
Apple's operating systems mistreat or harm the user - lelf
https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-apple.html
======
_verandaguy
It's a bit weird to me that an org that's been around for as long as GNU has
such a black-and-white view of the software security/privacy/ownership
landscape, when real life is a fair bit more nuanced.

Yeah, Apple and their ecosystem aren't saints, and their position on right-to-
repair policies is reprehensible, but neither is Android, which runs on a
Linux kernel, and from a privacy perspective, reasonable people could argue
that Apple's doing a better job than Google is with Android.

GNU unfortunately doesn't see the other dimension here -- usability. There's
basically nothing that's come out of GNU in recent memory that's been
competitive in terms of usability and mass-market appeal (discounting
coreutils, which are the de-facto usability standard for loads of command-line
UIs, but their mass market are developers, sysadmins, and power users).

As long as GNU keeps preaching this kind of absolutist position where the
downsides of corporate-owned software ecosystems exist in a vacuum, they'll
come off as doomsayers to many observers.

Having said all that, DRM does suck and I believe their position there is
fully justified.

~~~
rvz
> ...but neither is Android, which runs on a Linux kernel

The same goes for Ubuntu which runs Amazon Ads and sends usage statistics by
default.

> As long as GNU keeps preaching this kind of absolutist position where the
> downsides of corporate-owned software ecosystems exist in a vacuum, they'll
> come off as doomsayers to many observers.

The FSF was absolutely spot on of raising privacy issues and that has forced a
privacy overhaul throughout the entire tech industry. However it is still a
shame at how they still cannot convince users to stop using non-free OSes or
applications since they don't understand that most end users aren't willing to
put the effort into migrating to another platform or to sacrifice convenience
over freedom.

The only audience that seems to get the message are software engineers but not
the average Joe or Jenny.

~~~
_verandaguy
I've been developing software for the better part of a decade (granted, not
the most senior developer around, but still) -- their message comes off as
unreasonable to me, if only because it revolves around heavily criticising the
state of the industry without offering a clear alternative for anyone.

I say this as a former full-time user of a pretty huge chunk of their software
offering, from emacs, to GCC, to screen -- over the years, I realised that
many of their APIs or feature sets aren't modern, and better alternatives
exist.

~~~
compiler-guy
The "clear alternative" that they offer is unusable for the masses, arcane
even for the tech-literate, and almost completely unresourced for improvement,
with no viable plan to make it so.

I love FSF's products, contribute to them frequently, and use them every day
for my job. But it is laughable to even dream that the alternative they
present would be better for the average user, for almost any definition of
"better" other than the most restricted FSF definition regarding no-compromise
of any sort of "better freedom".

Would I love it if there were more free, "better" alternatives to Apple,
Microsoft and Google? You betcha. But there isn't one, and there is no viable
path to one, and hasn't been since Stallman first rode out of the desert.

------
rgovostes
It's from the FSF, so I expect my eyeballs to start rolling involuntarily.
They do have a few good points that are consistent with their principles, but
they dilute their message with disprovable claims. Like this one:

> In MacOS and iOS, the procedure for converting images from the Photos format
> to a free format is so tedious and time-consuming that users just give up if
> they have a lot of them.

First, there is no "Photos" format. The Photos apps are just catalog viewers.
On macOS, the original files are easily accessible on disk organized inside
the .photoslibrary file.

There are a few proprietary aspects:

\- As of iOS 11, iPhones will store photos using the patent-encumbered HEVC
codec. This can be disabled.

\- Live Photos are undocumented but nothing special: a still frame bundled
with a short video. (The video likely uses proprietary codecs.)

\- Adjustments to images are nondestructive and stored separately from the
file, in an opaque way.

Exporting a photo to a free format is trivial. The system usually does it
automatically whenever you share the photo. Otherwise, it's literally just
File > Export or even dragging to another app.

\---

This is also rich, coming from the FSF:

> “Dark patterns” are user interfaces designed to mislead users, or make
> option settings hard to find. This allows a company such as Apple to say,
> “We allow users to turn this off” while ensuring that few will understand
> how to actually turn it off.

Yes, because open source software is widely celebrated for the ease with which
the everyday user can figure out how to change settings or modify source code.

(I agree Apple buried the ad tracking setting in a counter-intuitive place.
But it's now in the top-level Privacy settings, where it belongs.)

~~~
jaynetics
I think this isn't meant to be about ease of use but about controls that are
actually misleading. E.g. the thing that turning off the WiFi in the control
center in recent version of iOS does not really turn off the WiFi, it just
disconnects it (because users might forget to turn it back on).

------
elagost
The second sentence is "This does not include accidental errors" but then an
accidental error and a bunch of third-party program are cited as primary
examples. Things are cited multiple times - the recent "battery DRM" news, App
Store censorship, and remote wiping. How is it Apple's fault if someone writes
and distributes malware for their system outside the App Store?

I agree with the premise, but this article is a little bit of a mess. Things
like this don't help convince people. Were it shorter and more cleaned up, and
devoid of things like "cr...app store" it might actually help people realize
the importance of Free Software.

~~~
kgwxd
I'm pretty much 100% on board with GNU, FSF, etc, but I absolutely despise the
"crapp store" stuff. Once in a while, fine, but almost every talk, article and
software title has some kind of jab like that. "GNU" itself is an example.
It's very childish and I think it's RMSs fault for setting the precedence from
the beginning and doing it so much since. I wish he'd stop doing it and start
actively discouraging it.

------
saagarjha
I really hate this list. Not because I hate GNU (I don't), per se, but because
it's childish, mostly misleading, and at times outright dishonest or factually
incorrect. I'm not in the mood to go through this one, but if I've done a
line-by-line comparison of a similar list:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18515395](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18515395).
The GNU should be ashamed to have this on their website and replace it with a
coherent argument against Apple, which is really not that hard to write if you
put a little bit of effort into it.

------
undoware
After nearly two decades of FOSS advocacy I've come to the conclusion that
most consumers (a) already know about their gardens' walls, and (b) actually
_prefer_ it that way.

The view that freedom is always preferable over, say, the sense of security
that folks get from having an avuncular corporation ensure that the tools in
their lives have a limited range of use -- that someone is literally managing
the possibilities of their personal devices, pruning them of (supposedly)
dangerous apps and ensuring that they are within certain expectations, is a
great comfort to people who are already used to their lives being managed in
precisely this way by any number of powerful actors.

Stuff like this from the FSF makes me think they just don't understand the
user. The user is typically is not an engineer. The customer is not interested
in the responsibility that comes with that kind of power, and would pay good
money to trade it off for predictability. And the success of nerfed, general-
computing-incapable devices is market validation of this hypothesis.

I'm uncomfortable with this facet of human nature too, and it runs contrary to
the prevailing narrative of our industry and even of the Enlightenment itself,
but until we accept that many folks just want to be taken care of, we will
keep being surprised.

Customer obsession means appreciating all the data, not just the data that is
comfortable to behold.

------
umvi
Unfortunately, most non-techie users _like_ having their freedom taken away in
exchange for [security, ease of use, etc.].

There are a few things on the list universally hated, though, such as
pervasive DRM (even non-techies hate lack of repairability and lack of
compatibility with non-Apple branded peripherals).

At any rate, I hated the feeling of being locked into a walled ecosystem that
was hard to escape from, so I never bought another Apple product after the
iPhone 4S.

~~~
abakker
I'm not a developer, but am pretty technical. I've written some code, some
scripts, etc. I use apple stuff specifically because I want the tradeoff of
usability instead of pure openness. To me, computers are just like any tool -
sure, I can build a bench grinder with off the shelf parts and make only the
tradeoffs I want to make, or I can go to home depot and buy a complete
engineered package for 1/10 the cost, and take they tradeoffs that delta
wanted to make. same with any machine. If you want to buy the tools and build
software yourself, you sure can. but it has always been mysterious why
software should somehow obey totally different laws. its all just tools.

~~~
umvi
Well in this case it would be like if you went to home depot and bought a new
saw.

But the saw needs to be connected to the internet all the time for it to work,
and ToolCorp can remotely disable your saw if they detect you are using it to
cut something other than wood, and ToolCorp will only let you buy ToolCorp
brand blades, even though CompetitorCorp makes high quality cheaper blades
that have the same shape. Furthermore, your new saw has a computer that can be
used to program it to cut different patterns, but all patterns must be
approved by ToolCorp and indeed they can remotely go in and delete
unauthorized patterns if they want to (remember, your saw needs to be
connected to the internet all the time). Also, you'll probably need a
"ToolCorp Hardwood Premium" monthly subscription if you want to use hardwood
cutting features.

The complaint here isn't that Apple is making tools. It's that they are making
tools that act in the interests of its creators more than in the interests of
its users.

You wouldn't buy a hammer from home depot that failed to work if your
interests didn't align with HammerCorp's interests, would you?

------
joshstrange
Editorial title much? "Apple's Operating Systems Are Malware" is the actual
(click-bait BS) title. Very similar to the other BS GNU article: "Google's
Software is Malware" [0]. Interesting OP only submitted the Apple one with a
different title...

[0] [https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-
google.html](https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-google.html)

------
rgovostes
See also Steve Job's essay on iTunes DRM from 2007, "Thoughts on Music":

[https://web.archive.org/web/20080107121341/http://www.apple....](https://web.archive.org/web/20080107121341/http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/)

~~~
saagarjha
FWIW, iTunes now sells DRM free music. It seems like the third option that
Jobs suggested prevailed.

------
tzs
> In MacOS and iOS, the procedure for converting images from the Photos format
> to a free format is so tedious and time-consuming that users just give up if
> they have a lot of them.

I select one or more photos in the Photos application on my Mac, and drag them
to a folder window in Finder. That exports them as JPEGs.

------
Fnoord
> MacOS High Sierra forcibly reformats SSD boot drives, and changes the file
> system from HFS+ to APFS, which cannot be accessed from GNU/Linux, Windows
> or even older versions of MacOS.

It is important to be accurate.

You can access APFS from Windows or Linux at at least Paragon APFS for
Windows, and Paragon APFS for Linux. There is also an experimental AFFS FUSE
driver.

This can actually be important in case of forensics.

[1] [https://www.paragon-software.com/home/apfs-
windows/#](https://www.paragon-software.com/home/apfs-windows/#)

~~~
kirb
Worth noting the hfsplus driver in Linux can only mount as read-only, unless
you manually mount it with the flag to force it to ignore the journal... which
is a silly idea when journaling is what makes modern filesystems so resilient.
apfs-fuse is actually in a more promising position than hfsplus, as it
supports mounting any volume in the APFS partition, FileVault encrypted
volumes, and Fusion Drive volumes. Granted no distro is shipping apfs-fuse
that I know of. They probably could at this point as it is read-only.

[https://github.com/sgan81/apfs-fuse](https://github.com/sgan81/apfs-fuse)

~~~
Fnoord
Paragon also sell a proprietary HFS+ driver for Linux which AFAIK r/w. For
forensics, r/o is enough though.

------
thefounder
Following the same thinking we can say that browsers are malware as well due
the DRM. The user has no idea what data is shared with the DRM vendor nor any
control to filter it out.

------
amelius
What's next? Android is spyware?

~~~
jordigh
Indeed:

[https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-
google.html](https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-google.html)

------
jtbayly
Why is Apple being dinged as writing Malware for something Dropbox wrote?

~~~
pwinnski
Dropbox exploited mechanisms Apple created for accessibility, so would it be
fair to say GNU is failing Apple for making their operating system accessible?
That seems to be what GNU is doing by including this bullet, but I think they
might object to that characterization.

------
drivingmenuts
When was this published? Bit behind the times since we’re on IOS 12 with 13
coming out soon.

Not saying they’re wrong exactly, but the argument would be stronger if they
kept up with the times.

------
jordigh
I fear the inflammatory headline is going to put most people on the defensive
instead of listening to the very valid points that most of these lists are.

~~~
_verandaguy
Fully agree. They're valid points, but the editorial/tabloid writing style
makes it sound less like a constructive, educated discussion and more like
name calling à la Westboro Baptist Church (at the risk of sounding
reductionist).

------
jbverschoor
GNU’s Not Unbiased

~~~
saagarjha
I don't think they've ever claimed to be. They're clearly biased towards
systems build using free software.

------
cpr
Click bait: Why not just say "we don't approve of proprietary operating
systems" and leave it at that?

~~~
Crinus
Wouldn't that followed by a "Why?"

------
cryptonector
This was flagged for a while. How strange.

~~~
saagarjha
As it should have been, I'd argue. This is a low-quality flamebait submission
that I feel has no place on Hacker News.

------
tropicalia
_TL;DR_ basically any software not from the GNU project is malware, in case
you haven't heard already.

~~~
153791098c
Replicant is endorsed by the FSF. It has no GNU software in it whatsoever and
almost all code comes from google. Try again.

~~~
tropicalia
The point is that the original text was such an over-the-top and just plain
logically off-base rant so as to not be worth reading past a line or two.

So whether it's about software coming from GNU or FSF (or something endorsed
by Google) doesn't really matter, in this context.

------
vernie
Strange, I never feel more abused than when I have to use GNU.

