Hacker News Reader

FSF campaigns against Apple plenty.

https://www.fsf.org/search?SearchableText=apple

The banner at the top of every page currently says

"Giants like Microsoft and Apple are trying harder than ever to control the software you use. The FSF brings software freedom supporters together to amplify your voices and make an impact."

I agree FSF should fight against Apple, too, and even though they would make a lot of enemies because of it, I think making a lot of enemies this way and becoming that controversial is a lot better than being obscure, because in the same time they'd be gaining a lot of allies, too. I think FSF fighting against Apple's closed policies would ultimately make them more popular and help them.

That being said I don't really think that not naming Apple right now, which already has an established closed platform (therefore uphill battle), detracts from them trying to stop Windows 8 machines becoming as closed as iPads before they even get a chance to take off the ground. Better (and easier) to kill off a bad idea early on.

>..trying to stop Windows 8 machines becoming as closed as iPads before they even get a chance to take off the ground. Better (and easier) to kill off a bad idea early on.

Huh? Where can I access the option on an iPad to turn off secure boot or to add my own keys or to delete Apple's? Windows 8 machines are much much more open than an iPad.

The ability to disable secure boot only applies to x86, and even there your stance has issues.

I wish people would stop repeating this like its some kind of iron clad gaurentee, Microsoft only changed the reqirement to begin with after there was a public outcry, and are free to change it again any time. (they likely will after more systems support secure boot)

also please consider the fact that how you should be able to disable secure boot is entirely unspecified. If early models are any indication, its going to be buggy and error prone on tons of systems.

> Better (and easier) to kill off a bad idea early on.

Yeah, so they should have gone on an all out offensive when the iPad launched. Now there's a huge precedent they will have to try to explain away, why it doesn't apply and Microsoft's stuff have to be open but not their competitors'.

What do you think the chances are Apple has some "influence" in the FSF?

Apple and the FSF have long had an antagonistic relationship. Some history in this talk: http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn/talks/LinuxTag-2011/compliance.html

OK, wasn't aware.

There are a lot of negative things that you can say about Richard Stallman, but to suggest that he or his organization might be in anybody's pocket is simply preposterous.

I didn't realize it was "his"

He's the founder and president, and they have a staff of 10, so yeah, it's his.

The the FSF have campaigned against Apple many times. For example: http://www.defectivebydesign.org/ipad

While they could have included a link to their existing campaigns against Apple DRM, focusing on one company in each campaign is better than trying to focusing on everyone.

But for explaining why Microsoft should stop even if Apple has locked down devices, if a company is dumping oil in the ocean, people are allowed to complain and create a boycott against that company. If the companies defense is "well, other companies dump oil in the ocean too, so why are you picking on us?" the answer is not to say sorry and let them continue.

The equivalent analogy is if company A dumps 67M gallons of oil in the ocean per year, Company B dumps 20M gallons of oil and Company C dumps 0.5M gallons of oil a year and people make a big noise about Company C and legal action against it while giving a free pass to other companies. It makes them hypocrites.

  > Every dollar spent in an Apple-store is money spent
  > against the core of your profession.

Bullshit. Every dollar I spent on Apple was spent on top quality product which made me more productive. I also spend a considerable amount on App Store paying my colleagues for their work.

  > Stop spending money
  > there. And throw away your iPhones and Macbooks. They are
  > bad karma and software blood-money.

Even more bullshit. You know why FSF avoid fighting Apple? It's because that fight would reveal that they are fighting in the wrong war. Not everybody in the world should be a doctor, a car mechanic, IT technician, or developer. It is so sad to see so many otherwise smart people failing to realise this.

>Every dollar I spent on Apple was spent on top quality product which made me more productive.

And also spent on patent trolling, stifling innovation, and leading the world of tech down a dark path (locked down "app store", restricted boot, the whole nine yards).

How does it feel to know your money will go directly to the cause of stopping the evolution of technology in its tracks?

Your view is terrifically selfish if nothing else.

>You know why FSF avoid fighting Apple? It's because that fight would reveal that they are fighting in the wrong war.

Please explain.

Stallman is that you?

We should fight against the forces against general purpose computing

I have very mixed feelings about this very topic. As a developer, I completely agree with you. Hardware should be hackable and software replaceable.

But there's also another side: computing has become a lot easier for the average user. E.g. the iPhone and the iPad were the first computers that my mother really grasped and was able to use comfortably on her own. The limited walled garden approach to computing ensures that she doesn't accidentally install malware, etc. In the end, I think the secure, walled gardens are useful to the average user.

Of course, the inherent danger is unfair competition - the gatekeeper can decide to reject software whenever it wants and impose fees and crazy rules. Since in EU, we are not completely adverse to government intervention, I think it is best that the European union would regulate such walled gardens, e.g. by limiting the percentage that the gatekeeper can charge, by requiring that the gatekeeper accepts all software that is not malicious, and requiring that a method should be required to unlock hardware. I that putting think such regulations into place will be much more effective than fighting windmills.

I think that argument is bogus. Having a way to sideload apps in your device or being able to install a different OS, doesn't make grandma more likely to get malware. It's the same model Apple is using in Mac OS X, too, now.

Grandma will still use the same OS, and will still install apps from the app store, never knowing that she can even install apps from other places, and it will be just as easy as it if were without that sideloading option. Having the option to do other things doesn't interfere with any of that.

And even if it does change things a little in some extreme cases - but everything has its positive and negative sides. Everything. At the end of the day you have to decide which gives the greater benefit. And I think having "open" computing systems over completely closed ones, offers the greater benefit in the long term, just like having an open (also could be read as malware-filled, and cybercriminals-filled) Internet in the end if is of much greater benefit than having one fully controlled by the government and companies.

Now compare the difference in malware between OS X and Android. There appears to be a correlation between how easy it is to circumvent the walls and the amount of malware within the garden.

I'd love to see some real research on causality here, though, because correlation obviously doesn't imply causation (though it is a reasonable hypothesis, IMO).

Android malware takes advantage of the same social "hole" that makes Windows so prone to malware: security is practically impossible when the OEM doesn't care, the OS maker's hands are tied, and the end user doesn't have any other option.

I believe Cyanogenmod users have a much better security track record for the same social reasons that Desktop Linux users have better security. Case in point: the exynos root exploit was patched quickly for Cyanogenmod users [1]. It may never be patched for "the rest of us."

[1] http://androidheadlines.com/2012/12/cyanogenmod-team-introdu...

I thought a lot of malware on android was distributed directly from the store rather than sideloaded?

If you are going to sell software to people then you certainly have some responsibility not to provide dangerous goods.

The gates should not be completely closed though. By default maybe, but there should definitely be a way to make it open for the people that want it to be open. For example I received a hp pavilion laptop and wanted to install another os on it. All I had to do was set secure mode off in the bios and it was ready. That is a good solution because it works for both the grandma who wants the security of secure-boot, and me who wants to tinker.

I shouldn't need government regulation to ensure that things I own are truly mine.

"The limited walled garden approach to computing ensures that she doesn't accidentally install malware, etc"

OK, but why not have a sanctioned, free, voids-your-warranty way to disable these restrictions, so that users who want to install software without using the app store can do so? This would not be hard. It could be buried somewhere deep where users cannot find it, it could be loaded with warnings, but all that would be fine.

Apple wants control, because control is profitable. Control lets them spot the next cool application early, so they will not be blindsided like they were by the Web. Control lets them promise developers and media partners that copyright infringement will not be such an issue. Control lets them maintain their image on a level that was not previously possible -- they can make sure that iPads are not associated with pornography, that iPhones are not associated with political cartoons, that nobody will point at Apple devices as a symbol of some national rebellion, and so forth. Control lets them slow down their competitors until Apple has a chance to market their solution (even if that solution is a total boondoggle).

It is hard to believe that Apple's policies on the app store were created with users as the top priority.

"the inherent danger is unfair competition - the gatekeeper can decide to reject software whenever it wants and impose fees and crazy rules"

Which is already what happens.

"I think it is best that the European union would regulate such walled gardens, e.g. by limiting the percentage that the gatekeeper can charge,"

Did they regulate video game consoles?

I am slightly concerned that you might have got mixed up different concepts here. One is simplistic design which users with little or no previous experience can still feel comfortable to use on their own. A second is enforced uniformed interface cross multiple application which users feel familiar with (and thus also comfortable with). The third is safety against malware, which is a security concern. The last is market and user incentives.

A device without a walled garden can still maintain a simplistic design, encourage a uniformed interface, and maintain a similar security against malware. However, it has a harder time to incentivize software developers to strictly follow the uniformed interface and to always use the official store. Android market place has also less incentives to turn away new software, because developers has an alternative (thus Android app store have incentives to be lenient). For the Iphone app store, there are no alternatives for developers so Apple can be as harsh they want (thus they have incentives to be harsh).

Unwalled gardens also has a harder time to discourage users to run unknown software with malware in them. In practice, iphone users are less likely to try run downloaded software from a random internet site (or dl via bittorent), because no legit iphone developer ask them to do it. Android developers however often teaches users to use third-party stores. Thus, a android virus has a much easier time spreading than a Iphone one because on user base are trained to run untrustworthy programs, and one user base is not.

Thus a walled garden has two functions. First it maintain a monopoly grasp on a market, to extract tax on each purchase. Second, it provide incentives to developers so they follow a strict uniformed interface, to App store approvers so they will be more strict in judging new software, and to users so they are less inclined to run untrusthworthy software.

The first thing should be regulated away. The second thing should be understood when designing unwalled devices so to create the correct incentive for everyone.

> Every dollar spent in an Apple-store is money spent against the core of your profession. Stop spending money there. And throw away your iPhones and Macbooks. They are bad karma and software blood-money.

The key problem for mobile app developers is the rampant piracy on Android. iOS has nowhere as much piracy as Android. In this case, economics will dictate where app developers sell, will it not?

What we really need is a type of DRM that still permits general purpose computing. A safe way to store proprietary binary data (programs, media, etc) on the system in such a way the user cannot access it. This might mean restricting root, but it will mean goodbye to piracy. We could still give the user maximum power over the system in every way possible (allow him to install his own apps, access to most APIs, etc.)

Any DRM by definition tries to keep a general purpose computer from being general (i.e. performing any task).

There's not much more piracy on Android than iOS, and it doesn't matter anyway.

> There's not much more piracy on Android than iOS, and it doesn't matter anyway.

Can you back that up?