Language
Language
You're viewing a single thread.
268 comments
-
Anyone that makes this argumrnt needs to work in a public IT support role for at least a year.
Then you will understsnd why your average user should not be given unrestricted freedom on their device.
-
Why should I suffer because of you lot?
-
Because making a power user take a more complicated path to achieve something is better than having an incopetent user brick their entire machine by accident?
-
this is not a "more complicated" path. this is a path that will purposely lock you out of other features, some of which you may be obliged to use. that or they won't even make it a possibility and you can go hunting for unpatched exploits to regain control over your own device.
-
Dunno if you saw the recent Android news, but the problem here is that we've passed "Make a power user take a more complicated path" and reached "Forbid them from ever doing it"
-
-
-
If the device is owned by a business, sure, IT should lock it down. If your average Joe owns his device? He should be able to break it if he wants. He owns it. This argument only serves to enrich the exploiters, not protect anyone.
-
Even people who are not being supported by any IT department at all? For example, home users. If they break their device they will learn how to not break their next one and therefore become more technologically proficient.
-
268 comments