7 ms·

Oh my god I am so tired of seeing comments like this one on the internet. 1) Most users do not need or want root access to their mobile phones or even any of t

by ebbv 13y ago

Oh my god I am so tired of seeing comments like this one on the internet. 1) Most users do not need or want root access to their mobile phones or even any of their devices. There's a reason that in UNIX land users and root are separate things. 2) If you really want root, you CAN get it. Yes some manufacturers make it harder than others, but that's again because 99.99...% of users have no need or desire for it, and making it easier for the tiny, tiny number of people who want it is not a worthwhile investment. Now you can argue that their efforts to make it even harder to get root access are shitty, and I won't disagree with you, but nobody's forcing you to buy these devices. 3) DOS/Windows 95/etc. are not awesome. Pretending it's awesome just because it was "open" (no permission system) and "backwards compatible" (debatable in many cases) is stupid. You're letting nostalgia or your hatred for "closed" systems bias you. Just because thing A isn't perfect doesn't make thing B great. Both thing A and thing B can be shitty, or they can both be good. 4) Linux is fucking everywhere in 2013. It owns the web. It is on most mobile phones. Even Apple devices are running a fork of BSD. So, how is this a Pyrrhic victory? Just because it's not exactly what you want? I'm so sorry. There's a, frankly, revolting tendency in geek culture to be absolutist. That if something is not 100%, exactly, totally, purely aligned to your personal vision it's fucking garbage, or worse, evil and bad. This is childish and it's time to grow up.

oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
"Linux is fucking everywhere ... Even Apple devices are running a fork of BSD." BSD's not Linux!
- ebbv 13y ago
  I know that. Everyone knows that. But BSD is also free and if you're in favor of people using Linux you should be in favor of people using BSD, IMHO.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    The freedom of BSD is irrelevant to people using iOS.
    - quaint- 13y ago
      Which is the ultimate problem of the BSD licence.
      - slacka 13y ago
        Problem with BSD license? We are discussing two separate issues here 1) Ability to unlock or root your device to run any OS 2) Having access to an open App Ecosystem. The GNU license doesn't help with either of this issues. There are plenty of GNU/Android devices shipped with locked boot loaders. And nothing is stopping Google from locking down their App Store like Apples except a different corporate policy.
        icebraining 13y ago
        I don't think there's a problem with the BSD license, but the GNU license is actually supposed to help with those issues, just not the version used by the Linux kernel (v2).
    - jebblue 13y ago
      Actually it's the only thing that has the potential to convince me to buy a product from Apple. I haven't yet but if it were closed, no way I would even consider it.
      - serans 13y ago
        As I understand it, the BSD licence (which BTW only some elements of Mac OS X have, as happens with some elements of Windows) allows to redistribute binaries, modified or not, provided you keep the copyright notice. In that case, how are Apple products "less closed" than, say, Microsoft's? Note: I barely use Apple or Microsoft, so the question is NOT rhetorical.
        UNIXgod 13y ago
        Referring to the Berkeley TCP/IP stack?
venomsnake 13y ago
1) When the user owns the device it is up to him to decide what to do with it and not the manufacturer. So while they may not have the need for it, they definitely have the right to it if they so desire. 2) No you cant. You must use exploits/vulnerabilities usually. The only vendor that I know of that just sends you unlock code on request is HTC. 3) Yesterday I played Diablo 1 on my windows 8 machine. 3 months before that - Lotus (the game). That is measured in decades. How backwards capability is debatable. 4) Yes linux is everywhere. But invisible - moving the servers, or hidden below deep layers of customized software in the consumer devices. The linux ideology - nowhere to be seen. Having the ability to run simple firewall to control what processes use your data plan is hardly absolutism. Or editing memory value of a running process. Edit: Do you support the Chinese Great Firewall - because there is no difference in restricting access to internet and to software in principle?
- ebbv 13y ago
  1) Your response has nothing at all to do with my original point. 2) I didn't say you can do it easily, I said you CAN do it. 3) Yes and I can run decades old UNIX software on OS X or Ubuntu. So what? My point about debatable backwards compatibility is that some old DOS software does NOT work well in modern Windows. Some does, some doesn't. If you haven't experienced problems, lucky you. 4) You made my point for me here. I'm not arguing any further, you're clearly a zealot, and have exactly the kind of attitude I was talking about.
  - venomsnake 13y ago
    On number 2 - you also cannot do it legally not only easily. The legality of jailbraiking is quite grey territory.
  - raylu 13y ago
    > That if something is not 100%, exactly, totally, purely aligned to your personal vision it's fucking garbage, or worse, evil and bad. > I'm not arguing any further, you're clearly a zealot
- rubinelli 13y ago
icebraining 13y ago
You're just intolerant of other people's principles. Everyone is an absolutist about the rights they care about, but since you don't find software freedom to be particularly important, nobody else can complain about the status quo. Well, to some of us, and after the Really Important Things™ that most of us agree with, we also find software freedom to be extremely important.
- ebbv 13y ago
  I'm intolerant? I'm not the one ranting about how something I disagree with is evil and bad. I'm the one preaching tolerance here. Since you know absolutely nothing about me I find it hilarious that you would make assertions about my values.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    venomsnake was criticizing things (closed products), you were criticizing people. Yes, I find your position the intolerant one.
  - venomsnake 13y ago
    Well censorship is evil. Apple have the ability to censor what they put on their stores. (The drones tracking program) So we got the evil part. The 30% apple cut increases the software prices for the end user or prevents a software for even coming to the platform (thinking of skydrive here). That is bad for the end user.
    - octopus 13y ago
      Censorship is evil, I could agree with that. About your second phrase now, you need to take into account the entire picture: * If you plan to sell an app on Windows Store you will need Microsoft approval, no app will be published without that. Also, Microsoft will take 30% from your app price (until you make $20k, after which the cut is 20%). * The only free market seems to be Google Play, after you pay a fixed fee you can publish your app. I'm sure even Google has the right to remove your app if you infringe the rules of your developer contract.
papsosouid 13y ago
>Oh my god I am so tired of seeing comments like this one on the internet. Me too, please stop making them. The fact that you don't care about owning things you purchase does not imply that the entire concept of owning things you purchase is stupid and nobody should talk about it.
wtbob 13y ago
> Most users do not need or want root access to their mobile phones or even any of their devices. Irrelevant: they may not _want_ it, but they have a _right_ to it. > That if something is not 100%, exactly, totally, purely aligned to your personal vision it's fucking garbage, or worse, evil and bad. Sometimes it _is_ evil and bad not to do exactly the right thing.
prof_hobart 13y ago
You seem to be conflating two separate things - the question of whether the core principles of GNU, Linux and other 'free' software are important, and whether they have been achieved. Venomsnake's point very much seems to fall into the latter category - having devices that you need to jump through hoops, exploit holes etc, in order to be able to get full access to them is hardly a 'victory' for Linux (even if those devices are mostly running a form of Linux). You seem to be trying to argue against this by saying those principles aren't important to most people. That may or may not be true - but regardless of that, it's not achieving what Linux set out to deliver.

by ebbv 13y ago

oneeyedpigeon 13y ago

"Linux is fucking everywhere ... Even Apple devices are running a fork of BSD." BSD's not Linux!

ebbv 13y ago
I know that. Everyone knows that. But BSD is also free and if you're in favor of people using Linux you should be in favor of people using BSD, IMHO.
- icebraining 13y ago
  The freedom of BSD is irrelevant to people using iOS.
  - quaint- 13y ago
    Which is the ultimate problem of the BSD licence.
    - slacka 13y ago
      Problem with BSD license? We are discussing two separate issues here 1) Ability to unlock or root your device to run any OS 2) Having access to an open App Ecosystem. The GNU license doesn't help with either of this issues. There are plenty of GNU/Android devices shipped with locked boot loaders. And nothing is stopping Google from locking down their App Store like Apples except a different corporate policy.
      - icebraining 13y ago
        I don't think there's a problem with the BSD license, but the GNU license is actually supposed to help with those issues, just not the version used by the Linux kernel (v2).
  - jebblue 13y ago
    Actually it's the only thing that has the potential to convince me to buy a product from Apple. I haven't yet but if it were closed, no way I would even consider it.
    - serans 13y ago
      As I understand it, the BSD licence (which BTW only some elements of Mac OS X have, as happens with some elements of Windows) allows to redistribute binaries, modified or not, provided you keep the copyright notice. In that case, how are Apple products "less closed" than, say, Microsoft's? Note: I barely use Apple or Microsoft, so the question is NOT rhetorical.
      - UNIXgod 13y ago
        Referring to the Berkeley TCP/IP stack?

venomsnake 13y ago

1) When the user owns the device it is up to him to decide what to do with it and not the manufacturer. So while they may not have the need for it, they definitely have the right to it if they so desire. 2) No you cant. You must use exploits/vulnerabilities usually. The only vendor that I know of that just sends you unlock code on request is HTC. 3) Yesterday I played Diablo 1 on my windows 8 machine. 3 months before that - Lotus (the game). That is measured in decades. How backwards capability is debatable. 4) Yes linux is everywhere. But invisible - moving the servers, or hidden below deep layers of customized software in the consumer devices. The linux ideology - nowhere to be seen. Having the ability to run simple firewall to control what processes use your data plan is hardly absolutism. Or editing memory value of a running process. Edit: Do you support the Chinese Great Firewall - because there is no difference in restricting access to internet and to software in principle?

ebbv 13y ago
1) Your response has nothing at all to do with my original point. 2) I didn't say you can do it easily, I said you CAN do it. 3) Yes and I can run decades old UNIX software on OS X or Ubuntu. So what? My point about debatable backwards compatibility is that some old DOS software does NOT work well in modern Windows. Some does, some doesn't. If you haven't experienced problems, lucky you. 4) You made my point for me here. I'm not arguing any further, you're clearly a zealot, and have exactly the kind of attitude I was talking about.
- venomsnake 13y ago
  On number 2 - you also cannot do it legally not only easily. The legality of jailbraiking is quite grey territory.
- raylu 13y ago
  > That if something is not 100%, exactly, totally, purely aligned to your personal vision it's fucking garbage, or worse, evil and bad. > I'm not arguing any further, you're clearly a zealot
rubinelli 13y ago

icebraining 13y ago

You're just intolerant of other people's principles. Everyone is an absolutist about the rights they care about, but since you don't find software freedom to be particularly important, nobody else can complain about the status quo. Well, to some of us, and after the Really Important Things™ that most of us agree with, we also find software freedom to be extremely important.

ebbv 13y ago
I'm intolerant? I'm not the one ranting about how something I disagree with is evil and bad. I'm the one preaching tolerance here. Since you know absolutely nothing about me I find it hilarious that you would make assertions about my values.
- icebraining 13y ago
  venomsnake was criticizing things (closed products), you were criticizing people. Yes, I find your position the intolerant one.
- venomsnake 13y ago
  Well censorship is evil. Apple have the ability to censor what they put on their stores. (The drones tracking program) So we got the evil part. The 30% apple cut increases the software prices for the end user or prevents a software for even coming to the platform (thinking of skydrive here). That is bad for the end user.
  - octopus 13y ago
    Censorship is evil, I could agree with that. About your second phrase now, you need to take into account the entire picture: * If you plan to sell an app on Windows Store you will need Microsoft approval, no app will be published without that. Also, Microsoft will take 30% from your app price (until you make $20k, after which the cut is 20%). * The only free market seems to be Google Play, after you pay a fixed fee you can publish your app. I'm sure even Google has the right to remove your app if you infringe the rules of your developer contract.

papsosouid 13y ago

>Oh my god I am so tired of seeing comments like this one on the internet. Me too, please stop making them. The fact that you don't care about owning things you purchase does not imply that the entire concept of owning things you purchase is stupid and nobody should talk about it.

wtbob 13y ago

> Most users do not need or want root access to their mobile phones or even any of their devices. Irrelevant: they may not _want_ it, but they have a _right_ to it. > That if something is not 100%, exactly, totally, purely aligned to your personal vision it's fucking garbage, or worse, evil and bad. Sometimes it _is_ evil and bad not to do exactly the right thing.

prof_hobart 13y ago

You seem to be conflating two separate things - the question of whether the core principles of GNU, Linux and other 'free' software are important, and whether they have been achieved. Venomsnake's point very much seems to fall into the latter category - having devices that you need to jump through hoops, exploit holes etc, in order to be able to get full access to them is hardly a 'victory' for Linux (even if those devices are mostly running a form of Linux). You seem to be trying to argue against this by saying those principles aren't important to most people. That may or may not be true - but regardless of that, it's not achieving what Linux set out to deliver.