They are not "fucking" with standards, they are dropping support for one. And an outdated one at that. Apple tried to rally the industry around the open standards, and the industry moved a different direction.
No they didn't, they developed the closed, proprietary set of APIs called Metal and ignored standards bodies. AMD by contrast developed Mantle and contributed it to the open standards Khronos group to form the foundation of Vulkan.
why Apple never got a serious foot hold in the enterprise market
But Apple did, and does, have a serious foothold in the creative industries, and deprecating OpenGL breaks display acceleration in After Effects and Premiere.
Deprecating OpenGL doesn't break anything...removing it would but deprecating it does not. It has effectively been deprecated for a long time now (Apple's platforms and devices are only capable of OpenGL 4.1, which is relatively very old) they've only now made it official.
The existing product is selling out as is - why waste time/effort releasing anything new right now?
They're developing a bunch of new stuff, the issue is that progress isn't as fast paced as it has been in recent years so putting out a new architecture every year just isn't worth it. Presently it's still difficult to get a hold of a TitanV when you're on the inside much less anything Turing-related.
The post of yours I replied to, said "vote with their wallets". There was no voting with any wallets in the case of DDT.
Voting with your wallet is indeed one approach and not opposed to the approach taken with DDT. So, like I said "If you're that worried about it then you should start a campaign to educate people about it and make sure they voice their opinions on why they are making the choices they are." the extension of which, if voting with your wallet itself doesn't work, is to fund and form something analogous to the Environmental Defense Fund to do what I suggested and potentially file lawsuits.
However I'm fairly sure you're all talk and no action and won't actually follow through with such a thing.
It was YOUR analogy! Don't complain to me if it's broken!
No, the analogy to games consoles is perfectly valid, the one to screwdrivers being used as deadbolts is nonsense.
The thing is, there is nothing niche about internet connected devices needing security updates.
Right, and Apple does a fine job of that so the suggestion that unlocking the bootloader solves that or is necessary for that is untrue.
There is also nothing unusual about woefully out of date cellphones because the carrier or manufacturer wrote the devices off within a year of sale and locked the owner out of 3rd party updates.
Yes, that is a problem and I do agree with you on that, I think manufacturers need to take a lot more responsibility for that or do as you say and put the onus on the consumer.
The manufacturers are well aware that people want at least the ability to update their phones, they just don't care.
The issue is that the vast majority of people don't care either and while phones with unlocked bootloaders are plentiful people will buy the ones with locked bootloaders so the companies themselves see their customers as being indifferent to it. If this announcement results in a sharp drop in sales then certainly the company will notice, if not then they remain indifferent and I suggest either you buy the products that meet your requirements (be that unlocked bootloaders or companies that support the product effectively) or form some sort of activist group to petition the government to address the issue.
Was DDT banned due to lots of people voicing their opinions on it ? Or was it banned undemocratically, with a mandate from powers that be ?
Actually DDT was banned as a result of the funding and formation of the Environmental Defense Fund that campaigned against DDT, raised awareness of the issue and filed lawsuits to ban it. Nice that you're familiar with that because that really is the route I'm suggesting.
Broken analogies is not the way to convince people of your argument, these companies are free to build the product however they like and you are free to do with it whatever you like. Usage of an unlocked bootloader is a niche case and it therefore is serviced as a niche market, if you want broader choice you need to make sure that it appeals to the broader market. That separation of hardware and software in the PC market came because it offered people innovative solutions, the smartphone market moved to SoCs which removed the customizability of the system hardware to serve customer demands for smaller and more powerful devices.
I can understand your point of view but I can also understand that of companies like Apple and Huawei that want to provide a tightly integrated device rather than just bits for consumers to cobble together and them allowing users to change X to do something else under the assumption that the change to X would have no impact the workings of the rest of the system is detrimental (broadly) to their brand and business. What they are offering is something different to what you want in the same way console manufacturers are offering something different to their customers than to PC gamers even if, fundamentally, under the covers the hardware is pretty similar. They should not be beholden to give you what you want just because you want it.
They are offering you a console, you want a PC, so go and buy the most official Android phone you can (the Google Pixel) or one from brands that make this customization part of their business like OnePlus or you can go and build your own phone, hell go and buy a whole bunch of them in case of hardware failure then you'll never have to worry about it again because you can just maintain your own OS on them. Support the brands that support your view rather than whining that you can't run The GIMP on an XBox despite it being theoretically possible.
But what's really your goal here, is this just your wishful thinking? Or are you going to the government to try and get them to strongarm these companies? (they haven't had much success strongarming Apple in the past for example) Or are you going to these companies and trying to get them to change their position on this?
So, if you try to use a screwdriver as an improvised deadbolt, do you expect a defeat device to activate to eject the screwdriver?
I can use a phone as an improvised deadbolt if I want and there's no defeat device to eject it. I can do many things with a smartphone that it was not designed for and there is mechanism to prevent it. I can hack the bootloader on many different phones and there's nothing anybody can do about that.
Why should anyone expect a device to have a "feature" specifically to keep them from modifying it and potentially re-purposing it?
Well they decided to glue the handle of my screwdriver on rather than screw it on which means I can't repurpose the components like I would be able to do had they made it easy to separate them, are you rallying against the manufacturers of screwdrivers with the handles glued on?
Further, why should they be stuck paying extra for the engineering behind the anti-feature?
They aren't stuck, you still have the choice of a myriad of other devices or the option to build your own if you really want.
And no, there is no user preference to a locked down device. It's just that that's all that's on offer.
No, that's not all that's on offer. There are plenty of options and you can innovate on your own if none of those satisfy you.
We've been hearing that the sky is falling for decades now and yet even today major vendors offer various OS options (including Linux) on their computers and even Microsoft provide a mechanism for disabling SecureBoot on their own devices so you can install other operating systems on them, people have even installed macOS on the Surface Book! The transition from PowerPC to Intel meant you could install Windows on a Mac and even with the introduction of Chromebooks you can run other Linux distributions as a replacement (or alongside) ChromeOS.
Today we have broader device/OS compatibility than we ever have before despite what you fear-mongerers keep saying. Saying the opposite to what you said is just as credible in terms of evidence but it also agrees with the trend we have been seeing in recent years.
And what happens when ALL vendors refuse to allow bootloader unlocking? In that scenario "vote with your wallet" means not owning a phone, period.
Or building your own phone as you can do today with a Raspberry Pi and a few other components. Niche market is going to require a niche solution, alternatively you can campaign to have the majority share in your concerns if you can make a compelling case.
Had your argument held sway in the late '70s and early '80s, there would be no Windows or Linux. We would all still be dinking around on DOS 32.5
What argument? The modern PC was born out of the innovation of companies that provided value through separation of software and hardware rather than the incumbents of the day, now the majority of people prefer a tighter coupling of software and hardware rather than a customized setup but there's no reason you can't go back to building a smartphone or tablet from component pieces just like we do with PCs. Yes you do then need to deal with incompatibilities yourself but we've been doing that with PCs for decades so it's not really that big of a deal.
Perhaps YOU have no such expectation, but people who know what they're doing do have such an expectation.
I have no expectation that this be a capability on all devices, I don't expect it on an Xbox for example so instead I buy a PC.
I guess that makes me a nobody, as I used a 10" Dell Inspiron mini 1012 laptop for about 7 years in order to work on programming projects while riding the bus in a city whose buses do not provide free Wi-Fi to riders.
Relatively speaking, yes. This experiment has been tried and proved it was not viable.
As for your other point: If there were "not enough people to make it worthwhile to produce, ship and stock" compact X11/Linux laptops, what makes you think there are "enough people to make it worthwhile to produce, ship and stock" pocket computers capable of running a user-provided operating system?
I don't if it meant a producing, shipping and stocking a different device, but if it means simply allowing a bootloader unlock on existing devices then I think that's viable.
Right so why would you buy it? There are plenty of cars that don't have the hoods welded shut, go buy one of them.
Sure, until there aren't any. See, that's the flaw in the free market that people like you try to get everyone to ignore with simpleminded answers.
You're proposing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Are there any cars that have their hoods welded shut?
In terms of this relating to phones there are plenty of phones that have unlocked bootloaders, you can even build your own phone with a raspberry pi if you're that paranoid about a dystopian future. There might even be a viable business in that for you.
That's not for lack of trying. See the Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair Act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If it weren't against the law, car hoods would absolutely be sealed so that only the dealerships could repair them. Hopefully we can get that kind of consumer protection for our phones as well.
That wasn't law until only a couple of years ago, I don't remember car hoods being welded shut before that...and they certainly had welders.
We've seen it with SIM-locking. Voting with your wallet doesn't work in an oligopoly case. There are very few carriers and they all lock their phones.
No it isn't like SIM locking for exactly the reason you point out: there are very few carriers, but in the case of smartphones there are a vast array of manufacturers, it isn't an oligopoly, in fact you can even build your own phone.
How will that remain possible as other major phone manufacturers targeting major western markets follow the example of Huawei?
How will that not remain possible as people vote with their wallets and support manufacturers that do allow unlocking of devices? If you're that worried about it then you should start a campaign to educate people about it and make sure they voice their opinions on why they are making the choices they are.
If a phone can't be unlocked so I can install whatever OS I want, then it should not be allowed to be imported into the USA.
So is that just for phones or for any type of computer? At least they are making it very clear so people can make an informed decision, the resolution to this problem is to simply vote with your wallet and support the companies that produce the products you want.
Look at what Gnome3 has done to fracture the user base.
And they managed to do that all on their own, no reason to shake things up.
Microsoft benefits from more changes in Gnome.
It really just sounds like you're butthurt that this donation didn't go to the project of your choice and you're trying to come up with a way to make it seem like a bad thing. If it's a bad project and a large donation kills it off faster then great, if it's a bad project and a large donation improves it then that's great too.
Slashdot Mirror
They are not "fucking" with standards, they are dropping support for one. And an outdated one at that. Apple tried to rally the industry around the open standards, and the industry moved a different direction.
No they didn't, they developed the closed, proprietary set of APIs called Metal and ignored standards bodies. AMD by contrast developed Mantle and contributed it to the open standards Khronos group to form the foundation of Vulkan.
why Apple never got a serious foot hold in the enterprise market
But Apple did, and does, have a serious foothold in the creative industries, and deprecating OpenGL breaks display acceleration in After Effects and Premiere.
Deprecating OpenGL doesn't break anything...removing it would but deprecating it does not. It has effectively been deprecated for a long time now (Apple's platforms and devices are only capable of OpenGL 4.1, which is relatively very old) they've only now made it official.
The existing product is selling out as is - why waste time/effort releasing anything new right now?
They're developing a bunch of new stuff, the issue is that progress isn't as fast paced as it has been in recent years so putting out a new architecture every year just isn't worth it. Presently it's still difficult to get a hold of a TitanV when you're on the inside much less anything Turing-related.
You're confused. I don't care which approach you take, but it's irrelevant because you'll take neither.
Yes you can do one, the other or both and in whatever order you like...but more likely neither (whining about it on slashdot won't solve it).
If you really care about it then do something about it or stop whining about it.
The post of yours I replied to, said "vote with their wallets". There was no voting with any wallets in the case of DDT.
Voting with your wallet is indeed one approach and not opposed to the approach taken with DDT. So, like I said "If you're that worried about it then you should start a campaign to educate people about it and make sure they voice their opinions on why they are making the choices they are." the extension of which, if voting with your wallet itself doesn't work, is to fund and form something analogous to the Environmental Defense Fund to do what I suggested and potentially file lawsuits.
However I'm fairly sure you're all talk and no action and won't actually follow through with such a thing.
It was YOUR analogy! Don't complain to me if it's broken!
No, the analogy to games consoles is perfectly valid, the one to screwdrivers being used as deadbolts is nonsense.
The thing is, there is nothing niche about internet connected devices needing security updates.
Right, and Apple does a fine job of that so the suggestion that unlocking the bootloader solves that or is necessary for that is untrue.
There is also nothing unusual about woefully out of date cellphones because the carrier or manufacturer wrote the devices off within a year of sale and locked the owner out of 3rd party updates.
Yes, that is a problem and I do agree with you on that, I think manufacturers need to take a lot more responsibility for that or do as you say and put the onus on the consumer.
The manufacturers are well aware that people want at least the ability to update their phones, they just don't care.
The issue is that the vast majority of people don't care either and while phones with unlocked bootloaders are plentiful people will buy the ones with locked bootloaders so the companies themselves see their customers as being indifferent to it. If this announcement results in a sharp drop in sales then certainly the company will notice, if not then they remain indifferent and I suggest either you buy the products that meet your requirements (be that unlocked bootloaders or companies that support the product effectively) or form some sort of activist group to petition the government to address the issue.
Was DDT banned due to lots of people voicing their opinions on it ? Or was it banned undemocratically, with a mandate from powers that be ?
Actually DDT was banned as a result of the funding and formation of the Environmental Defense Fund that campaigned against DDT, raised awareness of the issue and filed lawsuits to ban it. Nice that you're familiar with that because that really is the route I'm suggesting.
Broken analogies is not the way to convince people of your argument, these companies are free to build the product however they like and you are free to do with it whatever you like. Usage of an unlocked bootloader is a niche case and it therefore is serviced as a niche market, if you want broader choice you need to make sure that it appeals to the broader market. That separation of hardware and software in the PC market came because it offered people innovative solutions, the smartphone market moved to SoCs which removed the customizability of the system hardware to serve customer demands for smaller and more powerful devices.
I can understand your point of view but I can also understand that of companies like Apple and Huawei that want to provide a tightly integrated device rather than just bits for consumers to cobble together and them allowing users to change X to do something else under the assumption that the change to X would have no impact the workings of the rest of the system is detrimental (broadly) to their brand and business. What they are offering is something different to what you want in the same way console manufacturers are offering something different to their customers than to PC gamers even if, fundamentally, under the covers the hardware is pretty similar. They should not be beholden to give you what you want just because you want it.
They are offering you a console, you want a PC, so go and buy the most official Android phone you can (the Google Pixel) or one from brands that make this customization part of their business like OnePlus or you can go and build your own phone, hell go and buy a whole bunch of them in case of hardware failure then you'll never have to worry about it again because you can just maintain your own OS on them. Support the brands that support your view rather than whining that you can't run The GIMP on an XBox despite it being theoretically possible.
But what's really your goal here, is this just your wishful thinking? Or are you going to the government to try and get them to strongarm these companies? (they haven't had much success strongarming Apple in the past for example) Or are you going to these companies and trying to get them to change their position on this?
So, if you try to use a screwdriver as an improvised deadbolt, do you expect a defeat device to activate to eject the screwdriver?
I can use a phone as an improvised deadbolt if I want and there's no defeat device to eject it. I can do many things with a smartphone that it was not designed for and there is mechanism to prevent it. I can hack the bootloader on many different phones and there's nothing anybody can do about that.
Why should anyone expect a device to have a "feature" specifically to keep them from modifying it and potentially re-purposing it?
Well they decided to glue the handle of my screwdriver on rather than screw it on which means I can't repurpose the components like I would be able to do had they made it easy to separate them, are you rallying against the manufacturers of screwdrivers with the handles glued on?
Further, why should they be stuck paying extra for the engineering behind the anti-feature?
They aren't stuck, you still have the choice of a myriad of other devices or the option to build your own if you really want.
And no, there is no user preference to a locked down device. It's just that that's all that's on offer.
No, that's not all that's on offer. There are plenty of options and you can innovate on your own if none of those satisfy you.
We've been hearing that the sky is falling for decades now and yet even today major vendors offer various OS options (including Linux) on their computers and even Microsoft provide a mechanism for disabling SecureBoot on their own devices so you can install other operating systems on them, people have even installed macOS on the Surface Book! The transition from PowerPC to Intel meant you could install Windows on a Mac and even with the introduction of Chromebooks you can run other Linux distributions as a replacement (or alongside) ChromeOS.
Today we have broader device/OS compatibility than we ever have before despite what you fear-mongerers keep saying. Saying the opposite to what you said is just as credible in terms of evidence but it also agrees with the trend we have been seeing in recent years.
And what happens when ALL vendors refuse to allow bootloader unlocking? In that scenario "vote with your wallet" means not owning a phone, period.
Or building your own phone as you can do today with a Raspberry Pi and a few other components. Niche market is going to require a niche solution, alternatively you can campaign to have the majority share in your concerns if you can make a compelling case.
Had your argument held sway in the late '70s and early '80s, there would be no Windows or Linux. We would all still be dinking around on DOS 32.5
What argument? The modern PC was born out of the innovation of companies that provided value through separation of software and hardware rather than the incumbents of the day, now the majority of people prefer a tighter coupling of software and hardware rather than a customized setup but there's no reason you can't go back to building a smartphone or tablet from component pieces just like we do with PCs. Yes you do then need to deal with incompatibilities yourself but we've been doing that with PCs for decades so it's not really that big of a deal.
Perhaps YOU have no such expectation, but people who know what they're doing do have such an expectation.
I have no expectation that this be a capability on all devices, I don't expect it on an Xbox for example so instead I buy a PC.
What car companies did that?
I guess that makes me a nobody, as I used a 10" Dell Inspiron mini 1012 laptop for about 7 years in order to work on programming projects while riding the bus in a city whose buses do not provide free Wi-Fi to riders.
Relatively speaking, yes. This experiment has been tried and proved it was not viable.
As for your other point: If there were "not enough people to make it worthwhile to produce, ship and stock" compact X11/Linux laptops, what makes you think there are "enough people to make it worthwhile to produce, ship and stock" pocket computers capable of running a user-provided operating system?
I don't if it meant a producing, shipping and stocking a different device, but if it means simply allowing a bootloader unlock on existing devices then I think that's viable.
Why not? If I want to try? Or develop my own OS?
Go for it, you own the device, do whatever you want with it.
How is it any different whether it's a pocket-sized computer (aka phone) or a full computer (laptop/desktop)?
There's not much difference, you can build a smartphone just like you can build a desktop. If you want real freedom over it then do that.
By your logic, there no expectation to wipe Mac OS and install Linux or BSD on an Apple laptop either.
There's no expectation to be able to wipe the OS on an XBox or Wii or PSP either, most people understand that.
Right so why would you buy it? There are plenty of cars that don't have the hoods welded shut, go buy one of them.
Sure, until there aren't any. See, that's the flaw in the free market that people like you try to get everyone to ignore with simpleminded answers.
You're proposing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Are there any cars that have their hoods welded shut?
In terms of this relating to phones there are plenty of phones that have unlocked bootloaders, you can even build your own phone with a raspberry pi if you're that paranoid about a dystopian future. There might even be a viable business in that for you.
For the same reason people can't buy netbooks that ship with X11/Linux in stores.
Because nobody wants them? (or at least not enough people to make it worthwhile to produce, ship and stock them).
Do you have any tips for teaching people to care?
Present an appealing case. If you can't do that then perhaps you need to re-think your position.
That's not for lack of trying. See the Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair Act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... If it weren't against the law, car hoods would absolutely be sealed so that only the dealerships could repair them. Hopefully we can get that kind of consumer protection for our phones as well.
That wasn't law until only a couple of years ago, I don't remember car hoods being welded shut before that...and they certainly had welders.
A bootloader locked phone is like a car with the hood welded shut.
Right so why would you buy it? There are plenty of cars that don't have the hoods welded shut, go buy one of them.
We've seen it with SIM-locking. Voting with your wallet doesn't work in an oligopoly case. There are very few carriers and they all lock their phones.
No it isn't like SIM locking for exactly the reason you point out: there are very few carriers, but in the case of smartphones there are a vast array of manufacturers, it isn't an oligopoly, in fact you can even build your own phone.
Buy a phone that you can unlock instead?
How will that remain possible as other major phone manufacturers targeting major western markets follow the example of Huawei?
How will that not remain possible as people vote with their wallets and support manufacturers that do allow unlocking of devices? If you're that worried about it then you should start a campaign to educate people about it and make sure they voice their opinions on why they are making the choices they are.
If a phone can't be unlocked so I can install whatever OS I want, then it should not be allowed to be imported into the USA.
So is that just for phones or for any type of computer? At least they are making it very clear so people can make an informed decision, the resolution to this problem is to simply vote with your wallet and support the companies that produce the products you want.
Look at what Gnome3 has done to fracture the user base.
And they managed to do that all on their own, no reason to shake things up.
Microsoft benefits from more changes in Gnome.
It really just sounds like you're butthurt that this donation didn't go to the project of your choice and you're trying to come up with a way to make it seem like a bad thing. If it's a bad project and a large donation kills it off faster then great, if it's a bad project and a large donation improves it then that's great too.