Hacker News Reader

Comment by ogre_codes | Hacker News Reader

> you do not really own your computer anymore.

Wish people would stop using this phrase with regards to PCs. If you buy a laptop, it's yours. Load linux on it and you will never have to deal with this. Even the new M1 Macs will offer this option (though there are some hoops to jump through).

What you don't own is the commercial software which runs atop it. In some cases the hardware makes it difficult to change what software you run (most smartphones), but we're talking about Windows PCs here. You can install what you want on them.

If you don't like what Microsoft and Adobe are doing, don't use their software.

View on HN

You don't even need to bring Linux into the picture, necessarily.

But whatever piece of proprietary software you run with DRM and obfuscation and licensing, you don't control. It's up to you to do a cost analysis and decide if it's "worth it" -- I use lots of proprietary software, I'll admit. Office365 and Steam are two big examples that I either can't or won't give up because of the professional or personal consequences.

However, in both cases, I'm not in control of either piece of software. That's what I get for using proprietary software. It sounds like crazy Stallman ranting, but maybe he was right on this one -- the real solution is to not let proprietary plugins like Flash become "required" to use the net. As long as your computing platform is free, you have the choice not to.

The number of people agreeing with this sentiment that this is about controlling our computers is kind of disheartening. This isn't OS or firmware level lockdowns, just a piece of software.

> You don't even need to bring Linux into the picture, necessarily.

I only bring in Linux when I need it to get a job done!

I use MacOS and have an iPhone. I don't worry about the philosophy since they have for years done (mostly) what I need. If it look like MacOS will stop being useful to me, good resale values on Macs means I can move on.

And I wish that Linux fans would stop saying use Linux as if that is an answer for the vast majority of PC users in the world. It stinks of elitism on so many levels. And yes, I use Linux, but I would never consider putting it on a machine for my mom, or my sister, and nearly anyone else. Linux simply is not a viable solution for so many people.

> as if that is an answer for the vast majority of PC users in the world.

The vast majority of PC users don't give a fuck if they "Own Their Hardware" or any other philosophical questions about their computer. They buy a tool and use it. Generally speaking, those tools work just fine for them until ultimately the drive fails or they drop it into a creek while hiking.

It's the nerds on HN who bitch about "Owning their computer". Literally the people who should have the skills and knowledge to fix the very problem they are complaining about. If you tried to talk to your mom or your sister about how they don't own their computers they would likely look at you as if you were insane.

FWIW, I'm only intermittently a Linux user, mostly I use MacOS.

They don't complain about "not owning their computer" but they complain about downstream problems.

> for my mom, or my sister, and nearly anyone else.

Especially my mom, dad, sister and almost everyone else I know use one application on their computer and that is Chrome. My father still works and so does my sister and yet they do not work with or need anything else. Linux works fine for that. Almost everyone I know would not know the difference between an Ubuntu laptop or a windows one as long as the Chrome button ('the internet') is there.

Ofcourse this differs if people need native applications (maybe) but I would say that most people would not notice Linux at all. Not because Linux is great (I use it exclusively but I do not care about ux/ui), but because most people do not do so much 'natively' with a computer anymore and hence can switch fluently from Mac to win to lin to ios to Android (and frequently do during the day between some combinations of these) as long as they can find 'the internet' button.

Sounds like a Chromebook.

Indeed. Arguing that Linux makes a good web appliance does not endear it to anyone who needs more than a web appliance.

I work in IT, write software, and have a significant number of hobbies centered around computing and I don't even think Linux is a viable choice for me [0]. But there's a lot of Linux evangelists out there who simply refuse to believe there is anything wrong with it for anybody.

[0] and belive me, I've tried [1][2].

[1] Some evangelist is typing a response right now about how I haven't really tried. They are part of the problem.

[2] I've put together my own distro, written and contributed to open source projects, until sometime earlier this year ran Linux on 4/5 computers I used regularly at home (now down to 1/5), and was even president of a LUG for a while. So shut up about how your grandma uses it as a web kiosk so it must be fine for everyone.

Except I'm not remotely a Linux evangelist. I use a Mac. I didn't suggest Linux desktop is for the masses.

1999 wants their argument back. My daughter uses Ubuntu Mate and is quite happy with it. None of the bullshit of Windows ten.

Nothing is perfect. Everything is a tradeoff. If you want to avoid corporations controlling your computing environment, Linux is perhaps the easiest way to do that. The alternative is to continue letting corporations control your computing environment and... whine about it, I suppose.

Do you think it's better to offer no suggestion at all? To not even tell people about their options?

We could also have an option for consumer protections to prevent corporations from exercising some types of control.

>What you don't own is the commercial software which runs atop it.

I do! I bought it after all.

If the software does something I did not agree to at time of purchase, I'm going to hold the seller accountable.

If the gardener you're paying suddenly went and threw a painting in the trash because he considered it ugly you'd have a problem with them too.

Whether or not people 'agreed' to this being done is another question though.

Legally you usually just buy a license. Often with automatic updates and an EULA subject to change at any time.

> I do! I bought it after all.

Did you? Maybe you should re-read that 400 page EULA you browsed past.

When you buy software you are agreeing that you don't own that software. You are instead buying a license to use that software.

> If the software does something I did not agree to at time of purchase, I'm going to hold the seller accountable.

When you buy software, you fundamentally agree that it is suitable for no particular purpose. Since much of the software you "buy" isn't even something you've paid for, the vendor can shut off that hose whenever they want.

> If the gardener you're paying suddenly went and threw a painting in the trash because he considered it ugly you'd have a problem with them too.

I'm sure your agreement with your gardener looks quite different from the EULA you agree to when you use software.

Your comment is summarized by the last sentence of my comment.

Except for:

> When you buy software you are agreeing that you don't own that software. You are instead buying a license to use that software.

This is incorrect in many jurisdictions, including the EU, regardless of what the EULA or whatever would make you believe, for software distributed in the way Microsoft Windows is [1]

[1]: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&doc...

Instead ownership works similar to as it would for, for example, a book. You don't own the IP, but you do own the book.

Also I don't own the gardener either, the distinction doesn't even matter.

Good point in general, though on specific cases UEFI and similar may complicate things so much it's out of reach of the masses

Can you elaborate about UEFI?

Specifically Secure Boot[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_In...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com