How the Consumer Computer Is Consuming Computing
schmud.de
schmud.de
The answer is to not use what they use. If you don't like what's made for them, what's made for them is not for you. Don't use it.
Android is a kiosk. iOS is a kiosk. Windows is a kiosk. These are not operating systems, they don't enable you to operate your property, they enable you to use services. They're kiosks.
(Side note: You can pry a little more functionality out of AOSP, but not all the functionality your hardware can deliver. I use it, but it's still a kiosk.)
Facebook and twitter are analogous to cable TV, people that use them are modern day couch potatoes. These people existed before them, the products and services they wasted their lives consuming were just different. You don't have to partake.
There are options. They just take a little bit work, because of course they do. That's half the point. The unwashed masses are lazy, you're not. Are you? Or are you flipping through channels while complaining that there's nothing good on?
For what it's worth, all of them enable me and everyone I know to achieve the things I need or want to get done.
Working on some paperwork? Office and Windows right there to get me through it.
Need to use some industry standard tooling for work? Windows more than likely (probably the only one) handles it.
Need a reliable workstation? Macbooks and Thinkpads can seemingly last the better part of a decade if not more, no matter how badly they're handled.
Need to do some important phone calls? I've literally never seen an iPhone fail to be a phone.
Want a nice and compact, all-purpose portable device on the road? Android phones and tablets can handle mostly anything nowadays.
If anything is a "kiosk", it's desktop Linux. They don't enable me to operate my property (because they literally can't outside of very specific niches), they enable me to bask in their ideologies (which IDGAF about).
So I've got a device in my hands right now, and I can make calls and browse the web and talk to my friends. But you know what I can't do? Change the default DNS server. Why do you think that is? My device is physically capable of this, the Linux kernel running on this device is capable of it, yet the system prevents me from doing so. What if I want to? It's mine isn't it? Why is it deliberately designed to prevent me from doing so?
It's a kiosk. Just because it does everything you need it for doesn't change this, it just means your needs are very limited.
You're wrong about Linux BTW. You can do anything you want with it, with as much ease as you desire. You sound like you feel insulted by what I said and are trying to hit back, which is childish, and you sound like you haven't used a Linux system since 1999.
It's not about ideology. It's about being able to do anything with my property that it is capable of doing. I don't like being kneecapped, would you buy a kitchen knife with a handle deliberately designed to only work when wielded with your right hand? If you're right handed it does everything you need it to. Yet most people would consider it inferior, and even consider it insulting to their intelligence if such a knife was on a shelf in front of them with a price tag on it.
So Debian? Who are holding a grand discussion on the merits of making "non-free firmware" more accessible? So GNU? Who insist everything must be free-as-in-freedom and open source and anything to the contrary is a cardinal sin?
Meanwhile, the rest of the world carries on.
>But you know what I can't do? Change the default DNS server.
You can do this on both Windows and Android. I have no direct knowledge on iOS/MacOS, but I presume they also do it because why wouldn't they?
Perhaps a better example was called for, but DNS servers configurations an example ain't.
>It's a kiosk. Just because it does everything you need it for doesn't change this,
Your definition of a not-kiosk was, quote: "they ... enable you to operate your property".
Windows, Android, iOS (and MacOS) let me (and the vast majority of people) operate my (and their) property. Desktop Linux can't (or won't). OS market shares are an objective evidence of this.
>it just means your needs are very limited.
My "needs" are my need or desire to operate my property. What I do with my property is none of your business, unless we're talking ideologies (and it would still be none of your business, really).
>You're wrong about Linux BTW. You can do anything you want with it, with as much ease as you desire.
Sure, I can do anything I want with it; if it's something the distro devs are concerned with. And yes, I can do it as easily as I want; so long as I don't step outside the command line.
I give many flavors of Linux a shot every few years, and every time I fail to find a practical desktop use case the machine could serve me that something else wouldn't do better for much less effort and stress.
>It's not about ideology.
Far as I can tell, this is all about the ideology. You said it yourself that my "needs are very limited". Why do you care about the nature of my needs? I need a kitchen knife, I bought a kitchen knife, and I argue for the kitchen knife. You're telling me I'm wrong because the kitchen knife has a handle of a shape you don't like. The kitchen knife suits me, what's it to you?
Also, why would anyone left-handed be pissed off at a right-handed kitchen knife? If they don't like it, don't buy it. No need to get insulted over it. There are plenty of other, valid things to be insulted over in life.
Tell me how then.
It's nothing to me that you're happy with a kiosk. I'm not. That's the whole point of top level comment.
The exact way to get to it varies slightly by Windows version, but it's somewhere under the vicinity of Control Panel -> Network and Internet -> Network Connections (this particular example is from Windows 7).
For Android, this also varies slightly by each device manufacturer's own flavor of Android, but it's usually somewhere under the section to do with device connections (Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc.) and is called "Private DNS".
You need to give it a hostname (usually a domain name, eg: dns.google for 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4.) rather than an IP address, presumably because it's DNS Over HTTPS? I'm not quite sure why it doesn't take IP addresses.
Switching to DoH or private DNS in Android does not change the default DNS. How do you think you get the IP from the hostname when you enable DoH? 8.8.8.8 is hard coded and there's no way to change it without hacky stuff. Every time you request a record from your configured DoH server, it queries 8.8.8.8 to get the IP of that server hostname. I chose this example specifically because I'm extremely familiar with it, a good example it does make.
Are you still unsure why you can't enter an IP address instead of a hostname? There's literally no user oriented reason for this, the developer had to go out of their way to prevent it. This sort of deliberate restriction is why I call it a kiosk. Why wouldn't they indeed.
And it's not the only one in android, and it hasn't always been there. It was introduced in a later version, early versions of android left the DNS server configurable. Another good one is tethering reporting to your carrier. Look into how that works, it's ridiculous. Why is my device doing things I don't want it to do and preventing me from stopping it? Is this thing mine or not?
Also, apologies, some of that beer I had for dinner must still be in me because I forgot another way to set DNS servers on Android, at least partially.
Under whatever connections (Wi-Fi, etc.) is called again, going into all the various Wi-Fi connections I can set a specific DNS server (actually two servers) to use with the connection. Basically kind of like how Windows configures it. Of course, it doesn't apply to the mobile data connection, which is annoying and definitely a mark against Android...
OTOH, I literally stopped using my iPhone when it randomly decided to take a break from being able to make calls. Except as a beer opener
While it is certainly true that many users don't share the enthusiasm for computers many of us have and they may often also be quite unwilling to learn complex systems for small productivity boosts, it is by no means true that they are all just to dumb to be empowered by computers. They do mostly lack the frame of reference what could even be possible with these machines (As do many programmers today) and thus seldom address the big issues they face.
Application starting up slow? They all do that and there are some even slower, so computers are just slow, right? Having to click through 15 Menus to activate an often used function? Nobody ever told them there was a convenient shortcut (And since they don't know it and thus never use it, it will get removed in the next version, hooray for telemetry!)
This also extends to programmers more and more. Processing 2000 Records takes 20 seconds? That's good! Have you seen this other app! We are fast! That UI is crap! No matter, I will never use it, lets install complexopensourcetoolnotfornoobs.
One difference the article also points out is that in the early days of computing, many of these today revered (or sadly forgotten) hackers actually wanted to bring computing power to the masses. They were not satisfied with dumbing it down or building it only for themselves. We need more of this sentiment today. If every developer would use the software they build, it surely would be much more performant, easier to use and powerful under the hood.
While it may seem impossible sometimes to get all these at once, we should always strive for better computing and ease of use != dumbing down!
I think the OG hackers were overly optimistic, call it solipsism, but we are talking about people who double right click. The address bar now almost universally integrates search functionality because lots of people just couldn't grasp the concept of clicking s different box or going to a search site first. And that's just the bottom of the barrel. There are plenty of smart people reading this right now with 6 figure jobs in silicon valley who have an Alexa in every room.
But my comment wasn't about the mythical idiot. It's not about how smart they are. People want what they want. It's not that they're stupid, it's that they're not interested. They'd be watching TV 5 hours a day in 1995, and they're doomscrolling Facebook right now. And if you're not like that, if you don't want to live the lives they do, then you should use other things rather than complain that things designed for them don't work for you.
But if you look at a single being as a person instead of just one sheep, their reasoning is, even if sometimes short-sighted, often sound for their circumstances. There are many pros and cons to decisions and many of the cons concerning surveillance, locked down functionality etc. are often pretty abstract and far away. The problem with many of these technologies is not really what they do today, but rather were it may lead when the become the number one choice and that is much harder for a single person to evaluate or care about.
Especially since choice often is an illusion and you can either accept the drawbacks (which in reality will rarely actually affect yourself) or stand out in the rain with your principles intact. The just as mythical market people like to uphold here on hacker news does not serve differences of sensibilities here. Either get a phone/tv/computer with tracking or ads, or get one which can not play online video. Either get a digital assistant that tracks your every move (though you probably will suffer no drawbacks because of this) or get none at all. Those are bad choices and as much as it aggravates me if people just shrug, I also find it often very hard to tell them of an alternative, because the alternative is more often than not not to play at all. (Or, if someone wants to mention the small subset of open source solutions, paying a hefty premium for years out of date hardware and buggy to non functioning software, of course only if you are even aware they exist!)
I find it really difficult to fault people for that, unless we take the broader view and fault them for the system itself.
I think its a fair assumption here on hacker news, that most users are creators rather than consumers. And as such, the piece of software they "would never use" is very likely one they (or one of their peers) wrote.
I don't think it is a particularly good look to write adtech by day and run ublock by night, but even more than that it is also hardly sustainable. The custom solutions we run in our ivory towers and don't share with the plebes get harder and harder to create on bad, locked down platforms we help build for "them".
And I also think the assumption, that when it does not serve us, it serves them well, is also a false one. They may not know better, because they are not creators, but I think most folk have realized that computers and software often acts against their users interest.
So, who is supposed to change this, if not the people who have the knowledge and do actually build these systems? Just saying "I use something else and its their fault for not doing the same" does only make us accomplices in making the world worse for all.
Ehm, yes, but they still choose to use Facebook, Twitter and a Solitaire with ads. When I show them my Linux desktop and phone, they look in horror. And when I tell them I do programming, they think I am to blame for their garbage software.
"So, who is supposed to change this, if not the people who have the knowledge and do actually build these systems?"
The people building these systems are into this hellhole as well. Sure, advertising people run adblockers, but the people who build garbage software mostly use garbage software. The people that avoid this mess cannot unbuild Facebook, Twitter and Solitaire with ads. They can only build different things, while not being able to guide users towards it, since they mostly still choose garbage software. The people making unpopular choices have no real power to change things for better for the masses.
This really isn't a mystery, in fact, a clear mind and memory from even 15 years ago when solitaire didn't have ads is enough to demonstrate that this was clearly a move by tech companies chasing more profits and consumers not having many options.
The key word in your paragraph is "easily." People want everything to be easy. They want to be entertained easily. Yesteryear it was TV, today it's twitter. If that's not for you then the things they use are not for you, and it not being easy is a part of that, that's all I'm saying.
I can play solitare without ads right now. And if I can, they can. But they don't. And they're who all this stuff we complain about is built for. It's not built for me, you know how I know? Because I don't use it and it's continuing along just fine. They don't bitch about the difficulty of the things they don't use that I do, things that are made for me and not them, they just use what works for them. If you don't like the things made for them, use different things, that's my only point.
Talking about people who don't know to look harder is not even the issue or relevant. I apologize for being miffed about the "stupid people" talk because it is somewhat presumptous to me, but at the very least I want to submit that I don't understand how that knowledge helps me or anyone at all who has to deal with the garbage the tech companies put out now. As far as I can tell, things that were easy for me years ago are harder now. It doesn't mean I don't still make things work for me because I still do like likely most HN readers, but I did not have to do half of these things 10 years ago but I have to now. I cannot blame "stupid people" because "stupid people" didn't make my computer, my OS, or my air filter, but developers at IT companies did. That to me is the more interesting conversation is because they're the actual responsible party.
Due to the nature of investment, and the fact that rather than targeting the highest-quality product, Microsoft targeted short term revenue growth, so it is indeed possible to argue that dumbness made solitaire grow ads.
Rather than speaking up, and demanding an end to corporate stock manipulation through buybacks, people accepted the product changes necessitated by the targeted revenue trajectory.
Still, however we want to analyze it, I still don't know why we need to go after consumers over the people who actually did the deed, no? Why are consumers who do not make the design and development decisions become who I should focus on instead of the people who implemented the actual changes? If someone stabs me in a park, sure it is a sad state of affairs if no one will call the ambulance, but surely the fellow I should be more upset with should be the stabber, no, and not aloof by-standers?
Concretely, investors over fairly short term demand differential risk, and convex return, and in the current season this means big tech works on decommodifying products, without necessarily improving bottom-line quality. It's also probably a fraudulent way for banks and financiers to extract cash from a large number of pensions and retirement funds, with the current constellation of made-up metrics like "user engagement", "ad revenue" and so on.
More like, if you go to the park that's closed off behind a wall, with signs saying "CRAZY KNIFE STABBING BASTARD INSIDE" all over the place, and get stabbed... Yeah, the stabber is in the wrong, but what you did is still stupid.
It's a similar lack of foresight on the part of the public that allowed tech companies to boil that frog. That the companies act like batshit insane stabbers is obvious and expected. They could have been stopped at any point in the last twenty years. The fact that they hid the knife most of the time behind a fake smile and then stabbed the knife just deep enough for it to be "below the threshold of pain", repeatedly and consistently, should have raised alarm bells and sparked opposition. Instead, they were allowed to go all the way to AC needing WiFi connection.
Yeah, there's no argument that tech companies are the perpetrators, but giving them a chance to act that way for so long is a failure of society.
These options took more work than they did a quarter century ago.
Yes, it was more difficult to learn how to use a computer back then. Yet, for the most part, it involved following written instructions until one understood how things worked. In the worse case scenario, the was troubleshooting. Yet even then the difficulty diminished once one understood how things worked.
The challenges today are far less technical and far more psychological. We are constantly being bombarded by messages of consumption. Some of those messages are easy to sidestep. You can run a community oriented Linux distribution. You can install an ad blocker on your computer/network. Other times it is more difficult to avoid. Consider how many articles end up being an advertisement for a company or promoting a book. Consider how much time we spend filtering out results from a major search engine when we do decide to look for something new.
Filtering is probably the best description of the hard work we face today. Contrast that with a quarter century ago, when the hard work was learning.
It is also worth noting that we have less access to effective tools these days. A few weeks back, I stumbled across a web-ring. Discovering new sites was difficult 25 years ago. The problem with embedded links or bookmark pages was their static nature. The problem with search engines is that they relied entirely upon keywords (as well as their smallish index). One of the early solutions was the web-ring: a dynamic collection of links on a common topic. While some may have led to sites with advertising (e.g. the Angelfires and Geocities of the world) and consumerism (e.g. sites following television shows), most of these were also sites about creating things for other people.
To make a long story short: not only are the old ways hard, they are made more difficult because of the current environment. We need to find some way to make it easier.
As far as the software side of things, that's a learning problem, once you've learned it's as easy as what most people use is to them, easier even. I don't have to contend with Microsoft store or nested mouse clicks galore, ad banners on my phone while I'm using it.
Recently I saw a model railway controlled by a Raspberry Pi with a phone app. This was not a 'computing project' but a model railway hobby. You are not going to see projects such as this unless you are into model railways.
What I find funny is that the people that used messaging boards in the last century were sneered at as losers. Cool kids went partying, they did not sit in front of a glowing screen exchanging messages with friends they could meet in person.
This crowd were not so keen on the social media applications because of tracking, the three letter agencies and tin foil hat availability. Therefore, in 2022, the OG online messaging crew are not doom scrolling on hand rectangles. There is some generalisation here, but social media is not for this crowd - they don't take selfies.
The situation is now turned on its head, with the normal people totally absorbed by social media to be tracked everywhere they go without a care.
That may be the majority, however, not everyone is 'normal' and I am glad to see so many Raspberry Pi projects going on.
that said, aside from proprietary drivers, people can usually examine what's going on and disable or rewrite the offensive parts.
We should have regulation that fundamentally breaks this relationship.
Mostly I think we just lack good upstanding examples of positive, extropic, "create more value than you capture" systems. Technocapitalism hasnt seen thr profit motive, and frelling "linux on the desktop" has sucked most of the oxygen out of the computing room- competing for obsolete pre-connected crowns.
Recent "How consumer computer is consuming computing"[2] carries many of these tendrils. There's just fee strong positive innovations to push things the other way. Some efforts like Node-RED try to offer some resistance, something, I though XOPC has a lot going for it (Dbus Telepathy for multiparty apps kicked ass), but there's little awareness & counter-prrdsure against the caging in, except from ever more dispirate edges.
[1] "In Praise of AutoHotKey" https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/ahk/ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32655951 (21min ago)
[2] https://schmud.de/posts/2022-08-23-the-consumer-computer.htm... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32636101 (34 points, 4 hours, 14 comments)
So long as people are going to treat nation state totems (coin) and scripture (bank statements) as sacrosanct they’re going to be building a nanny state that trades in such things to support trade in such things
Automators we’re rewarded for unemployment career workers and employing gig workers. They deflated others value for their own. Nice work.
Talk about freedom all you want; Muricans chase that dollar carrot on a stick that relies on the existence of the police state “they hate”.
What often gets overlooked in such debates, is the fact that the percentage of people who know enough about IT to care about these topics, is a pretty small fraction of the general populace.
Which, on the one hand, is great, because it means job security and lots of leverage when it comes to salaries. On the other hand, it means that there are probably not that many politicians who's first thought of the day is along the lines of: "Boy, I gotta get all these IT peoples votes in the next election cycle!"
Hell, even writing stuff down on a physical notepad would help people immensely to live a better life, but if nobody is educated about it they will hardly do it.
It reminds me of "Meditations on Moloch":
> Every single citizen hates the system, but for lack of a good coordination mechanism it endures. From a god’s-eye-view, we can optimize the system to “everyone agrees to stop doing this at once”, but no one within the system is able to effect the transition without great risk to themselves.
[1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
You can get a programming capable computer for free since most people consider a 5 year old computer (with 4-8 cores and 8-16GB RAM) to be ancient useless garbage. You have choices of form factor at $100. Everyone could buy a $70 old office liquidation computer that’s perfectly capable of servicing their emailing and document editing needs. But instead they buy $1200 phones. I think Steve Jobses most powerful idea was that other things should be computing devices too. Computers haven’t gone anywhere. You can buy one at the big grocery stores.
One example: When I encounter a word I don't know, in my native tongue or another language, how can I find out what it means? I can copy it to some service like google translate or an online dictionary. Maybe I even think of looking for a browser extension? But all these things are work and complicated. So I probably just read on. On my kobo reader, I can long press a word and get the dictionary entry. So I use that regularly to look up and learn new words which I would not if I always had to take out my phone and go online. Back in the day, google+ had a translate button, that would instantly translate text inline, which made it super easy to follow or even talk to people who wrote in a different language.
These kind of features are empowering! They use computers at what they are good at and they benefit most users who don't want to learn to program or customize their system. But they are few and far between in commercial systems or open source alternatives. An empowering system is not just one that you can customize, but also one that enhances the users own capabilities in meaningful ways. And there is a plethora of low hanging fruit there, we sadly are just too often stuck between "good enough" and "works for me"
We need government and money to become an integrated high technology deploying on decentralized technologies (which are the best way we have of creating large scale systems that are both holistic and evolutionary).
>What happened? I thought computers were supposed to be empowering? In all the techno-euphoria of the 1980s, Brand and others did not consider the manufacturer’s intent: our everyday computers, tablets, and phones are consumer machines built for consumption. The personal computer was replaced by the consumer computer just as soon as it arrived.
No. This isn't one thing. Three things happened concurrently:
1. Networked services
2. Malware
3. Copyright maximalism
The first trend is close to the "consumer computer" concept, since it's basically the old mainframe business model warmed over. However, the other two trends greatly accelerated the handcuffing of users.
Copyright maximalists feared the scourge of casual piracy and wanted to ban consumers from having access to copying technology. They failed, but Congress let them have protections for DRM that effectively amounted to being able to opt-out of being copied. They also sued and lobbied for intermediary liability on network services, requiring that they effectively do on-demand content removal.
Malware did exist in the mainframe era but it was mainly prank programs. Personal computing dramatically extended its reach. Proprietary software vendors were able to condition users to execute programs they could not inspect or modify. They also attempted to prevent copying with DRM, but an active cracking & piracy scene stymied that. So people were now blindly executing modified applications, often times with obfuscation to prevent removal of cracktros[0]. Pranksters used and abused this to distribute malicious code along with their software.
Network services made malware worse, too. The point of entry for malware in the Don't Copy That Floppy era was infected disks; and the solution was to write programs to detect and erase them. But with the Internet, everyone can connect to your machine, and it turns out that not only creates an entirely new class of software vulnerability to spread malware with, but a new motive for doing so - exfiltrating information and reselling it.
So you have three cycles running together that has made actually exercising anything resembling "freedom" into a scary ordeal. Computers just "get sick" with "viruses" and start stealing your information, so people rush to centralized services, upon which copyright maximalists have demanded control over and largely gotten it. "Consumer computers" are not (entirely) conspiracy of big tech to control our lives, but an act of convergent evolution under particular pressures.
[0] Object analysis complete. Target is a Space Pirate Crate. Space Pirates, strangely, dislike theft. The only way into their crates is through use of force.
Interesting analysis. But free software is demonstrably more secure. Are you claiming that proprietary vendors intentionally mislead people with FUD?
Or was it a cultural zeitgeist in the era of shrinkwrap and slow telecom where free software was simply harder to find? i.e. it’s hard to experience more secure software if you can’t find it.
They don't?
They want to sell as much as possible. Customers are in general not allowed to know their internal practices.
Audits are short and shallow.
Early FOSS projects imitated the development processes of proprietary with small core teams of hackers only releasing "finished" code as physical media. The first GNU releases were sold on backup tapes, for example. The modern "bazaar" style of having in-progress development done in the open and accepting patches happened later with Linus Torvalds and Linux. This is an artifact of both culture and technology: you have to both be willing to accept and review unsolicited patches and be "online" enough to where this makes sense as your primary development process. That's where you start getting the whole "if everyone can read the code then bugs can get fixed faster" argument that OSI pushed.
Concurrently with this, the personal computer market switched from "here's a BASIC interpreter, a manual, and some type-in programs, go nuts" to packaged shrinkwrap software. Free Software really did not exist in the personal computing world; the closest was "public domain" software which often did not come with source and is more akin to what we'd now call "freeware" - zero cost but not a FOSS project. Computer users at the time did not care about the license, or security, and would copy and execute anything they could because nobody had poisoned the well yet.
[0] This is still an oversimplification. IBM pushed for proprietary software as a way to head off antitrust concerns, since beforehand they sold source-available software packaged with mainframe hardware.
They still work. Some of them are awesome at inspiring mad and wonderful things, outside the walls and constraints of todays high-power gardens.
Man, what the Amstrad CPC6128 gets released for it even still today. Same with the C64. Of course. And the Oric Atmos!! Winningest platform of the 10-liner competition, which in itself, is a wonderful, wonderful landscape for ones mind to ponder. (Oric didn't win in the 80's.. but still lives, wtf!)
Old computers never die. Their users do.
We have operating systems that trust everything by default.
This means that going tot he wrong web site can bork your machine.
This means you don't stray from familiar sites, leading to walled gardens
Which is why we have FAANG
Capabilities are like taking a $10 bill out of your wallet to pay for a coffee, the most you can lose is the capability ($10 bill) you deployed in the transaction, you can't somehow lose your entire bank balance.
Another analogy is that of a circuit breaker. No matter what, it protects the wires in your house from overcurrent. You never have to worry about accidentally taking down the power grid when you plug in a toaster.
Do you enjoy going through all of the dialogs and what not to run an application today? Consider all of the switches and opt-outs going on on a smart phone today.
"X wants to do X, Y, Z, Q, E, D, A, B, C on your device. Is that ok?"
Do you think users are going to say no? They want to run the software. The software is an all or nothing affair. "Use our software, we only ask for 'X, Y, Z, Q, E, D, A, B', unlike those other guys". Think that happens much? I don't think the companies are competing at that level, because the more they DON'T do, the less services they can provide.
The litany of dialogs and options and managing all that sends the cognitive load of using the device on an exponential spiral.
Most folks habitually click through those alerts. "Yes, I agree to the 1000 word, 4pt font, unread license. Yes, you can track my location, YES! You can have my contacts, Gee wilickers I just want to PRINT A PHOTO!!11!".
It is exhausting!
It's a false sense of control. "Well, sure you can turn all of that off...but then what? Guess you didn't want those tickets to that concert then, did you?"
The action, unfortunately, has to be regulatory, and I don't see how that can be practical either without vast loophole as we've seen with the cookie banner hell we live with today.
That's NOT capability based security. (Like Java/Javascript, there's confusion)
In a capability based system you use a power box (a system supplied dialog box) to select files for a program to operate on, just like users do already with file select dialog boxes. It's just that the program ONLY gets capability to operate those files and nothing else. There's no complicated flags or anything like that to mess with.
You pick the photo to print and the printer to send it to and you're done.
> This means that going to the wrong web site can bork your machine
Examples wanted. What are you talking about? This disinformation FUD is something web browsers & web security work absurdly hard to prevent. You're right that many native applications have no such guards, but you switch from talking about OSes to making fantastic claims against websites. Please provide some evidence of these extrodinary Fears Uncertainys and Doubts (FUDs) that you are spreading.
Browsers are incredibly careful, better designed than OSes. For example, browsers all shipped protection against spectre/meltdown within weeks of the vulnerabilities being revealed. Browsers are extremely conservative & some of the best engineered sandboxes on the planet.
If you could link to something, anything describing what specifically you think the threat is, what problems there are, I'd be most appreciative. This fear-centric conjecture you are spreading does not match what the intent of the browser is, which is to provide a tight secure sandbox such that a user can navigate anywhere at all and have a safe comfortable predictable time.
The thing is, web browsers are just one "app" running on a PC, and there are many classes of programs. The blind trust the user's operating system puts into ANY program is a problem.
[1] https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/google-fixes-...
Mobile is different topic.
Computers are empowering.
So, Apple creates a beautiful phone and of course it's a closed source thing that they control because that's how they became Apple. And people buy it because it works really nice (apparently, I use Android myself). It's that simple. Something like the Pine phone is kind of crude in comparison. The people buying those tend to be very passionate about the perceived freedoms and flexibility they get with it. But it's not competing that well against the iphone ultimately because there just aren't that many people like that. Most people just want a phone that works.
For the same reason, Linux is failing to dethrone Microsoft and Apple for almost three decades now. Don't get me wrong, I actually have a Linux laptop and love using it. But it's not for everyone. IMHO Linux is not very usable unless you know your way around on a command line. Which is a skill I happen to have. It just lacks a lot of the polish of other alternatives and when you encounter any problems (and you will), the solution just almost always involves some cli action. You can fix it; but only if you know how to. Most people buy products they believe they won't have to fix. Of course that's a promise that's easily broken as well.
People pining for the days when all computer users were expert users are missing the point that they are now a tiny minority. That's what computer consumerization has meant. It empowered masses of non experts to use computers as well. Turning everyone into experts was never a goal.