3 ms·

> This general problem is a symptom of a major issue regarding the use of software that does not respect the freedom of its users. Developers are not users. I

> This general problem is a symptom of a major issue regarding the use of software that does not respect the freedom of its users. Developers are not users. I don't particularly want my mobile phone to respect the "freedom of its developers". I do want to be sure that no app I install at a whim hogs the disk down, installs spyware or f*ks the phone when I'm in need to make an important call. If I wanted "developer freedom" I'd choose OpenMoko. Strangely, millions of us did not. > Every non-apple developer and user is required to bend to the will of the programmers who develop the proprietary iOS. He's only "required" so if he chooses to use iOS. And if he chooses to use iOS, it's because the platform attracted him, and one thing that attracts a lot of people to it it's the "it just works" and "you don't have to manage it". > Any negative choices or limitations imposed by Apple Inc. are virtually uncircumventable. Yeah. Except if you jailbreak. > On the other hand, if users and developers in a community are free to view, modify and share the source code of the operating system and programs they are using, then that creates a dynamic where software cannot remain defective by design, something which cannot be said about Apple's hardware or software. Yes. Then you get the mighty OpenMoko. Not defective by design. Yay! > If we were talking about free (as in speech) software, users would have control of their data, and their choice of how to manage it; not some distant programmers working for a corporation's bottom line. Yes, for a brief time in college I'd quote RMS too. You'll get over it.

sudoman 15y ago
> He's only "required" [to do] so if he chooses to use iOS. And if he chooses to use iOS, it's because the platform attracted him, and one thing that attracts a lot of people to it it's the "it just works" and "you don't have to manage it". That is entirely true, and yes that is part of the problem. The polished nature of a proprietary operating system is like a polished jail. It may be nice and roomy now, but what about in 5 or 10 years when everyone has an iPhone and Apple has one or no competitors? Can we stop them from shrinking our room if there is no free alternative? > Except if you jailbreak Actually, no. You can access the filesystem, but you can't install your own free (or proprietary) operating system on the iPhone because there isn't one. Free software isn't all about nice looking features (though they tend to get developed in time), it's largely about creating a dynamic that ensures the freedom of the user, and that protects them from anti-features, both blatant and subtle. It may not sound like much on the surface, but it's an important issue, especially if someday someone in power says that they don't approve of what you do with your computing devices. The user of a program is controlled by the program and the program is controlled by the programmer. Do you wish to be controlled by someone who won't show you what the program does, and doesn't allow others to make improvements? There _are_ alternatives, and they are not perfect. I don't expect everyone to be an early adopter of every free technology, but there are many, especially at HN, who would be able to use them and to help them grow to the point where most people would be able to use them quite easily. Developing free software is an act of generosity, because it is much needed in our world, where we are becoming so dependent upon computing technology.
- dextorious 15y ago
  >That is entirely true, and yes that is part of the problem. The polished nature of a proprietary operating system is like a polished jail. It may be nice and roomy now, but what about in 5 or 10 years when everyone has an iPhone and Apple has one or no competitors? Can we stop them from shrinking our room if there is no free alternative? Well, for one our room was fairly small itself before the iPhone. Actually, not small --inexistent. The only reason the touch-smartphone room exists is because Apple made the iPhone and then everybody copied it. So, if they have no competitor in 10 years, more power to them. But I think that that can't happen. Even MS at the height of its power has had competitors... And today we have Android in several versions already. > Actually, no. You can access the filesystem, but you can't install your own free (or proprietary) operating system on the iPhone because there isn't one. Why that is? Because the OSF/GNU etc never cared about a mobile OS until Apple made one. Suddenly freedom in the mobile apps was important. Why wasn't it important when Nokia, Sony, Ericsson et al ruled? Because it took Apple (and Google after that) to show that a mobile OS can be a nice platform to use.
  - Terretta 15y ago
    > the OSF/GNU etc never cared about a mobile OS until Apple made one. Suddenly freedom in the mobile apps was important. Why wasn't it important when Nokia, Sony, Ericsson et al ruled? Thank you. Nobody wants to remember that.

sudoman 15y ago

> He's only "required" [to do] so if he chooses to use iOS. And if he chooses to use iOS, it's because the platform attracted him, and one thing that attracts a lot of people to it it's the "it just works" and "you don't have to manage it". That is entirely true, and yes that is part of the problem. The polished nature of a proprietary operating system is like a polished jail. It may be nice and roomy now, but what about in 5 or 10 years when everyone has an iPhone and Apple has one or no competitors? Can we stop them from shrinking our room if there is no free alternative? > Except if you jailbreak Actually, no. You can access the filesystem, but you can't install your own free (or proprietary) operating system on the iPhone because there isn't one. Free software isn't all about nice looking features (though they tend to get developed in time), it's largely about creating a dynamic that ensures the freedom of the user, and that protects them from anti-features, both blatant and subtle. It may not sound like much on the surface, but it's an important issue, especially if someday someone in power says that they don't approve of what you do with your computing devices. The user of a program is controlled by the program and the program is controlled by the programmer. Do you wish to be controlled by someone who won't show you what the program does, and doesn't allow others to make improvements? There _are_ alternatives, and they are not perfect. I don't expect everyone to be an early adopter of every free technology, but there are many, especially at HN, who would be able to use them and to help them grow to the point where most people would be able to use them quite easily. Developing free software is an act of generosity, because it is much needed in our world, where we are becoming so dependent upon computing technology.

dextorious 15y ago
>That is entirely true, and yes that is part of the problem. The polished nature of a proprietary operating system is like a polished jail. It may be nice and roomy now, but what about in 5 or 10 years when everyone has an iPhone and Apple has one or no competitors? Can we stop them from shrinking our room if there is no free alternative? Well, for one our room was fairly small itself before the iPhone. Actually, not small --inexistent. The only reason the touch-smartphone room exists is because Apple made the iPhone and then everybody copied it. So, if they have no competitor in 10 years, more power to them. But I think that that can't happen. Even MS at the height of its power has had competitors... And today we have Android in several versions already. > Actually, no. You can access the filesystem, but you can't install your own free (or proprietary) operating system on the iPhone because there isn't one. Why that is? Because the OSF/GNU etc never cared about a mobile OS until Apple made one. Suddenly freedom in the mobile apps was important. Why wasn't it important when Nokia, Sony, Ericsson et al ruled? Because it took Apple (and Google after that) to show that a mobile OS can be a nice platform to use.
- Terretta 15y ago
  > the OSF/GNU etc never cared about a mobile OS until Apple made one. Suddenly freedom in the mobile apps was important. Why wasn't it important when Nokia, Sony, Ericsson et al ruled? Thank you. Nobody wants to remember that.