> I deeply disagree about iOS representing a good future for software.
Now that's a point worth discussing. iOS is locked down to the point where I would almost call it unusable -- we don't disagree here. However, I'm also convinced that some steps in that direction are needed to keep the "general-purpose computer" viable as a mass-market device. A computing environment that's open enough so that software can be useful, yet closed enough so that it can't be harmful. (Harmful defined in the broad sense that it can't have any unwanted or permanent effect on the system, including: changing the homepage, installing toolbars, running persistently in the background and so on.) All this has to work in the absence of a central authority.
He did say that it has to work in the absence of a central authority. It's hard for a central authority to control your device when it doesn't rely on a central authority.
Maybe we just need to re-imagine the operating-system level security model in a way that tries to tackle the security issues that we have today.
Now that's a point worth discussing. iOS is locked down to the point where I would almost call it unusable -- we don't disagree here. However, I'm also convinced that some steps in that direction are needed to keep the "general-purpose computer" viable as a mass-market device. A computing environment that's open enough so that software can be useful, yet closed enough so that it can't be harmful. (Harmful defined in the broad sense that it can't have any unwanted or permanent effect on the system, including: changing the homepage, installing toolbars, running persistently in the background and so on.) All this has to work in the absence of a central authority.