Quoth [email protected]: > On Mon, May 18, 2026, at 02:52, [email protected] wrote: > > > The tech industry is trying very hard to build an ugly future. > > I’m increasingly concerned about a broader architectural shift in which > responsibilities traditionally handled by the operating system are being > pushed down into firmware or firmware-adjacent layers, reducing the OS’s role > as the system’s primary and ultimate point of control. As that boundary > shifts, the operating system is no longer the highest practical authority > over the machine, but increasingly a constrained runtime operating under > policies, initialization logic, and security decisions defined below it. For > open source projects, this subtly but meaningfully changes their role. Even > fully transparent operating systems may depend on opaque firmware for core > behaviors like boot integrity, device initialization, power management, and > security enforcement. That reduces the scope of end-to-end auditability and > weakens the OS’s ability to serve as the final arbiter of system behavior. > Over time, open source systems risk evolving from sovereign controllers of > hardware into policy-bound execution environments where their openness still > matters but no longer guarantees full control over the system stack. > > If we reach that point, what meaningful agency would remain for the user in > operating a computer, and would that level of constrained control still > justify calling it a general-purpose system? >
what does this have to do with anything I said? Is this some sort of attempt to derail the conversation? ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T073a994fa2fd80d1-Md3621555cfc41c408bc407d1 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
