| ▲ | duped 5 hours ago | |||||||
I don't think it's unreasonable for a device manufacturer to tightly couple it to the software they design to run on it. | ||||||||
| ▲ | rustcleaner 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
No Universal Machine, as a component or the whole product, which prevents owner modification through DMCA-styled digital locking mechanisms, must be allowed to be sold on the open market. Such contravenes the rights of ordinary citizens. It is disgusting to me that we have allowed this state of affairs through our collective and individual inaction. America's founding fathers (terrorists by today's definitions) tarred and feathered for much less! | ||||||||
| ▲ | ux266478 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
That might be reasonable for a general purpose computer if we were talking about something like a Parallel Inference Machine running KL1 software on a KL0 kernel. But I think conflating Apple's products with that level of foundational engineering is highly disingenuous. They're not exactly trundling into the dark woods of exotic hardware and reinventing the bridge between human and computer. It's an ARM computer running a Unix clone. Apple's engineers aren't mapping every codepath and counting every micro-op, Darwin contains extensive amounts of third-party code. | ||||||||
| ||||||||