The walled gardens of the big tech-platforms will be their demise.
-
@lispi314 @spdrnl @pluralistic Well again, this is you projecting with apparently no knowledge.
Price of entry into the Apple Ecosystem, is yes, an Apple device, which, a Mac Mini, which will do the job fine, is $599 USD. Entry into the developer program, which is essentially identity verification, all tools available without paying the fee, is $99 USD per year, and has been since it started.
So for less than the price of a mid level GPU, you can get into MacOS development.
-
@lispi314 @spdrnl @pluralistic Oh, and I like BSD ports. I've spent a bunch of time on the BSDs, Net Open and Free. Nothing quite like building LDAP with DB support and your DB with LDAP support
-
@lispi314 @spdrnl @pluralistic It's perfectly fine for you to choose not to support the platform, just don't go making up stuff like it's prohibitively expensive or other rubbish. If you wanted to support it, you could. That’s a current model Mac Mini, you could find second hand ones on eBay for cheaper, and they'll still do the job.
Someone new to development could buy a new Mac, and develop for both Linux and Mac comfortably.
-
Oh my!
Summarizing, the point is not that U.S. tech platforms do not innovate at all.
Making that the point is for me a straw man in disguise.
-
It also makes it useless to write manuals or educational materials to do that.
No cool demonstrations in class: here is how to hack your airtag.
What is in the hands of pupils, triggers their interest.
That is where it starts I think.
-
The walled gardens of the big tech-platforms will be their demise. So much innovation is lost because of the need for control.
Really, the U.S. platforms are not forward looking. The have hit reverse a long time ago, going full speed towards history.
In the previous century I could pick up a phone and call anyone. Try that with the big platforms. NoT wiTHout a DeAl!
Open protocols are the way ahead.
@pluralistic @spdrnl minor quibble, phones were easy because monopoly was rampant. The need to break up companies is a repeat of history.
-
@lispi314 @spdrnl @pluralistic Ahh, and because it's prohibitively expensive for you, it has no right to exist. Got it.. We should only work on things that you personally can afford.
You're still not making any sense, at all.
-
It also makes it useless to write manuals or educational materials to do that.
No cool demonstrations in class: here is how to hack your airtag.
What is in the hands of pupils, triggers their interest.
That is where it starts I think.
@lispi314 @pluralistic Rolling on, this is probably directly related to Europe's lagging.
There is enough technical talent to make innovation happen. Software engineers are willing and able.
Still there is this invisible wall. Yes, money, yes, a culture of land, steel and oil.
And also: you never know when you trip a patent wire. And few European investors can survive that. #EU
There is this uncomfortable vacuum.
-
Oh my!
Summarizing, the point is not that U.S. tech platforms do not innovate at all.
Making that the point is for me a straw man in disguise.
-
The walled gardens of the big tech-platforms will be their demise. So much innovation is lost because of the need for control.
Really, the U.S. platforms are not forward looking. The have hit reverse a long time ago, going full speed towards history.
In the previous century I could pick up a phone and call anyone. Try that with the big platforms. NoT wiTHout a DeAl!
Open protocols are the way ahead.
@pluralistic What is missing from the discussion is I think the notion of positive and negative freedom.
Paraphrasing: one is free to but a Mac and do some innovation. Positive freedom.
If you open the Mac up and start prodding, someone is likely to come after you. That is a lack of negative freedom.
Negative freedom is a precondition for positive freedom. As I understand it, the goal of negative freedom is to enable positive freedom.
-
@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..
