7 ms·

I think that attitude grew out of the extreme frustration with not being able to fix basic printer bugs in the printer drivers inspite of having the expertise t

I think that attitude grew out of the extreme frustration with not being able to fix basic printer bugs in the printer drivers inspite of having the expertise to do it and waiting on the manufacturer who may or may not care enough to release fixes/enhancements. We take for granted the ability to being able to fix(or get fixed by 3rd parties) various physical things around us(you paid for the car, so it's yours to fix or break), so why not software? How would you feel if the car manufacturer attached locks to the hood of your car? Apple went one step ahead and did the equivalent of requiring to approve all accessories and anything to enhance your car. I may not agree with his conclusions, but I can understand his reasoning and that there is a method behind his (alleged) madness.

jshen 15y ago
"How would you feel if the car manufacturer attached locks to the hood of your car?" I don't think this analogy fits because there are open devices and people don't buy them. You don't buy them.
- pyre 15y ago
  This is more along the lines of, what if all cars had locks on their hoods, but there was an 'open' car with no locks, but it was only a Pinto. Then people point to the Pinto and say, "See no one is buying it! No one cares about openness!" The real conclusion is the there are relatively few people that are willing to go extremely out of their way to remain on the side of open-ness. If there were two products that could compete at the same level, people may skew towards the open one.
  - SoftwareMaven 15y ago
    I don't think that can happen, though. The investment required to make something like the iPhone needs to be recouped somehow. If it were free, people would be able to clone it, reducing the ability for the original developer to create v2. I would drop my Apple household if I could have a free environment that worked as seamlessly as my Apple environment, not just for me but for my wife and kids as well. I am making a tradeoff between free (though I don't believe a free phone exists, no matter how open Google claims they are) and easy. I'm willing to make that tradeoff. Calling me immoral (RMS, not you :) is insulting. That said, I am grateful for everything RMS has accomplished ideologically. I use emacs daily, but more important, things like GNU/Linux exist thanks to his work. I just want nothing to do with him.
    - danssig 15y ago
      This is what frustrates me so much with all the rabid "ZOMG, they want to take over the world!!!" fear mongering against Apple. Is is so hard to believe that Apple has just found that most users want their machine to just work as easy as possible? Is it so hard to believe they are just doing what their customers want?
      - loup-vaillant 15y ago
        It is. Their system could be just as usable if they gave you the root password. They could have provided the App Store by default, as a seal of approval, and let the users get their software from elsewhere as well. The garden is still walled, but you have a door for when you want out. Now without this App Store exclusivity, they probably wouldn't have been able to squeeze 30% out of the developers. But it wouldn't have affected usability.
        jshen 15y ago
        this adds complexity. Maybe you think that complexity is warranted, but you have to understand that there is a cost to it. You can always buy a product from someone else, or make your own if you think there is a demand that isn't being filled.
        loup-vaillant 15y ago
        What complexity are you talking about? Surely having 2 or 3 app stores instead of one isn't too daunting for the user? Surely allowing direct download of apps from the computer won't complicate things for those who don't want to bother? Don't say "if you don't like it, don't buy it". Choice is not enough. Most people are just incapable of doing informed decision about privacy. Heck, even I used GMail until two years ago. Plus, even if they are so capable, there is a tragedy of the commons here: if you surrender your data, it could be crossed-reference with the other's, and it may end up affecting even those who didn't surrender their data (GMail is an obvious example: they collect data about whoever writes to their users, even when they host their own mail server). This is way, way more serious than your comment suggests.
  - _delirium 15y ago
    People also assume, in the car case, that the law will be rational about allowing them to circumvent restrictions. Locks on the hood? You bought the car, so cut 'em. It can void the warranty, but it can't be made illegal. In fact, the law usually goes in the other direction: it's illegal for manufacturers to actively put in some kinds of restrictions, like first-party-only replacement parts or only-serviceable-by-manufacturer vehicles. Putting a lock on the hood, if it's intended to prevent third-party servicing, is probably illegal in the first place.
    - bad_user 15y ago
      So why not do that to software too?
  - jshen 15y ago
    I agree, but the larger point I'm trying to make is that there is a reason we don't see good open devices in the market. So many tech people complain about this issue, yet none have succeeded in making one. If so many people are sure there is a need that isn't being fulfilled, then why don't they fill the need?
onan_barbarian 15y ago
I would be quite upset if the car manufacturer attached locks to the hood of my car without warning me. I might be considerably less upset if there were both "cars with locks on their hoods" and "regular cars without locks on their hoods" and if I was offered the choice between them. It's quite possible to support the choice between FOSS and commercial software, and think that FOSS is a great thing for people to develop, without deciding that people whole build closed-source software are "immoral". Don't like it? Don't buy it. I know this is a bit disingenuous and there are corner cases where it's hard to avoid closed-source. There are even a few cases where no amount of consumer choice (even, say, someone who avoids smartphones and 'cool gadgets') will allow you to escape closed source (e.g. government services available as closed-source software only or working only on platforms where you have to use closed source). The point still stands, broadly.
- bad_user 15y ago
  You're talking about choice, but software platforms are natural monopolies and the winner takes all. Sometimes there is room for a second place in case you carve out a niche, but there is no room for a third place. So enjoy your freedom of choice, for now, but I remember a time when Microsoft was so strong that alternatives to Windows seemed destined to die. And alternatives would have died, if Microsoft had their way with Trusted Computing ... and personally I could see Microsoft banning Firefox because "it duplicates existing functionality". But hey, Apple is cool, right?
- RyanMcGreal 15y ago
  What if it were a criminal offence to break the lock on your car's hood so you could fix the engine yourself? That's the world the Free Software movement struggles against.
Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
> How would you feel if the car manufacturer attached locks to the hood of your car? Interestingly cars are increasingly heading in this direction. The level of on-board electronics is raising the bar significantly on exactly who has the ability and equipment to service or fix a car. Even something as simple as resetting the service indicators often requires specialist equipment in newer models.
danssig 15y ago
>How would you feel if the car manufacturer attached locks to the hood of your car? Why would I care? I don't know anything about what's under the hood and I don't want to. You know what would be great about them locking the hood? If they do that they can't expect me to do maintenance things like pouring in oil, windshield wiper fluid or any of that stuff. The more "freedom" you have on a computer the more maintenance you have to do. Linux is the most "free" OS and it also takes the most effort to administrate. Every second I spend administering a computer is a second I'm spending on something I don't care about and doesn't get me any closer to what my business is about.
- rdtsc 15y ago
  However you fail to see that if you can open the hood of the car so can a mechanic. You are free to go and sign a contract that is just between you and him, that says that you will not open the hood of the car, but they will on any sign of trouble. As soon as something is wrong, you call them and they will come and do maintenance for you. Congratulations, you just bought and installed Redhat Linux. Have problems configuring your software, call them up and they will be happy to help you. They are great, actually But then someone wants to fix their car but they don't have the money to pay a mechanic. Instead they have all the time they need, so they can read through manuals and try to fix things themselves. Congratulations, you just downloaded, installed and configured CentOS. Have fun playing with it, tearing its guts out, recompiling its kernel and doing whatever you want with it. Now you are focused on features. "Oh look, super user friendly interface! Never have to open the hood of my car". That is great! What about anti-features. Now that you can't open the hood of your car. One or two car manufacturers can start installing tracking systems that report your position, record all your conversations, all your phone calls, etc. Why? Well because maybe they were approached by the FBI or because they decided they could sell all this as marketing info to third parties. Now only that, there was legislation proposed to make it actually illegal to open the hood of your car. Think about that. You bought it, you open the hood, and police come to your door to arrest your for it.
  - nkassis 15y ago
    let's not forget that it would kill the entire car service industry in favor of the dealerships. Thinking of the financial impact on society as a result is already scary but it also doesn't let me choose between getting a cheaper oil change at quickylube or paying twice the price at my dealer. (You get to decide how valuable the dealer guarantee is).

jshen 15y ago

"How would you feel if the car manufacturer attached locks to the hood of your car?" I don't think this analogy fits because there are open devices and people don't buy them. You don't buy them.

pyre 15y ago
This is more along the lines of, what if all cars had locks on their hoods, but there was an 'open' car with no locks, but it was only a Pinto. Then people point to the Pinto and say, "See no one is buying it! No one cares about openness!" The real conclusion is the there are relatively few people that are willing to go extremely out of their way to remain on the side of open-ness. If there were two products that could compete at the same level, people may skew towards the open one.
- SoftwareMaven 15y ago
  I don't think that can happen, though. The investment required to make something like the iPhone needs to be recouped somehow. If it were free, people would be able to clone it, reducing the ability for the original developer to create v2. I would drop my Apple household if I could have a free environment that worked as seamlessly as my Apple environment, not just for me but for my wife and kids as well. I am making a tradeoff between free (though I don't believe a free phone exists, no matter how open Google claims they are) and easy. I'm willing to make that tradeoff. Calling me immoral (RMS, not you :) is insulting. That said, I am grateful for everything RMS has accomplished ideologically. I use emacs daily, but more important, things like GNU/Linux exist thanks to his work. I just want nothing to do with him.
  - danssig 15y ago
    This is what frustrates me so much with all the rabid "ZOMG, they want to take over the world!!!" fear mongering against Apple. Is is so hard to believe that Apple has just found that most users want their machine to just work as easy as possible? Is it so hard to believe they are just doing what their customers want?
    - loup-vaillant 15y ago
      It is. Their system could be just as usable if they gave you the root password. They could have provided the App Store by default, as a seal of approval, and let the users get their software from elsewhere as well. The garden is still walled, but you have a door for when you want out. Now without this App Store exclusivity, they probably wouldn't have been able to squeeze 30% out of the developers. But it wouldn't have affected usability.
      - jshen 15y ago
        this adds complexity. Maybe you think that complexity is warranted, but you have to understand that there is a cost to it. You can always buy a product from someone else, or make your own if you think there is a demand that isn't being filled.
        loup-vaillant 15y ago
        What complexity are you talking about? Surely having 2 or 3 app stores instead of one isn't too daunting for the user? Surely allowing direct download of apps from the computer won't complicate things for those who don't want to bother? Don't say "if you don't like it, don't buy it". Choice is not enough. Most people are just incapable of doing informed decision about privacy. Heck, even I used GMail until two years ago. Plus, even if they are so capable, there is a tragedy of the commons here: if you surrender your data, it could be crossed-reference with the other's, and it may end up affecting even those who didn't surrender their data (GMail is an obvious example: they collect data about whoever writes to their users, even when they host their own mail server). This is way, way more serious than your comment suggests.
- _delirium 15y ago
  People also assume, in the car case, that the law will be rational about allowing them to circumvent restrictions. Locks on the hood? You bought the car, so cut 'em. It can void the warranty, but it can't be made illegal. In fact, the law usually goes in the other direction: it's illegal for manufacturers to actively put in some kinds of restrictions, like first-party-only replacement parts or only-serviceable-by-manufacturer vehicles. Putting a lock on the hood, if it's intended to prevent third-party servicing, is probably illegal in the first place.
  - bad_user 15y ago
    So why not do that to software too?
- jshen 15y ago
  I agree, but the larger point I'm trying to make is that there is a reason we don't see good open devices in the market. So many tech people complain about this issue, yet none have succeeded in making one. If so many people are sure there is a need that isn't being fulfilled, then why don't they fill the need?

onan_barbarian 15y ago

I would be quite upset if the car manufacturer attached locks to the hood of my car without warning me. I might be considerably less upset if there were both "cars with locks on their hoods" and "regular cars without locks on their hoods" and if I was offered the choice between them. It's quite possible to support the choice between FOSS and commercial software, and think that FOSS is a great thing for people to develop, without deciding that people whole build closed-source software are "immoral". Don't like it? Don't buy it. I know this is a bit disingenuous and there are corner cases where it's hard to avoid closed-source. There are even a few cases where no amount of consumer choice (even, say, someone who avoids smartphones and 'cool gadgets') will allow you to escape closed source (e.g. government services available as closed-source software only or working only on platforms where you have to use closed source). The point still stands, broadly.

bad_user 15y ago
You're talking about choice, but software platforms are natural monopolies and the winner takes all. Sometimes there is room for a second place in case you carve out a niche, but there is no room for a third place. So enjoy your freedom of choice, for now, but I remember a time when Microsoft was so strong that alternatives to Windows seemed destined to die. And alternatives would have died, if Microsoft had their way with Trusted Computing ... and personally I could see Microsoft banning Firefox because "it duplicates existing functionality". But hey, Apple is cool, right?
RyanMcGreal 15y ago
What if it were a criminal offence to break the lock on your car's hood so you could fix the engine yourself? That's the world the Free Software movement struggles against.

Tyrannosaurs 15y ago

> How would you feel if the car manufacturer attached locks to the hood of your car? Interestingly cars are increasingly heading in this direction. The level of on-board electronics is raising the bar significantly on exactly who has the ability and equipment to service or fix a car. Even something as simple as resetting the service indicators often requires specialist equipment in newer models.

danssig 15y ago

>How would you feel if the car manufacturer attached locks to the hood of your car? Why would I care? I don't know anything about what's under the hood and I don't want to. You know what would be great about them locking the hood? If they do that they can't expect me to do maintenance things like pouring in oil, windshield wiper fluid or any of that stuff. The more "freedom" you have on a computer the more maintenance you have to do. Linux is the most "free" OS and it also takes the most effort to administrate. Every second I spend administering a computer is a second I'm spending on something I don't care about and doesn't get me any closer to what my business is about.

rdtsc 15y ago
However you fail to see that if you can open the hood of the car so can a mechanic. You are free to go and sign a contract that is just between you and him, that says that you will not open the hood of the car, but they will on any sign of trouble. As soon as something is wrong, you call them and they will come and do maintenance for you. Congratulations, you just bought and installed Redhat Linux. Have problems configuring your software, call them up and they will be happy to help you. They are great, actually But then someone wants to fix their car but they don't have the money to pay a mechanic. Instead they have all the time they need, so they can read through manuals and try to fix things themselves. Congratulations, you just downloaded, installed and configured CentOS. Have fun playing with it, tearing its guts out, recompiling its kernel and doing whatever you want with it. Now you are focused on features. "Oh look, super user friendly interface! Never have to open the hood of my car". That is great! What about anti-features. Now that you can't open the hood of your car. One or two car manufacturers can start installing tracking systems that report your position, record all your conversations, all your phone calls, etc. Why? Well because maybe they were approached by the FBI or because they decided they could sell all this as marketing info to third parties. Now only that, there was legislation proposed to make it actually illegal to open the hood of your car. Think about that. You bought it, you open the hood, and police come to your door to arrest your for it.
- nkassis 15y ago
  let's not forget that it would kill the entire car service industry in favor of the dealerships. Thinking of the financial impact on society as a result is already scary but it also doesn't let me choose between getting a cheaper oil change at quickylube or paying twice the price at my dealer. (You get to decide how valuable the dealer guarantee is).