The abusive relationship trickles down no matter which platform you choice. Even on Linux you don’t have full control of all the driver binaries, control of the silicon of everything running on your rig. Even if you were to go RISC V chances are you are going to have to rely on some binary blob for things like your WiFi card.
And even if we over come all those hurdles we still have to convince the avg joe to adopt them too otherwise it will just live in a small costly niche that the wider community just don’t bother supporting.
All we can do is try and pick the least abusive relationship we can afford and is practical to run.
My point is, I don’t it against people for using platforms others may find abusive. Sure us on HN are more likely to be in the position where we can switch platforms for fun just to see how they work out. But for most they simply don’t have the time or patience to swap and learn a new platform (let alone the cash).
Maybe this is a bad example because of what exactly happened with one manufacturer, but it’s why airlines like plane manufacturers to not go too far with design changes because it requires them to retrain their polits on the new aircraft.
If every time you purchased a new car you had to take into consideration that the control system was different between each manufacturer which may even require you to retrain in order to drive it you may very well consider with sticking with what you already know.
So I don’t hold it against anyone who simply wants to keep with what they know. They just want to fire up the platform at get to using it.
Anyways sorry for the rant, just my thoughts on the matter.
Agreed. We should all standardize on the most open systems that permit the most users to use the machines as we see fit. For example, on an open system, you can make special systems for Mac users. Or for Windows users. Or LSARS users.
That way we don't duplicate effort for an ever closing dictated by one greedy body.
