Part of why i knew so-called "digital rights management" was fucking bullshit was because very little software ever came out that empowered me to manage MY OWN rights in the digital space.

I need there to be FOSS applications that allow me to root-level BLOCK applications from perceiving what I'm doing, to just fucking SANDBOX ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING BY DEFAULT and let me whitelist what specific things are allowed to directly access the hardware.

Sadly I am not as tech savvy as I used to think I was. I might've been technologically clever twenty years ago but I hadn't managed to keep up... I think what I've described might be referred to as a "hypervisor"? And I'm told it's an overbearing, clumsy, heavy-handed overkill measure that would be difficult to implement and make everything a pain in the ass to do. So ... shit, man, I dunno... i'm just so damn tired of my hardware being bossed around by people I didn't authorize.

OK, so... where the hell is Recall?

I have a Copilot + device. I am typing this in one, in fact. Recall does not seem to be anywhere to be seen. They added a deployable Google Lens-style "highlight a thing for us to review" thing. It was so intrusive and easy to deploy by accident I got a pretty good notification that I should go turn it off. Maybe that was part of the Recall rollout?

Incidentally, this piece is... a bit weird. Not only is it an ad, but the concerns they seem to flag as still existing (presumably to sell you their security subscription) seem to be that there is no biometric unlock and just the system PIN and that they don't trust Microsoft on principle. The second is up to you, but the first doesn't really work for me. Not only is the PIN a valid override to biometrics across the board in general (Windows defaults to that when biometrics fails), but it's more secure on principle, since it can't be entered by accident or by force.

I just don't think the featue is particularly useful for how much potential it has for accidental misuse (even if they never see the data and they keep it entirely secure). It's not the only one of this class, or even Microsoft's first attempt at this (a similar feature shipped with Windows 8). It's certainly become more of a meme than anything else at this point.

Well:

1. MacOS is not malware
2. Apple doesn't make a habit of blatantly lying about their security
3. As you said, it doesn't actually exist

Ah, so Apple just happens to be one of the good massive megacorps routinely deploying anti-consumer practices. Gotcha.

See, it's that gap in perception I'm interested in. Microsoft wants nothing more than having the closed ecosystem Apple has. From their Surface line to their much maligned store to their subscription-forward, always signed-in account environment.

Why they suck so much at selling that where Apple can get away with murder is much more interesting to me than the perceived differences between the implementations, which I would argue in a number of cases are worked backwards from the brand perception anyway. Part of it is the implementation and the execution rakes Apple chooses not to step on, but certainly not all of it, and that's fascinating.

Programs ran through Flatpak can only access permissions and directories that it has explicit permission for. This is perfect for a very small program that only does one thing, it can get rather awkward when you need it to access multiple storage volumes. For example, I wanted to have my Steam games stored on different hard drives, but they were never visible through Steam. I had to override the Flatpak permission to give access to my mounted disks for it to work.

M$ is trying to take an open system and forcibly close it - after driving their user base by force into an unstable OS

Apple were smart enough to start locking their shit down before home computers became an absolute necessity ...and do it with a functional OS

so Apple just happens to be one of the good massive megacorps

No they're just a different type of shitty.

Right. But the reaction they get to their shittiness is very different, which is the thing I keep wondering about. Everybody keeps telling me why Microsoft is shitty and how Apple isn't shitty in those ways specifically while conceding they are in others.

I want to know why Apple's shitty doesn't make them the poster boy for shittiness but MS's shitty does. And it does. As far back as Windows 95, Windows is the thing you use that you hate to use and love to hate. That takes work and luck. I want to know how you can dig that hole so effectively while your competition can be just as overtly crappy and still come across as sleek and all the way above good and evil. There's a fundamental truth about branding and squishy human brains buried in that phenomenon.

This is just a thinly veiled ad for AdGuard.

Apple locked down their shit way after home computers were a necessity. I'd argue it was the rollout of handheld devices that needed a home computer to fully work that made their walled garden viable.

And Windows is the main player in home computer OSs. You can take issue with their choices, but it's certainly functional. I'd argue Win11 is annoying, but not even in the top 3 least functional versions of Windows. I mean, I was there for Me, 8.0 and Vista.

But yes, Apple successfully deployed a locked-down, closed space, and I'm curious about why people are ok with it. That they did it early is... a solid hypothesis, I suppose.