[ImNotTheNSA]

> Any device not allowing that is, simply put, not respecting the intelligence of the user.

This is kind of a silly absolutist opinion. Sure, you should have an option to have a completely open mobile OS... but to say that any OS with other priorities than complete “openness” is disrespectful is to throw literally every other consideration to the wind. I mean... really, what about security?

Ideologues tend to forget about reality, sometimes, it seems. Verified app stores, for example, are about providing security to the end user, not about disrespecting the end user.

I can’t help but feel like ideologically driven projects like often almost immediately discredit themselves with crap like this. Their software comes off as about making some statement, not providing something great, novel, and beneficial to people.

[tathougies]

Um.... he's not saying OSes with other priorities are disrespectful. He's saying that devices that are designed to make it difficult for their owners to install their own software on it (sometimes going so far as to attempt to make it illegal) are being disrespectful to their purchasers.

[Tehchops]

How do you reconcile that when it's very likely allowing even a small population of "owners" to install unverified software ends up directly harming the majority of the other "owners".

[chriswarbo]

I'm not sure why you put scare quotes around the word "owner". Personally, I'd like to know what "harm" you think is inflicted by, say, the presence of a hardware jumper.

Also, in case you didn't know, there's been a lot of thought and effort expended over the decades about the philosophy, morals and implementation of ownership with regards to hardware and software. I recommend starting with a resource like http://www.gnu.org/philosophy

[freehunter]

Let's put it this way then: what's the harm in the Raspberry Pi to allow SSH right out of the box? That's up to the owner right? I shouldn't have to configure it, it should just work. Except people who aren't Linux or security experts leave it with the default config and the system quickly gets absorbed into a botnet that negatively impacts everyone else on the Internet.

You can't think of anything connected to the Internet as completely "owned" by any one person. The Internet is a hivemind of machines and humans, and every single person has the ability to impact many other people. Even unintentionally, even unknowingly.

If we want complete personal ownership of every device in our possession, I'm all for it. But that would require every person who owns a device connected to the Internet to take full personal responsibility for anything that happens on/from their device that negatively impacts others. Would you be okay with me suing you personally because one of your devices got infected with malware and slowed down my home Internet connection? Would you be okay with me suing your grandmother?

There is hardware and software out there for people who can handle that responsibility. The majority of Internet users can't handle it, though. That's why the majority of Internet-connected devices don't allow people to meddle with things they can't understand.

The GNU philosophy is a great ideal to strive for, but like with most ideals it doesn't handle reality very gracefully. With complete ownership comes complete responsibility, and very few people are ready to take complete responsibility for what their Internet-connected device does.

[tathougies]

Secure by default is smart, as is designing for the lowest common denominator. I do not fault the likes of Apple, Google, etc for that. However, what I do fault them for is not offering documentation to enable sufficiently technical owners to exercise their rights of private property and full ownership over the hardware they have bought.

[simion314]

You are very extremist in your possition, you can have extreme safe configs by default, then give an escape from jail to power users like Crheombooks have done or other devices that give you the option to install a different OS , Is your grandma formatting her PC and installing Linux ? IF yes great but probably she is not and she will also not flash her iOS device with a different firmwere either.

[freehunter]

Richard Stallman is very extreme in his position. I’m just stating the reason why the status quo is a good thing. Agreeing with the way things currently exist is not an extreme position.

[Tehchops]

> Also, in case you didn't know, there's been a lot of thought and effort expended over the decades about the philosophy, morals and implementation of ownership with regards to hardware and software. I recommend starting with a resource like http://www.gnu.org/philosophy

I'm very aware.

Also, in case you didn't know, to imply morality or correctness of a philosophy simply because some n individuals spent y time thinking about it is a logical fallacy.

The GNU philosophy is great when you want to wax poetic about a technological utopia, but it simply falls flat when you try to apply it in reality.

In the modern, interconnected world, it is technically trivial to compromise and marshal many thousands of devices to use in co-ordinated attacks. I simply do not trust other users, regardless of their technical aptitude, to maintain a secure posture, and they have no obligation or responsibility(outside of a tenuous at best philosophical stance) to do so.

I trust companies like Apple to utilize their economies of scale and collective engineering acumen to deliver a safer UX far more than I do their individual users in a freer ecosystem.

One could argue there is already a "live" experiment with a more open mobile ecosystem. Android is far more lax than Apple's walled garden, and this is my shocked face that it is rife with malware.

I understand there is some small fraction of the population that will cry foul at whatever egregious transgression Cupertino commits against the utopic vision of our lord RMS, but at the end of the day most of us have other things to do with our time and want to know, generally speaking, we're protected against all the other idiots.

[gonvaled]

> Verified app stores, for example, are about providing security to the end user, not about disrespecting the end user.

Everything a company does is for the bottom line.

App stores are there for lock-in, and for taking a percent of the sale.

The security features are a (fortunate) side effect: the company uses it as selling point.

[naasking]

> Verified app stores, for example, are about providing security to the end user, not about disrespecting the end user.

They quite literally cannot do that. It's security theatre.

[t0astbread]

In the end both kinds of systems are necessary: Locked-down with trust managed by an authority for less tech-savvy users (or users who do not want to manage their own security and are okay with the drawbacks) and open systems with the responsibilities put into the user's hands.