> Digital distribution and lock-in are a disaster for historical preservation.

Agreed. This reality slapped me in the face quite hard after I was given an ipad 2 (circa 2011). I figured I'd use it as a couch-side device for spotify. Soon realized nothing worked on it, even with old version apps loaded. Server side shut it down.

That's partially because of web security, though, if I'm not mistaken. I have an old Windows PC and an old Mac mini that I use as servers and, outside of local stuff that's bridged to the outside network (and heavily crippled), I can't do much on them because of the changes to the TLS protocol for SSL certs. That means that the browsers won't connect to most modern servers, any apps that hardcoded instances of TSL can't connect to the internet, and, if I managed to get something to connect, it would be a huge security risk for anything on those machines.

So, if the connection is being shut down on the server side, it's likely because of the TLS version mismatch. I thought it would be a simple solution just via updated software but was told (by peeps on Reddit, so it's likely to be total nonsense) that, although it can be updated, it won't run reliably on older hardware unless that hardware can also support newer OSs. Win7 and below (?) don't support it and MS won't provide updates with it and MacOS versions before Lion don't have it. I've heard you can also update OpenSSL by breaking the symlinks to the OS's install and get it working again but that's more hassle than I cared to put in.

Also, most of those old iPads are able to be jailbroken. You can update OpenSSL on them and probably get Spotify working again.

Yes. Although I would disagree with the statement "it would be a huge security risk for anything on those machines"

Older TLS protocols have vulnerabilities yes, but most of them require a very motivated attacker with the ability to do a MITM.

I wrote a blog post about why I have decided to support older protocols, https://blog.nyman.re/2021/02/07/usability-security.html , the tl.dr. is that only allowing new TLS just means more forced obsoletion. For Banks and other sensitive things, yes it makes sense, for your personal blog, not so much.

I mean... Google still allows TLS 1.0 , if it was a "huge security risk", do you think they would?

The updating OpenSSL/breaking symlinks sounds interesting, do you have more info?

Personally I have a old iPhone 5S running iOS6 which I use for listening to podcasts. I ran in the the TLS issue there and my solution was to use a proxy https://bitbucket.org/ValdikSS/oldssl-proxy

Works well, and until maybe a year ago or I could even browse Apple's Podcast Store, but at some point that stopped working so now I'm stuck with the ones I have there.

(Cydia still works though... Thanks Saurik)

100% agree, same with online games.

I worked on a game called Minecraft Earth and it was a service-oriented game where you could collect things and play Minecraft in AR (fun project, not very fun game lol). It shut down a few years ago and we didn't get a chance to add an offline-only mode for even simple AR building, so now no one will ever be able to go back and play that game. It makes me really sad to see a whole product, a whole codebase just go poof.

You are probably not allowed to contribute to the open source private servers for Minecraft Earth and .ipa mods for people who still want to play?

https://github.com/Project-Earth-Team

ASA (which I worked on for Minecraft Earth) is also end of life in the next year, not sure how that will impact this.

> a whole codebase just go poof.

You didn't hold onto a copy?

You steal source code from your past employers?

I hear what you're saying here, but one of the ways we've been able to successfully preserve software was because, even though folks weren't supposed to keep this stuff around, they did anyway. Business goals rarely align with preservation efforts. While I do know that Microsoft does keep a vault of old software, production materials, etc (I believe they even have a position on staff for a Librarian, or at least they used to), for many other positions, that simply does not exist.

That's both a baseless accusation and a rude one at that.

Additionally, you are confusing stealing with making unauthorized copies.

It's called a rhetorical question.

Can we please stop with the mental gymnastics? Taking something without permission that doesn't belong to you is stealing. It may be justified stealing but it's still stealing.

It's not taking, though. It's copying.

Monks used to write books out by hand. If you were to go to a monastery, and copy a book line by line, you will have taken nothing at all. Nothing will be lost.

It's not taking, it's not stealing. It's just making a copy. You are the one doing gymnastics.

You're taking something that doesn't belong to you and copying it. It's stealing. In order to even make the "unauthorized copy" you mention, you have to take the thing first. That's the stealing.

What if you already have access to it and don't need to "take" it from anywhere?

Having access to it is not the same as having permission to take it, make copies of it, or remove it or its copies from the owner.

There is no loss of data on either side. It's not stealing. Your argument is like saying that a picture of the Eiffel Tower is stealing.

Nothing is lost from copying.

Loss of data is irrelevant. If you don't have permission to take something or copy it, then you're stealing. Again, I think the benefits of what happened in this case are obvious so I'm not arguing the morality of this. I just think it's absolutely silly that people are bending over backwards to pretend that this isn't stealing and that the reason we have something that would have been otherwise lost is because someone had to balls to steal it.

It's stealing. You're taking something from the owner without permission. Just stop with the mental gymnastics.

It is not legally stealing whatsoever. Zero laws that cover "stealing" are applicable to copyright infringement.

No one gives a crap about your pedantry. I never said anything about "legally stealing". They took something that didn't belong to them and that they didn't have permission to give to someone else or copy. That's theft. It's stealing.