in preference to theirs. They might not even understand how such a thing would be possible, but a million tiny steps have led us to our cages. The next million tiny steps will throw away the key. At each step, people get to argue, "THAT step didn't cause the problem. Why are you complaining so much??"
Thus ends the potential freedom brought about by the computing revolution.
You do realize Stallman has been saying this stuff since the 70s right? Its been a known problem for a VERY long time and we fought the good fight for as long as we could, but pocket computers killed it.
Always-connected Internet made securing your machine impossible. This was the innovation that took away permanent control over your machine. After all, you "need" to install security patches so *other* programs or people on the Internet can't take over your machine, right? This means you can never "fix" your machine to a set configuration. You trust someone else to update your machine, and these updates keep control over you.
You do realize Stallman has been saying this stuff since the 70s right? Its been a known problem for a VERY long time and we fought the good fight for as long as we could, but pocket computers killed it.
Well I think it swings both ways, it's more and more obvious that you don't really control any closed source operating system, you pretty much must have security patches and everything else comes along for the ride and increasingly it can't be configured or disabled. That's the way of iOS, Android, Win10, they're trying to push that model on Win7/8, I'm not sure about OS X but they're probably not far behind. If you want control, you want Linux (or some other open source OS). That said, most people don't felt they were in control at all. By making Apple/Google/Microsoft the gatekeeper, they trust just one source instead of any random exe from the Internet. Same way most people want the CA system instead of messing with peer-to-peer trust. Because when they don't understand - and they won't understand, no matter how much you try to teach them - they end up trusting something or someone.
That said, what I'm mostly disappointed with is how the world has ended up revolving around a few, huge centralized services. Newsgroups, IRC, Email, blogs and really any kind of service that runs on a network or you could run from your own server is toiling in obscurity, you need to be on Facebook and Twitter and YouTube playing by their rules and if they want to wield the ban hammer there's very little you can do. Personally I'm far more concerned about how we've lost control of the human interaction rather than control over the local machine. And for the most part we don't own things in the digital world anymore we license or stream them, it's all permissions that can be revoked or services that can be shut down. That said, it works surprisingly well until one day it doesn't.
>Well I think it swings both ways, it's more and more obvious that you don't really control any closed source operating system, you pretty much must have security patches and everything else comes along for the ride and increasingly it can't be configured or disabled. That's the way of iOS, Android, Win10, they're trying to push that model on Win7/8, I'm not sure about OS X but they're probably not far behind. If you want control, you want Linux (or some other open source OS). That said, most people don't felt they were in control at all. By making Apple/Google/Microsoft the gatekeeper, they trust just one source instead of any random exe from the Internet. Same way most people want the CA system instead of messing with peer-to-peer trust. Because when they don't understand - and they won't understand, no matter how much you try to teach them - they end up trusting something or someone.
True. But there's no connection between getting signed patches from Apple/Microsoft/Google and it being FOSS. You can have both. The only reason to lock down a platform so that users can't mess with it *if they want to* is control and money. Taking control away from users and putting it in the hands of A/M/G instead. On cell phones this was justified by the subsidies that cell phone carriers would pay - a carrier wouldn't want someone to buy a subsidized cell phone from them and then switch carriers (notwithstanding that this could just be enforced by ETFs and the like), so cell phones were locked down to remove root access to them. And because cell phones were, tablets have followed along, since tablets are just cell phones with larger screens.
Google does the minimum to be compliant to the GPL, and Apple and Microsoft barely even pretend. Windows 10 is a disaster for many reasons, but the biggest one to me is that it has finally removed the notion that the owner of a computer is, you know, the owner. Who can modify it to fit his needs as he wishes. Now you're just a user, and even with administrative privileges there are things you will not be allowed to do inside the OS. It's the biggest piece of shit move from the FOSS perspective that the world has ever seen.
The saddest thing that can ever be said is that Stallman was right again.
Cough, cough, they only win, when we stop fighting. Really how much effort does it take to fight. Attack it on forums, every now and again, complain to the government every now and again, join in with consumer rights organisations, join in with personal rights organisation, refuse to buy products that do not serve you, well, do that always, seriously should you allow control over your own life to be treated as an inconvenience.
New actions, fuck up all their surveys, corporations treat me well and I will t
What I find amazing is to what extent these manufacturers go to stop people from doing anything useful with these locked down devices. Seems to much time and effort is being put into obfuscation (Using even opensource software to do it) than actually making a useful product. My question is, why? Just seems silly and creates a lot more waste. There's so many of these devices out there right now, that doing this is completely pointless and doesn't even guarantee the customer is going to buy your product again.
To be 100% accurate, Nexus devices are yours. You can load a ROM that is pre-rooted and then do everything you want. Bootloader locks are a side-effect of the way Americans buy their smartphones, which is basically that they do not own them for the first one or two years but instead borrow them from the carrier 'till they pay them off during the course of the contract. So, the device is not yours to tinker with. Even before Android, there were all kinds of locks in the software for the carrier's behest.
you think it won't get worse? (Score:5, Insightful)
At one point in time every kind of personal computer you could buy would be yours.
Then people started buying locked down devices, which became a bigger and bigger part of the market. Because why not? People buy them, and it's better for the selling company to maintain control of the device so they can exfiltrate your data, lock you into their software store to reap a cut off the top, or disable the device remotely.
But, generally, you could still get past against-the-owner security in various ways. But companies are learning from the holes, and each generation is more difficult to bypass. Even whitebox PCs are moving in this direction.
The ownership-era for general purpose computing devices is drawing to a close. Step back to 1970's someone playing with their Apple II or C= Pet and try to explain to them that someday, their computer will take orders from someone else in preference to theirs. They might not even understand how such a thing would be possible, but a million tiny steps have led us to our cages. The next million tiny steps will throw away the key. At each step, people get to argue, "THAT step didn't cause the problem. Why are you complaining so much??"
Thus ends the potential freedom brought about by the computing revolution.
Re:you think it won't get worse? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
we fought the good fight for as long as we could, but rampant technical illiteracy killed it.
FTFY.
Re: you think it won't get worse? (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't confuse illiteracy with complacency. Thereeven are plenty of capable people out there.
NOBODY CARES.
Why should they?
Always connected Internet made securing your machi (Score:1)
Always-connected Internet made securing your machine impossible. This was the innovation that took away permanent control over your machine. After all, you "need" to install security patches so *other* programs or people on the Internet can't take over your machine, right? This means you can never "fix" your machine to a set configuration. You trust someone else to update your machine, and these updates keep control over you.
Re:you think it won't get worse? (Score:4, Interesting)
You do realize Stallman has been saying this stuff since the 70s right? Its been a known problem for a VERY long time and we fought the good fight for as long as we could, but pocket computers killed it.
Well I think it swings both ways, it's more and more obvious that you don't really control any closed source operating system, you pretty much must have security patches and everything else comes along for the ride and increasingly it can't be configured or disabled. That's the way of iOS, Android, Win10, they're trying to push that model on Win7/8, I'm not sure about OS X but they're probably not far behind. If you want control, you want Linux (or some other open source OS). That said, most people don't felt they were in control at all. By making Apple/Google/Microsoft the gatekeeper, they trust just one source instead of any random exe from the Internet. Same way most people want the CA system instead of messing with peer-to-peer trust. Because when they don't understand - and they won't understand, no matter how much you try to teach them - they end up trusting something or someone.
That said, what I'm mostly disappointed with is how the world has ended up revolving around a few, huge centralized services. Newsgroups, IRC, Email, blogs and really any kind of service that runs on a network or you could run from your own server is toiling in obscurity, you need to be on Facebook and Twitter and YouTube playing by their rules and if they want to wield the ban hammer there's very little you can do. Personally I'm far more concerned about how we've lost control of the human interaction rather than control over the local machine. And for the most part we don't own things in the digital world anymore we license or stream them, it's all permissions that can be revoked or services that can be shut down. That said, it works surprisingly well until one day it doesn't.
Re:you think it won't get worse? (Score:4, Insightful)
>Well I think it swings both ways, it's more and more obvious that you don't really control any closed source operating system, you pretty much must have security patches and everything else comes along for the ride and increasingly it can't be configured or disabled. That's the way of iOS, Android, Win10, they're trying to push that model on Win7/8, I'm not sure about OS X but they're probably not far behind. If you want control, you want Linux (or some other open source OS). That said, most people don't felt they were in control at all. By making Apple/Google/Microsoft the gatekeeper, they trust just one source instead of any random exe from the Internet. Same way most people want the CA system instead of messing with peer-to-peer trust. Because when they don't understand - and they won't understand, no matter how much you try to teach them - they end up trusting something or someone.
True. But there's no connection between getting signed patches from Apple/Microsoft/Google and it being FOSS. You can have both. The only reason to lock down a platform so that users can't mess with it *if they want to* is control and money. Taking control away from users and putting it in the hands of A/M/G instead. On cell phones this was justified by the subsidies that cell phone carriers would pay - a carrier wouldn't want someone to buy a subsidized cell phone from them and then switch carriers (notwithstanding that this could just be enforced by ETFs and the like), so cell phones were locked down to remove root access to them. And because cell phones were, tablets have followed along, since tablets are just cell phones with larger screens.
Google does the minimum to be compliant to the GPL, and Apple and Microsoft barely even pretend. Windows 10 is a disaster for many reasons, but the biggest one to me is that it has finally removed the notion that the owner of a computer is, you know, the owner. Who can modify it to fit his needs as he wishes. Now you're just a user, and even with administrative privileges there are things you will not be allowed to do inside the OS. It's the biggest piece of shit move from the FOSS perspective that the world has ever seen.
The saddest thing that can ever be said is that Stallman was right again.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. Do you judge every philosophy by the personal habits of its founder?
Re: (Score:2)
Cough, cough, they only win, when we stop fighting. Really how much effort does it take to fight. Attack it on forums, every now and again, complain to the government every now and again, join in with consumer rights organisations, join in with personal rights organisation, refuse to buy products that do not serve you, well, do that always, seriously should you allow control over your own life to be treated as an inconvenience.
New actions, fuck up all their surveys, corporations treat me well and I will t
Re:you think it won't get worse? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My question is, why?
Sales. Anything that allows users to re-purpose devices is a sale lost. PC's were re-purposed often, so they learned how to fix that mistake.
Even better for them is they avoided costs by using the open source operating system designed to make it open, to close it instead.
Re:you think it won't get worse? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because 99% of consumers do not even know the difference between locked and unlocked device, and most won't even care, sadly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
To be 100% accurate, Nexus devices are yours.
It's a shame they've taken that away with their new Pixel line.