

RMS: Apple has tightest digital handcuffs in history - bitcartel
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/12/05/1949204/richard-stallman-apple-has-tightest-digital-handcuffs-in-history

======
brnstz
Open source is great for infrastructure software. The number of high quality
open source tools that exist now is actually quite amazing. All you need to
start learning cutting-edge software development is an internet connection, an
old computer, and a desire to learn. This has changed drastically in the past
20 years, and much of that can be attributed to Stallman's efforts.

But for consumer-facing software, I don't think open source is the right
solution. The auto-updating marketplaces provide tremendous value to the
average consumer. Installing software and keeping a machine up to date is a
job. Most people don't have the time or inclination to do it. If I give
someone an iPad, I can be 99% certain they won't make it unusable or full of
viruses in a month. Have you seen the average person's Windows desktop?

You may disagree with what Apple deems an "approved" app, but we do have
competing marketplaces. I think that is an important check and balance.

Apple also did a magnificent job at creating a DRM-free marketplace for music.
It didn't happen all at once. Their negotiation with the music industry was
gradual. That is something that an ideologue like Stallman is completely
incapable of accomplishing, I'm sorry to say.

~~~
yarrel
App stores are broken package managers. The auto-updating systems and absence
of viruses that you attribute to Apple have long existed in the Free Softrware
world.

There are no competing marketplaces for iOS apps.

And the DRM-encumbered marketplace of iTunes wasn't a good thing for consumers
or for producers. So an ideologue like Jobs producing it wasn't a good thing.

~~~
brnstz
Running "update all" on my iPhone has been way more stable than "apt-get
update && apt-get upgrade" on my Linux servers over the years. It is a good
model, but it is far from perfect. Could you just fire your sysadmin and put
in a cron to auto update? I really don't think so.

Going through the phase of the DRM marketplace was necessary to get to the
non-DRM marketplace that exists now. Politics, however unsightly, do exist. It
is now more convenient to buy DRM-free music than to pirate it. That was
honestly inconceivable in the Napster days.

~~~
bhaak
Running "update all" on your iPhone is something almost completely different
than running "apt-get update && apt-get upgrade" on a Linux machine.

On the Linux machine this might even include kernel upgrades. iPhones didn't
do OTA upgrades for the system until quite recently and then is obviously a
different process than just a simple app upgrade.

iPhone apps don't have dependencies because Apple doesn't allow them to. So
every app update is just a small box update without affecting any other
applications.

~~~
comex
> iPhone apps don't have dependencies because Apple doesn't allow them to. So
> every app update is just a small box update without affecting any other
> applications.

Which is exactly the point.

~~~
bhaak
Yeah and now compare how limited an iPhone is compared to a general computing
device where programs are allowed to talk to each other and rely on each
other.

You only get the functionality a single app gives you. For many things this is
sufficient or at least you can live with. For games it almost doesn't matter.

This only works because 99% of the people don't use iPhones for creating stuff
but for consuming content.

------
luu
_There are three kinds: those that spy on the user, those that restrict the
user, and back doors. Windows has all three. Microsoft can install software
changes without asking permission_

Don't most people consider automatic updates a feature? It's rare to hear
someone say say "Boy, I really hate that chrome has automatic updates". And,
if you don't like it, you can disable it. If he's referring to phones, my
Linux (Android) phone automatically updates itself, and, if you recall the
CarrierIQ debacle, the spyware features were disabled on iOS devices and
enabled and some Android devices.

The term "back door" is misleading and deliberately inflammatory. The "back
door" into windows that causes security updates to be installed by default
saves people who don't obsessively download security updates from having
actual back doors installed on their machines.

How does Windows spy on users? Is he talking about crash reporting or perhaps
the malicious website tracking that some browsers now do, something that
prevents _actual_ spyware from being installed?

I use Ubuntu on two personal machines, and I really wish that it had a "back
door" as nice as Windows Update. I've upgraded Ubuntu three times and it's
broken software that I use daily every time. In one case, I had to recompile
something from source, and in two other cases, I had to edit some obscure
config file. I like free software, both philosophically and practically, but
you're not going to win over users by telling them that features that make it
possible for non-technical users to have a secure system are handcuffs.

I dislike this sort of demagoguery because it makes it harder to convince
moderates. There's a guy like this at work; he makes it almost impossible to
convince people of anything that's even similar to what he believes, because
you have to first convince them that you're not a radical extremist before
they'll listen at all.

~~~
bitcartel
I think people implicitly trust Microsoft and Apple to not install anything
dodgy on their computers, and it's no different for Linux users.

As Mark Shuttlworth said, regarding integrated Amazon search, "Don’t trust us?
Erm, we have root. You do trust us with your data already. You trust us not to
screw up on your machine with every update."
(<http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1182>)

~~~
zalew
> it's no different for Linux users

you meant Ubuntu users

~~~
pretoriusB
No, he meant Linux users, just gave Ubuntu as an example.

Not just because most distros are like Ubuntu, but also because the user base
of the rest that are not like Ubuntu, Centos etc are statistical noise.

~~~
zalew
in the discussed context, Ubuntu is the only example.

------
RexRollman
Stallman's right, but people don't seem to care, in much the same way that
they stand by while their privacy rights are eroded in the name of safety. I
am at a loss to explain why people don't care about this.

~~~
rayiner
Part of the reason is that people don't invest themselves in their computers
the same way people like Stallman do. As I've gotten older, my computer has
just become something I use, not something I'm personally invested in. I don't
really care if it's locked down in the same way I don't care that my car is
locked down. If either need fixing I just take it to professionals whose job
it is to fix it. I really care even less than my car because my car is a lot
less easily replaceable.

~~~
jiggy2011
I made this point in another thread but part of the reason it's so easy to
just take your car to a professional is that it's not "locked down".

So anyone with requisite skills, knowledge and tools can fix your car,
therefor auto mechanics have to compete on price and service. If your car was
locked down in the same way you would be forced to go back to the manufacturer
and accept whatever service they offered.

You could argue that this is a bigger problem with computers because they are
more prone to monopolies due to the complicated interfaces between hardware
and software systems, your car only has to interface with the road.

There are of course other issues too, when 90% of the people on the planet use
computers that are almost entirely controlled by a small number of companies
and these people use their computers for all of their communication and
consuming all of their news this gives those companies a _huge_ amount of
power in terms of censorship , evesdropping etc.

So there are issues here that go beyond the computer in itself.

~~~
rayiner
My car is definitely locked down in about the same way as my computer. The
hardware is open (though much harder to get to these days than before), but
the software is closed and you can't peak inside without specialized
equipment.

~~~
jiggy2011
The question is whether or not that is a good trend or not as the software
become a more important part of the car.

------
opminion
Those who find Stallman's view of automatic updates against common sense
should note that they are just the logical consequence of GNU's demand for
"freedom to study and change the program in source code form". There's nothing
more to it.

From that point of view automatic updates which could be reviewed at the
source code level are different from binary updates, although both serve the
same practical purpose for the "non technical end user".

~~~
wladimir
Maybe we need better tools to study and change the program in binary form. I'm
getting really sick of companies using binary blobs to obfuscate and mystify
what is happening inside devices they produce. There is nothing magical to
binary code, just like source code it's simply clear-cut instructions for the
CPU what to do. Sure, you lose higher-level abstractions when compiling, which
are sometimes hard to reconstruct, and sometimes impossible, such as comments
and documentation... But there is a lot of information that can be derived
from binary form. See for example the extensive literature on producing
exploits from patches, even automatically, by using smart diffing that
understands the assembly.

Currently this is pretty much limited due to nonavailability of advanced
tools. To do anything beyond simple disassembly one needs expensive
decompilation tools and disassemblers, and specialized proprietary tools that
security companies are using.

But given that (in practice) it is neigh impossible to rely on only open
source, I'd love it if binaries got some more scrutiny from the public instead
of "just swallow them and pray everything is OK".

------
shared4you
For someone looking for a direct link to the interview:
[http://www.newint.org/features/web-
exclusive/2012/12/05/rich...](http://www.newint.org/features/web-
exclusive/2012/12/05/richard-stallman-interview/)

------
nicholassmith
RMS says things, people angrily disagree with RMS, people passionately agree
with RMS.

RMS is RMS. His idea of a computer is much different to what most people want.
Out of curiosity does anyone know what he was talking about when he mentioned
"two spy features" that Apple removed? I can't remember ever hearing about it.

~~~
misnome
I think one of them was the "Location Cache" that remembered locations and
connected WIFI hotspots (IIRC to aid in fast geolocation), and there was
another case of something like some carrier-mandated monitoring software. All
a couple of years ago.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
If that is the case then calling them features feels somewhat inaccurate. The
location cache one was far closer to being a bug or an unintentionally poor
implementation rather than something that had deliberately been inserted.

~~~
ciderpunx
"six legged feature"?

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
Call it what you like but as all software has bugs it's not a particularly
useful differentiator.

What I'm curious about is why closed software seems to get such a rough ride
on the privacy front compared to services such as Facebook, Google Search and
Gmail which are business models which don't leak data incidentally, but piss
it up against a wall as a fundamental and entirely necessary part of how they
work.

Facebook gets a tough time but Google it feels to me gets off very lightly.

------
culshaw
Considering cryptography is advancing rapidly this is not surprising?

