6 ms·

i'd just like to interject for a moment.. i wonder how long it is going to take for people to realize the importance of libre software. sure, strong copyleft c

by xj9 10y ago

i'd just like to interject for a moment.. i wonder how long it is going to take for people to realize the importance of libre software. sure, strong copyleft can be inconvenient for developers, but that inconvenience must be borne to enable users to control their technology. otherwise we end up with the nonsense that we are discussing here: software people want/need, that they are no longer permitted to use because Apple said so. https://www.fsf.org/ https://www.fsf.org/

jl6 10y ago
Quite. When you accept a dependency on proprietary software, you open yourself to the risk of the vendor withdrawing support. Looks like that risk materialized for some users today. This is an "I told you so" moment for a lot of Free software advocates.
- saurik 10y ago
  FWIW, as a serious advocate of Free Software (someone who constantly travels around to developer conferences, college hackathons, and even sci-fi conventions giving talks that stress the benefits of the GPL3), this doesn't help and almost becomes a non-sequitor, as it makes it sound like a business decision related to productivity applications. I doubt anyone would say they "rely" on Trainyard, and the Trainyard developer did "rely" on iOS, but they probably liked that and for all I know they are dead now (I realize they almost certainly aren't, but like: this is the extent to which they aren't relevant). As a free software advocate, there isn't a group of "some users" whom I get to point at and say "I told you so": in fact, most of the people who played Trainyard and enjoyed it probably don't even care that it is going to be inaccessible. And while I sort of care myself about some specific applications, it isn't about people like me either. The devastating reality is that this purge of 32-bit software combined with the centralized control on the computers that are capable of running it is a devastating blow to society as a whole, and the people who are causing it are the people who either don't directly feel the downsides (as historical preservation is an externality, like pollution) or are actually in the minority of people who experience an upside. Advocating for free software is good as it can be a weapon in this fight, but in practice Apple just isn't feeling the burn: when they wanted a new compiler, they hired a ton of engineers and wrote one so they didn't have to rely on gcc anymore. There is only so much power in the lever of free software to force societal change in a way that doesn't continually lead to a handful of resistance fighters looking at the carnage of the land and thinking "I know what will make me feel better: I'll point at the majority of people who don't even understand this enough to notice and the handful of people who are happy this happened and yell 'I told you so'", particularly when developers like Linus Torvalds, who have critically important positions, aren't fighting for the same battle. My claim: we need regulation. In the same sense that we have regulation about pollution--to keep a handful of people who benefit from pollution enough to not care about its downsides to society (and them) from doing horrible things--we need to regulate companies like Apple to force them to provide open platforms and to have some reasonable set of responsibilities when it comes to sunsetting older hardware. The issue of closed vs. open ecosystems is related to free software, but isn't the same, and we need to be paying a lot more attention to the former and avoid a lot of knee jerk to the latter if we want to prevent some of the worst case scenarios.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    > My claim: we need regulation We already have this. Copyright gives Apple a legal monopoly on iOS. It isn't supposed to give Apple a monopoly on the distribution of third party iOS apps. That's just the sort of monopoly leveraging the antitrust laws are intended to deal with.
    - valuearb 10y ago
      They built it, it's their property. If you don't like it don't buy an iDevice. For those who do buy iDevices, they can rely on Apple to ensure the quality of the apps and platform. Look at Android, it's the wild wild west, insecure and full of scammers.
      - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
        They built it, it's their property. If you don't like it don't buy service from AT&T in 1981. For those who do buy AT&T service, they can rely on AT&T to ensure the quality of the phones and platform. Look at The Internet, it's the wild wild west, insecure and full of scammers. And if you don't like AT&T, all you have to do is sell your house and move out of their service area. Unless you make phones or modems or are an ISP; then even moving doesn't help you because you can't move your customers.
  - spronkey 10y ago
    Amen. I also see this somewhat as a 'own your st' scenario. Apple makes all of these systems and platforms, and then proceeds to abandon them, producing waste (in both materials and developer time for the apps that get updated for nothing but compatibility reasons). They update their APIs, deprecate the old stuff, at a breakneck pace, and they leave a great mess behind. They should be forced to think more about the mess they are making, and be unable to leave it without penalties. One way for them to not leave it would be to open it up. Another way would be to support older versions for a longer timeframe, and allow users to continue to download and use them. Either way, it's not in Apple's interests to do this - they're much more content to force this crap down our throats, and rely on us just dealing with it because there really isn't any choice.
- simonh 10y ago
  There are many arguments for libretto software, but the support argument is the weakest. I'm much more confident of getting support from someone I've paid than someone I haven't. At least any support I'm entiriedcyo will. Even a contract. The reality of most liner software is that scads if it go out of support all the time and only users that are members of the developer elite (and happen to be skilled in the relevant platform, libraries and dev tools) have even a chance of doing anything about it.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    > The reality of most liner software is that scads if it go out of support all the time and only users that are members of the developer elite (and happen to be skilled in the relevant platform, libraries and dev tools) have even a chance of doing anything about it. That's only true for things for which there isn't even one user who is a developer, who fixes your problem because it was also their problem.
- endgame 10y ago
  Again. And again. And again. But we'll keep saying it.
- legulere 10y ago
  You have the same problem with free software, only that you can step in and maintain it yourself (which costs a lot of time/money).
- masklinn 10y ago
  > This is an "I told you so" moment for a lot of Free software advocates. Is this though? How much of the impacted software would exist as free software?
Joeri 10y ago
While i agree on the value of libre software, i think we should not exaggerate what's happening here. 1. Most people are not aware there is such a thing as libre software, let alone why it would benefit them. Most people therefore will not channel their frustration at this move into a demand for libre. In fact, most people won't even realize apple did anything. They'll blame the original developer. 2. In apple's view, if there is 32-bit software people need or want, some developer will fill that gap. Apps to them are easily replaced and ephemeral. That is not necessarily wrong or in conflict with the view that all software should be Free. So I don't think this decision matters much or will have much consequence. But it still is regrettable.
bykovich 10y ago
For most users this is an annoyance, but not enough of an annoyance to turn them on to free software ideology. It's hard for me to imagine what sort of closed-source irritation could outweigh the horrendous irritation of prioritizing using (and, in fact, just using) most free software.
rimantas 10y ago
I wonder how long it will take for people like you to realize what users want. Hint: they don't want to control, there are already to many things to control. They want to use.
- test1235 10y ago
  Your comment doesn't make any sense, in this context or otherwise.
  - rpeden 10y ago
    I thought it made sense. I know lots of non technically inclined people who use software every day. Most of them have no idea what free software is. If you asked them, they say it's software they don't have to pay for. If you explained it to them, they wouldn't care. They neither care about not want the control and freedom granted by free software, nor are they going to start wanting it even if we spell out for them why it would benefit them. They'll take it if it means no effort or sacrifice on their part, but they're not going to ask for it or advocate for it or fight for it in any way. What the grandparent was saying is that the vast majority of people neither care about nor want the additional control they'd have in a free software ecosystem. And I think he or she is correct.
    - Laforet 10y ago
      It's not just free software, but the ability to control which set of binaries you use. The final straw that pushed me away from iOS devices was when the ability to pack and backup apps from devices was removed in iOS 8 (IIRC). Case in point, I had been holding out on a particular build of official twitter app for iPad (ver4.3.2) for some time as I detest the subsequent major updates for being ugly and hard to use. From that point onwards if I lose that signed copy stored on my computer it is goodbye forever since I won't be able to pull it from my tablet if I wanted to. Maybe I overreacted since there is a good chance that I was in voilation of whatever EULA I have agreed to, or the app might be broken by another random update but enough was enough.
  - crottypeter 10y ago
legulere 10y ago
The only user facing freedom in free software is the ability to get and redistribute the software for free. But that's not what free software is about. For all the other freedoms you need to be able to program, which makes you a developer.
- mkesper 10y ago
  Imagine your business depends on it. You can hire someone who works on it. Try that with proprietary software.
  - vlozko 10y ago
    Then, as a business you: A) Buy a newer app that does what you need it to do. B) Pay for software support or C) Develop your own version Hinging one's business on software who's future isn't so certain is a potentially stupid risk.
    - legulere 10y ago
      there's also option D: pay the developer to continue support.
wruza 10y ago
It will take at least very long, and probably will never happen, unless we change our own nature as species. This obvious fact alone is a hint that FS is invalid as ideology-for-everything. Why advocating at large scale then?
- xj9 10y ago
  unless we change our own nature as species says who? libre software is only uncommon for consumers. Google, Facebook, Amazon, Red Hat, Oracle, et al, all depend on and contribute to libre software. a lot of other companies develop libre software and manage to turn a profit. personally, i have used libre software to build production systems at every step of my career.
  - wruza 10y ago
    That was in the context of "to enable users to control their technology" and "software people want/need, that they are no longer permitted to use because Apple said so". It is about consumers.
digi_owl 10y ago
Sadly there are ways for monied interests to hijack the direction of even that kind of software for their own goals. One play we are seeing right now is code churn. Get developers you payroll to churn to many changes in central parts of the stack that people either have to accept your goals or fork the whole stack.
phicoh 10y ago
You don't really need copyleft protected software. The BSD community is very much alive. The important point is actually use the type of software you care about. If you care about copyleft, use as much copyleft software as you can, if you care about BSD, use BSD systems. In particular, if an open source version is available but you take the closed source version because it is somehow nicer, you are sending a message that you don't actually care. And the only way we can keep open source alive is if we care. Just using it helps. Reporting bugs helps.
valuearb 10y ago
Apple is focused on offering a secure, fast, modern platform, and they keep moving it forward. These dusty apps aren't being banned, the authors just need to recompile them and re-release them. Blame the authors for never maintaining, not Apple. Android lets you and virus makers and scammers do whatever you want. Why not focus on that if freedom is a bigger end goal that quality.

by xj9 10y ago

jl6 10y ago

Quite. When you accept a dependency on proprietary software, you open yourself to the risk of the vendor withdrawing support. Looks like that risk materialized for some users today. This is an "I told you so" moment for a lot of Free software advocates.

saurik 10y ago
FWIW, as a serious advocate of Free Software (someone who constantly travels around to developer conferences, college hackathons, and even sci-fi conventions giving talks that stress the benefits of the GPL3), this doesn't help and almost becomes a non-sequitor, as it makes it sound like a business decision related to productivity applications. I doubt anyone would say they "rely" on Trainyard, and the Trainyard developer did "rely" on iOS, but they probably liked that and for all I know they are dead now (I realize they almost certainly aren't, but like: this is the extent to which they aren't relevant). As a free software advocate, there isn't a group of "some users" whom I get to point at and say "I told you so": in fact, most of the people who played Trainyard and enjoyed it probably don't even care that it is going to be inaccessible. And while I sort of care myself about some specific applications, it isn't about people like me either. The devastating reality is that this purge of 32-bit software combined with the centralized control on the computers that are capable of running it is a devastating blow to society as a whole, and the people who are causing it are the people who either don't directly feel the downsides (as historical preservation is an externality, like pollution) or are actually in the minority of people who experience an upside. Advocating for free software is good as it can be a weapon in this fight, but in practice Apple just isn't feeling the burn: when they wanted a new compiler, they hired a ton of engineers and wrote one so they didn't have to rely on gcc anymore. There is only so much power in the lever of free software to force societal change in a way that doesn't continually lead to a handful of resistance fighters looking at the carnage of the land and thinking "I know what will make me feel better: I'll point at the majority of people who don't even understand this enough to notice and the handful of people who are happy this happened and yell 'I told you so'", particularly when developers like Linus Torvalds, who have critically important positions, aren't fighting for the same battle. My claim: we need regulation. In the same sense that we have regulation about pollution--to keep a handful of people who benefit from pollution enough to not care about its downsides to society (and them) from doing horrible things--we need to regulate companies like Apple to force them to provide open platforms and to have some reasonable set of responsibilities when it comes to sunsetting older hardware. The issue of closed vs. open ecosystems is related to free software, but isn't the same, and we need to be paying a lot more attention to the former and avoid a lot of knee jerk to the latter if we want to prevent some of the worst case scenarios.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  > My claim: we need regulation We already have this. Copyright gives Apple a legal monopoly on iOS. It isn't supposed to give Apple a monopoly on the distribution of third party iOS apps. That's just the sort of monopoly leveraging the antitrust laws are intended to deal with.
  - valuearb 10y ago
    They built it, it's their property. If you don't like it don't buy an iDevice. For those who do buy iDevices, they can rely on Apple to ensure the quality of the apps and platform. Look at Android, it's the wild wild west, insecure and full of scammers.
    - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
      They built it, it's their property. If you don't like it don't buy service from AT&T in 1981. For those who do buy AT&T service, they can rely on AT&T to ensure the quality of the phones and platform. Look at The Internet, it's the wild wild west, insecure and full of scammers. And if you don't like AT&T, all you have to do is sell your house and move out of their service area. Unless you make phones or modems or are an ISP; then even moving doesn't help you because you can't move your customers.
- spronkey 10y ago
  Amen. I also see this somewhat as a 'own your st' scenario. Apple makes all of these systems and platforms, and then proceeds to abandon them, producing waste (in both materials and developer time for the apps that get updated for nothing but compatibility reasons). They update their APIs, deprecate the old stuff, at a breakneck pace, and they leave a great mess behind. They should be forced to think more about the mess they are making, and be unable to leave it without penalties. One way for them to not leave it would be to open it up. Another way would be to support older versions for a longer timeframe, and allow users to continue to download and use them. Either way, it's not in Apple's interests to do this - they're much more content to force this crap down our throats, and rely on us just dealing with it because there really isn't any choice.
simonh 10y ago
There are many arguments for libretto software, but the support argument is the weakest. I'm much more confident of getting support from someone I've paid than someone I haven't. At least any support I'm entiriedcyo will. Even a contract. The reality of most liner software is that scads if it go out of support all the time and only users that are members of the developer elite (and happen to be skilled in the relevant platform, libraries and dev tools) have even a chance of doing anything about it.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  > The reality of most liner software is that scads if it go out of support all the time and only users that are members of the developer elite (and happen to be skilled in the relevant platform, libraries and dev tools) have even a chance of doing anything about it. That's only true for things for which there isn't even one user who is a developer, who fixes your problem because it was also their problem.
endgame 10y ago
Again. And again. And again. But we'll keep saying it.
legulere 10y ago
You have the same problem with free software, only that you can step in and maintain it yourself (which costs a lot of time/money).
masklinn 10y ago
> This is an "I told you so" moment for a lot of Free software advocates. Is this though? How much of the impacted software would exist as free software?

Joeri 10y ago

While i agree on the value of libre software, i think we should not exaggerate what's happening here. 1. Most people are not aware there is such a thing as libre software, let alone why it would benefit them. Most people therefore will not channel their frustration at this move into a demand for libre. In fact, most people won't even realize apple did anything. They'll blame the original developer. 2. In apple's view, if there is 32-bit software people need or want, some developer will fill that gap. Apps to them are easily replaced and ephemeral. That is not necessarily wrong or in conflict with the view that all software should be Free. So I don't think this decision matters much or will have much consequence. But it still is regrettable.

bykovich 10y ago

For most users this is an annoyance, but not enough of an annoyance to turn them on to free software ideology. It's hard for me to imagine what sort of closed-source irritation could outweigh the horrendous irritation of prioritizing using (and, in fact, just using) most free software.

rimantas 10y ago

I wonder how long it will take for people like you to realize what users want. Hint: they don't want to control, there are already to many things to control. They want to use.

test1235 10y ago
Your comment doesn't make any sense, in this context or otherwise.
- rpeden 10y ago
  I thought it made sense. I know lots of non technically inclined people who use software every day. Most of them have no idea what free software is. If you asked them, they say it's software they don't have to pay for. If you explained it to them, they wouldn't care. They neither care about not want the control and freedom granted by free software, nor are they going to start wanting it even if we spell out for them why it would benefit them. They'll take it if it means no effort or sacrifice on their part, but they're not going to ask for it or advocate for it or fight for it in any way. What the grandparent was saying is that the vast majority of people neither care about nor want the additional control they'd have in a free software ecosystem. And I think he or she is correct.
  - Laforet 10y ago
    It's not just free software, but the ability to control which set of binaries you use. The final straw that pushed me away from iOS devices was when the ability to pack and backup apps from devices was removed in iOS 8 (IIRC). Case in point, I had been holding out on a particular build of official twitter app for iPad (ver4.3.2) for some time as I detest the subsequent major updates for being ugly and hard to use. From that point onwards if I lose that signed copy stored on my computer it is goodbye forever since I won't be able to pull it from my tablet if I wanted to. Maybe I overreacted since there is a good chance that I was in voilation of whatever EULA I have agreed to, or the app might be broken by another random update but enough was enough.
- crottypeter 10y ago

legulere 10y ago

The only user facing freedom in free software is the ability to get and redistribute the software for free. But that's not what free software is about. For all the other freedoms you need to be able to program, which makes you a developer.

mkesper 10y ago
Imagine your business depends on it. You can hire someone who works on it. Try that with proprietary software.
- vlozko 10y ago
  Then, as a business you: A) Buy a newer app that does what you need it to do. B) Pay for software support or C) Develop your own version Hinging one's business on software who's future isn't so certain is a potentially stupid risk.
  - legulere 10y ago
    there's also option D: pay the developer to continue support.

wruza 10y ago

It will take at least very long, and probably will never happen, unless we change our own nature as species. This obvious fact alone is a hint that FS is invalid as ideology-for-everything. Why advocating at large scale then?

xj9 10y ago
unless we change our own nature as species says who? libre software is only uncommon for consumers. Google, Facebook, Amazon, Red Hat, Oracle, et al, all depend on and contribute to libre software. a lot of other companies develop libre software and manage to turn a profit. personally, i have used libre software to build production systems at every step of my career.
- wruza 10y ago
  That was in the context of "to enable users to control their technology" and "software people want/need, that they are no longer permitted to use because Apple said so". It is about consumers.

digi_owl 10y ago

Sadly there are ways for monied interests to hijack the direction of even that kind of software for their own goals. One play we are seeing right now is code churn. Get developers you payroll to churn to many changes in central parts of the stack that people either have to accept your goals or fork the whole stack.

phicoh 10y ago

You don't really need copyleft protected software. The BSD community is very much alive. The important point is actually use the type of software you care about. If you care about copyleft, use as much copyleft software as you can, if you care about BSD, use BSD systems. In particular, if an open source version is available but you take the closed source version because it is somehow nicer, you are sending a message that you don't actually care. And the only way we can keep open source alive is if we care. Just using it helps. Reporting bugs helps.

valuearb 10y ago

Apple is focused on offering a secure, fast, modern platform, and they keep moving it forward. These dusty apps aren't being banned, the authors just need to recompile them and re-release them. Blame the authors for never maintaining, not Apple. Android lets you and virus makers and scammers do whatever you want. Why not focus on that if freedom is a bigger end goal that quality.