I purchase the hardware, I should be able to do what I want with it. I want apple hardware for the good processor specs and battery life and general hardware quality.
Apple should be forced to release the necessary hardware specs to develop drivers so that I can use my hardware I purchased as I want. They should be required to let me own my own signing keys to boot my own software.
Anyway, I'd personally want bootcamp because it's a step closer to being able to install Linux, an operating system that lets me have a good tiling window manager that works.
Why the heck would anyone want to use macOS willingly, where the window manager and file browser are both complete unconfigurable trash.
There's just no getting "then don't buy it" for people who obviously don't agree with Apple's terms and conditions, is there? Not every product sold in the market will be done your way, and you can't act oppressed here because if you don't like Apple computers, you have a ton of other options...
Yes but there is the larger question of whether you should be able to install any software you want on hardware you own. Or does Apple still control it even though you paid for it.
I don’t believe there’s a question at all. You actually can’t just install any software you want on any hardware that you own. You don’t even have the right to compel companies to design computers only in such a way that appeals to your personal preferences.
Apple's terms are completely arbitrary. People will complain about this until the computers are capable of it again, because there is no legitimate technical reason that Apple Silicon cannot support third-party OSes.
So you want to compel Apple to write Windows drivers? You can't just install Windows on anything you want, the manufacturer has to make sure it works with Windows, and Apple is truly over playing nice with Windows.
On top of that, Windows 11 requires a TPM and Apple's implementation of the Secure Enclave is probably completely incompatible. The short moment in time when both computer families were in complete technological harmony is over.
The Linux community managed it. TPM isn't a hard requirement for Win11, Apple's SOCs are still in harmony with Windows' vision for computing.
To repeat myself, there is no valid technical reason that Apple cannot commit to documenting their platform for third-parties. People will complain, because it's an arbitrary choice on Apple's behalf to provide less transparent support than AMD, Intel or even the famously capricious Nvidia.
This has the knock-on effect of limiting macOS' exposure to third-party OS competition, enabling Apple to subsidize macOS support with SaaS offerings and advertisements. Apple customers have been increasingly asking for official Linux support on Apple Silicon, because macOS and iPadOS are not legitimate competitors to Windows or Linux. Apple Silicon is undoubtedly the second-class citizen of the PC world, and it's entirely Apple's choice to limit their hardware like that.
The fact YOU can run Windows 11 without a TPM does not mean that a hardware manufacturer can just hand wave Microsoft's requirements. Point me in the direction of a manufacturer who ships code that bypasses the TPM for their devices.
In OSes everything seems to be a zero-sum game to you. What the 2010s have demonstrated is that OSes can still carve markets for themselves. SteamOS, Android, Oculus, iPadOS, and the king of it all, iOS, have proven that to be relevant, you only need to create your own category. iPadOS is the only relevant tablet OS. Users expect iPadOS if you give them a tablet. Windows is irrelevant in that space.
F-Droid on android was a far better app store than Google's.
An Open Source / Free Software Only app store on iOS which only allowed reproducible builds would be so much better than the iOS app store for security.
I would trust that so much more, and I feel like anyone even marginally technically competent would too.
If Mozilla made its own app distribution platform for Firefox and Thunderbird, I'd also naturally trust that.
At this point, I do not trust apple at all. The iOS app store sells ads. If I search for my bank's name, a different bank comes up as the first result.
If you search 'Ledger Bitcoin Wallet' on the app store, someone who pays more for the ad slot can present you with a crypto stealer (which has happened in the past! the app store review didn't catch that obvious bullshit).
The app store's "due diligence" and "vetting" all went out the window as soon as they started selling the top search spot to the highest bidder.
I mean, they're the TLS certs are baked into the stdlib 'tls' package, not the compiler itself.
It's just an unfortunate unforced error that the go TLS package is bundled along with the compiler, in the same way Safari being bundled with iOS updates is an unforced error meaning a safari security bug requires a full OS update.
Oh, wow, that makes it even sillier. If I want to delete certs from my system certificate store, I can do that, the stdlib should not be making that choice if it's not even packaging the things.
These are intermediate certificates, and the system certificate store on Linux provides no way to tell verifiers such as Go's crypto/x509 that an intermediate is revoked. So Go really has no other option here.
gTLDs at least have some minimal level of accountability and security standards.
ccTLDs are at the whim of the country. If you went with the '.su' ccTLD from the soviet union some years back, well, that would have been quite unfortunate.
Legally I feel like they're also worse. Like, say you're an abortion clinic operating in the regressive country of the US, and you get a '.us' ccTLD, surely it's more likely the government outlaws abortions and censors your domain via the registrar than if you used a '.com'?
> If you went with the '.su' ccTLD from the soviet union some years back, well, that would have been quite unfortunate.
.su is still being operated. Still being sold, even. How bad .su is for you depends on how friendly you are with the current Russian regime (though that also applies to the American regime, as the owners of autistici.org found out, though .org has always been American and .su was non-Russian for about 15 months).
Very bad example: If your business is outlawed, that why is it a problem if the domain of the then illegal business is also censored? It is basically an expected outcome.
I believe you made the wrong example using US, since gTLD like ".com" are de facto controlled also by US companies.
If we instead take another country, like Italy, the reasoning would be sound. If Italian governament bans abortions in Italy, it's more likely that the auhtorities are able to restrict the sites registered on .it than .com
Reverse engineering doesn't help for iOS very much since even if you build your own version of their app with that feature unlocked, iOS doesn't allow you to sideload.
You'd have to pay $100/year for an apple developer account and then refresh the app every 14 days (since publishing your own hacked version on the appstore would plainly be a copyright and trademark violation, and if you use a developer account to load a developer version of an app on your device, you have to constantly refresh it).
Switch to one of the linux phones if you actually want to install software on your device.
I mean, Tesla demoed, promised, and took reservation money for a roadster reboot that _also_ didn't contain any technology China didn't have in 2017, and at this point they still haven't delivered on that and it feels safe to call it a scam.
Just because the technology is technically feasible doesn't mean that a specific company is not scamming you when they promise it.
And Tesla already has enough of a history of fake promises (your tesla will be a self-driving robotaxi earning money while you sleep within a few years, FSD will take you across the country while you sleep by next year, humanoid robots, the new roadster is taking reservations now and will deliver soon, regulation is the only thing holding up FSD, etc etc).
To be fair the main reason why FSD hasn't been a wide spread thing is mostly due to local regulations. The technology exists and performs fairly well. FSD is allowed in pretty much all the same cities Waymo is allowed to operate so we can see from this that its a regulatory issue not a technological one.
And "discord" means "disagreement", "lack of harmony", "arguments" in English. Even weirder name for a chat application in an even more commonly used language.
"Slack" associates pretty strongly with "slack off" (get no work done) too, so that one's also strange.
The only explanation I can offer for “Slack” is that its founders and top brass have been adherents of the “parody religion” Church of the SubGenius, and have successfully interposed themselves into the everyday business machinations of a wide swath of Western businesses.
Meanwhile, “Discord” wouldn’t surprise me if it were a product of the Discordians themselves, a similarly disorganized “parody religion”.
I read it directly from the founder and former CEO, who included a screenshot from November 2012, about 9 months before the August 2013 release, of him using that acronym as a code name. https://xxcancel.com/stewart/status/780906639301812225
I figured Slack referred to slack in task time estimation i.e. the amount of extra time allowed in a task. Collaborating on Slack would count towards that time.
reply