Well, tech-competent people mostly survived that without scratch so they want same experience of actually owning machine today as they had 10 years ago.

The push for containerization and sandboxing is in right direction if user have control over it.

By all means run the new app I downloaded in nice little box and ask me when it wants to access any file from outside of it, but if I want to I should have option to give it permission to whatever I want.

> Crazy to me that people want to go back there.

It's not so crazy if you understand that there are people who want to be able to have complete control over their own machines. These modern security measures trade that control for security.

But there are many circumstances where that tradeoff is undesirable. Perhaps the machine will never be connected to a network. Perhaps the owner of that machine is willing and able to take responsibility for the security. Etc.

Then they can use devices and operating systems with that philosophy. A Linux sysadmin absolutely can and should be free to do whatever they need to their company’s servers. Instead people are angry about the existence of any consumer device with barriers to arbitrary code execution.

The broader problem then becomes the smartphone duopoly. You can choose Android instead of Apple, but this is a compromise in terms of privacy. You can also choose an alternative Android distribution or a Linux phone, but this is a compromise in terms of being able to run apps.

Video game consoles are just as locked down as iPhones, but ~nobody complains about that since you can just buy a PC instead. There is no good equivalent (in terms of compatibility and privacy) to iPhone/Android, though.

The fact that Android is a compromise in terms of privacy is not incidental to but because of its prioritization of app developers' freedom.

Does not track. Windows before Windows 8 gave developers freedom, was private, and was the most popular computing platform on the planet.

There was nothing to stop any .exe from reading all your files and phoning home with them, which is even worse than Android. It was private insofar as your OEM and all the third party developers whose products you downloaded were trustworthy, which is not too far off of Android.

Lenovo was one of the more famous abusers of its freedom [0] so sticking with popular and well known consumer brands did not save you, just as I expect it doesn’t now with Android.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfish

OK, we are talking about two separate forms of privacy here.

You are talking about privacy from rogue app developers. I certainly laud Android (and iOS) for their approach here, and I agree that the situation is much better than on desktop operating systems.

I, on the other hand, am talking about privacy from the OS developer, i.e. from tracking that's built-in to the OS by the OS developer. The situation on Android is certainly much worse here than any other operating system.

(One could argue that the tracking is not built into the Android OS, but into Google's Play Services. Since all mainstream Android vendors ship Play Services, this is a distinction without difference.)

It is possible to make an OS which is private in both senses. De-Googled Android distributions and Flatpak/Snap prove this. So far, there has been no mainstream interest in this, though.

No, that was absolutely how Windows worked.

XP security was atrocious, and there were already better, functional models of how to structure things out there.

> and there were already better, functional models of how to structure things out there.

Even today, no file sandboxing solution I'm aware of really properly handles more complex file formats that don't consist of a single atomic file.

Only macOS goes beyond the simple "allow the user to pick a single file or directory and that's that" model, and even then according to the documentation I found it only handles simple sidecar files that only differ in the file extension from the main file, but still breaks down for anything more complicated than that.