OS upgrades vs security updates is a whole different ballgame. We should not confuse the two.
Windows forces major upgrades in many cases, sometimes rendering the device inoperable because OS upgrades carry inherent risks. Forced upgrades are simply irresponsible. We need that consent to let the user back up files beforehand as a bare minimum, even overlooking the ethics side of user consent. Is MS going to fix my parents PC when they break it?
Forced updates? I see the argument, but I have to insist on user consent at all times. By default is okay. Explicitly violating the human’s will seems wrong. Software should serve people. But I can understand the argument even if I don’t agree with forced updates.
And that is why I’ve got my dad on Mint. He would not dare to even do a point upgrade himself. Until two days ago he was on 20.2 or smth. But he does the small updates quite diligently, like I told him. System admin dream of such users.
Windows has forced updates because people like your parents would otherwise never update and then still blame Microsoft for their computer breaking because of bugs.
I’m not so sure about that. FOSS is unlikely to gain a direct profit motive, and if it does, there will necessarily be versions with those features removed. How can you stop me from turning off ads or updates when I control the entire operating system? That’s kind of the whole point of free and open source software—the user is in control. Myself or someone with the appropriate skills can modify the code not to do those things. If that results in a better product, everyone will switch to it, killing those features permanently.
I have no problem with an open source AI if it proves useful, but it will be running on my machine under my terms. In fact, I already have an LLM running entirely locally.
It’s hard to enshittify FOSS as long as good enough people willing to contribute to de-shittify stuff exist, but that is not the main thing that “defines” any trend.
The layman that tends to use stuff that is marketed (which is unfortunately enough of the people) will be affected by for-profit orgs trying to set trends in their favour. That is what will turn out to “define” the terms.
Consider how Apple managed to keep their cult following for so long and how there are still enough people who consider “Windows” as the common name for Operating System. Even though the more technically minded people understand the differences, it doesn’t change the fact that people’s perception will be defined by what’s more in front of them, until they individually realise their ignorance and decide to investigate.
Windows is annoying. I like my computer just doing computer stuff. No AI. No Ads. No forced upgrades. No thanks. Just do the computer thing please.
Forced upgrades are necessary, people would put off updating for no reason
Bad updates are not necessary
OS upgrades vs security updates is a whole different ballgame. We should not confuse the two.
Windows forces major upgrades in many cases, sometimes rendering the device inoperable because OS upgrades carry inherent risks. Forced upgrades are simply irresponsible. We need that consent to let the user back up files beforehand as a bare minimum, even overlooking the ethics side of user consent. Is MS going to fix my parents PC when they break it?
Forced updates? I see the argument, but I have to insist on user consent at all times. By default is okay. Explicitly violating the human’s will seems wrong. Software should serve people. But I can understand the argument even if I don’t agree with forced updates.
💯
That’s what I love about Linux: you have options.
It empowers the user to choose what works best for them.
And that is why I’ve got my dad on Mint. He would not dare to even do a point upgrade himself. Until two days ago he was on 20.2 or smth. But he does the small updates quite diligently, like I told him. System admin dream of such users.
Windows has forced updates because people like your parents would otherwise never update and then still blame Microsoft for their computer breaking because of bugs.
They put off updates because they are afraid of further inshitification. They created the problem.
I just want a basic UI. I don’t want the bloated inconsistent eye
Wait until AI, Ads and Forced Upgrades becomes the definition of “computer stuff”.
I’m not so sure about that. FOSS is unlikely to gain a direct profit motive, and if it does, there will necessarily be versions with those features removed. How can you stop me from turning off ads or updates when I control the entire operating system? That’s kind of the whole point of free and open source software—the user is in control. Myself or someone with the appropriate skills can modify the code not to do those things. If that results in a better product, everyone will switch to it, killing those features permanently.
I have no problem with an open source AI if it proves useful, but it will be running on my machine under my terms. In fact, I already have an LLM running entirely locally.
It’s hard to enshittify FOSS as long as good enough people willing to contribute to de-shittify stuff exist, but that is not the main thing that “defines” any trend.
The layman that tends to use stuff that is marketed (which is unfortunately enough of the people) will be affected by for-profit orgs trying to set trends in their favour. That is what will turn out to “define” the terms. Consider how Apple managed to keep their cult following for so long and how there are still enough people who consider “Windows” as the common name for Operating System. Even though the more technically minded people understand the differences, it doesn’t change the fact that people’s perception will be defined by what’s more in front of them, until they individually realise their ignorance and decide to investigate.