The Cache: Technology Expert's Forum
 
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. September 15, 2019, 06:50:05 AM

Login with username, password and session length


Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: I love the FSF, and am proud to live in Boston  (Read 7539 times)
vsloathe
vim ftw!
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1669



View Profile
« on: August 27, 2009, 08:09:00 AM »

http://windows7sins.org/
Logged

hai
vsloathe
vim ftw!
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1669



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: August 27, 2009, 08:43:49 AM »

I think this quote is applicable:

"Liberty means responsibility, that is why most men dread it"
--George Bernard Shaw

I like it because it perfectly encompasses the way I feel about FOSS. I could go to the grocery store and pay every time I want a fish, but I'd rather take on the responsibility of fishing for myself because of the freedom that it entails.
Logged

hai
nutballs
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5627


Back in my day we had 9 planets


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: August 27, 2009, 08:54:33 AM »

lol that list is silly. it applies verbatim to Apple as well.
Logged

I could eat a bowl of Alphabet Soup and shit a better argument than that.
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: August 27, 2009, 09:41:58 AM »

Quote
lol that list is silly. it applies verbatim to Apple as well.

Sigh Roll Eyes  The IQ justifies the nutballs.
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: August 27, 2009, 10:24:58 AM »

Some of them, but not all. Apple is hardly free of sin, but there are a couple important differentiations:

1) "Poisoning education: Today, most children whose education involves computers are being taught to use one company's product: Microsoft's." Quite true and enhanced by their lobbying efforts. MS has aggressively lobbied for *their products* to be the sole OS in schools (natch, the New York Mac dump of a month ago) where Apple has lobbied for more money for education. Granted, Apple certainly would want some of those dollars to go to them, but their efforts, even if they don't produce fruit (  Roll Eyes ) still produce more money for technology in education. (Apples record of lobbying tactics was just released a couple days ago: they spent about 360K last year lobbying specifically for more money towards technology in education).

2) Windows invades your privacy: true again, although this is a slippery slope that Apple could fall into. Thus far, they've been considerably better with their MobileMe offering and not phoning home about what's on your computer or what you're doing with it. The Microsoft Genuine Advantage program is a direct, phone-home anti-piracy program. It's quite horrible and reminiscent of Intuit and their QuickBooks line, which is equally awful in this regard.

3) Monopoly Behavior: doesn't apply to Apple at all. They neither have a monopoly nor does their model lend itself to one: since they offer their OS only on THEIR computers, and since there are plenty other options for consumers to purchase, this is absolutely inapplicable.

4) Locking in: Apple does this in a more cavalier way, less malice or nefarious intent. They don't "need" to lock people in because people are rabid fans. They claim that they simply want to be "insanely great" - but what they do do is upgrade hardware so that old stuff will not work - natch, the snow leopard OS upgrade coming out tomorrow will not work on PowerPC platforms - you have to be on an Intel to use it. Planned obsolesense (sp?) and rigid sunset. This could be seen as simply snarky business practice, or locking in, or the only way to go forward with technology, or poor previous technology selections or simply stupidity ... but one way or another it smells bad.

5) Abusing standards - again, applies little to Apple, if at all. From a software and integration with the world perspective, high marks for the likes of Safari for attending HTML standards and in fact being the first online with many. High marks for their network integration, printer support etc. Nop will disagree because their hardware does not conform to certain specs he is fond of - but neither does Sony or Compaq. I'm not sure the same argument can be made there. Then there's endeavoring to CREATE standards, like their push around QuickTime. Fair enough. I think that's business as usual, and they have no bully pulpit to enforce that standard, so it does not apply. It's interesting that MS will not play QT vids, and the old QT does not come with a WMV viewer (you have to download that seperately, and I believe the new QT handles it now) so there is a rivalry position - but again, since Apple is the way minority, this only harms their business rather than harms (me).

6) Enforcing DRM - Well, Apple just barely got out under the wire on this one, having freed up almost all music at the iTunes store. Movies and Music Videos are still not all there, and I am hoping that the industry gets their act together soon. I question the word "collusion" here, even as it applies to Monoposoft: I don't see how they could get licenses for content unless they do adhere to the DRM provisions and licenses. I have a hard time faulting the computer industry for what I see as a media industry issue. Neither Apple or MS have the clout yet to bully the movie studios into dropping DRM, and yet there has been pretty strong movement in the last year, with Apple negotiating a 29c increase in price so that music could go out DRM free. There've been other efforts by other vendors as well, and I'm certain that if MS had  the ability to sell things completely of DRM they would, because it would increase their sales, stickiness and cool factor. It would also decrease the amount of code and complexity they'd need. I could be wrong here, MS could be really excited about limiting users' content accessibility, but I don't think so.

7) Threatening Users' Security - I have a hard time seeing malice or evil intent here, even for MS. Stupidity, yes. Bad technical design? Certainly. But I don't believe that "Microsoft has their own security in mind, not the users" - that's a stretch. I just don't think they know how to do it. And blending the argument with the licensing and above issues to make it look like MS doesn't care about the user is, I think, silly. Of course they do, or they'd have no product at all. But it is too complex, and the design to poor for them to actually defeat the problem IMO. Apple will have a better shot at it, being essentially a Unix base, but they face the same problems.

Much like doctors that make mistakes and should not be held to atone for millions and millions of dollars (because for the vast most part, they are doing what they see as best and doing it the best they can) and holding them to a superhuman standard of zero mistakes is a fools errand, and only makes lawyers rich. In this case, I don't believe we can hold MS or Apple up as *threatening* security because they have not yet become smart enough to defeat all comers, but we can certainly pressure them to sort things out when they do phuque up. Just like the twist was put on Apple in the last month over the iPhone issue - nasty hole, needed fixing. Public put pressure on them to do it and they did. And whether it is liked or not, Vista's "Are you sure you want to do that?" mechanisms were MS' best shot at attempting to preempt attacks that they could not (at the time of development) foresee. In fairness, if the public did not outcry, then probably none of them would fix the holes, preferring instead to spend money on new, money-making investments. And that's where this sort of thing is brilliant and quite necessary.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2009, 10:28:51 AM by perkiset » Logged

It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
vsloathe
vim ftw!
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1669



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: August 27, 2009, 10:49:08 AM »

Yeah, I consider a few of the "sins" a little bombastic, but you need to approach it from Stallman's worldview, and regardless of whether or not I agree with him entirely, I appreciate what he is doing and I think it's vital.

I only need one reason and that is "freedom" as in speech as far as what I want to do with my software, but a couple points are salient enough to mention. I'm right there with them on the education thing. We don't need to teach children how to use Excel. They can spend 5 minutes learning to use Excel if we teach them how to *use a computer*. This just goes back to basic user education. So often, people STILL ask me to fix their computers, in spite of the fact that I'm no more qualified to look at a Windows computer than my grandmother is. All I do is click random shit and google what I see until it works again. They're just afraid of "breaking something", whereas I know that if I break something, I'll probably be able to fix it. This is not a hard skill to learn, and it's universal across OSes. Try explaining to a .NET developer how a virtual filesystem works (actually don't, trust me).

Now, children don't need to learn how a virtual filesystem works - but how did we learn to program? Acorns, Sinclairs, C64's...we know what's going on under the hood. Who's going to replace us? MCSE's? I don't think so.

EDIT: Last paragraph is to say that not *every* child needs to learn how a microcontroller works or a VFS, or whatever...but some certainly should! As it stands, we don't even offer the option.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2009, 10:53:40 AM by vsloathe » Logged

hai
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: August 27, 2009, 10:59:55 AM »

Yeah, I consider a few of the "sins" a little bombastic, but you need to approach it from Stallman's worldview, and regardless of whether or not I agree with him entirely, I appreciate what he is doing and I think it's vital.
Totally agree. Sometimes the way to get a solid result is to push just a bit to hard and then concede. Although I think there's little necessary to concede in there, no matter where they start, they'll lose some ground at the end of the game. Better then to start too far in one direction and let things come to a proper balance.


Yeah, I consider aI only need one reason and that is "freedom" as in speech as far as what I want to do with my software, but a couple points are salient enough to mention. I'm right there with them on the education thing. We don't need to teach children how to use Excel. They can spend 5 minutes learning to use Excel if we teach them how to *use a computer*. This just goes back to basic user education. So often, people STILL ask me to fix their computers, in spite of the fact that I'm no more qualified to look at a Windows computer than my grandmother is. All I do is click random shit and google what I see until it works again. They're just afraid of "breaking something", whereas I know that if I break something, I'll probably be able to fix it. This is not a hard skill to learn, and it's universal across OSes. Try explaining to a .NET developer how a virtual filesystem works (actually don't, trust me).
Again, totally agree but I think there's one more component here that needs to be addressed - I don't think it's JUST your experience around computers that allow you to find your way - there's definitely critical thinking there, which is what (IMO) is most sorely lacking. Critical thinking is just at such a low point that, frankly, I'm amazed people can use computers at all. So I'd actually expand this point to, "people need to be taught how to figure things out, not just computers." and I'd offer that a certain "improvisation" skill on computers is a fine way to learn that very important skill for the rest of life.

Now, children don't need to learn how a virtual filesystem works - but how did we learn to program? Acorns, Sinclairs, C64's...we know what's going on under the hood. Who's going to replace us? MCSE's? I don't think so.

EDIT: Last paragraph is to say that not *every* child needs to learn how a microcontroller works or a VFS, or whatever...but some certainly should! As it stands, we don't even offer the option.
100% agree. If the option is there, then people that are interested will pick it up and run. The problem to me is that we're so involved in No Child Left Behind style teaching to the test, that the simple act of piquing curiosity and letting it run is beyond most pedagogical constructs or protocols. I am 100% certain that if it hadn't been for the freedom for me to learn to program, learn to explore and experiment, my life would look much more gray and limited than it does today.
Logged

It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: August 27, 2009, 12:40:03 PM »

Quote
MS has aggressively lobbied for *their products* to be the sole OS in schools (natch, the New York Mac dump of a month ago) where Apple has lobbied for more money for education.

A "philanthropic" difference changes nothing.  It's nice but irrelevant to their point.  Apple, Microsoft and Taco Bell should give it away or get the hell away from education  Police

Quote
2) Windows invades your privacy: true again, although this is a slippery slope that Apple could (?) fall into.

Fell into ages ago ROFLMAO MS Genuine Advantage (a truly vomitous misnomer) simply supports compliance to the lovely world of predatory licensing that so many intelligent people love Wink  Silly list.  Here, have a Genuine Advantage cookie and you'll feel right as rain.

Quote
3) Monopoly Behavior: doesn't apply to Apple at all. They neither have a monopoly nor does their model lend itself to one: since they offer their OS only on THEIR computers, and since there are plenty other options for consumers to purchase, this is absolutely inapplicable.

A monopoly exists when consumers are faced with a lack of viable substitute goods.  Viable list of substitute Macs anyone?  Additionally, their point is "monopoly behavior," not the existence of one.  It's not illegal to have a monopoly.  But leveraging this advantage through monopolistic behavior is.  Sorry meng, it most certainly does apply to Apple as well.

Quote
This could be seen as simply snarky business practice, or locking in, or the only way to go forward with technology, or poor previous technology selections or simply stupidity ... but one way or another it smells bad.

 Shocked Dude I almost fell out of my chair Wink  I agree and you're right  Grin

Quote
5) Abusing standards - again, applies little to Apple, if at all.

Screeeech - crash.  Apple's one of the worst, they're just not big enough to have the standards abuse spotlight.  Let's see here... what's holding up the HTML 5.0 standard again??  Roll Eyes

Quote
6) Enforcing DRM - Well, Apple just barely got out under the wire on this one, having freed up almost all music at the iTunes store.

Identical.  Their hands are tied by greed, not the music industry.  Period.

Quote
7) Threatening Users' Security - I have a hard time seeing malice or evil intent here, even for MS. Stupidity, yes. Bad technical design? Certainly. But I don't believe that "Microsoft has their own security in mind, not the users" - that's a stretch.

It's no stretch.  It's a fact on steroids.  Malice and evil intent is anyone's guess but profits first, always and forever.  This is what people don't seem to understand about why open and free software is so important.  When it's closed and licensed at peak profitability it would be silly to pretend your security even matters to them.  Your security is only an issue when their profits are impacted because of it.  The rest is just lip service faithfully parroted by believers.

Quote
because for the vast most part, they [doctors] are doing what they see as best and doing it the best they can

Unprovable and faith-based, just ask Michael Jackson.  Used as a comparison to Microsoft and Apple is awfully puzzling to me, since you've posted many times about how you truly get the primarily-for-profit nature of business.  I see the comparison as perfectly inverted, where the "vast most part" is for profit and the remainder is paraded around as philanthropy.  Apple contributes money to education, the Bill Gates Foundation, feed the world, do they know it's Christmas, barfity barf yack.  Thanks for the band-aid on the arm you cut off.

When it comes to the FSF I'm a flag waving, spirally-eyed fanboi on fire  Devilish  They deserve our support Crapple and and Microworth already have that covered  Smiley
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: August 27, 2009, 03:33:03 PM »

A "philanthropic" difference changes nothing.  It's nice but irrelevant to their point.  Apple, Microsoft and Taco Bell should give it away or get the hell away from education  Police
Imagine, for just a moment, that businesses are in business to make money. Textbook printers are not philanthropic, neither are the folks that freeze cats for dissection. Well, maybe THOSE guys are, but I digress. You deify the position of computers in education. MS lobbies to exclude others in schools. Apple lobbies for there to be more money for tech in schools. The difference is stark and defining to the argument. There's no philanthropy in Apples lobbying - but there is fairness in the way it is done.


Fell into ages ago ROFLMAO MS Genuine Advantage (a truly vomitous misnomer) simply supports compliance to the lovely world of predatory licensing that so many intelligent people love Wink  Silly list.  Here, have a Genuine Advantage cookie and you'll feel right as rain.
Please demonstrate or prove this assertion because I see no evidence of anything in the Apple realm that approaches what is asserted by the article against Windows.


A monopoly exists when consumers are faced with a lack of viable substitute goods.  Viable list of substitute Macs anyone?  Additionally, their point is "monopoly behavior," not the existence of one.  It's not illegal to have a monopoly.  But leveraging this advantage through monopolistic behavior is.  Sorry meng, it most certainly does apply to Apple as well.
If you are saying that there is no viable substitute good for Apple, then your saying they are literally the finest machine in the land and no one is even close. Just a guess, but I'd not hazard the wager that you feel this way... Wink

I believe you need to readdress what, exactly, a monopoly is. Monopolies are, in fact, illegal in our country, which is what gives the government ground to do things like breakup AT&T. Do not confuse the notion that "Everybody wants one and they only come from Apple" with a monopoly, that is simply excellent marketing. Thinking along those lines, MiniCooper must have a monopoly, based on how niche-y the car is, no one else makes one, the residual value on a lease is something like 71% today (which is simply incredible) so everybody wants one. It is patently impossible to demonstrate that Apple has a monopoly on computing, ipods, phones, hardware, software or anything like that because consumers have lots and lots and lots of options. If, what you mean, is that you can't have Apple at a price that (you) specify or for free or utterly unencumbered by their security restrictions, then what you mean is that you're bothered that it's a closed system. But that does not make a monopoly.


Screeeech - crash.  Apple's one of the worst, they're just not big enough to have the standards abuse spotlight.  Let's see here... what's holding up the HTML 5.0 standard again??  Roll Eyes
The HTML standard is not being held up just by Apple, it is being held up by many warring factions on what format video should be in a <video> tag for the new spec. to say that the holdup is all apple's fault denies all the other factions their due. If, what you mean is that Apple should simply roll over to the other players, then I'd understand your argument. But Apple, just like MS or google or yahoo or the Ogg folks or the FOSS community ... they ALL have their reasons for pushing an agenda. To dump that at the foot of Apple is simply bias, not fact. And I come with lots of examples of where they not only adhere but promote the openest of standards. Hell, they purchased CUPS outright to make sure that it always stayed an open standard.

I'd really like to hear how you'd define Apple as, "one of the worst."


Enforcing DRM - Well, Apple just barely got out under the wire on this one, having freed up almost all music at the iTunes store.
Identical.  Their hands are tied by greed, not the music industry.  Period.
[/quote]
I'm rather stunned that you'd place blame for DRM on the "affiliates to the content providers" ie., Apple, MS, Amazon etc when, in each case, there is some form of concession that must be made to satisfy the content gods so that it can be distributed/sold. Whether it's a rental model, or a lease model, or a sale with lock model, or an expensive, unlocked model, you feel that in each case the DRM is the fault of the distributor (like, iTunes) and not the owner of the content (like, BMI)?

It's no stretch.  It's a fact on steroids.  Malice and evil intent is anyone's guess but profits first, always and forever.  This is what people don't seem to understand about why open and free software is so important.  When it's closed and licensed at peak profitability it would be silly to pretend your security even matters to them.  Your security is only an issue when their profits are impacted because of it.  The rest is just lip service faithfully parroted by believers.
First, at profits first: 100% correct. 100%.

But second, and much more importantly, why should all software be free? Why should you be able to use the fruits of others' labors to make money, without paying them for the service they provided to you? I actually rail at folks at the syndk8 on this one: why should you demand that software that you will use to profit, be free? See, I agree that having a movement that creates a compelling reason for software to be free as a vital, growing part of the computing spectrum - but only as a part. For example: it is the public option that will make insurance companies really have a compelling reason for me to spend money on them, or I won't. Free software will make it so that I'll be much more likely to search and shop before I drop a dime on software. However, when something has earned my selection, and it costs money, then the expense is worth it because of the value it provides. Remember that in my world, money is only one of the costs of (things). Time saved, as a component of value, is an easy and close second.


Quote
because for the vast most part, they [doctors] are doing what they see as best and doing it the best they can
Unprovable and faith-based, just ask Michael Jackson.  Used as a comparison to Microsoft and Apple is awfully puzzling to me, since you've posted many times about how you truly get the primarily-for-profit nature of business.  I see the comparison as perfectly inverted, where the "vast most part" is for profit and the remainder is paraded around as philanthropy.  Apple contributes money to education, the Bill Gates Foundation, feed the world, do they know it's Christmas, barfity barf yack.  Thanks for the band-aid on the arm you cut off.
You mistake my point - I do not say that "doing your best" means doing it for free, or doing it not-for-profit. I have a lot of doctors that are clients, in a lot of different disciplines. To a man (& woman) they understand profitability and understand what they need to do to stay in business - but they are there trying to make a difference and provide the best possible service they can. It's not altruistic - but it has great intention.

Bad example with Michael Jackson because he essentially purchased his own manslaughter. If you have to pay scads of money to get someone that will do things that they shouldn't then we're not talking about the same people. Again, "vast most part" - not everyone. MJ purchased a whore with MD after his name, not any kind of doctor that I am familiar with.


When it comes to the FSF I'm a flag waving, spirally-eyed fanboi on fire  Devilish  They deserve our support Crapple and and Microworth already have that covered  Smiley
ROFLMAO well clearly not YOUR support Wink but I am in agreement, just not the dogmatic extremity of your argument. As I said above, sometimes you've got to overpush to get just the right balance. I'm cool with it.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2009, 03:36:26 PM by perkiset » Logged

It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
rcjordan
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 882


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: August 27, 2009, 03:39:30 PM »

Anarchists. This place is seething with anarchists.
Logged
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: August 27, 2009, 03:40:23 PM »

 ROFLMAO indeed.

Except for VS ... he's an anarcho-syndicalist. Big difference I'm told  Roll Eyes

ROFLMAO
Logged

It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
rcjordan
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 882


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: August 27, 2009, 03:54:13 PM »

I do not mind a little capitalism.  Anarchy just doesn't seem to be able to pay the bills on a monthly basis.

That said, I do not believe a company should be allowed to be predatory and/or outright lie about their products.  Companies with honor and integrity seem to be getting harder and harder to find.
Logged
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: August 27, 2009, 04:05:08 PM »

Honor and dignity have no place in business, come to find out.

In (I believe this was right) Ford vs. Chevrolet in about 1928, legal precedent was established that a corporations first and foremost job is to make a profit. Technically, if a corporation is more profitable by dumping lead in a river than trucking it away, then they must either dump it in the river or show a business case why they don't.

During the late days of the iron age, Corporations were given the same legal status as personhood on the US. They cannot be compelled to argue in court against themselves or incriminate themselves. They are innocent until proven guilty.

And the cherry on top of this hooie was just a few years ago when Fox news was sued by one of it's reporters. Fox wanted them to first lie, then bury a story about one of their advertisers (Monsanto) - the reporter balked and said she'd go public if they forced her. They fired her, she blew the whistle and was awarded about 450K for it. Fast forward a few more years when Rupert has a couple more coins in the bank, it's 3 appeals later. He hires the law firm of Dooie, Phuckem & Howe to prove that it is their constitutional right to lie and mislead the public, under the notion of a person's 1st amendment rights to which, their corporation (which now has personhood) enjoys just like you and me.

Honor where it promotes profitability. Unless, of course, the board of directors chooses to make honor an abstract notion in their value proposition. In which case, it promotes their saleability to have honor. Wink
Logged

It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
rcjordan
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 882


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: August 27, 2009, 04:27:45 PM »

We've already talked about the problems with the corporate veil here at the cache.  And I'm almost wholly in agreement that -over time- the business of doing business slides into the dark side.
http://www.perkiset.org/forum/all_things_nix/this_just_in_google_chrome_os-t1602.30.html
« Last Edit: August 27, 2009, 04:29:39 PM by rcjordan » Logged
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: August 27, 2009, 05:06:39 PM »

@Anarchists - you flatter me Smiley

Quote
Please demonstrate or prove this assertion because I see no evidence of anything in the Apple realm that approaches what is asserted by the article against Windows.
ROFLMAO
That's because you don't see the internals of what iSoftware does to your PC.  The article states: "Microsoft uses software with backward names like Windows Genuine Advantage to inspect the contents of users' hard drives. The licensing agreement users are required to accept before using Windows warns that Microsoft claims the right to do this without warning."  So how in the world is this any different than Apple constantly scanning my hard drive with iTunesHelper.exe and QTTask.exe?  These little nasties clandestinely reconfigure themselves to load on startup after being explicitly turned off through msconfig (unknown tool to the average user).  They send similar information to Apple all the time.  And what about Apple restricting the movement of iTunes files that you purchased??  Offering a price hike imposed on users to buy your way out of this ridiculous restriction hardly makes it noble.

Quote
If you are saying that there is no viable substitute good for Apple, then your saying they are literally the finest machine in the land and no one is even close. Just a guess, but I'd not hazard the wager that you feel this way..

"Viable list of substitute Macs anyone?"  The question is for you.  Of course other computers exist, along with other electronic devices.  It's a gray area that requires monitoring and constant reevaluation.  Apple does in fact have some elements of a monopoly and therefore should have some level of monopolistic behavior checks wouldn't you agree?

Quote
I'd really like to hear how you'd define Apple as, "one of the worst."

When I worked at Motion Works and built a video and sound editor using Microsoft Video to mimic the features of their already released Mac version using Quicktime I developed a new perspective of how Apple tries to dominate standards.  Granted it's an anecdotal example and mainly relates to their ferocious history of trying to Quicktime the world.  But as horrible as MS Video was, Microsoft actually was behaving more openly than Apple was.  Just the annual fee to be privileged to develop to the internals of the Mac was disgusting enough.  But I think we've even discussed this and I remember you agreed about the Quicktime thang.

I'm rather stunned that you'd place blame for DRM on the "affiliates to the content providers"

Huh?  1'st place for blame is the content providers, of course.  2'nd place is the people who buy into it (MS/Apple) funding it's existence.

Quote
But second, and much more importantly, why should all software be free?

I have no idea, but if I personally thought all software should be free I'd state my case Wink  But foundational software such as the OS and ubiquitous business software that's essentially required to compete (like Office) most definitely should have free options available.  Charge for whatever you want - especially helpful, elective software - but don't handcuff the public with a purchase "requirement"  Don't make me...

Quote
You mistake my point - I do not say that "doing your best" means doing it for free, or doing it not-for-profit. I have a lot of doctors that are clients, in a lot of different disciplines. To a man (& woman) they understand profitability and understand what they need to do to stay in business - but they are there trying to make a difference and provide the best possible service they can. It's not altruistic - but it has great intention.

I believe you've mistaken mine since I agree about doctors, though I realize it's just my own limited experience.  The point is the comparison to MS/Apple, specifically the assertion that they are doing what they see is best, unless you mean as it relates to maximizing profitability.  Everything else is a pile of meringue.  Microsoft and Apple "doing their best" on security without profit as their primary motivator??  Am I missing something here??  Regardless that we disagree about them (or just Apple) doing their best the vast majority of the time, in a closed and profit maximized system it's impossible to not jeopardize the security of users since there's nothing but the steady heroin drip of updates to help you.  Then there's the people about to get Snow Leoparded and will be forced to buy new software and hardware from Apple or fade into supportless obscurity.  Microsoft is just as ambivalent in this regard. 
Here's a well deserved toast to THAT behavior Vomit Vomit
Quote
well clearly not YOUR support Wink but I am in agreement, just not the dogmatic extremity of your argument. As I said above, sometimes you've got to overpush to get just the right balance. I'm cool with it.

LOL - Support = $ Wink  @dogmatic extremity; point taken and I'll eat the zealot alert cookie.  I'm part of the free software overpush problem, not the solution Smiley
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Perkiset's Place Home   Best of The Cache   phpMyIDE: MySQL Stored Procedures, Functions & Triggers
Politics @ Perkiset's   Pinkhat's Perspective   
cache
mart
coder
programmers
ajax
php
javascript
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC
Seo4Smf v0.2 © Webmaster's Talks


Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!