1003
Language
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2025
1003 points (100.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
9000 readers
2068 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It's not one person, it's the vast majority of the userbase.
Which, to be clear, is again not a reason to have a duopoly decide what software can be made or executed in the first place. It's fine to have Google decide what the Play store will carry, and it's even fine for Android devices to require a manual bypass to run unsigned software. It's not fine for Apple and Google (and I guess Huawei by necessity) to have final arbitrary say on what software is acceptable on all handheld mobile devices.
That's the same argument people used to praise Microsoft for forcing mandatory updates.
Every year they force untested updates breaking the OS or even bricking the hardware.
And Windows is still vulnerable despite the updates.
This is weird in so many ways I have a hard time keeping track.
I mean, no, it's not the same argument. One thing is about how when you have billions of handheld devices largely meant to function as out-of-the-box platforms for specific uses for non-tech savvy users it helps to have them locked out of the box to minimize software issues and maintenance. The other is about peace of mind and automated upkeep during downtime.
But at the same time... yeah, automated updates (which is not the same as mandatory updates) are a good thing. Especially for mainstream home computers that don't have a sysadmin looking after them from a centralized location and have their upkeep down to whatever an individual user decides to do and when. There's a reason a number of Linux distros meant for home devices also install updates in the background. It's a good idea for gaming devices and home computers. The thing that used to piss people off about MS updates is that they used to interrupt people's work to make them happen, which was exceedingly stupid.
None of which has anything to do with Windows or Microsoft pushing bad updates. Bad updates are bad and they aren't any better for not being automated. Nobody cares if you updated yourself or the OS did it for you. If the system pushes a bad patch that bricks your system that's really bad. That should never happen. For the record, it has happened to me way more often on Linux, but your mileage may vary.
And nooone of that has anything to do with vulnerabilities persisting. All systems have vulnerabilities. It's about striking the right balance between how bad those are and how practical it is to close them up. You keep things as secure as you can while keeping them usable, based on what they are being used for.
What exactly are you trying to argue here?
You say automated updates good, mandatory updates maybe not?
But there's no difference on Windows, that's the point. You, as a user, get no choice.
You will get broken updates and unwanted features whenever they decide, because it's ultimately about the same thing with both MS and Android: taking away your control of your devices.
No, it's about implementation. Implementation is implementation. If you want to discuss software in terms of principle we're going to have a very short conversation. "You, as a user get no choice" because "they are taking away your control of your devices" is a meaningless statement.
I am arguing that yeah, there are scenarios where limiting the ability to install or run unsigned software at the user level makes perfect sense. Honestly, it may make sense most of the time. The mirage that it does not comes from mostly spending time in home computers where the only user is also the person acting as an admin.
Do I feel that most, if not all, devices should allow full access to a consenting user that understands they are very likely about to nuke their thing? Yeah, sure! It's basic right to repair. But pretending that automating maintenance tasks or adding access restrictions is a fundamental, ideological problem is just... not how this works.
I think the change Google has announced is unacceptable. Just not for the reasons you're describing and certainly not in the way you're describing them. The difference is very important, because the last thing we need is a roaming mob of online dilettantes arguing that any restriction to access is a betrayal of fundamental freedoms.
Which, frankly, is how we ended up with the dumb notion that there's no reason why you wouldn't want your home computer updating itself every time you reboot it. Which in turn has nothing to do with the ability to not do that if the OS is running on something that is NOT a home computer where somebody needs to have manual control over what changes and when.