It's not restricted. It's less capable. Entirely different thing. And they'll view it as a completely different device for different purpose (voice calls vs. doom scrolling).
Specifically designed to be less capable is the same as being restricted.
It's purpose is explicitly to restrict the user communication to some predefined setting by a third party (the parent and company behind it) and the user is well aware of that, as this e-waste cost as much as a cheap or second hand smartphone.
First, you got it for yourself, so you chose to use a jukebox (or in other words : restrict your listening to specific titles on physical media) instead to impose it to other, which make a big difference in what people see as a restrictions(instead of a choice, which is self inflicted).
Chosing a Tin Can is obviously to restrict your kid usage of communication, it's the nature of the purchase of the device.
First of all, comparing a locked-down smartphone with a fully capable smartphone is different from comparing a smartphone with a 'landline phone'. That's like apples to apples compared to apples to oranges.
Secondly as far as I understand, you need the same type of phone at both ends to communicate with each other. Looks like the tin-can and other similar devices are designed to talk only to each other. While that is a restriction, it eliminates the avenue for a comparison. The friends are all on equal ground.
Thirdly, you're talking as if parental controls, especially unequal parental controls are a bad thing. Parental controls aren't like government or corporate restrictions. There is a necessary assumption that parents act in the best interests of the kids, unlike the other two.
Some parents are irresponsible and may allow their kids to consume alcohol or drugs. Will you allow your kids to do it too, because it may end up in comparisons? You have to talk to your kids about why that is a bad idea. It's wrong to assume that kids won't listen at all. Don't most kids refrain from drinking, smoking and driving till they come of age?
If this sort of control seems unfair or unethical to you, you're basically exposing your kids to serious dangers. And brain rot is a very serious problem that HN doesn't talk enough about. It ruins even the seniors. But for kids, it wreaks havoc with their IQ and personality.
Choosing a Tin Can for a child that doesn't have a phone isn't restricting them, it's empowering them with a new form of communication to chat to their friends. Getting my 10 year old a bicycle instead of a car isn't a restriction.
Compared to getting them nothing, yes. But the OP's point is that this doesn't prevent the child from mentally comparing themselves to peers that have a smartphone, and viewing their Tin Can as a "restriction" imposed by their parents.
Which it is. I don't understand the need to wink-wink-nudge-nudge pretend it's anything else by the others in this thread. Just own it, restrictions aren't bad by default.
The browser also has access to all of your files (at least unless strictly sandboxed). If the browser exposes it to websites isn't that a browser issue instead of a systemd issue?
Like if a browser offered up full unfettered filesystem access without any prompt or consent that'd be a browser issue, not a linux issue, right?
My files don't contain my birth date, or at least not in a format easy to parse without AI.
So... I don't really get your argument. If two pieces of software conspire against my privacy, one to store the data and one to transmit it, why can't I blame them both?
I think you are missing the point. Windows programs would install with "Next", "Next", "Next", "Finished". Just look at what you posted and compare the user experience.
Speed and reliability. A connector of any kind reduces signal quality. Data lines need to be longer, because the memory slot won't fit under the radiator where the memory chips are now, and that adds even more electrical interference and degrades signal.
Also, we had memory slots on '90s cards. They were extremely expensive and proprietary. Ever saw a Matrox VRAM card? I never did.
I am hoping that we seriously evolve the ATX standard to allow for a socketed GPU board that can also enable user replaceable memory. Seeing an enormous GPU that is larger than the motherboard itself hanging from a PCI slot feels like horse and buggy shit. I'm imaging two boards back-to-back connected by a central high bandwidth bus (which could also do power delivery) that would allow one side of the case to be for CPU/RAM and the other side to be for GPU/VRAM.
Your solution only allows for one GPU, maybe two if the motherboard is really huge, and it doesn't really solve the slotted VRAM problem.
PCI is (was) allowed to be even longer. Old AT and ATX cases had a slotted support bracket to hold the far end of the PCI cards. See how an Adaptec 2400A looks like.
Yes, though likely something with a higher pin count since memory access is more likely to be random and can be parallel versus block storage.
> Like the data lines going all the way to an on-motherboard storage device?
Yes. Why would a GPU manufacturer/packager take on that cost, if it’s presently served well enough for most people by offloading it onto other parts of the system?
The current DIMM and SODIMM modules cannot be used for much higher speeds than are available now.
This is why there are several proposals of improved forms for memory modules, which use different sockets, like LPCAMM2, which should be able to work with faster memories.
However even LPCAMM2 is unlikely to work at the speeds of soldered GDDR7.
It is not very difficult to solder/desolder, but you need suitable tools, which are not cheap.
Moreover, when you do this manually, unless it is something that you do every day it may be quite difficult to be certain that soldering has been done well enough to remain reliable during long term use. In the industry, very expensive equipment is used to check the quality of soldering, e.g. X-ray machines.
So unlike inserting a memory module in a socket, which is reasonably foolproof, soldering devices is not something that could be used in a product sold to the general population.
When I was young, there still existed computer kits, where you soldered yourself all the ICs on the motherboard, so you could get a computer at a much lower price than for a fully assembled computer. My first PC was of this kind.
However, at that time PCs were still something that was bought by a small fraction of the population, which were people that you could expect to be willing to learn things like how to solder and who would be willing to accept the risk of damaging the product that they have bought. Today PCs are addressed to the general public, so nobody would offer GPU cards that you must solder.
Gentoo works and you can build or even cross-build it yourself. The next big problem is going to be, unsurprisingly, Firefox: glean component is exceeding 3GB memory during compilation (the 32bit user address space).
reply