Comment by pmarreck
3 years ago
all this looks like points for open source. You can’t exactly stop someone from putting an open source OS on their hardware, and if the train software was open-source, then this “clawback code” nonsense would have been impossible to keep secret.
and you’re right, OS/2 Warp WAS a great OS. As soon as it started losing market viability, it should have gone open source as a defensive self-preservation tactic.
When LLaMa was released for free, it basically guaranteed it would never die a corporate death
> You can’t exactly stop someone from putting an open source OS on their hardware
Of course you can. Have secure boot requiring a signed bootloader. Currently Microsoft are good enough to sign a linux bootloader so you can run things like ubuntu.
Doesn't mean that in 73 years you'll have a situation where OSS is not only illegal, but you could not install one if you had one, without knowing your computer's root password. And neither the FBI nor Microsoft Support would tell you that [0]
[0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html
Coreboot (which System76 and Framework use): Exists
Love the GNU mentality though, but you don't need FUD to promote your ideas. Lots of problems would just disappear if most things went open-source, and the value proposition might shift but would still be there. The most valuable part of code is the people that create, understand and maintain it; not the code itself. The code itself is ephemeral. (I hate to admit this. Us coders love our brain-babies.)
Note: I own a System76 Thelio Major and have a Framework laptop on order, so I am not just a non-participating bystander in my beliefs here
I agree. GNU rhetoric does not help their case. Much of it sounds very confrontational and whinny.
I am a supporter of free software and open hardware, but I would never try to forcibly try to convince people with half-truths.
BTW I don't think coreboot is really helpful in that it appears to me is more about controlling hardware access.
That page was written way before most people had ever heard of linux, a decade before things like secureboot became a thing, and way before the most common personal computing device in the world was a choice of two locked down devices.
> You can’t exactly stop someone from putting an open source OS on their hardware [...]
Of course you can. It's a train, not a PC. Its primary function is to *safely* get me from point A to point B. No safety certification for the whole thing (including software), means it doesn't go on tracks. The freedom of your fist ends where my nose begins, which means your freedom to mess up the train's software ends where I step on board.
Poland has had its share of railroad catastrophes, and I very narrowly avoided being a victim - I got late for this train: <https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17248735>. I no longer live there - I like trains, but the trains in Poland are an unmitigated disaster every single time I visit.
> [...] and if the train software was open-source, then this “clawback code” nonsense would have been impossible to keep secret.
There's two problems with that:
1. Just because it's open source, doesn't mean you get to load your own modified version (see above); which means the software that's actually running on the train can trivially be made different from the sources you were delivered;
2. Just because it's open source, doesn't mean it can't have a hardware backdoor, or some sort of manufacturer-installed APT.
You can't even buy an Intel CPU that doesn't include an entire separate core, with its own Ethernet controller and OS - and that is the stuff that's actually documented and sold as an "enterprise" feature. Imagine an entire train of nooks and crannies to hide this sort of nonsense.
Good thing we have open-source hardware out there and open-source CPU's on deck. And makers like System76 and Framework that at least use Coreboot.
Wow re: train near-miss. Glad you're still here with us! That must have been terrifying to learn.
> Good thing we have open-source hardware out there and open-source CPU's on deck.
Read "Reflections on Trusting Trust" by Ken Thompson. It describes how even recompiling all the sources isn't enough.
Google has agreements with TV manufacturers that provent it.
https://www.techspot.com/news/84374-google-android-license-r...
Ha, wow. Good thing people can jailbreak these things!
OS/2 Warp is still used today, albeit in very limited situations.
I managed IT at hospitals for a large part of my career. At one of them, they had a "Lanier transcription cluster". It was 6 systems. One of them was an OS/2 Warp install that managed the modem cards.
It's apparently used to manage hardware, like those modem cards. Evidently, it does a great job of it.
I agree with you though. I think that Open Source would have made it much more of a competitor to Windows, today.
Then again, throw enough resources at anything and it could contend...ok.. not TempleOS, but everything else. ;)
Now we just need a a good open source OS made for lifelong windows/macOS users. Not one made for lifelong linux users.
IMHO, Apple should have open-sourced their OS a long time ago while offering "best" compatibility with their hardware. They would have expanded both markets tremendously.
I'm currently a "NixOS" guy, and it feels like the "last distro hop" for me. There's a learning curve but it's kind of like "you get ALL the customization, plus seat belts in case something screws up". I still like Macs but I don't really like the direction Apple's taken recently with regards to locking down macOS hardware and system software. I'm a fan of things like Asahi Linux but even that depends on Apple's permission to work
Timing would have been important here, if I recall correctly.
I believe the Apple II was a 6502 chipset, which was common then. They diverged into Moto 68k series, while the rest went towards 8088.
It's debatable, in my mind. Without Apple being unique, they wouldn't hold the niche they do today, but at the same time, had they made their OS Open Source, I suspect they would have had a great deal more Desktop Adoption, since for most, the barrier was/is price.
$1200 Macbook or $400 laptop? *I know the technical differences, but a large portion of the buying public doesnt
For me, I work in Windows a majority of the time, but being a career IT monkey, what I believe is the right tool for the right job, so it's not always Windows. :)
I have old macbook that I use to stay up on the OS, at least as far as it can upgrade. I have a home server, with some windows instances, a couple *nix instances, etc.
> Apple should have open-sourced their OS a long time ago while offering "best" compatibility with their hardware
That would’ve been a horrible idea considering that they make money selling hardware and macOS is one of their main selling points?
> They would have expanded both markets tremendously.
What would they ever gain from this? How does Google benefit from Android? Thankfully Apple is not an Ad company (and therefore their interests are still somewhat aligned to those of their users) like Google. Open sourcing macOS would only incentive them to pivot to user tracking, ads etc.
4 replies →
Qubes OS guy here. Will probably stick to the hypervisor OS/virtualized components desktop computer model. Sure there's a performance hit, but honestly I haven't felt this comfortable and secure that my data at rest WILL STAY AT REST and not sprout wings to flutter away with...
ReactOS is the best we've got.
I think the issue with ReactOS is that it has to compete with similar (but possibly lesser or greater depending on use-case) solutions on 2 fronts:
1) Plain old virtual machines
2) Linux/Mac running Wine/Proton
3) Linux running equivalent software but skinned with a Windows-like UI
Sorry, best I can do is a Elementry OS Linux.
Or not.