Stallman: Did I say Jobs was evil? I meant really evil As if Richard Stallman's first pot shot at Steve Jobs didn't cause enough outrage, the founder of the Free Software Foundation has decided to clarify his stance – with some more criticism. Apple products digitally handcuff their users, Stallman observes. And the fact that they are pretty just makes it worse. According to the …
On the basis that his micromanagement seems to have stemmed from a genuine personal belief that end-to-end control makes better products rather than a lust for profits, I don't agree that Jobs was evil. That's even though I accept that the walled garden locks consumers in and that monopolies are very bad for the consumer. And I'm not arguing that he was necessarily right, merely that his motivations don't justify 'evil'.
In this post RMS *does not* say that Jobs was "evil".
El Reg are hyping up what RMS actually said in order to stir the shit.
"In my first posting about Steve Jobs, I misquoted Mayor Washington's words. According to this radio program, his exact words were:
When he says that he would hope that I would have all the good qualities of past mayors, there are no good qualities of past mayors to be had. None. None. None. None.
I did not mourn at the bier of the late mayor. I regret anyone dying. I have no regrets about him leaving.
I remembered two sentences ("I regret...leaving.") of what Washington said, but got the words wrong. The error did not alter the meaning, but accuracy requires this correction.
Overall, Washington's statement was harsher than mine. He criticized Mayor Daley as a person; I criticized Jobs' public activity. My feelings about Jobs as a person are not strong, since I barely knew him. The important thing about Jobs is what he directed Apple to do to those who are still living: to make general-purpose computers with digital handcuffs more controlling and unjust than ever before. He designed them to refuse even to let users install their own choice of applications — and installing free (freedom-respecting) applications is entirely forbidden. He even tried to make it illegal to install software not approved by Apple.
Jobs saw how to make these computers stylish and smooth. That would normally be positive, but not in this case, since it has the paradoxical effect of making their controlling nature seem acceptable.
Jobs' death inspired a flood of articles lauding him for these very devices. That further increases their potential for harm, which is why now more than ever we must focus attention on it. We must not let secondary considerations about Apple or Jobs distract us from this threat until we have thwarted it.
Jobs also made it a personal crusade to attack Android with software patents. In practice, Android is not entirely free software, but it is a big step closer compared with the iPhone. If Apple's guns hit Android, they could wipe out all possibility of free software portable devices that are attractive to use. Jobs' final legacy may be the patent disaster we have warned about for 20 years. "
That's such a trivial straw man argument that I have to wonder about your motives in citing it.
I argued that Jobs' actions were predicated on his belief that he was creating better products as a result.
You use the word 'con' which imports an idea of deception, i.e. you state that my argument is that Jobs was consciously trying to trick people into buying worse hardware.
The conclusion that you've deliberately misstated me is impossible to avoid and it's difficult to believe that the upvotes you've received come from anyone objective.
It's the Windows PCs that only run Windows. Remember that. Well, you could hack them to run Mac, but that's a short term thing. Only the Macs run it all. Who is the shacked one? Not the Mac user. We can access all your files. You have no idea what to do with a Mac file. No software for it since none of your 'computer companies' even BOTHER with software.
Stallman? Evil? I've have totally gone with overbearing bore with an overly well developed sense of his own self importance and an underdeveloped sense of the real world, but "evil" seems a bit strong to me - I'm willing to ascribe things to stupidity and await actual proof of intent before reaching for the "evil" branding iron.
Google pretends to be the modern day Robin Hood that is stealing intellectual property from companies in technologically rich west and giving it to companies in poorer Asian countries. It has already wrecked companies like Nokia, RIM, Palm and Motorola and propped up Samsung, HTC, Huawei and ZTE. In this way it appeals to the globalist socialist fanatics as an entity that is redistributing wealth to poor. Truth is that Google that has no experience and expertise in operating system technology. Sun, Apple and Microsoft have about 4 decades of experience in developing os. There was no way Google could build this much expertise on its own, It was smart enough to know that the only way it can protect its advertising monopoly and revenue is by having a dominant operating system of its own. Since it did not have the capabilities to build, it poached employees from Sun, Apple, and stole their technology and handed it over free to asian handset vendors. This way it thought it will be protected against litigation while allowing it to extend its monopoly in web services.
Besides this farce the other lie being propagated is that Andriod is an open source movement, intended to empower the powerless individual developers, while the sad reality is that it has killed the mobile open source movements like linux and java, by stealing their code and credit, underming their rules and thus destroying their ecosystem. This koolaid is so intoxicating that it has created a cult of dimwits who will swear that google can do no evil. They will never ask google to open source its search engine software. Imagine if yahoo poaches google employees and open sources it's search engine technology, would google still claim that software should not be protected by intellectual property rights. But then hypocrisy is the currency narcissists use to deal with dim wits
I think there's a big misunderstanding being generated here. While the article speaks about the things Mr. Jobs (or his company) /did/ (making locked down phones, attacking competitors, etc.) the overall statement seems to be personally directed at him (maybe while not even being meant that way).
I think the whole thing is bollocks and this statement is only made because of the recent events. Nothing more, nothing else.
"A personal crusade to attack Android". On the other hand Microsoft is also cashing in BIG TIME with patents reflecting Android. Evil? Dunno, I don't think its ethical (IMO the whole US patent system is a stupid joke, and lousy in general) but its what US companies do. Why single out Apple while the rest also aren't free of blame? Mr.Jobs evil? Or Mr. Jobs determined to run his company in a way which is common (or 'commonly accepted') in the US ?
"Jobs death inspired a flood of articles lauding him for these very devices". Agreed. But can you blame Mr. Jobs for that? Give me a fscking break here. Its how the world works. Someone dies and people start talking about him and the stuff he did. Even when big criminals die a lot of people will still continue with only talking positively about him/her. Welcome to society!
This isn't about Steve Jobs, its about Apple. Yes, Mr. Jobs has a big responsibility and influence in all that considering that he was the owner, but there were more people involved besides Jobs.
I don't think its fair to put the blame entirely on Steve Jobs, I think its close to cheap propaganda which in this time maybe even close to slander (taking the recent events in consideration; Mr. Jobs is no long around to share his mind on it all).
If you want to put the blame somewhere; blame Apple. IMO its time to leave Steve Jobs alone, enough already.
For the record; I'm no Apple user and quite frankly I don't have any desire to ever becoming one. But having said that I don't think its fair to continue to start talking about someone who can no longer talk back.
Seems that dementia is destroying a man who has some good work and ideas behind him.
It seems as if he never used an Apple "general purpose computer", like most of the anti-macs who will respond to this article, or he could have found the full UNIX, the Apple web sites full of free, GNU and other software, Macports and countless more. He may even have discovered his own software running rather well and the standard, installed stuff, such as PHP, Ruby, Python, LAMP ....
Perhaps he is upset that it is so easy to get at and augment or reduce. Some "technical" types do object to the hoi polloi having easy access.
Perhaps, secretly, he has got shares in cheap hardware manufacturers and resents the rather long life and increasing presence of Apple gear.
Still, consolation: it is his free choice, with many alternatives, whatever the hardware and softwaer he feels he needs. Or is that the problem? We should all be buying cheap hardware and installing patchily supported, "free" software of his choosing so that he can write learned replies to normal people needing help and advice.
"general-purpose computers with digital handcuffs more controlling and unjust than ever before" from Steve Jobs, out of context, with no caveat that he (Stallman) was talking just about the consumer devices when he quoted "general-purpose computers".
I'm waiting for him to rip into Nokia,, Microsoft, car computers, GPS computers and all the other "closed" consumer devices.
I wonder, did Apple refuse him a job once? Did Apple ever claim its consumer devices were "open"? If Android is so open, why do people "jail-break" it?
Does it matter? The new Nokias look rather good. I think we can all be grateful that Apple have stimulated such extraordinary improvements in design and usefulness of mobiles. Perhaps Stallman's gripe is that he did not have the ideas himself.
to compare jailbreaking an iOS device with rooting an android one.
For a start most people don't need to root their android device. If you for example wish to install a random program you found on the internet (or wrote yourself) on iOS you have to jailbreak, whilst on Android... erm there's a little checkbox you have to click in settings.
Should you actually wish/need to root, Android makes it very easy (well OK, depends on the manufacturer, but). Take as an example the Nexus one "fastboot-windows oem unlock"... and it's unlocked.
Compare how iOS and Android behave once rooted - iOS does everything in it's power to make a rooted phone annoying (OOps, my phone needs a reboot - where's my laptop gone?). Android - I get a warning glyph on boot.
Once you've rooted, where do I get my root-requiring apps? iOS - cydia or similar non official repositories. Android...erm just search for 'root' in google's app store.
OK, going on a bit here, but my intention was just to point out that rooting an android is just like removing the training wheels from a bike. As long as you can seemingly prove to your phone you want them off, it'll let you.
There are obviously some exceptions where phone manufacturers have deliberately made it hard to root in the past, but going forward they seem to be coming around to the idea (e.g. HTC promising to allow root on their new phones/ROMs).
He is quite clearly referring to mobile devices here, or more bluntly, iOS! Doesn't really matter what goes on in OSX with regard to his statements.
Fact is, iOS is locked down hard!
You can only use approved software (no Flash).
You can only use approved programs (App Store approvals).
You can only install software from one place (App Store).
You can only use approved file formats (no .flac etc).
You can only sync through one means (iTunes).
Etc.
These are the points he is getting at. He also says Apple are making it worse by suing 'competitors' who are trying to offer choice on a similar mobile platform, further destroying "choice".
You may or may not agree with his principles. You may or may not believe Apple is unique in these sorts of actions. You can NOT however dispute the issues he is raising as they are plain facts!
They are facts. The question is whether they are important?
Twenty years ago I'd have argued yes. Ten years ago I would probably have argued yes. Now I'm not so sure. The majority of users now are consumers of web content. To them the important thing is does it work reliably? Can I access the content I want? Is it easy to use?
I understand Stallman. I even understand the people on here that support his view. I put it to you that you aren't the target audience of these devices. That you are so wrapped up in technology that you are unable to see what ordinary people want.
Looking at a more traditional industry look at cars. Thirty years ago everything was mechanical. The flow of fuel into the engine was controlled by a carb, or maybe twin carbs. The mechanics were reasonably simple. Maintenance was something that the average person could do if they wanted to. These days everything is computer controlled. Ignition systems and fuel injection aren't something that the average person can service. Does this matter? Only the true pistonheads think so. The rest of us just want to use it to get from A to B. Like it or not computing is going the same way.
"They are facts. The question is whether they are important?"
Yes. Absolutely. They are and always will be.
". The majority of users now are consumers of web content. To them the important thing is does it work reliably? Can I access the content I want? Is it easy to use?"
That may be what the average consumer cares about, but it doesn't change the fact that being able to use their device as they choose is important. Just because the majority wants something shiny and isn't ever going to tinker with it doesn't mean that the ability to tinker is unimportant.
Let's look at some other things that are true by your argument. Most people wouldn't be affected if the use of a five button mouse were suddenly removed from Windows, so that woludn't be important. Most people wouldn't be affected if Windows were the only OS available, so let's just do away with all the others. Most people wouldn't be affected if international calls were suddenly impossible, so lets do away with that capability (maybe to help curb terrorism). Most people don't have any secrets that would be harmful to them if the government knew about them, so we don't really need laws restricting the government's ability to listen in on our phone calls.
See where that kind of thinking leads?
"Only the true pistonheads think so."
So very, very wrong. No one who knows me would EVER classify me as a piston head. A couple of them actually cringe when they see me in an auto parts store by myself. Even so I sorely resent being forced to pay a mechanic to fix a problem that I should be able to fix by myself just because some idiot decided that my car needs to be computer controlled. Very few people I know would disagree with that sentiment.
The computer in cars added little of value. They just make for more complexity and more things that can go wrong. It's the same thing with the lockdown on mobile devices: little or no real added value for the consumer, but lots of things are taken out of the user's hands for no good reason.
Whining that you can't run "any app you like" on your iThing is like complaining that you can't watch movies on your radio.
It's a consumer device. It's not *sold* as a general-purpose computer. It's a device for playing games, for surfing the web, watching TV, storing and listening to audio, e-mailing, and lots of other applications of varying levels of interactivity.
And that's all it was ever supposed to be. It makes no bones about its limitations. To criticise it for not running Flash is like criticising a fridge because it doesn't have a built-in microwave.
What makes your statement Truly sad is you seem to have no concept of the controlled environment Apple has created. Try loading anything onto an IOS product WITHOUT iTunes or going through apple. You can't. Apple HAS created a closed environment that many don't realize and that's the concern. Many are blind to the fact that Apple has 100% control over you and the vendors who want access to you as a consumer. NO ONE can sell anything through Itunes without APPLE getting ~30%.
Microsoft gets sued for its integrated web-browser, but NEVER prevented its users from downloading and using another. I'm still in disbelief how Apple has still not been sued for the locked down environment it commands over people who seem blinded by flashy fashion focused shells. I don't deny the simplicity....but I will NEVER give my freedom of choice away as all Apple IOS users have.
Their computers are INTEL driven computers in a fashionable shell, but people pay twice the cost of similar spec'd PC. Why? Because their lacking knowledge and quickly focus on the shiny distraction. The old adage is still true....A fool and his money are quickly parted.
Microsoft gets sued for its integrated web-browser, but NEVER prevented its users from downloading and using another. I'm still in disbelief how Apple has still not been sued for the locked down environment it commands over people who seem blinded by flashy fashion focused shells. I don't deny the simplicity....but I will NEVER give my freedom of choice away as all Apple IOS users have.
-----
The all important difference between Microsoft and Apple is that Apple has never abused a monopoly position.
It may have abused its customer base, who knows... (I don't care).
The fact is they do not have a monopoly in _any_ area. The have a commanding position in smartphones, certainly and an even more commanding one in portable music players.
These are not monopolies though, and never have been.
The fact that they have effective competition means that customers have a real choice. Once that is in place, the monopoly regulators don't really care what a company does to its customers.
There's an interesting discussion to be had about what 'freedom' is. It is certainly not absolute, eg, I am not free to randomly beat people up.
So, there are degrees of what we call freedom, with a corresponding compromises in what we are permitted to do.
iOS users have traded the ability to do certain things for the advantages of the platform. Its is not something I would do, but I certainly don't think its a ridiculous position to hold.
there are other browsers for iOS and OS X, what the hell are you talking about?... I'm not blinded either, my experience with android was just that it was total garbage after 3 years of dealing with it. If it werent such an awful insecure buggy bloated java infested heap I might love it, until then I'll take almost anything else. ICS might win me back from what I've seen.
when they grow large enough to be called a monopoly we can discuss that. until then what they do is entirely legal and perhaps even justifiable. There is certainly competition out there to choose from so to call it a monopoly is completely ridiculous. If they start dominating over 90% of the market, then we can talk monopolies with their current practice.
by the same coin nothing stops you from circumventing that, or running something else if you hate it so, but its not a monopoly yet.
"Actually they do have a monopoly. You can't run non-apple-approved software on an iOS device. They often simply ban software from iTunes if it competes with their own offerings. How is that not abusing a monopoly?"
And that is exactly the analogy with Microsoft. They were hit hard for having a monopoly on their own software, specifically their browser. Their OS, their browser that ships with it. It was harming competition. Why are Apple treated entirely differently for being far more restrictive and anti-competitive in what is a similar monopoly? An ecosystem monopoly basically.
RMS's philosophy is much wider than the ability to let you run your own applications on your phone.
It is about control by governments, it is about monitoring your every day activities without your knowledge, restriction of progress of the IT movement in general through restrictive practices espoused by Apple (and other IT corporates, granted).
These issues are *MORE* important than ever before and they will continue to be bigger and bigger factors.
What has changed is the current generations's laissez faire attitude to it. Our generation is much more savvy and suspicious and rightly so.
look at politics
Joe Stalin is father of the nation beloved by all
the people dont need to be hassled by pesky elections to demonstrate their love.
Uncle Joe knows whats best for them.
and besides, running a super power is so complex, the poor dears dont have either the information or the processing capacity to make informed decisions
Let uncle Joe do all the thinking for you.
yeah, ok i kinda godwined myself there, but ffs.
you argument seems to run;
choice requires information,
sheeple are uniformed and dumb,
ergo it's good they have no choice.
fuck em!, now they are hooked on the shiny shiny, lets make the fuckers do a bit of work.
The facts matter because using the patent war to keep competing products off the market hurts all of us as consumers. Do you think ALL of the new features in iOS5 or the iPhone 4S would be present if it wasn't for competition. As repeatedly pointed out Apple didn't actually come up with everything first and those competitors have come up with new ideas and pushed the development that even those that choose to be in the walled garden benefit from.
Further one of the things that infurates me about Apple's business practices is their insistance that I cannot do what I want with a product I bought from them. Not that Apple is the only one guilty of this (glares at Sony). I believe once I buy a product it is mine to do with as I please, with the full understanding that if I break something it may not be covered under warranty etc. I believe this should be the way with licenses as well with the understandable constraint that I get one copy/use and cannot create additional copies and distribute, but as far as all the different restrictions on OEM licenses and the such I do believe it is worth using these types of facts to fight for the rights of consumers. Just because many don't care to exercise these rights themselves does not mean we should support or ignore those that would try and remove these rights. On this side of the pond many don't exercise their right to vote, but I do not think anyone that pursues removing those rights from them should be supported.
And to address the seemingly requisite automobile comparison. Yes, only a few people fret about not being able to tinker with their vehicle. But I don't see a major patent wars over things like push button starters, or hybrid gas/electric power trains, or insert many features commonly found across brands of vehicle. Should the first company that built a car that you just pushed a button to start be able to sue all those that have it now? Should they be able to get a patent on it? Those of us that don't think they should also think these facts are important concerning the mobile computing/phone industry.
Actually, the company that invented the push button start did get a patent on it.
It's just that the automobile industry is much more grown up about it and is generally willing to, for a reasonable fee, allow other car manufacturers to do the exact same thing.
Software companies as a whole, however, are like a bunch of children. They don't share unless forced to and have decided to use patents as a legal means of extortion.
The main issue is simply that the manufacture of automobiles is extremely expensive. It takes a lot of capital to just get started. Which means car companies know their competitors. Therefore they are much more willing to "work together" by cross licensing tech that benefits everyone.
Software on the other hand can be done for next to nothing. Which means that there might be 1000 people who come up with the same thing you do and the ONLY protection you get is via a patent.
However, at the end of the day I wish software patents didn't exist. Level the damn field for everyone.
Unlike others, Mick, I agree with you. To most people, including me, phones are tools and are there to get stuff done, the same way cars are used to get one from A to B.
The majority of people who use iPhones are happy with them because of the number of apps and ease of use. Uninstalling apps on the iPhone is easy, on the android it's a whole different level.
Just because techies don't like the closed system, doesn't mean it's not suited for the average consumer. Users are idiots, stopping them from installing malicious apps by having barriers is better than them being free and injuring themselves; you, as a company, are going to be blamed for letting that happen and that'll affect your image. If someone don't like the closed system then jailbreak the iPhone. Though Apple did want to make that illegal, that's a different matter---one I never liked.
@N2
"Its a telephone, if you dont like it, dont buy it."
No it isn't, I can't install Angry Birds on my landline phone.
About the last thing anyone does on a smartphone is make a phonecall in the traditional sense. Not saying they don't make calls, but updating your Facebook page, reading your Twitter stream and uploading photos is not making a call.
The iOS is locked down. I can walk away anytime, or jailbreak it.
Flash does decrease the battery life, and is unstable.
Look where unapproved programs have landed Android.
The other points ? Yeah, I can live with those too.
Are the competitors stealing? That's what Apple says. That's up to the courts.
I used to tweak PCs, hell, it's nessesary to keep windows running. Nowadays I want the stuff to work for me, not against me.
If Bethesda ports their softs over to Macintosh, I'll delete windows for the foreseeable future.
YMMV.
I don't understand technical folks who understand what libre source is all about who apparently distance themselves further from the standard-beared whenever he uses another opportunity attempt to get the world to listen and understand. Are such technical folks unable to resist the MSM push to deify Jobs and so agree with the MSM that RMS has gone (further?) off the deep end? I think it more likely they in reality don't get what libre source is all about after all and why that is so globally important.
On the other hand, RMS seems to have no truck with vendors of "appliances" (including IBM's mainframe master control components, the HMC and SE) who maintain they need not distribute the libre source running on their appliances. If that legal loophole is not properly addressed soon, then every gizmo that can run libre source licensed code will become an "appliance" all the way up to IBM zSeries Parallel Sysplex clusters running z[GNU]Linux. Then, MS will win its campaign to force OEMs to force their customers to run only MS OSes. Lastly, libre source will become illegal under DMCA enhancements subsequently propagated to every sovereign nation.
But maybe enough people can make it plain to the rest of the planet why this would be a Really Bad Thing.
Nah. Up with Jobs. Down with RMS. Meh.
Has he tried requesting the source code for Honeycomb, or actually most of the hardware drivers for any version? Not to mention the source code for all Google Apps that actually make the platform desireable. Oh, oops none of them are available.
It's a shame to see someone who has contributed so much to IT ending up as nutcase.
Hope he got that recipe for the Pepsi he likes, wouldn't want him being contaminated with non-open source drinks. I'd think he would carry his own cans of OpenCola.
That list of demands for the speaking tour is a true gem.
So he & Boy Wonder DO have something in common.
BOTH a couple of "nutcases" who did good things for the computer industry...then went all wacko on us.
Richard...time for your meds now. You just have to remember to take them regularly. You know how irrational you get when you miss a dose.
"Has he tried requesting the source code for Honeycomb, or actually most of the hardware drivers for any version? Not to mention the source code for all Google Apps that actually make the platform desireable. Oh, oops none of them are available."
Stallman doesn't dispute this which is why he points out that "Android is not entirely free software". The real world is more complicated than God versus Satan, you know.
"It's a shame to see someone who has contributed so much to IT ending up as nutcase."
It's a shame to see people not bother to read the words of those they criticise.
It's easy to snigger and use terms like "nutcase" when the object of derision actually sticks to his principles and doesn't pack up and go home when "enough shiny" has been parcelled out by everybody's favourite corporation of the month.
> a portable music player with a command line interface is probably not gonna catch on.
Yes but one that "just works" and plays anything you happen to have on hand just might.
It's a shame that St. Jobs didn't allow his product to do this and actively attacked competitors that were willing to take up the slack.
Exactly. He may as well be walking about socialism and 4 day weeks rather than proprietary software.
These days the world is rights mad, DRM, copyright, patents and so on. The Internet has made Stallman's arguments rather weak as it has shown that when the masses have total freedom they tend to abuse it.
The real "freedom" failure is nothing to do with Jobs, it is to do with politicians sucking up to big business and imposing so many laws on Internet freedom.
"The only thing he probably doesn't want to accept is that those being handcuffed probably don't care"
What is worse is that those who like being handcuffed squeal and whine when anyone points it out, in case the gods of shiny deny them their new shiny for even longer than their attention span, all because the gods must surely want to spite the naysayers. (This being an old trick from that tome of collective punishment known as The Holy Bible, of course.)
Completely understandable. There is another type of freedom that many don't like: freedom of choice.
Most people don't want a lot of options--it's an effort just to get through a day without hurting themselves. Thinking abstractly to arrive at reasonable conclusions is usually not possible. Ergo, follow the herd. Be a fanboi. Ahhhh, now isn't that easier?
Perhaps Mr. Stallman doesn't fully appreciate that the second you attempt to argue with idiots you become one.
"Perhaps Mr. Stallman doesn't fully appreciate that the second you attempt to argue with idiots you become one."
This is possibly true if your definition of an idiot is someone who cannot open his mind a crack to reconsider one of his conclusions about the nature of reality when someone with excellent credentials suggests reconsideration might be in that person's better interest. The problem is the non-idiot must determine, first, if he is dealing with such an idiot and, second, it is extremely unlikely any non-idiot in need of the same reassessment will now or in the future encounter this particular instance of the argument.
RMS is not an idiot and cares more about reaching the non-idiots in need of reassessment than conforming to social norms to the max so people will "like" him more. Indeed, that nonconformance can and actually has helped the message get more ink for decades. The fact the article we are discussing was published shows his eccentricity still gets the message out. He clearly reasoned long ago he must sacrifice likability as needed to get the message out. I presume he has inferred anyone who needs to like him before they can open their minds a crack is unlikely to make the reassessment anyway.
Meanwhile he endures the continuing marginalization efforts of so many who do not want him to succeed for whatever reasons. The ultimate marginalization tactic is the favorite in RMS' case (because he makes it so easy): persuade those he would attempt to reach that he is a lunatic and "obviously" nothing he says is worthy of consideration.
"The only thing he probably doesn't want to accept is that those being handcuffed probably don't care, don't know any different or most likely both."
I am sure he accepts it, that is probably he main worry.
If people go along with being handcuffed then it does make life easier for developers in a lot of ways and it should mean you can guarantee that the limited software you let run will work perfectly. Now market forces will mean that the company which can guarantee 100% uptime will end up with lots more customers (think of all the Macs that ended up in media in the 90s). More market share for them means less for everyone else & a greater chance that other people will copy their business model and lock down their own systems too. This will mean that more and more lock down happens while less and less market is left for those who do not lock down until all the non-lockdown crowd go bust.
That is why he cannot stop campaigning and why he also does not support Open Source because what he wants is Free/Libre/Lunch/Beer Software not just software that you can have the code for.
Looking at my iPod now, there are free programs, that I chose to install. On my Mac, I am running quite a bit of free stuff, some of which I wrote myself. Can't see how his reverse-RDF applies here.
Stallman is a complete anachronism. Get back to your eighties wonderland beardie.
Anon, because I choose to be free of his twuntery.
Oh yes, I am aware his dictionary has free meaning "must include source code and the ability to f*ck around with the application if I so choose, and be publicly available, and also not cost anyone a penny". I choose to disregard this bearded twunts definition as pointless as my programming skills are not up to designing an entire OS and application suite myself, so I choose to allow someone to do that for me and pay them for it. And at the same time, use their shiny OS on a nice shiny computer which has lasted perfectly well for 5 years so far.
Please just read the FAQ for the copyleft licences and be done with it.
"my programming skills are not up to designing an entire OS and application suite myself, so I choose to allow someone to do that for me and pay them for it"
But you'd like someone else to maybe have the chance to fix your OS and applications on your behalf should the need arise, all because the developers let you have the source code? Oh right: you didn't think of that.
The world doesn't end at the end of your nose, you know.
I accept licenses because...I believe that artists, programmers, and hardware makers should be compensated for the time they take doing what would take me far too long to do on my own (assuming I could do it at all on my own). I believe compensating people for their time gives them the FREEDOM to pursue their dreams. Not having to do everything for myself gives ME the FREEDOM and the TIME to pursue my own goals.
If Richard creates a structure that lets all that happen without beggaring everyone I'm happy to consider it.
I do not want to worry unduly about the operating system. I certainly feel uncomfortable with the idea that I should rely on some amateur, who may or may not be a good engineer, to design and implement "fixes". I worked with someone like that - did not trust his shell scripts, let alone complex code.
No, I am happy to pay for professionals whose job it is to know, understand and maintain the most critical part of my computing environment (I used to be one of those myself and fully appreciate the difference between a part time fixer and a professional engineer doing his job). Even Google expects its programmers to be full time professionals.
If you want to pick up free scraps at any real cost to avoid any risk of spending money, carry on. I am too busy to waste time hunting around the internet for half-right solutions to bad implementations.
"No, I am happy to pay for professionals whose job it is to know, understand and maintain the most critical part of my computing environment"
That would be understandable in a world of well-made, eternally supported software produced by a hyper-talented elite group of honest and dedicated programmers and designers.
In our world, on the other hand, it's pretty infantile. Much of the Internet runs on the "free scraps" you're not interested in, including all the networking on both Windows and Mac. A large section of the world depends on complex code written by amateurs for their compilers. Indeed, a great deal of real work is done in languages designed by those amateurs.
I doubt very much that you could in fact get your work done (assuming you have any work) without the contributions of the multitude of unpaid men and women who stand behind the state of computing as it is today.
Really? Is that REALLY the case? Do you know what goes on in that man's brains? Unfortunately GPL is not really commercial friendly and that man cannot care less for developers who wants to support open source but wants to protect the monetisation of their products. (If he does, there should've been a commercially friendly GPL)
I spent over a week of my time looking into it and just no - the only real monetisation model for opensource projects is 'support' and 'licensing'. Which really won't work when you're building a good piece of software that won't get much updates or need much support. (Hall marks of a good developer)
I can argue as well that free(dom) software breeds incompetent coders. I'll leave you guys to ponder why.
Another point I want to make is, his free software movement is the same as asking record artist to give out every individual tracks on their song so that listeners can mix it to their taste and/or create Karaoke versions.
While it's great for the consumers, if you put yourselves into the shoes of the artist. I for one wouldn't want to release what rightly belongs to me where I can make the Karaoke version properly for audiences to enjoy.
I was once an advocate of opensource before I left Uni, then I turned to business and the real world.
On the topic of Steve Jobs. In a cut throat corporate environment, that is the type of character that can succeed, and if you're a technologist wanting to share your ideal world to the real world, the only way to do so is to succeed. I for one cannot care less if Steve Jobs was a bastard, at the very least, in my books he is way better than one Mr. Gates and respect should be paid to the dead.
Of course, I don't expect Stallman to ever understand the concept of monetisation, because his sense of freedom is very much tied with free beer, and until Stallman or someone from the opensource community makes the distinction clearer. I have little respect for Mr. Stallman even if he did create the precursor to Linux. Because he's the root of my problems and the problems faced by software and web developers today who are struggling hard to monetise.
If the economy is now heading in the direction of technology and depends on tech companies on growth, well here's one reason why it ain't gonna grow as quickly as previous boon industries.
What makes you believe a journalists job is to present balance? Their job is to either;
A) Report the truth; or
B) Present their opinion
Nothing to do with balance. Indeed, "balance" has become the shield of lazy and/or insecure journalists. "I can't (be arsed to) check whether or not what I'm reporting is the truth so I'll just put the exact opposite at the end to cover my arse and call it "Balance". ".
And are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that once someone has died they are beyond criticism because they are unable to respond? What a claustrophobic, narrow little world that would be. It would pretty much put an end to the study of History, too.
Truly Bizarre.
It's amazing how many people who give no sign of ever having set foot in a newsroom still feel qualified to lecture journalists about how to do their jobs. Mostly this seems to come down to thinly-veiled assertions that any story that doesn't fit the carping lecturer's preconceptions and general hobby-horses must be some kind of gross breach of journalistic ethics, 'balance' etc.
You seem to be suggesting that hacks shouldn't report people being critical of the dead, because the dead can't respond to defend themselves. Applied consistently, this principle would have some interesting implications for the media's ability to cover all kinds of things. Obviously it ain't going to happen, and Jobs deserves no more protection than anyone else.
But we read their stuff everyday. It is supposed to be written for us. So, as the reader, the customer, as with any other sevice, we are perfectly right to criticise their output if we feel the need. Have you, as a customer, never complained about some fault in some device or food or building, that you had no ability to produce yourself? Your are a long suffering saint.
Ok, so Apple never promised to be open source, and to everyone's surprise they indeed aren't open source. (Or just to Stallman's surprise)
Google on the other hand was announcing Android as open source initially, and we all know how they lock in vendors and go a pretty much non-open route with Android these days.
Stallman isn't stupid. Yet he seems to support Android (more or less subtly). If he keeps repeating himself in different words every other week, it makes me wonder if he might be on Google's payroll...
"Ok, so Apple never promised to be open source, and to everyone's surprise they indeed aren't open source. (Or just to Stallman's surprise)"
I don't think he is surprised, just angry. Caligula never promised to be a nice guy. Doesn't mean the Romans weren't a bit peeved about how nasty he was.
But yeah, it would be nice if Google weren't so evil.
Apple is like Microsoft here. Microsoft "lowered the bar" when it came to expectations about computers in terms of security and reliability. Apple is doing the same for end user choice.
It would be nice if we were just talking about Free Software here but the bar is even lower than that.
Now you have systems that end users aren't even in control of. Never mind source code, people aren't even in full control of their personal data or proprietary applications. You have a system where commercial rivals are easily locked out.
Free Software is just the tip of the iceberg here.
> Google on the other hand was announcing Android as open source initially
That is exactly why some of us prefer licences with a strong copyleft element to them; once software is free, it remains free.
Using licences like Apache is a deliberate position to enable people to close the source up. I generally see that as a problem...
Vic.
What's the difference between Richard Stallman and Steve Jobs?
One's a megalomaniac who believes that he's aways absolutely right about everything.
And the other is.... oh, wait.
The problem is that they both had utterly different and incompatible views of what a computer should be.
"A supply of tea with milk and sugar would be nice. If it is tea I really like, I like it without milk and sugar. With milk and sugar, any kind of tea is fine. I always bring tea bags with me, so if we use my tea bags, I will certainly like that tea without milk or sugar."
Can someone decompile that for me?
> Any kind of tea is fine with milk and sugar?
>
> Green tea? Lemon tea? URRRGH! Sounds awful! >:b
Are you from the UK? Have you never had American tea? I could understand your confusion then.
If he is presented with proper "first sort" tea, he might not care about the brand or how long the leaves have been cooked. I can relate to his perspective on tea having never been able to stomach the stuff until I visited London and had the real thing.
RMS likes to drink tea.
If you are making him a cup of tea and you use his personal supply of tea bags, don't put milk or sugar in.
If you are making him a cup of tea and you use the same kind of tea as those in his personal supply of tea bags, don't put milk or sugar in.
If you are making him a cup of tea and are using a type of tea dissimilar to his personal supply of tea bags, put milk and sugar in.
Maybe someone could do a Venn diagram?
Above 72 fahrenheit (22 centigrade) I find sleeping quite difficult.
(If the air is dry, I can stand 23 degrees.)
DON'T buy a parrot figuring that it will be a fun surprise for me.
Please do not ask me any questions about
what I will do breakfast. Please just do not bring it up.
If you get a bottle of wine, I will taste it, and if I like the taste,
I will drink a little, perhaps a glass.
I tend to like music that has a feeling of dance in it, but I
sometimes like other kinds too. However, I usually dislike the
various genres that are popular in the US, such as rock, country, rap,
reggae, techno, and composed American "folk". Please tell me what
unusual music and dance forms are present; I can tell you if I am
interested. If there is a chance to see folk dancing, I would
probably enjoy that.
If there is something else interesting and unique, please tell me
about it. Maybe I will be interested.
and my personal favourite
Please do not ever mail me a file larger than 100k without asking me
first. I almost certainly do not want to receive it in that form.
Crickets. Tumbleweed. He'll have to be told first.
I use Windows, Ubuntu and OS X. Have done for years, and my preference is OS X. It's a choice, not a religious one either. The anti-this, anti-that crowds are starting to sound irritating. They should just respect the fact that people are free to make choices. End of. Move on. Nobody needs to be saved. It's all competition. It's all good.
I suspect that Stallman has never used a Mac. I have used Macs almost exclusively since they came out in 1984. I have never felt restricted in any way. In all that time, I have had exactly two hardware failures - a power supply and a Powerbook LCD screen. I have been able to sell my older models for a decent price after four years. I have personally made at least a million pounds, probably more in that time using Macs and I put that down to the fact that I was benefiting from the productivity, reliability and resale value. I would much rather pay for Photoshop than suffer with GIMP. I have just had a brief flirtation with Open Office – and dumped it. Apart from Firefox, I don't use any 'open source' software as in almost every case, there is something better. Okay, I have to pay for it but that is just a business expense and tax deductible.
You (and many other Stallman critics) are describing what has been and what is here now.
Stallman describes what he sees coming. Despite his seeming lunacy of various sorts in the present, he has been describing what he sees coming for some time; long enough to have a track record. Many of us see his track record being one of success - what seemed like bizarre ranting 20 years ago is visible every day as accepted (although deeply lamented) practice in the software patent and 'intellectual property' sphere.
Look beyond ad hominem at the substance of his rants, and do it with an eye to the future.
A lot of competent coders would struggle to monetise their projects because of GPL? Hmm... nice one. I guess he must be a real commie back in the days (no not a criticism, just an observation).
I don't agree with patents, but free software is like swinging from one extreme to the next. As a patent lawyer once told me. The best secret is not to file a patent and to keep it to yourself.
Came to make some comments but it seems they have all been covered, but anyway..
I respect Mr Stallman for his amazing contributions but he seems to be tilting at windmills nowadays.
I like my iMac very much, I like it more when I'm using it to virtualise Slackware or run GIMP and various other things on what has proven (for me) to be a flexible and pleasing platform.
Stallman should lay off Jobs since Jobs is now dead and focus on things that matter.
A few weeks ago I went to install emacs on machine running Solaris 9. The experience was not especially painful, but as I recall I followed the initial package with about 5 more to fulfill dependencies identified by 'ldd'. No big deal to me--though I could easily have found other things to do that afternoon--since I've been doing this stuff for years. I don't know that it's really what most consumers are looking for.
I do think that the freedom to tinker is a good thing, but only one of a number of good things. I have wide freedom to tinker with the two household automobiles, but in practice my tinkering ends with checking fluid levels and tire pressure--I'm happy to hand off the tinkering to those who are better at it. Some folks want to be able to adjust the timing, others just want to drive.
I will add that a) I do use an iPhone, provided by my employer, but have never used a Mac to any extent worth mentioning, and b) emacs is my favorite editor.
So you went to install stuff from source on a proprietary operating system which is bringing up the back of the pack when it comes to convenience, and now you're blaming the complexity of assembling the different parts on having the choice to undertake such an activity or not, perhaps just downloading a pre-made binary from some Oracle repository (if they carried on that initiative from Sun) instead, if you don't want to.
"I'm happy to hand off the tinkering to those who are better at it. Some folks want to be able to adjust the timing, others just want to drive."
Yes, but the whole point is that Free Software lets you choose who does the "tinkering". If you don't want to, you choose who does, not the original vendor of your equipment.
@Vic: Thanks, but No, That Does Not Help. After all, a) I know yum perfectly well, and b) I or a co-worker needed emacs on a particular Solaris box. Soaris may not be Free, but that particular machine is Paid For.
@AC: I'm not blaming anybody for anything. I'm suggesting that there are different markets in computer land, and that those in the different markets have differing priorities.
@Both: I first installed Linux using RPMs downloaded to floppies, and in fact I'm astonished at how much the ease of installation and configuration has improved over the years. I think it's great stuff, I couldn't do without it. I question whether it has the answer to all questions.
The guy annoys me, but he's an evangelist, and they're always annoying if you don't agree with them.
However, the idea that digital handcuffs are evil is misplaced. Anything that ties you in to a particular technology is a handcuff. The fact that i have to run software on a computer is a handcuff of sorts .. if computers disappear what do I run it on then? I'm handcuffed to electricity, I'm handcuffed to networks, I'm handcuffed to the technology that makes our present computer system work.
The handcuff question is more "if this technology disappears, then what will you do". So Apple's handcuffs come down to "if Apple disappeared, what happens to all your Apple protected and apple run content?". That's the handcuff.
What my content runs on is quite frankly irrelevant, as long as it can be moved. so lets have a look at this .. Apple fall down a great big hole tomorrow .. what happens?
a) My music is OK .. it's not protected and can be played elsewhere
b) Video content. The stuff bought off apple is toast (so that's er .. none). The stuff loaded or obtained from other sources is viewable. However, this is a content provider issue, not an apple issue. It's the same issue for any video .. content creators at the moment insist that their content is protected. If Mr Stallman can come up with a platform independent protection system, fine.
c) Books. Yup, my iBooks collection is gone (all one of them). My Kindle collection survives (until Kindle goes to the wall). Again, this is a content creation thing.
d) My documents. If I've created something in an Apple specific format then I've lost it. However, I am not sure how proprietary Apple's formats are and whether documents (notes, docs, spreadsheets, calendars, contact lists) can be translated or imported.
So I feel that talking about digital handcuffs is a bit overblown.
Is the message wrong, or is it just because it's rms, who is an idealist, bringing the message that draws all the harshness?
They're *both* wrong. Non-free software can be ethical, providing you have a choice in what it does and how it is used. Unfortunately, Apple takes this one step further and produces non-free *devices*. Tell me truthfully, who owns your iPhone? Apple? Your service provider? If you've answered "me!" then you haven't thought about the principle of ownership. How can you own something when its software dictates to you?
What is owned is you, by the device. Continue along this slippery slope at your peril.
...he's not having a go at Macs is he ? (can't be arsed to re-read.)
iOS is very locked-down and increasingly has patents to stop anyone doing anything similar. It seems fairly likely that Jobs would have liked Macs to be more like iOS.
Stallman may be a bit hatstand, and I may have just bought an iPhone, but that doesn't mean that the recent trends Apple is bringing to computing aren't a bit worrying.
There was a point but I've forgotten it.
If my phone wasn't controlled by Apple it would be by the first Linux dick having a chance to have his shit installed on my "free and open" phone. It looks like from a consumer point of view, the only freedom the Linux dicks care about is theirs. In fact, they want their shit to dominate. Domination doesn't quite get on with "real" freedom and choice, does it?
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."
Jobs and Stallman both insist(ed) people Do The Right Thing, but with diametrically opposed ideas of what TRT was. The Perlers have got it right - there's more than one way to do it.
I don't care if it has digital handcuffs, it does all I want it to do, and I don't have time to piss around with it to make it do other things anyway.
It is pretty, had to be, so the Wife Acceptance Factor was high enough for me to be able to leave it around the house without getting shouted at.
My fridge is just a fridge, I bought it knowing it just keeps things cold, I'm not going to get annoyed or outraged that I have been prevented turning it into an effing toaster.
Some people just want to use things the way they come out of the box. If that makes me stupid in your eyes, great, I'll live.
Flame away :-)
the point.
The Jobsian 'vision' was all about turning complex computing technology into aspirational brightly-coloured shiny happy-home appliances.
An iPod is a music appliance. And iPhone is a communication appliance with some app-iness thrown in. A Mac is a computing appliance. (And as OS X gets more and more crayon-ish, it's getting more appliancey by the day.)
Add a bit of stylish industrial design as a wrapper and some keynote ra-ra and marketing mystique, and that's all you need to know about Apple's success.
The lock-in only offends geeks who like to tinker. But realistically, what percentage of the population wants to customize a hoover or a toaster?
Stallman still thinks it's 1970, and the only people who matter are people who code for fun.
But realistically, libre/free/whatever only works when it becomes an appliance itself.
Wordpress is a brilliant blogging appliance.
Linux on the desktop is - not an appliance., It's a tool for people who enjoy playing with tools and tinkering.
Stallman fundamentally doesn't get two things:
1. Most people just want IT that more or less works.
2. Non-hackers are just as locked out of open source as they are out of closed source products.
So where's the freedom? If he'd spent more time promoting a consistent, reliable and satisfying experience for ordinary non-geek users, he'd be easier to take seriously.
But that's never interested him. His 'freedom' is only for people almost exactly like him.
When that excludes at least 90% of IT users, it's not real freedom at all.
Actually, I think it's great that you know what you want and buy accordingly. Actually takes you out of the usual crowd who just follow what everyone else is doing without thinking about it.
I don't want to take the pretty-and-guaranteed-working option away from those who want it and like it. What I'm worried about Apple doing, though, is taking away MY super-customizable-unrestricted-access option via their me-too preasure on other players in the market and current pattent trolling behavior.
As he's just as fanatical.
Theres a time and place for open; and a time and place for closed. Phones are better closed to ensure their critical functionality (Calls; texts; internet access) isn't compromised. Normal Desktop PCs are better open as they're supposed to be do anything machines.
Richard doesn't like people to have great devices unencumbered by technical glitches. His whole premise is computing devices should be complex, poorly made, so to retain his finger hold on the 1980's.
Sorry Richard, Apple users have moved up to a higher plane of existence...
if Apple had contributed back to those projects?
WebKit (you know, the thing that drives the Android browser and Google Chrome among others) is an Apple sponsored KHTML fork.
CUPS they liked so much that they bought the source of the original developer's company and hired him to maintain it.
GCC they contribute to, but don't like much, hence their sponsorship of the CLANG compiler and LLVM which has a much faster incremental compile time, works better in a multi-threaded environment and can be integrated inside of a development environment, rather than having to shell out to a separate process.
BSD? OS-X isn't actually BSD. It uses BSD user apps, but the Mach kernel. Anybody who wants it can download the source (look up XNU sometime).
Apple have nothing against open source, providing it doesn't encroach on their IP. They've even got a rather large page listing OS projects they're involved it.
Why is there even a discussion about this? Both sides seem to believe that they are right by logic. Of course you can always consider the other group to be full of idiots, but isn't that to simple?
I'm personally on the pro-Stallman front here. I acknowledge that he takes on an extreme view, however compared to what Apple used to do in the past, even Macs are severely limited by software.
It seems that nowadays, when most things are failing, anything that is successful (especially globally) is the butt for ire and demonisation. Stallman is just another tired old guy who cannot stand to see the small guy succeed and can only shower his bile and envy on those that contradict his obsessive and weary 'rationalistic' ideals. They can't admit their beliefs are wrong, so they look for the 'devil' as an excuse. You'd think witch-hunting was a thing of the past, but then, guys like him are stuck in the past where you are either god or the devil with no greys in between. Get thee behind me Satan-oops--StallMan!
He has been living off speaking fees by saying all manner of challenging things. At one time he was recommending we purchase air conditioners and copy machines before wasting money on computers in the classroom.
He makes it all seem very reasonable and you only have questions long after he has cashed the honorarium.
The key thing to remember is that REAL handcuffs are NOT voluntary and that they are backed with the threat of state-sponsored legalized violence.
If you don't like the restrictions that Apple outline in their EULAs don't buy their products! Gee! You are free the whole time! Who da thunk it?
Try loading anything onto an IOS product WITHOUT iTunes or going through apple. You can't. Apple HAS created a closed environment that many don't realize and that's the concern. Many are blind to the fact that Apple has 100% control over you and the vendors who want access to you as a consumer. NO ONE can sell anything through Itunes without APPLE getting ~30%.
Microsoft gets sued for its integrated web-browser, but NEVER prevented its users from downloading and using another. I'm still in disbelief how Apple has still not been sued for the locked down environment it commands over people who seem blinded by flashy fashion focused shells. I don't deny the simplicity....but I will NEVER give my freedom of choice away as all Apple IOS users have.
Their computers are INTEL driven computers in a fashionable shell, but people pay twice the cost of similar spec'd PC. Why? Because their lacking knowledge and quickly focus on the shiny distraction. The old adage is still true....A fool and his money are quickly parted.
Show us these similarly spec'd PCs that are half the price. They don't exist. Either they have cut corners (so the spec ISN'T the same) or their price isn't much different. In some cases the Mac is cheaper (Air vs Ultrabooks as a case in point).
Microsoft got into trouble not because they included an integrated web browser, but because they forced OEMs to ship Windows machines with only that browser. Apple has no OEM clients to force their browser on, and users are free to download third party browsers from the App store. Many are even free.
> Show us these similarly spec'd PCs that are half the price.
> They don't exist. Either they have cut corners
Well that's the rub. If you buy a PC, you get to decide what corners you want cut. If you buy and Apple, you simply have no choice. You either take what the corporate overlord wants to sell you or you do without completely.
Sucks if you've got any investment in iTunes content with DRM or expensive proprietary apps.
With a PC, I can pick my tradeoffs and spend 1/2 or 1/3 or 1/4 the price.
It's ultimately the same spare parts made by other companies with production outsourced to China.
The problem isn't really that iOS is not customisable or proprietary, there is nothing wrong with apple choosing to make it impossible to alter their devices. The problem lies with the fact that they also restrict any interaction with their devices. You are only allowed to use software supplied by apple to sync with it or even access it for that matter. You are only allowed to purchase applications from one apple controlled source. If you want to make a physical connection you have to use one apple patented connector. All media is vetted by apple and if they don't like it you can't have it. A world that was designed around Job's dream would even make the staunchest of Stalinist's weep with joy, where there would only be one company, one way of thinking, one way of using and one way of living. A world where If you don't like it or it doesn't work then you are wrong.
Stallman is starting to sound like a batshit insane Ayotollah. Jobs wasn't The Messiah, sure; he was possible a very naughty boy, in some ways. But he valued good design, which is a big plus for us mere mortals, and those wall-gardens (or gated communities?) help keep the riff raff out and the ecosystem under control. Probably, anathema to engineering tinker bells but most definitely not evil.
Ordinary people just want their shit to work. I've seen what some unfettered engineers can produce and sometimes it isn't pretty. But, hey, they can go play with Android.
I think one thing that bothers a lot of people here is the new idea that Apple fanboys have been pushing to support their Messiah 2.0 platform. That idea is the notion that you need to have the computing equivalent of 1984 in order to have a secure system. This is an idea that Apple itself and the fanboys didn't push until relatively recently. Once their glorious leader declared the new direction they all decided to ignore the previous propaganda en masse in favor of the new propaganda.
The idea that open systems can't be secured or made easy is nonsense. Apple's own products disproved that. There is nothing necessary or useful about Apple's current approach.
It simply seems to suit Apple as the new Microsoft.
If I may say, I liked Gavin Clarke's original article better. It reported on Stallman's comments and the subsequent reaction, and then moved on to actually provide some substantial background and analisys of the issues it touched on.
By contrast, this article is nothing more than a selection of quotes, largely out of context, apparently chosen for no other reason than to have a laugh at Stallman's expense.
The last paragraph, picking out his "requests" (which they are not) for tea and Pepsi, out of a fairly standard 1161-line info pack... well, I found that totally unprofessional and uncalled for. Has News Corp. bought El Reg or something?
I should say, I have neither sympathy nor animosity towards Stallman or anyone else mentioned in this story, and neither am I of a mind to defend anyone's comments, particularly as I believe they might indeed have been tactless and superficial. All I'm saying is that I expect more from El Reg. I quite like the outrageous over-the-topness of some articles here, as long as they provide some substance along with the entertainment. Sadly, I don't think this article has provided either.
Thank you for listening, and I apologise for the verbiage.
I respect Stallman, really I do, but on this, he's just gone too far.
For goodness sake, the bulk of the population of this planet can't even afford and iPhone, let alone an iMac or iPad - there's *far* more pressing matters at hand.
Amongst those of us fortunate to be able to afford these devices, probably 99% of them don't know who Stallman is, don't care about Apple's "walled garden" approach and simply want a device which works for them.
That leaves a tiny fraction of the world population - and I mean really tiny - who would have an educated opinion on this. Out of that tiny fraction, there will be a percentage who will agree with Stallman and that won't.
So ultimately, whatever Stallman says on the issue of Apple and Jobs doesn't amount to anything at all - it won't so much fall on deaf ears, as not even be noticed - a pin dropping in an empty room.
Really, he should focus his efforts on more productive endeavours - like making better foss. Nobody likes a negative bitching session, Stallman, move on, this horse has been flogged.
Despite Apple trying to project a friendly image to the end user, as opposed to the evil MS monster, I'm relieved MS got there first. Can you imagine a world without MS, one where Apple rules the PC market?
Every PC would be an Apple, all software approved by Apple, no home build PC's, no variety, no choice, and most likely an internet so heavily restricted by the Church of Jobs sites like El Reg would not exist (can you imagine Apple allowing this level of heresy?). As bad as it is being reliant on MS for the worlds operating system, it would be far worse under the magic Apple
What Stallman needs to realise is Apple or any other company just give customers what they want. Its the customers that should realise the consiquences of their choices.
Openness is just another feature, it is not a wildly wanted feature, hence it is not included in many major software packages.
The reason it is not a wildy wanted feature is possibly more to do with peoples understanding of what chosing a closed system means. Stallman should be putting his efforts into educating the users rather than the suppliers. I personly think the answer is open file formats and data storage, but this is becoming less relivent with cloud based computing and storage as we stand less chance of being able to transfure data from one service to another (see google/facebook data exchange issues).
I am a fan of Linux and android, however even after undertanding the consiquences of all the facts i still recomended an Ipad for my wife as it was the most suitable choice for her needs.
crybabies ! Look, i don't like OS-X or ios either , and for the same reasons: it's closed and a guilded cage. You can't fidget with it. But face it : in terms of friendlyness and easy to use ... nothing comes close. So yeah i have an iphone too. My PC's are all self built and i dabble in linux a bit too. Crying that iphone and mac kill 'free stuff' is just bullshit. If people wanna buy that, let them.
Besides there is nothing that prevents the open source community or Stallman himself to come up with a more attractive and even easier to use platform, do some killer marketing , build some really slick hardware, put it in a nice box and sell bajillions of it. But that means getting up and DOING something. Trying to sell a polished version of emacs isn't going to work... that's not what the big mass of people want. Same for loopey looney or whatever latest ubuntu is called these days or 'ice cream sandwich' or whatver droid is called.
Yeah i have a droid tablet ( actually i got two : one with 2.whatever and one with 3.1) and they are mediocre user experiences at best... ( no i don't have an ipad.. can't comment on that )
The droids lock up , scrolling isn't smooth and battery life is total and utter crap. The damn thing doesn't even have something simple like a spell checker. come on people... it's 2011... where is all this killer 'make-your-life-easy' stuff that we have been promised since the 80's.
The main problem with linux / android is that it is waaaay to fragmented. There are so main builds and strains , almost none that are comaptible with each other, you have to fidget with it to get it working right.
If someone were to make 1 system with 1 hardware spec and really tune the hell out of it, preinstall it , polish the user interface and make some programs for it that are actually feature complete and work right, you could do the same as Apple. But right now : it is a hobbyist / tinkerer platform that is no where near ripe to unleash to the unwashed masses.
Don;t get me wrong , it is great to play and tinker with the system , but that is NOT what the big masses want. They want to snap a few pictures, effortless correct them and send them too fabesook or flitter or grandma. They don't need to grep -r ls -l tar or all that other stuff...
As for emacs .... meh .. it's 2011. wysiwyg with spell checker is what i want... preferrably with imbedding of images, tables and more. And if it's to write code : give me a full blown ide with built in debugging , autocomplete and realtime code checking a-la visual studio.
...and what about if you're having to do remote administration over a 4800 baud satlink, as some of us do? Or you are blind, or a fast touch-typist whose productivity increases by not having to reach for the mouse?
I do not particularly like emacs. In fact, I gave up trying to learn it over 15 years ago and stuck to vi[m] (or sometimes pico) ever since, but a) there is a market for emacs nevertheless, and b) I do think you provide the wrong kind of arguments against it.
This "hating" on emacs quite nicely highlights the "fanboy" problem.
Not everyone is the same sort of extra from an Apple SuperBowl ad. Some of us "think different" and have different requirements. Some of those requirements might be quite techical, or simply being able to recieve large numbers of text messages and not go insane cleaning them up afterwards.
Apple has a totalitarian approach. If they only abused their own customers it would be fine. However, they also insist on limiting everyone else's choices. They aren't just some hippies keeping to themselves in their own commune. They are more like a notorious band of fascist invaders.
You should be at liberty to use the right tool for the job.
so because a very few need to edit text over a 4800 baud link the whole worlds needs to locked to stoneage technology ? not good....
If, in todays age, you still use a 4800 baud link over satphone : find a new employer that can afford better links. Modern satphones are way faster than that !
I daily use a hex editor to poke around in rommable code or disk sectors... should we resolve that all keyboards only have 0..9 and a to F and mandate people to access their harddisk file system on track/sector/head level ?
Point is : apple makes stuff for the masses. And apparently the masses like it. That is, until something easier to use / more attractive/ more features/ comes along.
"He designed them to refuse even to let users install their own choice of applications — and installing free (freedom-respecting) applications is entirely forbidden," wrote Stallman.
Gee, I could have sworn I had OpenOffice on my MacBook. Maybe Stallman was right and I just imagined it. This tosser is a decade or more past being relevant.
Fourteen people committed suicide at a factory making Apple products. Did Steve Jobs care? NO! One person failed in their attempt and ended up in hospital, paralysed from the waist down, with organ damage.
All Jobs cared about was money. He NEVER once spoke out against corporations and how they steal the labour and lives of others - sweatshops DO NOT develop economies because the workers never earn enough to stimulate domestic demand - basic economics! All rich countries developed using PROTECTIONISM, not by opening up their economies to exploitation by foreign corporations.
Google without quotation marks "multinationalmonitor Bad Samaritans: How Rich Country “Help” Hurts the Developing World" for an interview with a professor of economics at Cambridge University.
Search youtube for
"IMF & World Bank are weapons of war , by John Pilger"
"John Pilger - The New rulers of The World"
Poverty is the biggest cause of child prostitution.
Did Steve Jobs help fund any organization that opposes the right-wing, corporate-controlled mass media outlets? No! There's so much he could have done, but he did none of it.
I expect plenty of thumbs down because it's just not "cool" anymore to give a damn, such is the nightmare world people like Jobs have helped bring about.
We're human resources, factors of production, and we buy products - that's all there is to life now.
Ahem, last time I looked, pretty much all CEMs and OEMs operated out of Asia. So don't go laying the blame at Jobs' feet. If you use a consumer electronics device of any sort then you, the consumer, are as much a contributor to global poverty and poor working conditions as the next person. Scapegoating one organisation just makes the accuser sound like a hypocrite.
@Armando123, just like someone brainwashed with corporate propaganda: your taxes go towards subsidizing corporations. Vodafone refused to pay £6 BILLION it owed this country in taxes - the so-called coalition government said, keep it, it's yours! Google's worldwide effective tax rate is 2.3% - it shifts all its UK profits through an Irish subsidiary to avoid UK tax. Tax avoidance is legal; tax evasion is not.
What about the politicians (the trend started with Thatcher) making the financial sector 30% of this country's GDP, making us dependent on gambling and increasing house prices for our wealth? We run a constant trade deficit, because manufacturing was never considered a very important prop to the economy - hence, we are always borrowing. And with sky-high house prices, we're borrowing even more - houses should be sold at cost.
The reality is the world has FINITE RESOURCES - you can't have constant, incessant economic growth without stealing from other nations, and then, eventually, from your own nation, which is exactly what is happening now. Corporate globalization and privatization is about just that. The US privatized health system costs up to twice as much, yet it's what we're slowly getting. In the 1990s, the Conservatives said there was no new money for the railways, so they had to be privatized. After privatization, the Tories MORE THAN TRIPLED public subsidies to the railways, only now the money went to private companies who awarded their CEOs fat bonuses for accepting welfare. Those subsidies remained at that high level all through "New Labour's" decade in power, even as railway firms laid off staff and increased ticket prices.
In the past, most excess profits were re-invested in businesses to create growth - now, thanks to a globalized financial system, most of the money is shifted from country to country in search of a quick profit.
You moan about taxes, but not about exploiting "Third World" labour so you can have cheap goods - well, not so cheap after the corporations have hiked the price, on branded clothes, on the iPhone, etc., etc.
If you think giving corporations everything they want and having everything privatized is going to make things cheaper, you're sorely mistaken.
Sounds spot on. I can't believe it when I see supposedly I.T. professionals brandishing iPhones.
Apple is so incompatible with the aims of I.T. in general (the free moving of information, freedom of speech and freedom of choice).
My current phone is a Nokia E72 but with Nokia giving up on Symbian and partnering with Microsoft, that only leaves me with a semi-evil Android phone (maybe from HTC) but take that away and then what's my choice?
I'm beginning to think that there is a big business opportunity for a company to make a truly Open Source phone. I'm sure that any company that does that, will grow quickly and that is the only way to combat those who would enslave us to expensive proprietary software (along with all the privacy concerns that brings with it as well).
Stallman is right again. No surprise there. No controversy, either. Nothing in this article deviates from what I already know about him; as always, he is sticking to his basic position that software freedom is important and worth fighting for. Same on El Red for trying (and failing) to pain Stallaman's essay as an irrational screed.
Its is pointless to rage about Job's lockdown, as pointless as raging that you cant install linux on a washing machine.
Apple products are NOT computers. They are consumer appliances and fashion accessories.
Jobs' genius was to recognise that the world is full of rich people who are too stupid to use a computer, so he gave them Apple Macs, I Pods I phones and all the rest, instead.
Fine. Get over it.
For people who are not too stupid to use a computer, we have *nix. End of story.
Very arrogant statement itzman.
I'm not too stupid, just can't be bothered to take home work with me. I've worked in the sharp end of It for 20 years, and have built and rolled out over 15,000 desktops in the last 12 months.
When I get home, I've had enough, and want to spend time with my lovely wife and go play on my bike.
You calling me stupid is about the same as me assuming you have a beard and are single, just cos you like to build your own PCs.
I'm sorry if I don't fit into your sterotype, but life sucks like that doesn't it.
(PS, being an engineer, I could build my own fridge too, but I didn't)
Sorry itzman, but you're full of it. Did you ever use Mac OS? you can do anything on it as you can on a "*nix" computer, as you call them, but then without the regular debugging sessions, if you refer to *nux. just give it an unbiased try if you can.
Looks like all of the "experts" in this forum are not aware iOS and Mac OS are not the same thing, like the author of the article.
Anyone believing in their own distorted reality field that you can't install apps without Apple's approval...
Rubbish to you.
Anyone can develop a private app, test it, and install it without Apple's approval. The walled garden only applies to publicly sellable apps. Makes sense when security on a mobile device is key. Most of you try and justify the negative aspects of Apple's control over content.
People like Stallman and anyone justifiying his opinions... Step back, take another look and get back to me.
Android will die or at least struggle with its openness. One virus will appear somewhere and damage Android's rep,
Locking down your own platform is wrong, but at least consumers have a choice.
But using a patent for anything other than self-defense is immoral. Asserting patent "rights" is an attack on freedom of thought, and to use this legal weapon is unjust and hypocritical (if you stand on the shoulders of giants, you don't deserve to monopolise your own microscopic incremental invention).
Let's be clear: just because it is legal doesn't make it right. It was once legal to own people as property, but decent human beings chose not to have slaves. Likewise, choosing not to assert a patent is choosing not to to assert an unjust power over the independent thought of another.
Stallman may be a gadfly; he is frequently tactless; but I've never known him be wrong yet...
..... but even if he were still alive, Jobs is way beyond defencibility.
Apple products are grooming users into accepting restrictions as a fact of life.
It's undeniable that most people aren't programmers and wouldn't know what to do with Source Code, but in no measure does that excuse withholding it. Source Code isn't important to most people -- but to those to whom it is important, it is very important indeed.
Most people didn't understand the schematic diagram that used to be pasted to the inside of most old valve radios, either; it was just so many lines and symbols. But that wasn't important -- those diagrams were really for the benefit of repairers, and anybody who understood electronics well enough would be able to make sense of such a diagram. Without the diagram, it might well take even an expert unfeasibly long to repair a fault, to the point where their time would be more expensive than a new set.
Most post-war radios had five or six valves (not counting the fact that some valves are effectively two or more electrode systems in one bottle; taking this into account, a MW / LW radio contains effectively 8 valves, and adding FM introduced another three). The Intel Core 2 Duo processor alone contains nearly three hundred million "valves".
The wiring diagram is, effectively, the Source Code of an electronic device: It allows any sufficiently-competent person to repair faults, make modifications and replicate functionality.
When certain radio manufacturers amassed the financial clout to afford their own dealership networks, those diagrams began disappearing, with copies being issued only to manufacturers' preferred partners and often under conditions, such as "Don't touch anyone else's kit if you want to stay friends" and sometimes "Don't charge less than this much even for a quick fix, and try to persuade them if possible that they would be better off buying a new set". Smaller manufacturers relied on independents who could not meet such onerous conditions, and the vertically-integrated majors effectively squoze them out of the market -- after which, the major manufacturers were free to hike up prices.
Apple's slick service is blinding consumers to the fact that they are effectively trapped.
If I need a feature adding to GNU/Linux, or any Free application, I have a choice: I can add it myself; or I can pay *any* competent programmer to do it for me, and they will be doing it on *my* terms. I can take as many estimates for the work as I like and choose the one I like the best. If you need a feature adding to some non-Free, proprietary software, you have *no* choice: only the vendor can make changes, and it comes on *their* terms.
I hope people will learn the difference before it is too late.
Imagine a civilisation which had become entirely dependent for its day-to-day existence on a technology which they didn't even realise was proprietary until it failed, and nobody was able to repair it. Except you don't need to imagine it; because that was what happened to the Romans when the aqueducts failed, and people began dying for want of clean water. It took over another thousand years just to get back to the same level of technology.
In a liberal democratic capitalist economy, the principle of private ownership underpins our whole political philosophy. The idea that the goods I buy belong to me and that no-one can tell me what I can and can't do with them (within the laws of the State) is a fundamental right, up there with my right to sell goods and services, the right to vote and the right to a fair trial.
When you buy an iPhone, Apple are asking you to waive your right to ownership of your own property. A government that is doing its job should not allow this any more than it should allow you to sell your vote. Problem is, our governments quite like Apple because governments don't actually believe in the principle of private ownership of property. They want you to pay for expensive gadgets, but only want you to use them in ways that serve their purposes.
As Adam Smith said in The Wealth of Nations
"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is, in reality, instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have property against those who have none at all."
Companies like Apple deprive people of their basic rights with the tacit approval of elected governments on the basis that it's better for all concerned if citizens act like mindless sheep. Unelected company bosses like Jobs are believed to be in a better position to decide how we use our own phones than we ourselves are. The fact that so many idiots are happy to trade their hard-won rights for a few shiny baubles threatens the rights of the rest of us. If it ever becomes generally accepted that companies have the right to stop consumers from carrying out legal activities with their products, then liberal capitalist democracy will be dead and we should sign up to the communist manifesto ASAP on the basis that, given a choice over who owns all property on our behalf, it's probably safer if the government does the job than despotic industrialists like Steve Jobs.
what i find funny is apple is losing the mobile market exactly the same way they lost the "general purpose computer" market.
those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.
the original and up to '95 macs were much more open and were well beyond the pc's at the time.
they were allowing clones, they were participating in compatibility projects between platforms.
then they hired Steve Jobs back again. gone clones gone compatibility. All reign the walled garden.
Just as windows 95 and 98 launched and took over. Apple went to a 10% market share and haven't strayed since + or - a few percentage point but never regained what they had.
even though windows was proprietary source code it had a much more open api.
apple tries to sue ms for patent infringement on multiple grounds as it cant compete with an open hardware platform. apple loses.
enter ios vs android mobile
ios is the same idea as what mac os became carried to the extreme, complete lock down, only one way to interface and thats thru apple.
Android starts gaining market share after manufacturers see its viable and starts a fairly rapid uptake, which it now dominates the mobile market and every quarter apple is loosing more market share now @ 24% will prob drop to 10-12% and settle there same as pc market as apple never learns.
apple seeing its market share dwindling fast tries the same move it tried and failed with Microsoft, suing not the Google itself this time but handset manufacturers because apple knows itll lose against google and then they cant sue anyone else.
also again same move that failed last time suing with overly broad patents that have no real basis.
Will apple ever learn?
android mostly open source, with an open market and very open api.
Why do so many people think that you can only install Apple-approved apps on iOS devices? Give Apple $100 for the developer kit and you can install anything you want from your MacOS device. That's how all the proprietary apps in hospitals, factories and so on get onto iPhones and iPads.
Forget El Reg's article
Just read this again
https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/pipermail/developers-public/2011-October/007647.html
That is scary.
That is a scary human being.
Really.
I wouldn't want him on our spare sofa even though it's preferable for him to stay there as it avoids giving his name to a Hotel - "Orwellian State control" according to Mr. Stallman.
Personally, I do give my name to hotels, I collect a few Hotel Points, get late checkouts and free meals for the kids.
It's called "being practical".
Well, either the author of the article does not know how to quote the bearded guy (co.uk... country of the Sun, right?), or he's full of shit. "Macs are pretty handcuffs", and the the entire article bashes on and on the... right. iOS devices. Are we talking Macs, or iOS devices here?
Both ways, how come we get quotes from this bearded maniac in the Reg from day one after Jobs died. Did he not have the guts to speak out when he was still alive, did he know his tirade only partiallly makes sense (iOS, maybe... a bit, but one is free in its choices)... but Macs? handcuffs? come on, it's as handcuffing as any flavour of free unix or linux around. If you do not think so, you don't know the OS.
What Stallman fails to grasp is that computers shouldn't be for nerds only. You don't need to know how a car, microwave or TV set works to be able to effectively use them.
Computers have always been the domain of the nerd, sure they're easier to use now but when they break or screw up or what ever there's a nerd on hand to fix your computer.
Apple n Co have come to the conclusion that most people would prefer it if you didn't need nerds, that a computer just worked and did what they want without the need to know how it all works underneath.
The tens of millions of people that buy the iDevices every day are testament to the fact that they just want something that does what they want, chances are they've never heard of the FSF or Open Source software and don't care anyway.
Sure nerds love their access, being able to do what they want with their machine is what interests their brains but they are a tiny, tiny percentage of computer users these days.
The fact that the Apple model is proving massively popular illustrates that people are not only OK with a walled garden system, that they actively prefer it. The iDevices can be used by a child who has yet to learn to read. Given the complexity of the devices this is an incredible achievement.
Stallman and his fellow nerds are running scared that nerds are no longer required outside of a data centre and labeling Jobs as 'evil' for doing nothing more than what the market wanted.
By the same argument, BMW are evil for making cars people want to drive, yet are too complicated for the end user to repair or customise forcing them to take their car to an official dealer to get it repaired. BMW drivers are clearly deluded sheep as they could have built themselves a kit car and saved themselves money and been able to decide what went in and what didn't go into their cars!
Colonel Gadaffi, was evil. Saddam Huessin, was evil. Adolf Hitler, was evil.
Apple doing something that you don't fundamentally agree with, isn't evil. Certainly, part of Apples motivation for wall gardening their iphone/pads is to protect their revenue stream, but it also helps to protect their users - both providing security, and by making the user feel safe.
Richard Stallman, calling Apple evil, depreciates the word "Evil", and makes me listen to him less, and believe he is increasing irrelevant.
Part of Hitler's motivation was to provide lebensraum for Germans. Could only be a good thing? Or could it? Shame if others didn't fundamentally agree with this or other things he wanted to do (and did)...
Involving Hitler in any discussion about computers and consumer goods tends to distract the participants and obfuscate the core issues being discussed.
Surely Stallman should salute Jobs for bringing into fruition the pre-revolutionary crisis that will pave the way?
Alternatively, he could consider what he might have achieved if he's spent the last 20 years leading his early start with GNU into creating an open yet also more desirable operating system, with programs that users wanted - rather than wasting time repeating the same-old speech on the lecture circuit.
But the wanker manufacturers and providers won't support them after ship.
So I'm going to the Dark Side and getting an iPhone.
EVERYONE I talk to complains about Android bugs (but Androinistas won't admit to any bugs until asked about the bugs). The phone providers want to lard the phones with cr*pware added to the manufacturers base load, making OS updates about as likely as winning the lottery since regressing an OS upgrade would (HORRORS!) reduce fat executive pay stubs. So get that shiny new phone, and two years later one is still stuck with the same bugs as when it shipped from the factory-- the mfg don't care about a droid phone once it leaves the factory!
On top of that, half the non-iPhone cameras are unusable for my purposes (that is, I can't tolerate multi second shutter lag like infest many of the trash phones. Indeed, the iPhone generally gets good reviews for the camera vs. the also-ran Androids (hello? HTC, Moto, you listening (I've given up on the losers at Samsung)).
The good about the Androids-- unlocked no-additional-fee GPS, better displays, more liberated apps... doesn't balance the Android bug infestations and lack of future OS updates (and Google's increasingly walled off Android releases). [I won't even mention Windows, with an obsolete archaic legacy OS, or the RIM's increasingly futile attempt to keep its servers running while also placating totalitarian countries desperately trying steal business secrets].
Jobs may have strong armed ATT, Verizon, and the rest into releasing the iPhones his way, but his way is better than their way for the user. The best way is to free the user from both the walled Jobsian garden, or the phone provider strait jackets but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. The users simply don't seem to care.
Google pretends to be the modern day Robin Hood that is stealing intellectual property from companies in technologically rich west and giving it to companies in poorer Asian countries. It has already wrecked companies like Nokia, RIM, Palm and Motorola and propped up Samsung, HTC, Huawei and ZTE. In this way it appeals to the globalist socialist fanatics as an entity that is redistributing wealth to poor. Truth is that Google that has no experience and expertise in operating system technology. Sun, Apple and Microsoft have about 4 decades of experience in developing os. There was no way Google could build this much expertise on its own, It was smart enough to know that the only way it can protect its advertising monopoly and revenue is by having a dominant operating system of its own. Since it did not have the capabilities to build, it poached employees from Sun, Apple, and stole their technology and handed it over free to asian handset vendors. This way it thought it will be protected against litigation while allowing it to extend its monopoly in web services.
Besides this farce the other lie being propagated is that Andriod is an open source movement, intended to empower the powerless individual developers, while the sad reality is that it has killed the mobile open source movements like linux and java, by stealing their code and credit, underming their rules and thus destroying their ecosystem. This koolaid is so intoxicating that it has created a cult of dimwits who will swear that google can do no evil. They will never ask google to open source its search engine software. Imagine if yahoo poaches google employees and open sources it's search engine technology, would google still claim that software should not be protected by intellectual property rights. But then hypocrisy is the currency narcissists use to deal with dim wits
"Jobs also made it a personal crusade to attack Android with software patents. In practice, Android is not entirely free software, but it is a big step closer compared with the iPhone."
but... but... but... Android is evil! You even say so!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/20/stallman_on_android/
And government agencies using Linux is evil, too!
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/application-development/2008/06/09/stallman-attacks-oysters-unethical-use-of-linux-39431419/
Please help me, I'm having a theological crisis here! :-p
Regardless of merit for users who want an easy to use consumer device, or the disadvantage for users who like control at all levels. All apple products are digital handcuffs which is the main motivation behind my avoidance of Apple products.
Now this is true whether Jobs was "evil" or not. I don't think Jobs was evil, just a self obsessed control freak and aren't we all to some extent? I know I'm a control freak, that's why I don't use Apple products as for self obsessed, well I am pretty awesome ;-)
Apple always like to tease the free software community. Apple computers are able to run most of the Linux software. Apple started their App store by overcoming other monopolies. They brought in ability download individual songs for a cheaper rate.
Although Apple's actions seems to be against free software, they are actually challenge to the free software community. Somehow, it is more fun to fight Apple than to fight others. Many times Apple had been ahead of others when agreeing to wishes of freedom like they removed the DRM from the music they supply. They respect the open software and have built their operating system open source.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
