4 ms·

You don't understand what free software means. It means freedom respecting software; something that you control. Apple could still have audited free software in

by chatman 13y ago

You don't understand what free software means. It means freedom respecting software; something that you control. Apple could still have audited free software into its appstore as it does for nonfree software currently.

TheZenPsycho 13y ago
Your comment is incoherent. I know what "Free Software" means. Your definition has no connection to what you assert here: "Apple could still have audited free software into its appstore as it does for nonfree software currently." So, unless you're suggesting that apps be distributed as source code, and compiled locally on your phone, there's no way to determine if the binary the App store distributes is an accurate uncompromised representation of the original source. Furthermore, expecting normal users to examine source code for security holes is an unreasonable burden. The security of iPhone apps is based on how much we trust Apple to maintain that security, and to review the apps. Not in our personal freedom to examine the source code, which we can do already, for many apps. You confuse developer control/freedom with user control/freedom. They are very different things. A user doesn't have programming skills, and their personal interests are in freedom from malware- freedom from developers that have the ability to do whatever they feel like with the user's data. They have no interest in being able to compile their own apps and run them on their own hardware. On the other hand, developers are interested in having the freedom of not being in a sandbox. not having to go through an app review/approval process. The freedom from security restrictions. The freedom to slurp address books. The freedom to override any hardware button, use any API, without limit. Do you not see how developer freedom and user freedom are in conflict?
- stcredzero 13y ago
  > So, unless you're suggesting that apps be distributed as source code, and compiled locally on your phone, there's no way to determine if the binary the App store distributes is an accurate uncompromised representation of the original source. That's simply not true. If Apple opened its distribution process, and everything was cross compiled (which is already the case) none of what I quoted above would be true. This is nothing for or against free software, it is about correctness.
  - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
    What exactly do you mean by "open its distribution process" ?
    - stcredzero 13y ago
      Let us know exactly what they do the binary, and at least give us public keys to verify signatures.
      - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
        I'm just not sure how that would work, without Apple, or the Developer having the opportunity to introduce malicious code. Signature or not, known process or not, there's no way I can think of to compare a clean compile of source, to the binary that you get on the app store since Apple retains a private key that is used to molest the binary in some way. You would have to mean something else by "open its distribution process" Or just blindly trust that Apple knows what they're doing and that it has its customer's interests bound to its own commercial interests.
        stcredzero 13y ago
        You compile it and do the same things to it Apple would have.
        TheZenPsycho 13y ago
        Right you just need Apple's private key. That should be easy, and not compromise the integrity of the whole system at all.
        stcredzero 13y ago
        This is why I mentioned the public keys. You can do the parts of the process short of the signing, then go the other way from the published binary with the public keys. Sheesh, does everyone on HN need everything spelled out for them?

by chatman 13y ago

TheZenPsycho 13y ago

Your comment is incoherent. I know what "Free Software" means. Your definition has no connection to what you assert here: "Apple could still have audited free software into its appstore as it does for nonfree software currently." So, unless you're suggesting that apps be distributed as source code, and compiled locally on your phone, there's no way to determine if the binary the App store distributes is an accurate uncompromised representation of the original source. Furthermore, expecting normal users to examine source code for security holes is an unreasonable burden. The security of iPhone apps is based on how much we trust Apple to maintain that security, and to review the apps. Not in our personal freedom to examine the source code, which we can do already, for many apps. You confuse developer control/freedom with user control/freedom. They are very different things. A user doesn't have programming skills, and their personal interests are in freedom from malware- freedom from developers that have the ability to do whatever they feel like with the user's data. They have no interest in being able to compile their own apps and run them on their own hardware. On the other hand, developers are interested in having the freedom of not being in a sandbox. not having to go through an app review/approval process. The freedom from security restrictions. The freedom to slurp address books. The freedom to override any hardware button, use any API, without limit. Do you not see how developer freedom and user freedom are in conflict?

stcredzero 13y ago
> So, unless you're suggesting that apps be distributed as source code, and compiled locally on your phone, there's no way to determine if the binary the App store distributes is an accurate uncompromised representation of the original source. That's simply not true. If Apple opened its distribution process, and everything was cross compiled (which is already the case) none of what I quoted above would be true. This is nothing for or against free software, it is about correctness.
- TheZenPsycho 13y ago
  What exactly do you mean by "open its distribution process" ?
  - stcredzero 13y ago
    Let us know exactly what they do the binary, and at least give us public keys to verify signatures.
    - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
      I'm just not sure how that would work, without Apple, or the Developer having the opportunity to introduce malicious code. Signature or not, known process or not, there's no way I can think of to compare a clean compile of source, to the binary that you get on the app store since Apple retains a private key that is used to molest the binary in some way. You would have to mean something else by "open its distribution process" Or just blindly trust that Apple knows what they're doing and that it has its customer's interests bound to its own commercial interests.
      - stcredzero 13y ago
        You compile it and do the same things to it Apple would have.
        TheZenPsycho 13y ago
        Right you just need Apple's private key. That should be easy, and not compromise the integrity of the whole system at all.
        stcredzero 13y ago
        This is why I mentioned the public keys. You can do the parts of the process short of the signing, then go the other way from the published binary with the public keys. Sheesh, does everyone on HN need everything spelled out for them?