The walled gardens of the big tech-platforms will be their demise.
-
@lispi314 @spdrnl @pluralistic That's the problem with OSS folks. Incredibly short memories. Particularly if it's inconvenient for their arguments, I.e the amount Apple commits to OSS projects like LLVM (Xcode), Webkit et al. They're fake on the privacy stuff while writing papers with experts. Swift is OSS under the Apache 2.0 license with an exception that doesn't require an acknowledgement if the runtime is included in your application.
-
@lispi314 @spdrnl @pluralistic That's the problem with OSS folks. Incredibly short memories. Particularly if it's inconvenient for their arguments, I.e the amount Apple commits to OSS projects like LLVM (Xcode), Webkit et al. They're fake on the privacy stuff while writing papers with experts. Swift is OSS under the Apache 2.0 license with an exception that doesn't require an acknowledgement if the runtime is included in your application.
@mattw @lispi314 @pluralistic What I think is missing is the notion of positive and negative freedom.
Yes, I can buy a Mac, and yes I can use Swift. That is positive freedom.
If I open the Mac, then someone can come after me. That is a lack of negative freedom.
-
@mattw @lispi314 @pluralistic What I think is missing is the notion of positive and negative freedom.
Yes, I can buy a Mac, and yes I can use Swift. That is positive freedom.
If I open the Mac, then someone can come after me. That is a lack of negative freedom.
@spdrnl @lispi314 @pluralistic There you both go making stuff up again.
Apple has never gone after anyone for opening a Mac up. People have been shipping shims to make MacOS run on older Macs and even PC hardware for decades, Apple hasn't gone after them. The only time Apple did go after someone for “opening a Mac up” was Pegasus, when they went out and built a business around selling MacOS on PC hardware. The problem there is it becomes something that the end user expects Apple to support.
-
@mattw @lispi314 @pluralistic What I think is missing is the notion of positive and negative freedom.
Yes, I can buy a Mac, and yes I can use Swift. That is positive freedom.
If I open the Mac, then someone can come after me. That is a lack of negative freedom.
@spdrnl @lispi314 @pluralistic DRM, you're aiming at the wrong folks. Apple dropped DRM on music the moment the Music industry did. Which was shortly after they realised they'd given Apple a monopoly. The Movie industry still pushes DRM so everyone has it.
-
@spdrnl @lispi314 @pluralistic There you both go making stuff up again.
Apple has never gone after anyone for opening a Mac up. People have been shipping shims to make MacOS run on older Macs and even PC hardware for decades, Apple hasn't gone after them. The only time Apple did go after someone for “opening a Mac up” was Pegasus, when they went out and built a business around selling MacOS on PC hardware. The problem there is it becomes something that the end user expects Apple to support.
@mattw @lispi314 @pluralistic Perhaps specifically Apple was not a good example. And you do get the point, right?
-
@spdrnl @lispi314 @pluralistic There you both go making stuff up again.
Apple has never gone after anyone for opening a Mac up. People have been shipping shims to make MacOS run on older Macs and even PC hardware for decades, Apple hasn't gone after them. The only time Apple did go after someone for “opening a Mac up” was Pegasus, when they went out and built a business around selling MacOS on PC hardware. The problem there is it becomes something that the end user expects Apple to support.
@mattw @lispi314 @pluralistic So what you would like to say is: Apple is an exception, it is not closed, and it has a future?
That is .o.k.
And there still is the larger argument.
-
@mattw @lispi314 @pluralistic What I think is missing is the notion of positive and negative freedom.
Yes, I can buy a Mac, and yes I can use Swift. That is positive freedom.
If I open the Mac, then someone can come after me. That is a lack of negative freedom.
@spdrnl @lispi314 @pluralistic Patent litigation is an issue, but again, I'd say that's a patent process problem in general more than an Apple one.. Fix the patent industry in general and Apple won't be a problem. The lobbying is somewhat bullshit, but I also fight against opening up the hardware. Recycle the hardware, which Apple does. Extending its life when every CPU, Bluetooth, Wireless modem is buggy as hell? No thanks.
-
@spdrnl @lispi314 @pluralistic Patent litigation is an issue, but again, I'd say that's a patent process problem in general more than an Apple one.. Fix the patent industry in general and Apple won't be a problem. The lobbying is somewhat bullshit, but I also fight against opening up the hardware. Recycle the hardware, which Apple does. Extending its life when every CPU, Bluetooth, Wireless modem is buggy as hell? No thanks.
Yes, so open standards would be ideal.
I am curious where RISC-V will be taken all of us.
-
@mattw @lispi314 @pluralistic So what you would like to say is: Apple is an exception, it is not closed, and it has a future?
That is .o.k.
And there still is the larger argument.
@spdrnl @lispi314 @pluralistic Yeah, and I’m definitely not blind to the issues in the market. One of the things Cory talks about is the use of open standard data connectors, so that people can take their content from Facebook, move to a new platform, and still interact with folks on Facebook. We should always push to support standards. But I also see that Apple still attracts the highest vulnerability bounties, due to rarity, something about the combination of hardware and software allows that.
-
Yes, so open standards would be ideal.
I am curious where RISC-V will be taken all of us.
@spdrnl @lispi314 @pluralistic I’m mixed on RISC-V. Heck, I seem to be mixed on a lot these days. I like the idea of open hardware, but OSS is the perpetual 60% complete project and most of that has been relearning what everyone who came before them already knew. Storage is HARD, BeeGFS from Germany claimed it's a leading PFS.. Except they couldn't even mirror properly. BTRFS stalled for 10 years. OpenZFS is basically just polishing what Sun/Oracle already built..
-
@lispi314 @spdrnl @pluralistic That one's a no win situation, but also I will point out that if they are sitting on mountains of hardware, it doesn't need to be wasted. It's only wasted if you don't use one of the many options for recycling we have, you may even get some money for it.
No win is, when the iPhone came out, it was the most stolen phone on the planet. Apple introduces tools to protect end users from having their data stolen, and kill off the black market. Incidentally, second hand.
-
@lispi314 @spdrnl @pluralistic That one's a no win situation, but also I will point out that if they are sitting on mountains of hardware, it doesn't need to be wasted. It's only wasted if you don't use one of the many options for recycling we have, you may even get some money for it.
No win is, when the iPhone came out, it was the most stolen phone on the planet. Apple introduces tools to protect end users from having their data stolen, and kill off the black market. Incidentally, second hand.
@lispi314 @spdrnl @pluralistic How quickly would tools to unlock Macs supplied to resellers end up on the black market? Less than a week?
-
@lispi314 @spdrnl @pluralistic I need to put a pin in this as it's after midnight in Australia. Happy to pick up again in ~8 hours.
I understand the reuse argument, but I just don’t think it should apply to any tech with processors in them. CPUs have security vulnerabilities, and you can't always guarantee they will be mitigated properly. Things like Intel dropping multi-threading because side channel attacks became too easy. Recycle it and stop it being used by someone unwittingly.
-
@lispi314 @spdrnl @pluralistic Agree on the price reduction, and that does kinda happen if you recycle through Apple and get a rebate. I'd like to see vendors reuse more.
Thing is, Apple did address the issue of stolen phones.
-
There would have to be a broad coalition of countries all doing it together. How to organize that without the US finding out?
-
There would have to be a broad coalition of countries all doing it together. How to organize that without the US finding out?
@hamishb @lispi314 @pluralistic Well, my understanding is that these laws were forced onto the #EU with the threat of tariffs.
So these tariffs for the #EU are here anyway. Voicing this state of affairs as Cory is doing is the first step.
The second step I think is educating people and foremost politicians of the detrimental effects of hanging on to these laws.
1/2
-
@hamishb @lispi314 @pluralistic Well, my understanding is that these laws were forced onto the #EU with the threat of tariffs.
So these tariffs for the #EU are here anyway. Voicing this state of affairs as Cory is doing is the first step.
The second step I think is educating people and foremost politicians of the detrimental effects of hanging on to these laws.
1/2
@hamishb @lispi314 @pluralistic
Third, I think is to better explain what differentiates innovation from plain land grabs and law breaking.
Palantir comes to mind. No ontology, no innovation, a mediocre systems integrator. Yes cruelty and yes probably privacy law breaking. To rich to sue, and with the blessing of Thiel.
The AI crew are mass law breakers too. Imagine in a while, no real AI and completely broken copyright and privacy laws.
2/2
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
