I know that there’s a number of readers who don’t like it when OSnews covers political topics, I’m one of them. These political upheavals however spell danger for operating system hobbyists and so I dedicate this article to framing the political news within the context of what we are here to read about: operating systems.
What is beautiful about computing in general is that everything is open and free for information to travel until
restrictions are placed in the way. Before a programmer has written a line of code [he] has a blank canvas
of pure openness and it is boundaries that [he] creates to shape and to direct the flow of information.
The operating systems we use therefore are as open or closed as those who choose it to be so. Sony chose to remove
the Other OS feature from the PS3. Carriers chose to prevent rooting of their mobile devices. These restrictions did
not come by default from their hardware and from their software, they had to be actively placed in.
With the Internet, we have been given a network of such a chaotic and naturally open nature that it is impossible to
think how such a thing could have come about in the first place. What company in their right mind would agree to
route the unknown, random, and legally unvetted traffic of everybody else, with no agreement or payment from the
Any operating system is allowed to participate on this network without first getting an agreement with the network
operator (who would not be interested in anything that didn’t make them money). Would Haiku OS get anywhere if
before it could connect to the Internet it would have to produce a sales pitch to AT&T for them to decide if
this would be a worthwhile product on their network to generate income for their network services?
All this political hoo-hah going on has highlighted that all around the open and chaotic core of the Internet the
fringes are not open, are not chaotic. Large corporations have shown that with little difficultyâ€”and with less
reasonâ€”they can effectively cut off websites from operating. Over-reaction seems to be the norm, anything that
falls into a legal â€œgrey areaâ€ is safer to remove (citing ToS / T&Cs) than to keep and allow the actual
legality be determined. So panicked are they to protect their brand’s image that the end user does not enter into
That means you, hobbyists and tinkers, are perceived as a threat to brand integrity.
You may not install your operating system of choice on a device because that may bring the manufacturer’s brand
There will not be for sale any material that may bring the manufacturer’s brand into disrepute. The Internet is
not a brand so therefore â€œlittle Johnny Dogood got porn from the Internet!â€ is not a problem, when â€œlittle
Johnny Dogood got porn from the Google Android Marketplace!â€ is.
We are seeing an industry-wide, lateral, fear-induced lock down of user freedoms in the name of brand identity. When
the desktop has faded away and you can no longer purchase any kind of computing device that freely allows you to
install your own operating system (because someone might abuse the wireless network), then alternative
operating systems themselves become the next fear-induced target.
â€˜Why are people circumventing protection measures put in place to protect the integrity of the network and ensure
the safety of all users against cyber attacks, so as to install their own software, when everything they need is
already provided and anything they want to run is not allowed in the app stores because it’s â€œillegalâ€ or
unsavoury?’ they will say.
When running your OS of choice is no longer a majority, and when doing so prompts â€œisn’t that illegal?â€
questions of ignorance then alternative operating systems will become a niche not designed to solve the needs of
everybody, but to solve the wants of the technical elite.
Now I admit that I am fear-mongering myself, but you must understand that the constant pursuit of profits produces a
hive mind effect whose results are not equal to any individual’s input. The individual thinks it’s reasonable
for people to choose music appropriate to their tastes and age. But add money into the equation and the hive mind
says that all music must be sanitised so as to not upset any of the paying customers.
My point here is that it is neither Apple’s or Google’s express intention to create a world where all the good
benefits of alternative operating systems do not exist, but that is what will happen.
When Google create a web app store that only works with Google Chrome they are only looking after their own
interests. The fact that this could eventually prevent others from innovating outside of Google’s influence is not
the intention of the individual Googler; they all love the open, unpredictable and awesome web.
Getting on to WikiLeaks. The world’s governments and mega corporations have been playing a lot of inside
baseball. The secretary at the front door of Shell might not agree that it’s ethical for Shell to be operating
inside the Nigerian government, but then she doesn’t need to know that and it is still achieved otherwise. The
stock holder’s demand to see not steady profits, but always increasing profits means that morals are not part of
the equation. The only way they can achieve this without damaging the brand identity is through secrecy of
Because our computing hardware and our computing services are wholly dependent upon brand-aware companies, the
necessity to maintain secrecy of information has been filtering down to what is available to us in the shops and
what services we use on the web.
When the device you purchase is closed, and the operating system it comes with is also closed, and the apps you use
on it are closed, that operate with a closed service through a closed API, then at any point in this chain your
choice to pass information on can be vetoed without reason, without justification and without any recourse on your
part. The ability to spread information could be cut off with no more reason than that â€œwe don’t like itâ€.
BitTorrent represents a software, network-level chaotic natured force mimicking the hardware of the Internet. I can
quite easily see BitTorrent like concepts being the backbone of the next tier of the Internet to come, but the next
generation of hobby operating systems â€” on mobile devices â€” may not get far at all if AT&T can say that
anybody using an alternative operating system on a mobile device on their network is a threat to â€œnetwork
stabilityâ€ and won’t be tolerated.
The chaotic nature of Internet hardware is what allowed WikiLeaks to operate, and to continue to operate despite the
best efforts of governments, but the software is not chaotic enough â€” anything that which was commercially
provided under contract specifically to WikiLeaks was taken down; that was the extent of the American government’s
power, but they could not just switch off the Internet hardware because there is no contract, no agreement with
WikiLeaks between peering points on the Internet.
With BitTorrent there is no agreement, no contract between the sender and the receiver. BitTorrent cannot just be
switched off. It is necessary if we are to see a free and open web, seen through the vestiges of all kinds of
operating systems, that information cannot simply be â€œswitched offâ€ because one government takes a dislike to
it. We need a DNS system that switching off one website will also see the loss of half of the Internet. We need a
money transfer system that cannot be switched off to prevent donations to one activist organisation without also
killing the revenue flow of big companies.
What WikiLeaks has shown us tech enthusiasts is that governments and large corporations are playing a game of
â€˜ring-a-round the Internet’. Willingly, or unwillingly tying our very ability to communicate with each other to
a set of Terms of Service and throwing their hands up and denying everything when calls of censorship arise. If
WikiLeaks could not do what it does, then governments could continue unabated in censorship that would, without
doubt, extend eventually to all devices in a way that would easily effect you whoâ€”at this momentâ€”have no
interest in WikiLeaks. We’ve seen it with DRM, with the industry’s pressure to secure video transmission from
end to end. In order to watch a Blu-Ray film you now require an encrypted media path from optical drive to graphics
card, to software, to cable, to screen. Crazy, just crazy. Hackers may have beaten this system, but that hasn’t
prevented HDCP graphics cards being common. It hasn’t stopped HDCP being common. It hasn’t stopped what the
consumer buys when they go to the shops requiring this.
At OSNews, we’d very much like to read and write about hobbyist operating system projects for mobile devices. I
myself have stayed clear of smart phones thus far because the interfaces do not suit my requirements and I’d prefer
to design something myself. If I were a C programmer rather than a web author I would already be working on my own
mobile phone OS. Right now, I am severely limited in mobile devices in which I can install my own operating system.
It is no longer the norm.
That should terrify you.
OSNews cannot avoid the political happenings of the world if it means that there won’t be interesting news about
operating systems coming out to discuss in the first place. â€œUpgrade to commercial OS version n+1! â€” new
feature: Twitter clientâ€ is boring.
Nor do I want to report about the constant cat and mouse game of jailbreaking. That is not news. That’s a
happening that tells us nothing about innovative operating system design except the ability to waste a lot of time
and money on DRM.
I want to hear about the one guy who looked at what was in the market, and said â€œNo, It can be betterâ€. I want
to hear about the guy who made a real difference to people’s lives by clobbering together a solution to a real
problem out of what was available out there (e.g. Ushahidi).
Other engineering disciplines have been around for thousands of years, and computing has only just begun in that
regard. There was political upheaval at the introduction of the printing press. The powers that be feared its
ability to disseminate information and tried to put a stop to it. There is no difference to what we are experiencing
today. Eventually these powers will pass away because they do not serve us.
OSNews will continue to report on political issues that ultimately affect your ability to use whatever hardware and
software you choose to access our content. The editors write and publish stories within their field of knowledge, so
it is likely that wide-ranging topics such as political stories are easier covered by any one of the staff. We ask
that you combat any flood of political stories by using your interest in operating systems to find and submit news
of other more technical happenings out there as described by you.
but that’s the strangest, most rambling piece I’ve ever read on OSnews. I’ve read it twice now and still can’t work out what the overarching point is meant to be.