←back to thread

We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

(hugotunius.se)
2071 points K0nserv | 3 comments | 31 Aug 25 21:46 UTC | HN request time: 0.684s | source
Show context
abtinf[dead post] ◴[01 Sep 25 00:22 UTC] No.45088300[source]▶
[flagged]
sverhagen ◴[01 Sep 25 00:31 UTC] No.45088344[source]▶
Do you want locked down hardware, or are you accepting the locked down hardware because you don't care about it either way, but are otherwise happy (very happy perhaps even) with what those platforms offer? But why can't we have both?
replies(2): >>45088355 #>>45089450 #
1. marak830 ◴[01 Sep 25 00:34 UTC] No.45088355[source]▶
This. Abtinf's solution changes how I can use hardware. But me being able to install what I want does not change theirs.

You guys keep not installing what you don't want - that's fine and your choice - but don't remove mine for no reason.

replies(1): >>45088585 #
2. sesky ◴[01 Sep 25 01:23 UTC] No.45088585[source]▶
This is not true. A walled garden only works well when it applies universally.

When app developers have the ability to bypass the walled garden, they have many incentives to do so ranging from financial to wishing to circumvent scrutiny. This will include an increasing amount of popular and useful apps, decreasing the options available to those who want to stay in the walled garden. For less technical users they will blindly follow instructions to leave the walled garden.

You are removing the choice of users who want a walled garden by supporting legislation forcing these ecosystems open.

replies(1): >>45088742 #
3. littlecosmic ◴[01 Sep 25 01:56 UTC] No.45088742[source]▶
Alternatively it just puts pressure on the walled garden to let people do what that want to do safely within the walls so they don’t have to go through the escape hatch.