4 ms·

RMS made this prediction in 2003. Most people called him crazy and fringe at the time, but he was 100% right. Here's a quote: "Some versions of treacherous com

by 16s 15y ago

RMS made this prediction in 2003. Most people called him crazy and fringe at the time, but he was 100% right. Here's a quote: "Some versions of treacherous computing would require the operating system to be specifically authorized by a particular company. Free operating systems could not be installed." Source URL: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html

cooldeal 15y ago
Apple proved him right long before this. But there was no outrage against Apple, since they make shiny things that everyone likes. And people actually liked the security that this gave them. The battle was lost then.
- jimktrains2 15y ago
  I don't remember a time I couldn't put linux on an apple. Maybe I'm wrong or forgetting something.
  - garrettl 15y ago
    iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad
    - daed 15y ago
      If those are the examples, can't we go further back and blame other cell phone manufacturers? Or get mad that Nintendo didn't make it easy for us to put our own OS on the NES?
terminus 15y ago
Just to add to what you said: RMS and the FSF worked up the GPLv3 in response to this "Tivoization" of Software. Linus and the kernel crowd at that time were on the other side of the debate. Linus' quote: "" [Stallman] calls it "tivoization", but that's a word he has made up, and a term I find offensive, so I don't choose to use it. It's offensive because Tivo never did anything wrong, and the FSF even acknowledged that. The fact that they do their hardware and have some DRM issues with the content producers and thus want to protect the integrity of that hardware. The kernel license covers the kernel. It does not cover boot loaders and hardware, and as far as I'm concerned, people who make their own hardware can design them any which way they want. Whether that means "booting only a specific kernel" or "sharks with lasers", I don't care. "" Back then Tivoization was about "consumer devices." Now that "Tivoization" is threatening to breach the walls of hacking devices, it feels a lot more personal.

by 16s 15y ago

cooldeal 15y ago

Apple proved him right long before this. But there was no outrage against Apple, since they make shiny things that everyone likes. And people actually liked the security that this gave them. The battle was lost then.

jimktrains2 15y ago
I don't remember a time I couldn't put linux on an apple. Maybe I'm wrong or forgetting something.
- garrettl 15y ago
  iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad
  - daed 15y ago
    If those are the examples, can't we go further back and blame other cell phone manufacturers? Or get mad that Nintendo didn't make it easy for us to put our own OS on the NES?

terminus 15y ago

Just to add to what you said: RMS and the FSF worked up the GPLv3 in response to this "Tivoization" of Software. Linus and the kernel crowd at that time were on the other side of the debate. Linus' quote: "" [Stallman] calls it "tivoization", but that's a word he has made up, and a term I find offensive, so I don't choose to use it. It's offensive because Tivo never did anything wrong, and the FSF even acknowledged that. The fact that they do their hardware and have some DRM issues with the content producers and thus want to protect the integrity of that hardware. The kernel license covers the kernel. It does not cover boot loaders and hardware, and as far as I'm concerned, people who make their own hardware can design them any which way they want. Whether that means "booting only a specific kernel" or "sharks with lasers", I don't care. "" Back then Tivoization was about "consumer devices." Now that "Tivoization" is threatening to breach the walls of hacking devices, it feels a lot more personal.