Computing has been a major part of my life for 35 years. I wish that I didn't have dependence in proprietary software but I do. Within that context this matters a lot to me.
Normalizing the idea that the developers of proprietary software are acting ethically (if within their legal rights, which I would dispute) when they remove functionality is very troubling to me.
I would rather that this kind of behavior, on the part of developers, be both socially taboo and illegal. Failing illegal I'll settle for socially taboo.
Alternatively, if this is allowed to pass, what material differences will come into existence as a result? What predictions will you make about the lasting consequences of this specific action?
It's difficult for me to conceive of my reaction as an overreaction. I would like to explore that dialogue, but I can't get myself into a place to work from. I just can't do it.
Alternatively, if this is allowed to pass, what material differences will come into existence as a result? What predictions will you make about the lasting consequences of this specific action?
People won't know what general purpose computers are. They'll accept silly ideas like "Well, my computer just can't do that thing anymore." The full value that computers can bring to individuals and to society won't be realized.
General purpose computers are a unique invention in human history. I hold the value they bring to humanity in high esteem. I think their ability to affect positive change on the human condition is difficult to understate.
I perceive a systematic effort, and a manifest effect brought on by the marketplace, to eliminate access to general purpose computing for individuals and to replace computers with vaguely computer-shaped appliances.
We're racing headlong into a "The Right to Read" scenario. Feeling that it's normal to accept somebody altering your computer because you agreed to a vaguely-worded license agreement stilted heavily in the favor of the software developer isn't alright. The more people think that's alright the worse things are for everybody.
Sorry, but if you can't even conceive that you're wrong, you're not equipped to argue about it.
Not being able to conceive that I'm not overreacting doesn't mean that I can't conceive that I'm wrong. It means that I can't conceive that I'm overreacting.
I had a hard time responding to your first inquiry. I responded to your "Alternatively..." inquiry as an alternative. Instead of addressing what I could respond to you just dismiss me. That disappoints me.
You might have been right and I'm missing something, but now we won't know.
I'm sorry I have to dismiss you, as you're not willing to entertain the possibility I'm right.
Which is not what I said.
I suppose I should have just dismissed you when I asked questions that you didn't "satisfactorily" respond to.