Flatland_Spider wrote:FOSS is just part of their corporate culture, just like design is part of Apple's. It's not really a social cause with them as much as it's the way they do business. They believe open code and open standards makes their product more valuable then the next product, and they are right. The ability to build off of their base creates incredible value and a vibrant ecosystem.
Apple believes in exploiting other people for it's benefit. Apple opens its code when it's a benefit for them to do so. Not because it adds value, but because they don't want to hire more developers.
What does any of this have anything to do with the people who actually buy computers for personal reasons?
What you are describing sounds like a programmer whining. It's not something that will even make sense to your average home user.
Flatland_Spider wrote:Last time I checked, Android and Windows had more market-share, and Apple was resorting to patent trolling to try to protect it's iPhone cash cow. Oddly enough, both Android and Windows are open systems. Not FOSS, and I concede that point, but more open then iOS and OS X.
What? Windows phone 7 has virtually no market share, Android and OSX have an open source core system, I have no idea where you're getting this.
I mean, you're talking about mobile platforms and desktop OSes interchangeably, and that's confusing, if not incoherent.
Flatland_Spider wrote:Openness is working out much better for Microsoft and Google. Open systems win.
How did MICROSOFT slip in there?
Flatland_Spider wrote:You need to read up on computer history, if you don't know what I'm talking about.
Flatland_Spider wrote:In the beginning, every computer manufacturer sold hardware, and they included software for free so the hardware would actually, you know, do something besides take up space.
Which is why Linux has done so well for itself on the enterprise level. They didn't really want to maintain things like Xenix, AIX, HP-UX, System V, Solaris etc...
Flatland_Spider wrote:It wasn't until IBM created the Personal Computer and Microsoft started selling DOS for the PC clones that people realized money could be made selling software.
That's an entirely different market. You started by talking about mainframes and micro-computers, and now you're talking about personal computers. Don't confuse the two.
Flatland_Spider wrote:From there hardware became a commodity, and software became expensive.
Again, this is confusion. You can't talk about enterprise systems and personal computers the same way, just as you can't talk about desktops and mobile platforms the same way.
The rest of what you say suffers too much from this incoherence to be intelligible.
Flatland_Spider wrote:They do, and that's fine. Some people like the Suburbs and other like the City; to each his own. This is really besides the point. Which is, Apple is a "cool jail", and RMS is correct when he points that out.
If it was "fine" you wouldn't have anything to say.
Flatland_Spider wrote:He does. The FOSS movement with, say, Miguel De Icaza in charge wouldn't be the FOSS movement we know now. It would be a crippled hybrid.
Well if the point of the movement is to be bitterly anti-social and tell other people what they should do, fine. It's "on course" and I want nothing to do with it.
Flatland_Spider wrote:Yes, RMS is crass and ultimately anti-social. That's why the moderates/pragmatists are important. They can put a friendly face on and sell FOSS as a viable alternative, and they know when to push and when to compromise. Hardliners like RMS keep the moderates focused on the ultimate goal of a world where proprietary software and proprietary standards are a thing of the past. Ideologically, RMS' position in the FOSS movement is really not unlike what Jobs' position in Apple was. He constantly pushed Apple and kept it focused.
Again, the cool jails obviously aren't "fine." You have the explicitly stated goal of eliminating the ability of free people to freely choose "cool jails." Furthermore, you have the nefarious tactic of having "moderates" conceal the true face and full intention of your movement through a false but "friendly" face. That's dishonorable and despicable. If you can't win by being honest, perhaps you shouldn't win at all.
And indeed, you're not. I wonder why.
If this is FOSS, I want no part of it. I'd much rather live in a world that has the option of "cool jails" if people actually want them. I'd hate to live in a world in which "uncool freeholds" that are the only option available whether you really want them or not.