News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Hiding execution of unsigned code in Windows system threads by AnthonyMouse on Wednesday January 13, 2021 @04:35PM (#25768270)
> The success of locked-down iPhone and Android is a great example

It's the example that everybody uses, but because of the nature of vertical integration and the network effect, you can't use popularity as an indication that people actually want any given individual aspect of those products.

Suppose it's 2010 and you need an app that only exists on iPhone. Well, you might not like that it's locked down, but you need that app. Then once you've had one for three years you're locked into their ecosystem indefinitely.

It's also a trap. When the lockdown first comes, they say they're just using it to exclude malware and other things you actually don't want. You have to get your apps signed, but they sign all the ones you care about, so what does it matter?

Only after mobile platforms that don't do this have reached negligible market share and have no network effect do they start excluding apps you might actually want. But by then it's too late.

Re:Hiding execution of unsigned code in Windows system threads by zinekeller on Wednesday January 13, 2021 @04:48PM (#25768384)
Now, I do really want to agree to your analysis, but knowing how many Desktop Linux users are either just using a browser or Electron app (consistency) or Wine (consistency) and the fact that essential libraries (from the Gnome 2->3 debacle to systemd to unreliable semantic versioning) are much more unstable (which makes a non-consistent environment, and even Debian is discussing this very issue again), I am not sure if an average user really wants to have customisability versus consistency.
Re:Hiding execution of unsigned code in Windows system threads by AnthonyMouse on Thursday January 14, 2021 @02:12AM (#25773160)
There is a difference between wanting the ability do something and actually doing it.

The former is important because it makes itself unnecessary. If 90% of people are installing some third party modification, the developers notice and incorporate it into the ordinary installation, and then they don't need to anymore.

But without the ability to do that, that doesn't happen, and then everything is worse because you not only can't install it as a mod, it also then can't become popular enough as a mod to be incorporated into the standard distribution.