

Why I Don't Like Apple (by the author of Remind) - codeup
http://david.skoll.ca/blog/2010-05-18-anti-apple.html

======
bluekeybox
> If I came to computers as a 14-year-old given an iPhone or iPad instead of a
> PET, I probably would have played with the thing for a few months and moved
> on. I'd never have experienced the beauty and creativity of crafting a piece
> of software

Xcode is free to download and use (you have to pay $99 to deploy your app but
not to develop it). I have been learning Objective C for the past month, and I
fail to see how is it that I am not experiencing "the beauty and creativity of
crafting a piece of software."

Try it. I have used Visual Studio back in the day (before .NET, so I can't
compare to today's Visual Studio), but Cocoa made me understand design
patterns such as MVC and Delegate with much less pain and with much more
pleasure than I would have had in some other framework that does not rely on
them to such an extent.

I have been a tinkerer myself. I have been lucky enough to have my own little
chemistry lab at my house when I was 10. I used Linux since 2003, and my daily
living depends on it even now (at work I program software that runs on Linux
servers). I understand where you're coming from. But I have also understood
the other point of view, namely that the computer is just a tool, and not an
end goal in itself, and as a tool it should just work, even if it means making
some concessions to users who don't care about tinkering.

Just because you tinkered with electronic components, and today's hardware is
more integrated, preventing you from doing that, doesn't mean that there isn't
something else to tinker with. Also, you can still tinker with the iPhone --
as a photographer it made incredibly happy to find out that somebody had
written a lightmeter app for the iPhone which uses the built-in camera to
measure the available light so you could then enter those settings to fire up
a manual film SLR from the 1970s. Just because today's tinkering is different
from yesterdays doesn't mean it disappeared (or that yesterday's tinkerers are
somehow inherently superior to today's).

------
Semiapies
I wouldn't say "puerile" - I'd say "passive-aggressive".

If you're that opposed to everything Apple or Microsoft or Sun or whatever,
then forbid using it on that platform in the license. If you're unwilling to
do that, _mind your own damn business_ as to what compatible compiler and
platform people use.

~~~
codeup
Remind is Free Software and what you are suggesting would make the license
unfree. Obviously the author doesn't want that. Instead he chose to keep
Remind free and remind Apple users of Apple's opposition to Free Software.
It's hard to miss the logic.

~~~
Semiapies
" _what you are suggesting would make the license unfree_ "

Yes.

If you want to make different demands of users of your software than those of
the GPL, BSD license, etc., _you should not use one of those licenses_.

If you want to use a free license, accept users' freedoms and don't be
petulant that some people will choose differently from you.

~~~
codeup
"If you want to make different demands of users of your software than those of
the GPL, BSD license, etc., you should not use one of those licenses."

Licenses are legal instruments and the terms of free licenses give defined
freedoms. The nag message for Apple users does not contradict the license
under which Remind is published (GPL). The message, reflective of the author's
"petulance" as you put it, is, legally speaking a feature of the software and
it is subject to the same licensing terms.

I think you are mixing up the license with a vague notion of the "spirit" of
the license. These are two different things. You may still argue that the nag
message goes against the "spirit" of a free license (while not against the
terms), but the counter-argument made by the author is that this measure is
justified in the face of Apple's restrictive behavior.

~~~
Semiapies
I am "mixing up" nothing. The author may conclude that any number of things
are justified by his opinion of Apple's behavior, but that conclusion is
hardly beyond criticism in the way you try to imply.

