Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 29th Sep 2009 22:19 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source Well, this is refreshing. While Richard Stallman is a staunch critic of anything closed and non-Free, his ire seems mostly directed towards DRM and Microsoft. However, a lesser known fact is that he often talks about Apple's Mac OS X too in his speeches. During those speeches, he repeatedly claimed Mac OS X contained a backdoor which allowed Apple to forcibly impose software changes upon users. Stallman has now posted a retraction for those claims.
Order by: Score:
Downgraded
by sbergman27 on Tue 29th Sep 2009 22:33 UTC
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

"We have no way to verify that there is no backdoor in Mac OS X that could install changes without permission, but that is no basis to claim there is one," Stallman writes on the FSF website, "I apologize for repeating a criticism of Mac OS which I cannot substantiate and must presume is false."

It's certainly reassuring to see that his outright accusations have been downgraded to just routine FUD.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Downgraded
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 29th Sep 2009 22:41 UTC in reply to "Downgraded"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

It kinda sucks though. I was counting on that backdoor for my upper class hookers to get in.

Now I need to evaluate my plan for world domination.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Downgraded
by sbergman27 on Tue 29th Sep 2009 22:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Downgraded"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

It kinda sucks though. I was counting on that backdoor for my upper class hookers to get in.

I was wondering if, perhaps, they had gotten to him first, "persuading" him to issue this cover story in order to secure that avenue of attack. I'm not sure how much autonomy your operatives are given.

Edited 2009-09-29 22:47 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Downgraded
by kaiwai on Wed 30th Sep 2009 10:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Downgraded"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

It kinda sucks though. I was counting on that backdoor for my upper class hookers to get in.

Now I need to evaluate my plan for world domination.


To quote 'The Doors' - you're a 'back door man' ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf3KG8VAtJg ) ;)

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Downgraded
by Moulinneuf on Tue 29th Sep 2009 23:09 UTC in reply to "Downgraded"
RE[2]: Downgraded
by Ripples on Wed 30th Sep 2009 02:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Downgraded"
Ripples Member since:
2005-07-06

What you just said made no sense, if he thought OS X had a backdoor because he heard from some source that he can't even remember right now it means he didn't have enough real proof in the first place.

That is ok though in the world of RMS, where you can say whatever ridiculous, unsubstantiated thing you want and eat things from between your toes :-)

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Downgraded
by Moulinneuf on Wed 30th Sep 2009 11:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Downgraded"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

No, it make perfect sense to go back on your word and apologize when you believed sometyhing to be true in the past, you now know is false in the present. That's what grown up do ... Maybe is proof pointed at something else and he made a mistake in calling it a backdoor when it's a front door for Apple to upload new software.

The problem here is sbergman27 attack/lie/ make up stuff as an anonymous coward, all the time about RMS, when is real problem is with what he does namely Free Software and not compromise to the will and demand of Open Source people.

There is no world of RMS, we all live in the same world, and RMS as just decided to be the Free Software front man. So far RMS as been honest and right on almost evrything he as said, some people namely sbergman27 disagree with that entirely, but offer no real proof as to RMS being wrong and attribute lies and put words and action that RMS would never do as it's not in his character.

Namely F.U.D, as I pointed out clearly well, except for those who lack a brain, if is former intent was to F.U.D. then appologizing for something he said in the past that was attacking, something sbergman27 believe to be an enemy of RMS in is twisted world then it would make no sense to appologize now, would it ? answer is no ...

Hence sbergman27 as become is own worst nightmar as he prooved and become himself the one to proove it, that RMS was right and a better men that he is trying to lie and portray him to be.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Downgraded
by boldingd on Wed 30th Sep 2009 17:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Downgraded"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

RMS is apologizing, here. He's admitting error. Let's give him at least a little credit for that. I mean, dammit, people, apparently the man can't win for loosing, if he admits error and apologizes, you guys whine that the ever said anything in the first place...

Reply Score: 2

LOL - Reminds me of Glenn Beck's
by MollyC on Tue 29th Sep 2009 23:43 UTC in reply to "Downgraded"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

spending an entire month claiming that FEMA was planning on setting up concentration camps, his "evidence" of which boiled down to, "I can't disprove it!"

Reply Score: 1

RE: LOL - Reminds me of Glenn Beck's
by jpr82 on Wed 30th Sep 2009 01:42 UTC in reply to "LOL - Reminds me of Glenn Beck's"
jpr82 Member since:
2009-09-29

But, but, how can you not believe that with evidence as good as this ( http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread59023/pg1 )?

Reply Score: 1

Go away
by strcpy on Tue 29th Sep 2009 22:33 UTC
strcpy
Member since:
2009-05-20

During speeches, Stallman often made the claim that Mac OS X contained a backdoor - similar to Windows, he says - which allowed Apple to forcible and secretly make changes to Mac OS X and its software.


So it is verified that there is a so-called "backdoor" in Windows that allows evil Microsoft to "secretly" spy users?

Stallman based his claims on information he heard from the Mac community. "I heard this in the Mac community, but there is no published information that confirms it, and I now believe that I was misinformed," he writes, "There is no evidence that Apple has installed software changes without the user's permission."


So because one "hears" about conspiracy theories from some "community", it is all legitimate information.

Geez. Let's start a FUD campaign about FSF because, you know, I hear really strange things about it all day long in the internet.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Go away
by Blind on Tue 29th Sep 2009 23:34 UTC in reply to "Go away"
Blind Member since:
2009-09-24

I heard Stallman kills puppies to harvest electricity to power the fsf. You can quote me and post it on the front page as news.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Go away
by godawful on Wed 30th Sep 2009 17:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Go away"
godawful Member since:
2005-06-29

I won't believe you until you produce a long form birth certificate of one of these puppies..

I think FSJ has a term for folks like stallman... what is it, oh yes.. freetards

Reply Score: 2

In other news...
by BluenoseJake on Tue 29th Sep 2009 22:35 UTC
BluenoseJake
Member since:
2005-08-11

We have recieved several reports of flying pigs, as well as...oh, this just in, Lucifer, Lord of Lies, has just ordered 4.2 million pairs of hockey skates. More after this...

Reply Score: 5

RE: In other news...
by AlexandreAM on Wed 30th Sep 2009 05:44 UTC in reply to "In other news..."
AlexandreAM Member since:
2006-02-06

Never mind the flying pigs, though. It's just Roger Waters giving a great concert...again. ;)

Reply Score: 3

...
by Hiev on Wed 30th Sep 2009 00:13 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

I bet Apple lawyers aproached RMS in some kind of way, so he better stopped spreading unfounded FUD.

Reply Score: 2

RE: ...
by Jezza on Wed 30th Sep 2009 05:42 UTC in reply to "..."
Jezza Member since:
2005-10-13

It does sound like he's been threatened in some way by someone in a shiny white suit and a glowing apple in the middle.

It actually reads like it was written by a lawyer.

Reply Score: 2

...
by Hiev on Wed 30th Sep 2009 00:17 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

Also I find disspointing how can he take back those back door statements but he can't take back his sexiest comments againts women.

Edited 2009-09-30 00:18 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: ...
by sbergman27 on Wed 30th Sep 2009 00:25 UTC in reply to "..."
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Also I find disspointing how can he take back those back door statements but he can't take back his sexiest comments...

And what, exactly, were those sexiest comments? Understand that I can't say I'm expecting much. ;-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ...
by silix on Wed 30th Sep 2009 01:02 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
silix Member since:
2006-03-01

And what, exactly, were those sexiest comments? Understand that I can't say I'm expecting much. ;-)

http://www.osnews.com/story/21803/Richard_Stallman_s_Possibly_Sexis...

Reply Score: 2

RE: ...
by ohbrilliance on Wed 30th Sep 2009 07:29 UTC in reply to "..."
ohbrilliance Member since:
2005-07-07

Also I find disspointing how can he take back those back door statements but he can't take back his sexiest comments againts women.


Would it be okay if he took back his least-sexy comments instead?

Reply Score: 3

Apologies to The Onion
by tobyv on Wed 30th Sep 2009 01:26 UTC
tobyv
Member since:
2008-08-25

Christ, can't our Stallman-centric tech media focus on something else besides Richard Stallman?

Reply Score: 4

RE: Apologies to The Onion
by kaiwai on Wed 30th Sep 2009 03:07 UTC in reply to "Apologies to The Onion"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Christ, can't our Stallman-centric tech media focus on something else besides Richard Stallman?


Unfortunately Stallman is like watching a car crash in slow motion - you want to look away and yet you can't help but stare at the carnage that is about to unfold.

Like any leader of any group; he doesn't know when to step aside and keep quiet. He will eventually say something that is so stupid that it'll permanently disgrace FSF. What he is saying now is just strange and kooky but this is simply the beginning of a long road which will end up at a destination that even his supporters will shocked about.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Apologies to The Onion
by merkoth on Wed 30th Sep 2009 03:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Apologies to The Onion"
merkoth Member since:
2006-09-22

No big deal. The dude screwed up once more, but this time he at least apologized. Maybe those pills are making effect?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Apologies to The Onion
by kaiwai on Wed 30th Sep 2009 04:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Apologies to The Onion"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

No big deal. The dude screwed up once more, but this time he at least apologized. Maybe those pills are making effect?


Are the pill ingredients licensed under GPL v3? ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Apologies to The Onion
by tobyv on Wed 30th Sep 2009 10:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Apologies to The Onion"
tobyv Member since:
2008-08-25

Like any leader of any group; he doesn't know when to step aside and keep quiet.


Ralph Nader

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Apologies to The Onion
by pepa on Wed 30th Sep 2009 13:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Apologies to The Onion"
pepa Member since:
2005-07-08

You know what might happen? He will start to follow Jesus. That would be a miracle then!

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Apologies to The Onion
by rockwell on Thu 1st Oct 2009 17:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Apologies to The Onion"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

What's this "eventually" that you speak of? Stallman is a cocksack, and everything he's ever said is idiotic tripe. Only fools believe he has anything worthwhile to say.

Reply Score: 2

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
by jonathane on Wed 30th Sep 2009 02:29 UTC
jonathane
Member since:
2009-05-31

Stallman strikes again.

Reply Score: 0

DRM
by hornett on Wed 30th Sep 2009 07:04 UTC
hornett
Member since:
2005-09-19

So he can make a big list of all the times Apple have updated software to add a DRM requiring feature, but not that they have removed DRM from the iTunes store?

Tiresome irk.

Reply Score: 2

Give the man a rest
by spiderman on Wed 30th Sep 2009 08:41 UTC
spiderman
Member since:
2008-10-23

I find all the negative comments about RMS a little harsh. The man believed his sources and now he apologizes. The news here is that he apologized. When was the last time you made an error and apologized?
And you feel the need to defend Apple against him?
Look at his back record and Apple's. The guy is a freedom fighter. He is not getting the rewards he deserves, but he is getting insults instead. At the same time, Apple is getting a free ride and still you feel the need to defend it when it locks you down. The guy apologized and you still want to kick him for talking bad about Apple.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Give the man a rest
by BluenoseJake on Wed 30th Sep 2009 10:02 UTC in reply to "Give the man a rest"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

No, we are kicking him because he isn't doing his cause any good with his behavior the last few years, he has become reactionary, unreasonable, and not a little bit crazy.

It's never good when the leaders of a movement lose touch with it's members, but he just keeps getting more extreme.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Give the man a rest
by spiderman on Wed 30th Sep 2009 11:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Give the man a rest"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

Come on, the man is attacked because he puts his fingers in the nose or things similar to that. At the same time, Apple is praised by the community for pillaging and locking down open source software. Give them 5 more years and people will think they invented open source.
The guy may need shaving, but his view is sharp and those making fun of him should listen instead.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Give the man a rest
by theTSF on Wed 30th Sep 2009 12:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Give the man a rest"
theTSF Member since:
2005-09-27

RMS is a dinosaur in the literary term of the word. He has became a Liberal Conservative. (Liberal in terms of politics) (Conserservative in terms he is no longer flexible to change)

When he was at the best he was being truely liberal saying Yes I see the problem this is what I think is the solution.

Now he has changed by going no this is bad that is bad. Nothing is the way it should be.

If he was truly still sharp he would work on fixing the GPL to a direction different from his original vision, as the times has changed and so has the nature of Open Source. Ok finding the problems but then coming with solutions for them other then just stating anyone who disagrees with him is an evil corporate monger.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Give the man a rest
by spiderman on Wed 30th Sep 2009 13:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Give the man a rest"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

Well, liberal and conservative don't mean the same thing outside the US. Actually they are the same thing outside the US (and probably inside the US too, but don't tell them).
Anyway, I believe you just don't get the man. He's involved in free software and not so much in open source. His solution involves writing and recommending to use free software.
The problem is that some corporations don't like it and are making everything they can to block him. When Apple pushes updates to stop pyMusique from working, people applause. When RMS says it's bad, fools cry that the man is mad. Apple is not a man, it has no soul. How come people feel the need to defend it, no matter how wrong it is? Too much propaganda?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Give the man a rest
by google_ninja on Wed 30th Sep 2009 14:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Give the man a rest"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

he's attacked because he is a fanatic, AND he is a dick about it, AND has been trolling the internet for a very long time now.

And RMS did not invent open source, ESR did. RMS is against open source.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Give the man a rest
by spiderman on Wed 30th Sep 2009 15:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Give the man a rest"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23


And RMS did not invent open source

right
, ESR did.

wrong
RMS is against open source.

wrong

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Give the man a rest
by google_ninja on Wed 30th Sep 2009 19:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Give the man a rest"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

ESR said that the Open Source term came out of meetings he was a part of when consulting with netscape on how to open their source code. If I'm wrong about it, thats why, and I would love to be corrected.

Regarding open source, he may not be against it, but he sure isn't for it, and hates it when people use free software and open source as synonyms, since to him, open source completely misses the point.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Give the man a rest
by spiderman on Wed 30th Sep 2009 20:15 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Give the man a rest"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

ESR said that the Open Source term came out of meetings he was a part of when consulting with netscape on how to open their source code. If I'm wrong about it, thats why, and I would love to be corrected.

ok then.

Regarding open source, he may not be against it, but he sure isn't for it, and hates it when people use free software and open source as synonyms, since to him, open source completely misses the point.

here is what the FSF think about open source, as a term:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Another group has started using the term open source to mean something close (but not identical) to free software. We prefer the term free software because, once you have heard that it refers to freedom rather than price, it calls to mind freedom. The word open never refers to freedom.

So they prefer using the term free software instead of open source. They think it refers to something close though.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Give the man a rest
by TechGeek on Wed 30th Sep 2009 14:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Give the man a rest"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

Maybe, but it is HIS movement. Its one thing to say that to some random follower. But it really doesn't stick to the man who single handedly started the organization. It would be like criticizing Jesus for not following the teachings of the bible.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Give the man a rest
by BluenoseJake on Wed 30th Sep 2009 14:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Give the man a rest"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

The concepts of opensource and free software predate RMS. Google the history of Unix, you'll see a rich history of code sharing.

And just because he started the movement does not mean that he has not become unstable, inflexible and mean.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Give the man a rest
by spiderman on Wed 30th Sep 2009 15:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Give the man a rest"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23


And just because he started the movement does not mean that he has not become unstable, inflexible and mean.

Indeed, but just because he eats strange things and apologizes after making an error does not mean he has become unstable, inflexible and mean.
All I see here is people taking cheap shot at him for little things nobody should care about while discarding the important things he says.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Give the man a rest
by BluenoseJake on Wed 30th Sep 2009 17:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Give the man a rest"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

He's inflexible because he can't seem to grasp that if you have the freedom to free your code, then you also have the freedom to close it. He says you have certain rights, but simultaneously takes your right to choose away from you.

He cannot see the reality of the situation, that developers also have the right to release their software in any form they chose, they have the right to get paid for their work, and honestly, all the donations in the world will not help FOSS feed all the developers in the world or their families.

Proprietary software also has a place in the world, and RMS refuses to see that. I use a mix of FOSS and closed source software, choosing whatever does the job the best.

That's true freedom, the freedom to choose.

Do a google search, and you'll see that RMS has been doing more harm then good for several years.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Give the man a rest
by spiderman on Wed 30th Sep 2009 19:44 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Give the man a rest"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

Right, so you don't agree with him. He has been saying the same thing for more than the last years though. He's been saying that since 1984 at least. There is nothing new here. The man still believe what he believed in 1984. The movement he started with others was just about that: free software, as defined by the FSF. It's his movement and the FSF is all about free software. He is not doing anything wrong by saying what the FSF stands for. He may not convince you but you are against the core principle of the FSF and nothing will convince you that the FSF is right anyway, be it RMS or anybody.
So the man did nothing wrong. You just don't agree with him. By all means, say it, but attacking the man personally is low in my opinion. You are not doing your cause any good.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Give the man a rest
by BluenoseJake on Wed 30th Sep 2009 20:22 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Give the man a rest"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

He may not convince you but you are against the core principle of the FSF and nothing will convince you that the FSF is right anyway, be it RMS or anybody.
So the man did nothing wrong. You just don't agree with him. By all means, say it, but attacking the man personally is low in my opinion. You are not doing your cause any good.


Whoa there buddy, back the hell up. Don't tell me what I agree with and what I don't. I agree with FOSS in principle, but I know there are practical limitations to what FOSS can accomplish at this time.

I disagree with RMS, however, in his remarks about women in programming(horrifically backwards), his treatment of apple in this whole backdoor thing, his total condemnation of closed source software (some closed source software is very good, and his attempts to take my choice away.

I will choose to use the best tool for the job, and if that happens to be closed source, then until there is a comparable FOSS tool, then give me the closed source.

The man has done a lot wrong, imo, that damages the movement as a whole. As a representative of that movement (which I do support), I believe he is to reactionary, to literal and too inflexible to be a good leader, and should step aside. This is not a personal attack, but as somebody who hopes that FOSS succeeds in the long run, I hope he goes away soon, or at least calms the hell down.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Give the man a rest
by WorknMan on Wed 30th Sep 2009 16:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Give the man a rest"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

No, we are kicking him because he isn't doing his cause any good with his behavior the last few years, he has become reactionary, unreasonable, and not a little bit crazy.


What he said. It's like every time somebody uses a program for which they do not have access to the source code, God kills a puppy.

Part of what defines freedom for me personally is having the freedom to use closed-source software if I want to. So, in my mind, this guy is not a freedom fighter. He is a loon.

Reply Score: 3

Backhand
by ralish on Wed 30th Sep 2009 10:33 UTC
ralish
Member since:
2009-05-13

Was that really even an apology? Because if it was, it would be pretty close to the most backhanded apology I have ever read.

In the first sentence he manages to take a completely unsubstantiated and unrelated swipe at Windows. He follows up with his quick apology, by admitting to spreading what he admits he never had any even remotely credible proof to begin with. Then effectively spends the rest of the letter abusing Apple. Hell, I agree with some of his points, but it's hardly a gracious apology. It's more like a nod followed by a spit in the eye.

In summary, he admits to doing what many people would call spreading FUD, which you'd think would be a pretty grevious sin by his moral standards and then just spends the bulk of the letter hurling abuse.

I'm almost morbidly interested in knowing what exactly his evidence is for this Windows backdoor (surely it can't be the NSA key controversy that was debunked by sensible people long ago)? I'm sure it's garbage, but I'm not sure I'd want an apology either if I was Microsoft or a devoted fan having read this.

Reply Score: 1

RMS
by LighthouseJ on Wed 30th Sep 2009 12:02 UTC
LighthouseJ
Member since:
2009-06-18

The only time I agree with RMS is when he's apologizing, so you can bet it's quite rare.

I've read several things he's said to repeatedly get a "fresh take" on him. I know a lot of people listen to what he has to say, so I try to brush off any previous sour taste he has left in my mouth, but I always end up with a mouth full of lemon juice.

just needed to rant, nothing to see here...

Reply Score: 2

i was wrong.. BUT!
by Adurbe on Wed 30th Sep 2009 12:55 UTC
Adurbe
Member since:
2005-07-06

"I may have been wrong and made accusations with no proof BUT BUT BUT BUT they are still evil."

Article condensed

Reply Score: 4

RE: i was wrong.. BUT!
by spiderman on Wed 30th Sep 2009 13:40 UTC in reply to "i was wrong.. BUT!"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

I recommend you read it fully because it explains precisely what is wrong with MacOS X.
The wise man shows the moon with his finger and the fools watch the finger. Fools are busy criticizing a man instead of listening to what he says.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: i was wrong.. BUT!
by google_ninja on Wed 30th Sep 2009 14:57 UTC in reply to "RE: i was wrong.. BUT!"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

...and morons don't realize he's not pointing at the moon, he's pointing at a barn. because he's obviously crazy.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: i was wrong.. BUT!
by olefiver on Wed 30th Sep 2009 15:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: i was wrong.. BUT!"
olefiver Member since:
2008-04-04

Hey, if one's watching just the finger, it's not unexpected that one thinks he's pointing at a barn...

;)

Edited 2009-09-30 15:53 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: i was wrong.. BUT!
by Adurbe on Wed 30th Sep 2009 16:30 UTC in reply to "RE: i was wrong.. BUT!"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

he may be pointing out things that are wrong with OSX, some points are valid.

The purposeof the article however was to appologise for making false, baseless claims.

MAYBE thats not the best platform...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: i was wrong.. BUT!
by spiderman on Wed 30th Sep 2009 19:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: i was wrong.. BUT!"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

The man is not apologizing to Apple! He is apologizing to you for making false claims about Apple. Nobody need to apologize anything to Apple! It's just a mindless corporation.
The man's apologizing to you for saying something wrong. Then he goes on to warn you about other problems with Apple so you are not mistaken about them. I believe this is just the right place to do it.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Sabon
by Sabon on Wed 30th Sep 2009 15:07 UTC
Sabon
Member since:
2005-07-06

"If Mac OS X does not have a backdoor to forcibly install changes, that does not make it ethical. It has other malicious features, such as Digital Restrictions Management (see http://defectivebydesign.org/apple). What makes those malfeatures possible is that users can't remove them. Mac OS is proprietary software, so the users don't have control over it -- rather, the developer has sole control over the program, and employs it as an instrument of control over the users. So I don't withdraw my condemnation of Mac OS. But I do withdraw the claim that it has a known backdoor."

While this is true or not about Mac OS X not having a back door, and is true about it being proprietary and us not being able to change it, it doesn't make it any worse this way than Linux.

WHAT? It's true. Sure we supposedly could just write the changes we want to Linux and implement them. That is, if we could all program using what most of us feel is cryptic C or C++ and other programming languages.

Computer languages are nerd languages and Linux is a nerd OS and were not and are not made for the general public. So the general public is no better off having the supposed ability to change Linux when for us, it is impossible to do so.

Even if we did ...

Even if we did write our own changes they would still be overwritten by updates to Linux. SURE we could reapply those changes, assuming we had the ability or could find and fund someone with the ability to write them in the first place, but it wouldn't be just about reapplying the changes. The foundations of Linux under which our changes would run changes and it needs to. But, yes I keep saying but, but those changes would disable our ability to apply the changes we made and they would have to be modified, and modified again, and again, and again because we don't have control over what is underneath.

We could then say, I'll never upgrade Linux so that my changes will always work. But then we would never have new technology work with the version of Linux that we use. We wouldn't even be able to buy a new computer. Instead we would have to buy however many computers it would take to last our life time so that when one dies we could replace it with another Ford Model T, which it would be equivalent to compared to new cars.

Using the car analogy, exactly how many people could modify a Model T so that it would have all the changes that we want? Or how many people would be able to take changes they made to a Model T and adapt them to a new car, assuming that feature didn't come around eventually. In this case, it would be our change that would be unique to us so it wouldn't come about by someone else.

So we are screwed either way. It doesn't matter if we use Windows or Mac OS X or Linux or OS/2 (eComStation) or BeOS (Haiku) or ...

So end the end, all that matters is which one offends each one of us the least? For some of us that means Mac OS X and others Windows and others Linux. And we all remain delusional that ours is the best for ... fill in the blanks. We are both right and wrong. Ours is the best and the worst at the same time.

If only we could, "roll our own". It isn't practical though. Not even Linus could. He needed and needs hundreds or thousands of people to help him write Linux and I'm pretty sure it really isn't what he dreamed it would be. It's just better than, "fill in the blanks". At least in his opinion. And for him, it is right and wrong.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Sabon
by TechGeek on Wed 30th Sep 2009 15:46 UTC in reply to "Comment by Sabon"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

You are mislead if you really believe what you wrote. Just because you lack the knowledge to make use of a freedom, doesn't mean that the freedom is useless. I can't change the engine in my car, but I enjoy the freedom that I can take it to a garage and have pretty much whatever mods done that I want. The difference between OSX and Windows and Linux, is that the law prevents you from tinkering with OSX and Windows. Nothing prevents me from tinkering with Linux.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Sabon
by Sabon on Wed 30th Sep 2009 18:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Sabon"
Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

It doesn't matter what the law allows if I, personally, can't take advantage of it. People like me out number people that can in like millions to 1.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Sabon
by boldingd on Wed 30th Sep 2009 17:02 UTC in reply to "Comment by Sabon"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Because you lack the technical skills to modify software does not mean that others lack the technical skills to modify (and improve) software.

You (probably) owe a lot to many open-source software projects -- projects that are themselves amalgamations of lots of individually small, possibly one-off contributions of many developers. Even if you do not use these projects personally, they are creating competitive markets and spurring innovation, a thing that you do benefit from. Had there been no FreeBSD, there would not be an OS X now; had there not been an OS X, we'd all still be using Windows XP, and there would be no Vista or Win7. Had there been no FireFox, we'd all still be using IE6, and the web would me much different. So just because you, personally, do not have the technical skills to easily mold Open Source programs into what you want them to be, do not assume that you're not any better off for those projects being out there, or for all the effort that other, technically skilled people have been putting into them.

Reply Score: 2

Of course they don't!
by Ravyne on Wed 30th Sep 2009 19:14 UTC
Ravyne
Member since:
2006-01-08

Who needs a back door to force unwanted software changes when your application updater already does that?

Reply Score: 1