I believe this is true. But I also have found that sometimes the user experience is diminished when not "logged in" to encourage people to create accounts. Pinterest has a box that slowly covers up more of the screen as you scroll drown. Facebook has a login prompt box that stays at the bottom of the screen and occasionally expands as a reminder. Quora prevents internal redirects to new pages. With enough know-how these can be worked around but it is an effort and I often find myself making the undesirable choice between doing the work around, ignoring the content, or signing up for an account.

Right, but the simple truth is: people do it. They don't mind doing it.

Especially when the alternative is terrible user experience. The vast majority of tools named when these conversations come up are demonstrably worse from a UX perspective.

Free software does not get a pass on UX because it is free. There are many reasons why that is, but we have to recognize it is true.

Overgeneralizing a bit here. I agree than many people do, but some don't. I mind and I never create an account on websites trying those dirty tricks on me and I know a bunch of people who do the same.

Do we know that they don't mind doing it? I suspect most people don't like it, but do it anyway, because they see no practical alternative. People sure complain about Facebook a lot.

Among all the non-tech oriented people I know, the only ones that say they don't mind, do so because they feel powerless about it but "need" Facebook.

You actually need some tech knowledge to be able to rationalize this endless being pushed and shoved around like cattle as some kind of worthwhile trade-off.

UX is usually worse for non-customers because the main product offering of many online services simply cannot exist without strong relationship with customer (probably Quora is not the case). Because of that, experience of registered users receives much more attention. Most of the world is happy with it and is not going to deprive themselves from cool stuff on privacy grounds. I'd say it's counterproductive to fight against collecting personal data by corporations, because corps do need it to make service better. Instead, it should be better regulated, possibly, similarly to financial organizations by requiring independent privacy audit etc.

The forced-login isn't to improve product quality, it's to make more money on ads. StackOverflow/Exchange works great without forced login to view content.

whynotboth.gif

Stack overflow works better when people provide answers and feedback on prior answers; persistent login greatly increases the chance that someone will leave a reply, which in turn helps future users.

Nope this is directly linked to ad revenues because StackOverflow don't care about them they can offer freedom. And if they ever get into financial difficulty you can count on me to subscribe to a paying "gold membership" and I still won't care if broken students get the same content for free and without login.

You never wondered why there is very few fake account on stackoverflow as compared to ad based social network?

Why would you think StackOverflow doesn't care about ad revenue? They both run ads and want to make money by helping recruiters reach logged in users.

Yep but quantity is not an ally to reach this goal, they look for people that have a good track record and are recognized by their peers. They don't care if the student that look for answers on SO is not registered.

Registering non participating members is only a trick to inflate your user base when communicating. What really matter is active users, and they will register don't worry.

The difference is that SO doesn't force you to log in to be usable, as its revenue profile does not require it to.

Non-registered users lacking some functionality due to the lack of attention is not the problem. The problem is companies conciously making it hard for non-registered users to access the service. Deploying various annoying partial screen blockers is not the lack of attention -- it is the opposite.

Does it even work? I interpret such behaviour as "you are not welcome here" and close the page.

For me too. Whenever I do need something from Quora I disable their register coercion with a ?share=fuckyou query param.

However, most non tech-users I know will simply enter their email and a password because it's so simple and they don't see the problem with this dark pattern.

There is a Chrome extension that will redirect the Quora links to ?share=1 automatically.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/block-quora-login-...

Thank for the tip! I was stuck on that stupid register screen last week and just resigned and look elsewhere.

Maybe if I can actually have a grasp of what quora can do for me BEFORE subscribing I might someday consider joining.

PS: This is exactly the same crap for web based startup, usually the more they hide they're "sass live demo" under a trial subscribe-wall, the more I'm supspicious. Often with reason as product are shitty. When on the opposite you have a big "try me link" (and possibly even a "see the source on GitHub") I already have a good impression on the product...

It's like spam... they wouldn't be doing it if it didn't work.

Sometimes there is important information behind those that you need, so you are forced to look for walkarounds.

Of course it works. That's like the only way to get loads of new users.

Dead users. It would be great to just use a throwaway email to bypass the stupidity of only they wouldn't block those.

(this is also why sign up process is complex)

i stopped using pinterest the minute i discovered they were doing this, despite already having created an account. likewise, i tend to avoid quora links. facebook i don't mind so much because it feels more like social networking than part of (what should be) the open internet.

Is signing up for an account really that big of a deal to you?

Pinterest and Twitter really bug me. I usually hit Pinterest when doing a google image search looking for a product page to buy something. By hitting Pinterest I'm clicking through to the product page (which I would have preferred if that was my result instead), so it's not much different to me than blogspam. I really liked the idea of Pinterest and could see myself browsing and maybe eventually creating one, but the casual experience is so user-hostile I avoid it.

Twitter has been similar because their landing page has been useless (when not logged in) and no search box. Usually I hear about a tweet I want to see for myself. I'll go to twitter.com, then leave and go to Google to search for it. Looking now twitter.com has changed dramatically and now has a search box.

I, like most people, are lurkers and consumers. I lurked here for awhile and I lurk in a lot of communities. At some point I may sign up and contribute, but if my lurking experience is terrible I won't make it that far. I realize this isn't what companies want, and I guess I'm not the "normal" use-case because if I was they wouldn't have anybody sign up. I have a Twitter account, but don't see the value in signing in on every device for my casual use.

You can use Twitter's website to search Twitter without being logged in.

Go to

https://twitter.com/search

You are only proving @pfranz's point. There's no search bar, there isn't even a "Search" link on the home page.

One would be encouraged to think they are doing this on purpose.

Each user will have their own reasons, but if it's a big enough deal that websites will try to strongarm users into signing up then I believe it's likely a big enough deal for users as well.

Did you even read the post? This is about avoiding tracking. And yes, signing up for accounts can be grueling. Try making a google account without submitting a blood sample.

Wat? It's been years since I created my "real" Google account, so I just created "[email protected]" out of curiosity.

It literally took 20 seconds, with a fake name and birthday. There are form fields for your phone number and alternate email address, but you can leave them blank.

bugmenot.com still works. Although an even better solution would be a browser plugin or add-on that, with one click, creates and logs in via a fake account populated with fake, throwaway info, changing every time you visit the site. Don't just avoid tracking, poison it. I'd help fund that kickstarter.

Even if you did that I think there are a lot of ways to identify you, using everything from your browsing patterns -- what sites, when and for how long -- to even just the account creation process itself; you'll still need to complete the captcha and with the "click all images that match" captchas that Google is currently using on reCAPTCHA (which btw was quite a bait-and-switch; they originally got a lot of people to use reCAPTCHA because the original purpose was to help book scanning, "read books, stop spam", remember?) as far as I've come to understand continuously sends your cursor position to Google servers, and with the movement data and the order and the timing that you press the images I would not be surprised if there was a pattern that uniquely identified you there.

Likewise websites that stream your input key by key instead of submitting the text when you press the submit button should in theory be able to easily identify you by the timing of your keypresses. I've only heard of a couple of instances of sending keys as-you-type but I think that if someone made the kind of project you spoke of above, then we would start seeing more tactics like the kinds I mention in order to counter that.

Even if you then proceed to disable JavaScript globally and only browse the web in 1.0 style with user-initiated GET and POST, the way that you write has some uniqueness to it that might be possible to identify.

I think it you want to make browsing data completely anonymous you're going to have to download a snapshot of the internet and unplug your connection. Unfortunately, that's really not the user experience most people want.

Or prevent a chunk of the Internet pages from abusing JavaScript, then use proxies such as Tor.

There's a chrome extension trying to do just that, hopefully it will ported to other browsers.

>> Kill Analytics[1] is a chrome extension that runs in the background while you use the web.

When you visit a website, it sends a little extra data to the server which breaks that site's Web Analytics. <<

[1]: https://hello-kill.github.io/

It has November 1st, 2016 as the release date but I can't find the extension anywhere.

potentially related, Marlinspike's Google Sharing: http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/it-security/googlesharing-a...

Just tried this (again) and it does require me to enter a phone number.

See here: http://i.imgur.com/LFZjcvG.png

I used to think it was dependent on the IP from which you register, like whether it was a home connection or something shared with many people (like in a train or café), when obviously you'd want to use the latter (and definitely not the IP from which you've been mainly accessing your main Google account for years).

But this time I did try it from my home connection, which is in the Netherlands (though I selected "Germany" for my home country because Fravia+ has taught me well).

I wonder what makes the difference. Maybe if I had a US-based IP? Could be something with EU privacy laws. It should just clearly tell me, though.

Now, I won't whine about it when Google doesn't want to give me something for free. I will, however, whine about it when Google pretends I should hand over the thing it wants at no cost but for my own benefit. I will also whine about it when it purposefully obfuscates the cost/benefits and leaves me guessing like this. If it's a trade it wants, either be upfront about it, or be shady business.

Can you create a new account on every visit? If not you essentially volunteered to uniquely identify yourself.

Whether you want to opt out of tracking is irrelevant to the BS claim that it's difficult to create a google account. StevePerkins was specifically responding to the difficulty claim.

A blood sample? The only fields they ask for that might be too much for someone is a phone number and prior email, and neither is required to make an account.

I take my privacy very seriously and understand a lot of the apprehension about Google's tracking, but I think you are being a little ridiculous.

I've never been able to sign-up for a google account without entering a valid phone number. Even typing 555-5555 it will state it needs a valid phone number.

I had thought this was the case as well, but just tried signing up for a throwaway google account from the US browser homepage and it seemed to go through without a phone number or alternative email.

It probably depends on your IP address and how many accounts were registered using it (if your ISP uses NAT then many users share a single address) and maybe other factors like country etc.

From Dubai. Didn't need to enter a phone number or a recovery email to create an account

You "can" sign up for gmail without a phone number (iirc it's fairly difficult, and you need to do something like use a fresh install of an android device or something to trigger the right sequence of dialogues). However if you try to use that account outside of the device, they will soon (within a couple of logins) ask you for a phone number for "security purposes," - the dialogue says something like "there is something suspicious about this login" at which point your account is linked to whatever other accounts have your phone number (unless you have an unlimited supply of burner phones). - Note that I am remembering this from when I tried specifically to create an unlinked gmail account around nov 2015-jan 2016 (I used a formatted nexus 7 to do it), so things may have changed, maybe details are slightly off from memory.

(For those who are saying it is possible, they might already know who you are based on browser cache, ip etc. Try it in incognito on a vpn. I get this: http://imgur.com/a/Y5Cxq

That's probably the result of using a VPN. Google undoubtedly knows that lots of accounts registered through VPNs are spammy.

I just registered billyjiminy123@gmail in a private browsing session and didn't get prompted. I even sent an email without being prompted for verification.

/s/phone number/ip

Yes, Google can track my ip. I guess you should browse through tor if you're this worried about tracking.

Google tracks IPs like Amazon tracks shipping addresses. It's kind of hard to deliver what you've requested if they don't have your address.

I can still get email through a vpn just like I can get packages at a p.o. box.

My point about the address comparison was that if you're using Google, you're asking them to send you data. Yes, you can route all requests through a VPN, just as you have send to a P.O. box or through a courier to hide your home address from Amazon. But I question the sanity of this. If you're worried about Google knowing your IP address or Amazon knowing your mailing address, it seems generally better to simply not use them.

If you're using Gmail (or sending email to people who use Gmail), Google already knows a ton about you. They can probably guess where you live without knowing your IP. They can certainly guess where you live if you're ever searching for region-specific stores/parks/directions/etc. I suspect if you're browsing through a VPN regularly, Google has enough data to pick you out of the searches coming from the VPN's outbound IPs with fairly high confidence.

Asking for a phone number seems pretty valid.

The number of times people forget their password, or accidentally type it into a phishing site, or re-use passwords across different websites where one of them (e.g. Yahoo) get breached....

Without a recovery phone number, these people are hosed - and they've lost data, photos, contacts, email, their entire digital life etc. That's a pretty poor user experience. So most people are like - yeah, OK, that sounds reasonable, let me put a phone number I can access just in case somebody hacks my account.

NB: I work for Google, but I don't speak for them here in any official capacity.

> Asking for a phone number seems pretty valid.

I agree with your reasoning that for the vast majority of casual users it is useful (and maybe gmail is only intended for casual users). Otoh, there are countries where you could be punished for speaking your mind via en e-mail account that is linked to you (say by phone number) or from that e-mail account being linked to you via your using it to sign up for another service. For example, in the US one could conceivably be punished (or at least face an expensive court battle) for publishing certain types of software see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States from an e-mail address linked to you

The security considerations are valid, but this is missing the point.

The point is rather that google is in the business of selling personal information, and that telephone numbers are valuable personal information. As such, some people don't trust google with this information despite the valid pretext.

Why would Google create a high barrier of entry to get you on their platform? Their entire business model is based on tracking and advertising, so they have every incentive to lower this barrier to the greatest degree possible.

It's about having high-quality information about these people. Google would rather have fewer people that are more valuable.

Seriously? Their business is advertising and their technology depends on big data and is designed to scale, and they offer all of their services for free. It seems like they have a huge incentive to know as much as possible about as many as possible.

The question you should be asking is whether letting me see Pintrest or Quora content (for example) without an account is really that big of a deal?

FWIW, I won't sign up for those two sites specifically because of the sleazy way they get their content show up in search results, but don't let people see the content without an account once they get there.

Try signing into your Google account in Chrome. It will track everything you then search in the address bar, even if you have paused Google history.

I think this isn't necessarily about open source, it's about tracking users in order to manipulate them with relevant ads. A company could use a fully open-source stack and still cross that creepy threshold with user tracking no problem.

A few years back I was using a paid Google Apps account (which IIRC excludes you from some tracking?) and FastMail simultaneously. Both were excellent from a technical perspective, but FastMail was just better. They make all their money from selling their service to end users and I trust this model more. So I switched to using FastMail exclusively.

I use free and open source software and strongly prefer it - but I don't see it as some kind of 'automagic' solution to tracking and privacy concerns. Buying the product, and not being the product, is what is important to me.

Also don't forget to self-host what you can, for example it's not that difficult or expensive to set up Nextcloud on a VPS for file and contacts/calendar syncing. And don't be a cheap bastard with the FOSS you use, make donations to developers of useful tools. You're going to pay for all this one way or another.

I personally believe the approach proposed by Daplie is the way forward, not only because it allows users to take back control of their own data, but also because you don't have to give up on a friendly user experience to do so:

https://daplie.com/

I knew https://sandstorm.io and I just went to see daplie.com: My worry with Daplie is whether the UI will be as cool as promised. Sandstorm is the same idea as Daplie without the hardware part, and already their features aren't as useful as I initially thought.

Have you tried https://cloudron.io ?

Hmm. Go read their TOS about hyperlinking and see if you still think they're friendly.

Daplie doesn't have a TOS on the Server. The TOS is established by the owner of the device, literally.

They actually changed it - when I looked at it, they had some BS about approving linking to their site.

Tried finding the backup on archive.org, but it's having a difficult time with that site.

>"They actually changed it - when I looked at it, they had some BS about approving linking to their site."

How long ago did you first read about it? Was it before the Indiegogo campaign started?

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/daplie-the-cloud-system-t...

Hello! I'm AJ. I manage the website. We started the site with a cookie cutter template and left a garbage TOS and Privacy Policy in there by mistake. Someone told me about this post and so I pretty much pulled the TOS and I've been working through the Privacy Policy too. Consider this a draft, would love your feedback on github issues: https://github.com/daplie/daplie.com/

"Better" is in the eye of the beholder. It creeps me the hell out, which is why I block the data flows that feed them.

I think it's a mixed bag. Real life example, my mom is flying in today for a visit, she emailed me the flight info. Close to the time of departure my android phone that's link to my google account gave me a push notification about it's status which it regularly updates in case there is any delay. Is this a little creepy? To me, yes. Is it also useful? Yep.

This. I'm not sure if the other user means better experience with the services Google et al. offers or if he directly means how Google/Facebook/etc. cater ads/search results/friend suggestions to your web behavior. If it is the latter, then I personally want none of it and I get creeped out in much the same way as meeting a stranger who knows a little too much about me.

I agree with your larger point, but should user privacy be part of the user experience?

Privacy _is_ part of the user experience, but only insofar as users actually care about that particular feature.

Most users I believe do consider privacy a positive, but often it's a low priority compared to other "more important" features like convenience and usability.

Only I should protect my freedom. If I give it up for the slightest inconvenience then I don't deserve it.

That's because you omit to factor in the tracking and everything that comes with it. When you add advertising, profiling, censorship, surveillance and worse suddenly the experience is not so desirable anymore. We get tricked into it because the consequences of tracking are not immediately obvious and often delayed, (and a handful of cognitive biases) but it is still part of the user experience.

For the users where this downside is obvious because they've been jailed, silenced, murdered the user experience is arguably not better.

It's not only about tracking, Wanna talk about the user experience of google reader to cite one famous example of google's better user experience ?

> For the users where this downside is obvious because they've been jailed, silenced, murdered the user experience is arguably not better.

So we need a site that takes this into perspective and educates users.

The "true" value of tracking = [user benefits][number of users] - [mad regime oppressing people][oppressed people]

How bad is the oppressing? How great are the benefits? What's the correct mental model for evaluating this? What would happen without tracking? What's the value of the alternatives?

What we need are ways to anonymize and abstract our presences in more ways than just creating new logins for each user.

Some kind of "TOR-like" way of aggregating login and thus behavior to nullify this kind of tracking.

> That's kind of the problem though; they usually _do_ offer a better user experience.

Except for search, where DDG is superior to Google Search, and has been for some time, amongst others...

> If we want users to start using open source software [...]

There are paid alternatives that are also superior to Google's ones. Fastmail works a lot better than GMail, even if you have to pay for it.

The problem is when people want zero-effort, perfectly-polished, zero-cents services. Nothing is completely free.

"Open source" is irrelevant here; the issue is whether services are part of the surveillance economy. Google search is sometimes better than DuckDuckGo, possibly because they can afford more crawling, and sometimes worse because you need to try to out-smart their algorithm to escape your personal filter bubble. Neither company is "open source," but DDG has a simple, non-invasive business model: they show ads based on search terms.

"Open source" and "walled garden" are orthogonal.

The most crucial thing for the future of information freedom is to fix American intellectual property and network access laws.

"Walled gardens" exist because anyone who effectively frees a user's data on the user's terms is at least sued, if not jailed, under statutes like the Soviet-era, pre-Internet Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and luddite interpretations of the Copyright Act that consider a RAM copy that exists for milliseconds an infringement.

Allow coders to make it easy to cart your data around and suddenly the major tech incumbents will have to compete on merit instead of merely holding your data hostage, which is exactly what they don't want. The powerful make laws to prevent others from challenging their power.

If we update copyright and the CFAA to address conventional internet use (from the user's perspective, not the corporate giants who were quick to legislate themselves a safe harbor with the DMCA) and constrain the scope of browsewrap and clickwrap agreements to reasonable liability disclaimers, we'll have no problem maintaining a vibrant and accessible marketplace for user-facing services.

"Walled Gardens" have nothing to do with IP laws.

The user obviously retains copyright on whatever he posts/uploads to fb/twitter/etc. If the user grants you permission, IP laws cannot be used to stop you.

The CFAA did indeed come into play with the guy who wanted to automate Facebook profile transfers. But apart from the questions of that specific case, it's just not true that there are millions of people waiting to migrate away from Facebook if only they could transfer their photo library.

Most of the value in these networks is in "network effect", i. e. it's usefulness is a function of the number of other people using it.

And then there's good old "this service is actually pretty good". Case in point: Gmail. It's quite easy to move away from it: you can download all your data via SMTP and set up forwarding or an autoresponder. That people do not do so has nothing to do with your conspiracy theories. They actually like the service.

>Most of the value in these networks is in "network effect", i. e. it's usefulness is a function of the number of other people using it.

No, the only reason "network effects" matter on something that is useful specifically because it makes the transfer of information instantaneous and fluid is because we have artificial barriers (CFAA/IP) in place to keep that data stuck with one vendor.

Without this, the number of people using Facebook to access Person Data would be transparent to the average user, much like the number of people using Chrome or Firefox to access hypertext. And much like Chrome and Firefox, the switching penalty would be reasonably surmountable for most users. It's the difference between learning a new interface to the data (as in switching from Chrome) and being cut off from the data completely (as in switching from Facebook).

SaaS sites have network effects specifically because we (accidentally) legislated those effects into existence. There are no physical barriers locking people in -- the "wall" of this garden is entirely artificial.

>"Walled Gardens" have nothing to do with IP laws.

>If the user grants you permission, IP laws cannot be used to stop you.

This is 1000% false. IP laws absolutely CAN and HAVE been used to stop people from accessing online resources, even to get information that the user has authorized the data gatherer to collect. That's because when you download a page from one of the major tech services, you're not just downloading the user's copyrighted content to which the host has a license, you're also downloading the host's copyrighted code and parsing through it to extract the user's requested data.

That's been interpreted to be an infringement under the Copyright Act on multiple occasions: Ticketmaster v. RMG, Facebook v. Power Ventures, Perfect 10 v. Amazon (in which the judges ruled Google's use fair on appeal, because it was Google), and others. While you may be able to argue there's an implied license if the robots.txt is blank, that is only going to last you through the first notification that the host doesn't like your activity, which is not necessarily formal (cf. Craigslist v. 3Taps), which would matter both for CFAA and copyright purposes. It's not an issue limited exclusively to something sneaky done by Power.

Even if IP law itself was irrelevant (and it's not), there would be a lot of work to do here just in fixing up the laws around network access and blocking onerous Terms of Use.

>it's just not true that there are millions of people waiting to migrate away from Facebook if only they could transfer their photo library.

Whether you believe someone could do a better job than Facebook or not, surely you don't believe it should be, for all practical intents and purposes, illegal for them to attempt to do so.

>That people do not do so has nothing to do with your conspiracy theories.

Please try to start this type of service and get back to me about "conspiracy theories" after a C&D destroys your business, as it has hundreds of others, including mine.

Not to be rude, but you clearly have never dealt with this in a serious manner. Please be more careful before you go around making assumptions and dismissing the perspective of those with direct experience.

Well, Alan Kay and a couple of friends built an entire system in 2.8MB in 1998[1].

It is 2016 and "large companies" are still overrated.

People who think we cannot do better are ignorant and probably overrated.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUud1gcbS9k

I don't want to think or speculate. I want to see people do better and then we can congratulate people.

Not before.

Do better and people will recognize it. That's the best part of this industry.

People I know think before they act and sometimes do better.

They also see much more than an "industry" or a "product".

Best thing of all: we may have ≠ POV and still not hurt each other. Freedom!

Freedom is wonderful, but we have a saying in the USA (from a famous court case): the rich as well as the poor are free to sleep under bridges. The meaning of this is that freedom without good resources is not actually that great.

After all, you could be completely free from Google and every other technological capitalist firm right now by throwing away your computer, phone and so on, and returning to ink and paper for your communication requirements. But of course you don't want to do that because it would entail a terrible loss of convenience, and every time you needed some information you would be forced to make a trip to the library or bookstore, or ask someone else to find the information for you etc. etc.. There is nothing ethically or psychologically bad about such a life - many of us are old enough to remember growing up that way - but it will put you at a severe economic and social disadvantage compared to virtually all of your peers.

In theory, I agree with you (and I mean that on many levels; I'm a devoted fan of Michel Foucault, for example). But I cannot eat theory, even if you consider it to be delicious cake.

Here is something wonderfully tangible:

  Alan Kay and a couple of friends built an entire system in 2.8MB in 1998[1].

You can actually DO stuff with these techs: "How Smalltalk Enables World Record Breaking Performance"[2]

Guys behind V8 are smalltalkers.

Nothing "theoretical" here, just science. I do not care about pompous theory. For example, I do not believe in real numbers. I let "theory" to poets and most academics.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUud1gcbS9k [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx9dgLW9m7w

Many people here are politely explaining to you that these tools have great intentions but that they are poorly designed, and you respond with irrelevant assertions about performance records. It is as if people tell you that a velo is unsuitable for construction work, and you respond with praise of Romain Bardet.

This discussion is about 'Free, Decentralized, Ethical Internet built on Solidarity.' Who cares about record-breaking Smalltalk performance? It is irrelevant. None of your contributions to this discussion have added anything of value.

"Many people here are politely explaining to you that these tools have great intentions but that they are poorly designed,"

So, the "design" of the iPad is superior to the "design" of the Dynabook?

Despite paperless vision of the future thx to "software", usage of printers has just begun to stop growing.

Patronizing and blind or high priests of the "rentware" cult.

> So, the "design" of the iPad is superior to the "design" of the Dynabook?

Yes. For the audience in question the iPad is in fact a design superior in every dimension except perhaps the child who wants to write a long form novel and already knows how to physically touch type.

> Patronizing and blind or high priests of the "rentware" cult.

I highly doubt this forum is prepared or inclined to have a conversation about your orthodoxy or how market forces interact with it. Certainly I'm done.

But good luck to you.

I do not want ideology. I want tangible results that will improve the freedom, privacy and safety of the western world. Quite frankly, Google does more for this right now than any 3 open source competitors to gmail do, combined.

Open source is irrelevant in most fields of user-facing software because they have insisted on being irrelevant. And any time a group forms a structure to do better, they're ceaselessly attacked by the community and given increasingly worse components to build off of.

The cloud is going back to mainframes (e.g. Chromebook). Kay and 2.8MB system (Squeak). TCP/IP in 160 SLOC (Ian Piumarta).

You mix Open source and Free software.

Go have a real degree first (real science like physics), then maybe go back to computing.

Cannot catch up with the 70s!

My physics diploma says that you're not contributing any useful arguments to the discussion at hand.

Your contribution is very interesting : it shows how little a diploma (a.k.a. "education") has to do with any kind of ability to produce anything useful.

http://oxrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/4/475.abstract

http://oxrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/4/538.abstract

http://ner.sagepub.com/content/224/1/R29.abstract

https://newrepublic.com/article/124943/america-overeducation...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/03043932949...

https://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/lpritch/Education%20-%20docs/...

http://repec.iza.org/dp5401.pdf

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/ioppn/news/records/2013/December/Differ...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289605...

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2862754

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/2016/11/01/are-we-still-goi...

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/01/18/study_finds_l...

https://www.amazon.com/Academically-Adrift-Limited-Learning-...

http://www.opencolleges.edu.au/informed/features/21-myths-th...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/05/06/federal-stud...

http://longevity3.stanford.edu/blog/2014/10/15/the-consensus...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/2016/11/01/are-we-still-goi...

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2012-12-31/research-...

http://economics.mit.edu/files/10414

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162505...

http://www.nber.org/papers/w18315

http://www.nber.org/papers/w19895

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/upshot/how-to-improve-grad...

http://hechingerreport.org/how-often-do-community-college-st...

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=40

http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-i...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2013/05/28/half-of-co...

No one cares about Squeak anymore. We have browsers.

Average web page is > 2MB[1]

Lol... you are really clueless.

[1]: https://www.soasta.com/blog/page-bloat-average-web-page-2-mb...

But that's mostly raster images and fonts. Code density is quite low, and JavaScript takes many cues from SmallTalk.

"Lol." A technical term.