I like the essay but it fails to realize the goal posts are not fixed on the field. General purpose computing is alive and well and cheaper than ever, you can build the equivalent of a PC/AT for about $50 in parts.
What Cory misses is that when we were building CP/M machines and IBM PC clones, there already was a big pile of computers that were locked down so that somebody else could make money off of you using them. I went to school at a time when you were allocated a fixed number of kilocoreseconds (kilowords of core you could occupy on the big computer charged on a per second rate) and I had my kit Z80 system and felt very superior.
Computers got more powerful and now the one that was sold to you has the more than the capabilities than the one where it was already proven you could extract value for using it, so people continue to extract that value. And when their extraction is sidestepped, they work with computer makers and software makers to regain the upper hand. The goal posts moved.
What has also happened is that the backbone of what used to be the "personal computer" market was people who were more fascinated with the computers themselves than with the software they might run on them. The manufacturers worked to appeal to the tool users, the architects, engineers, and others who understood the value of computation for their job and so they were willing to invest for the right tools. There are a lot more of those people then nerds who like computers. The goal posts moved.
Today's "computer" market is not really about computers, its about a platform for consuming digital products. Whether it is entertainment, or navigation, or gaming. That you could run a compiler on that thing and make new programs that it could run is nearly incidental (and certainly insignificant) to the market who buys it. The goal posts moved.
We have reached the point where general purpose computers are these $35 and $50 things for people interested in computers and for no one else. Even when people try to push them that way.
I don't believe there is an assault on general purpose computers, what is happening is that thing you called a computer before is what back in the day we called a TV and a telephone and a radio and a record player, except all in one package that runs all day in your pocket. It has a computer in it but it isn't a computer in the original sense of general purpose computing. There are lots of general purpose computers, and there are now FPGAs that are easily loaded with general purpose computation. You just can't run gcc on your TV.
Even most people interested in computers don't want just some barebones chip on a piece of PCB anymore. They want programmable pocket-carriable device with peripherals, too. That without relying on opaque blobs, without obsolescence plans of the manufacturer, without having to share memory with opaque and dangerous modem. There is NO such thing for $35 and $50, or for any price.
With FPGAs too you can't do anything more involved, like interface DDR memory, without reliquishing control to proprietary blobs on proprietary toolchain, subject to manufacturer obsolescence plans. This isn't something I can call "general purpose computing" with clear conscience.
The way I get it, you are saying that the risk article mentions has already materialized: we have a bunch of general-purpose computers running in a bunch of devices which are artificially limited from performing general computation.
It seems to me the article does not really hit the point with those who are not already on-board with "all software must be free" (in the FSF sense).
If you don't believe you should have the right to modify software running on your paid-for general purpose computer called a TV (and it is a general purpose computer, some even run mostly general purpose operating systems like Android or WebOS on ARM SoCs), the article is trying to warn you that you'll be soon the victim of software on those TVs: like the webcam and microphone issues with Samsung TVs recently.
Only when anyone can explore and run software they wish on their general purpose computers masquerading as specialized devices (that's what the article aims for, imho) will everyone, including your mom, brother or yoga teacher, be safe from the risks hacker community is all too well aware of.
I don't think the article is very clear in what it tries to convey, because general purpose computers will always remain, but public at large is being steered away from them, and that's where the risk is.
I'd be interested in speaking with anyone who has tried. =]
But moreover, I think your point about the goal posts is apt given "the goal" is to have "cheap GPC" since the definition of cheap changes (in dollars adjusted for time) but the definition of GPC also changes. And so, you might say we're even moving them in (at least) two dimensions.
You could run gcc quite nicely on the little rockchip boards in a lot of smart TVs (people do repurpose them quite a bit) but I bet you'd melt the TV if you tried to compile gcc on there!
I think it's interesting that some of the distinguishing features of a "real" computer in the 80s (I/O, realtime capability) have become the features of a "toy" computer (Arduino etc.)
Weve been on this road for a long time unfortunately with hdcp, region coding, and the contamination of the ecosystem by IME and similar systems. The new open source risc architectures at least offer a glimmer of hope
What Cory misses is that when we were building CP/M machines and IBM PC clones, there already was a big pile of computers that were locked down so that somebody else could make money off of you using them. I went to school at a time when you were allocated a fixed number of kilocoreseconds (kilowords of core you could occupy on the big computer charged on a per second rate) and I had my kit Z80 system and felt very superior.
Computers got more powerful and now the one that was sold to you has the more than the capabilities than the one where it was already proven you could extract value for using it, so people continue to extract that value. And when their extraction is sidestepped, they work with computer makers and software makers to regain the upper hand. The goal posts moved.
What has also happened is that the backbone of what used to be the "personal computer" market was people who were more fascinated with the computers themselves than with the software they might run on them. The manufacturers worked to appeal to the tool users, the architects, engineers, and others who understood the value of computation for their job and so they were willing to invest for the right tools. There are a lot more of those people then nerds who like computers. The goal posts moved.
Today's "computer" market is not really about computers, its about a platform for consuming digital products. Whether it is entertainment, or navigation, or gaming. That you could run a compiler on that thing and make new programs that it could run is nearly incidental (and certainly insignificant) to the market who buys it. The goal posts moved.
We have reached the point where general purpose computers are these $35 and $50 things for people interested in computers and for no one else. Even when people try to push them that way.
I don't believe there is an assault on general purpose computers, what is happening is that thing you called a computer before is what back in the day we called a TV and a telephone and a radio and a record player, except all in one package that runs all day in your pocket. It has a computer in it but it isn't a computer in the original sense of general purpose computing. There are lots of general purpose computers, and there are now FPGAs that are easily loaded with general purpose computation. You just can't run gcc on your TV.