5 ms·

It seems short sighted to say that some arbitrary and subjective personal belief system about technology makes one system inherently "better" / "superior" to an

It seems short sighted to say that some arbitrary and subjective personal belief system about technology makes one system inherently "better" / "superior" to another. It's true that the FSF and those who support them are more concerned with the long-term future of computing availability than about whether they can GSD in the next few days or weeks. I'm assuming that that's what you mean by "short sighted"? Well, that's a bit snarky. I chose OS X above (though I'm moving more and more in the direction of Linux on the desktop again). I guess it just struck me as odd to use "short sighted" to describe the people who, for idealistic reasons, are willing to take a short-term hit to productivity to ensure long-term capability.

thatjoshguy 15y ago
Just out of curiosity, what is making you move towards Linux? The huge appeal of OS X to me is, as someone said on here recently, it's basically *BSD with a fancy window manager and 1-to-1 hardware/software integration.
- randallsquared 15y ago
  The way OS X is being locked down. In 10.8, signing is optional and even if you tell your system not to allow unsigned, you can bypass it on a case by case basis. In the next OS X, we'll probably move a bit farther in that direction, and at one per year, the OS X of 2016 will probably refuse to run unsigned applications at all, for excellent reasons involving security and malware, etc. I'm sure there will be a way to turn it off, but when it's basically impossible to get more than a few users unless you submit to signing, applications like Bittorrent will either submit or find themselves reduced to developers-only status. If they submit, Apple will be able to remove them at any time (for the vast majority of users, who won't know how or want to "root" their Macs). Even if Apple never chooses to use this maliciously -- and I don't think they would for a long time, if ever -- it's going to be only a matter of time before some group sues them to use it to stop infringement or something. I don't want to run a system where, by design, the manufacturer can remove my ability to run applications I've installed after the fact. So, even though I'm happier in general with the polish and fit of OS X than current desktop linuxes, that's where I'm headed.
  - rbarooah 15y ago
    This is a one sided narrative which ignores the possibility that code signing provides meaningful anti-malware benefits. What would you have them do instead?
    - randallsquared 15y ago
      I did mention those benefits in passing: "for excellent reasons involving security and malware". I don't disagree that this can provide those benefits; I just don't feel that they're worth the cost to me, personally. Also, I don't have any notion of how they could provide what I and other technically savvy people want and what the main base of computer users need at the same time.
      - rbarooah 15y ago
        The only thing you seem to be saying you want is to be free from the fear of unintended negative consequences of code signing. It's tautological that nobody can both provide something and freedom from the fear of the unintended consequences of that same thing simultaneously. On the other hand, since the only way to judge the trustworthiness of code is to know its provenance, I don't see how we can avoid some kind of signing becoming ubiquitous. To me that means that free software must eventually develop a decentralized code signing scheme.
        Natsu 15y ago
        I think his problem is with those people who would take away the user's freedom to choose who to trust.
        rbarooah 15y ago
        Slippery slope fallacies notwithstanding, Apple isn't proposing to take anything away. My point is that the alternatives don't provide the user with the option to choose who to trust to begin with. The ability to trust code is something that has to be created with engineering and design.
- technomancy 15y ago
  OS X has a few things going for it, but even Mac fans will tell you the window manager is not one of them; it's painfully primitive.
  - downx3 15y ago
    Which WM do you prefer?
    - technomancy 15y ago
      Right now I'm using XMonad, but there are a number of other tiling WMs under X that actually manage windows for you instead of placing that burden on the user.
      - jsz0 15y ago
        There are a number of OSX utilities that do this well.
        almost 15y ago
        Know any that don't really really suck?
  - sirclueless 15y ago
    Even if the WM itself is somewhat primitive, Exposé and integrated swipe gestures more than make up for its shortcomings.
tseabrooks 15y ago
Sorry, I didn't communicate well. The FSF movement is surely thinking "long term" and these people aren't necessarily "short sighted". What I do think is short sighted is using that as the primary metric for the quality of an Operating System; That leaves and awful lot of pretty important bits and pieces out. Admittedly, some people just prefer Linux / BSD... and thats fine. However, the parent comment I was replying to gave me the impression that, for them, the Free Software aspect was the "end-all, be-all" of metrics for measuring the quality of the OS.
- __abc 15y ago
  Use whatever metrics is most important to you when deciding which OS to run. Some is "free as in speech", some focus on "does this help me git shit down a lot faster" ... some, well, who knows. Who cares for that matter. I pick a Mac laptop as I can run OSX, Windows, and any necessary flavors of Linux (Metric #1). Plus, it has a nice physical shell and for me, that's worth paying some extra cash (Metric #1). But that is me. I assume no cary over in what works for me with other people. Laptops are as diverse and affordable as shoes (or any other commodity consumer product) and people pick these things based on whatever suits their fancy at that time. In regards to getting shit done, I can pretty much get shit done on any distro for the most part once past any learning curve (if there is one).
danudey 15y ago
> It's true that the FSF and those who support them are more concerned with the long-term future of computing availability than about whether they can GSD in the next few days or weeks. But what's the point then? If it's just an academic process then that's fine, but for the purposes of determining a useful day-to-day primary system, it seems like 'It's free software' is a terrible metric on its own. All else being equal, of course, I'd rather free than closed, but all else is not equal. It feels sometimes like this sort of 'free therefore better' ideology blinds the people doing the actual development to the fact that if they made the system more productive and intuitive for people to use, then more people would use it, and that's a net benefit to everyone. Perhaps if they DID focus on 'whether they can GSD in the next few days or weeks', then their project would reach more people, and through that more people would be exposed to the (legitimate) benefits of free software.
- nileshtrivedi 15y ago
  Isn't that equal to always optimizing locally, as in a greedy algorithm, and therefore ending up at an suboptimal destination? Why isn't a short-term productivity loss acceptable if it improves things in the long-term? I think it boils down to the difference between idealists and realists. Realists are always optimizing locally whereas long-term change is always brought by the persisting efforts of the idealists. I also sense that you speak to FOSS as in "us vs them". You want to wait till their products become better than anything else while they are looking for comrades in their campaign to reach there.

thatjoshguy 15y ago

Just out of curiosity, what is making you move towards Linux? The huge appeal of OS X to me is, as someone said on here recently, it's basically *BSD with a fancy window manager and 1-to-1 hardware/software integration.

randallsquared 15y ago
The way OS X is being locked down. In 10.8, signing is optional and even if you tell your system not to allow unsigned, you can bypass it on a case by case basis. In the next OS X, we'll probably move a bit farther in that direction, and at one per year, the OS X of 2016 will probably refuse to run unsigned applications at all, for excellent reasons involving security and malware, etc. I'm sure there will be a way to turn it off, but when it's basically impossible to get more than a few users unless you submit to signing, applications like Bittorrent will either submit or find themselves reduced to developers-only status. If they submit, Apple will be able to remove them at any time (for the vast majority of users, who won't know how or want to "root" their Macs). Even if Apple never chooses to use this maliciously -- and I don't think they would for a long time, if ever -- it's going to be only a matter of time before some group sues them to use it to stop infringement or something. I don't want to run a system where, by design, the manufacturer can remove my ability to run applications I've installed after the fact. So, even though I'm happier in general with the polish and fit of OS X than current desktop linuxes, that's where I'm headed.
- rbarooah 15y ago
  This is a one sided narrative which ignores the possibility that code signing provides meaningful anti-malware benefits. What would you have them do instead?
  - randallsquared 15y ago
    I did mention those benefits in passing: "for excellent reasons involving security and malware". I don't disagree that this can provide those benefits; I just don't feel that they're worth the cost to me, personally. Also, I don't have any notion of how they could provide what I and other technically savvy people want and what the main base of computer users need at the same time.
    - rbarooah 15y ago
      The only thing you seem to be saying you want is to be free from the fear of unintended negative consequences of code signing. It's tautological that nobody can both provide something and freedom from the fear of the unintended consequences of that same thing simultaneously. On the other hand, since the only way to judge the trustworthiness of code is to know its provenance, I don't see how we can avoid some kind of signing becoming ubiquitous. To me that means that free software must eventually develop a decentralized code signing scheme.
      - Natsu 15y ago
        I think his problem is with those people who would take away the user's freedom to choose who to trust.
        rbarooah 15y ago
        Slippery slope fallacies notwithstanding, Apple isn't proposing to take anything away. My point is that the alternatives don't provide the user with the option to choose who to trust to begin with. The ability to trust code is something that has to be created with engineering and design.
technomancy 15y ago
OS X has a few things going for it, but even Mac fans will tell you the window manager is not one of them; it's painfully primitive.
- downx3 15y ago
  Which WM do you prefer?
  - technomancy 15y ago
    Right now I'm using XMonad, but there are a number of other tiling WMs under X that actually manage windows for you instead of placing that burden on the user.
    - jsz0 15y ago
      There are a number of OSX utilities that do this well.
      - almost 15y ago
        Know any that don't really really suck?
- sirclueless 15y ago
  Even if the WM itself is somewhat primitive, Exposé and integrated swipe gestures more than make up for its shortcomings.

tseabrooks 15y ago

Sorry, I didn't communicate well. The FSF movement is surely thinking "long term" and these people aren't necessarily "short sighted". What I do think is short sighted is using that as the primary metric for the quality of an Operating System; That leaves and awful lot of pretty important bits and pieces out. Admittedly, some people just prefer Linux / BSD... and thats fine. However, the parent comment I was replying to gave me the impression that, for them, the Free Software aspect was the "end-all, be-all" of metrics for measuring the quality of the OS.

__abc 15y ago
Use whatever metrics is most important to you when deciding which OS to run. Some is "free as in speech", some focus on "does this help me git shit down a lot faster" ... some, well, who knows. Who cares for that matter. I pick a Mac laptop as I can run OSX, Windows, and any necessary flavors of Linux (Metric #1). Plus, it has a nice physical shell and for me, that's worth paying some extra cash (Metric #1). But that is me. I assume no cary over in what works for me with other people. Laptops are as diverse and affordable as shoes (or any other commodity consumer product) and people pick these things based on whatever suits their fancy at that time. In regards to getting shit done, I can pretty much get shit done on any distro for the most part once past any learning curve (if there is one).

danudey 15y ago

> It's true that the FSF and those who support them are more concerned with the long-term future of computing availability than about whether they can GSD in the next few days or weeks. But what's the point then? If it's just an academic process then that's fine, but for the purposes of determining a useful day-to-day primary system, it seems like 'It's free software' is a terrible metric on its own. All else being equal, of course, I'd rather free than closed, but all else is not equal. It feels sometimes like this sort of 'free therefore better' ideology blinds the people doing the actual development to the fact that if they made the system more productive and intuitive for people to use, then more people would use it, and that's a net benefit to everyone. Perhaps if they DID focus on 'whether they can GSD in the next few days or weeks', then their project would reach more people, and through that more people would be exposed to the (legitimate) benefits of free software.

nileshtrivedi 15y ago
Isn't that equal to always optimizing locally, as in a greedy algorithm, and therefore ending up at an suboptimal destination? Why isn't a short-term productivity loss acceptable if it improves things in the long-term? I think it boils down to the difference between idealists and realists. Realists are always optimizing locally whereas long-term change is always brought by the persisting efforts of the idealists. I also sense that you speak to FOSS as in "us vs them". You want to wait till their products become better than anything else while they are looking for comrades in their campaign to reach there.