How is it more reasonable? He's comparing Steve Jobs to an infamously corrupt mayor who brutally suppressed anti-Vietnam war protestors and fixed elections to a guy who created products people loved (and was something of a jerk at a personal level, but that's something Stallman should approve of).

But oops, he got the quotation slightly wrong. It doesn't change the meaning but better make sure he gets the quotation right.

Oh yeah, and Jobs was objectionable not for making computers stylish but for being GOOD at at. If people hadn't liked his computers that would have been OK.

At risk of Godwinning, let's just say that often the people actively and happily chose things that are very oppressive. And this is were Stallman is coming from. He very explicitly understands that people like Apple products (he even says that making things stylish and smooth are positives in this piece). It is because Apple products are so good that Stallman reacts so strongly to them.

You and I may disagree with him about how oppressive Apple devices are, but there is definitely a reasonable argument to be made that they are.

The problem with Stallman is he and I disagree on what the word "oppressive" means. I have no objection to people running FOSS software on their computers, but he objects to my running non-FOSS software on my computer and labels me "oppressed".

no, he objects to not even being able to install foss software on an iphone

I'm sure he objects to that too, but that's not what he says.

It's easier to hold onto principles than to deal with people. If there's anything that makes "tech people" in general outcast it's that. Ironically there's also a tendency to reject other people who strongly hold on to opposing principles, but I guess that makes sense without empathy.

Your first two sentences are contradictory; if holding principles was easier than compromising and dealing with people, then that group would be the majority, and "tech people" would not be "in general outcast" (though I happen to think they aren't).

Either that, or you mean something different by "easy" than I think you do. I mean, peer pressure is substantial; it's much easier to stick with the crowd, not stick out, go with the flow, etc. Holding to principles and walking against this tide is hard, not easy. Such people are very much the exception, not the rule.

Easier meaning more simple not easier in terms of effort. Dealing with the complexities and ambiguities of human behavior is more difficult in terms of the processing, both mental and emotional, that must happen. It's easier to say "it's always wrong to lie" then to consider all the situations that might come up in which it may be better to lie.

For sure, but saying you never lie is much easier than not ever lying, and I think that's what's at issue here. Stallman lives what he preaches, to the point he can be a major PITA (witness the rider thread on HN earlier). That's more than just parroting some principles.

His complaint isn't that Jobs was good at it. His complaint is that Jobs sells computers that restrict users freedoms to use their own hardware as they see fit, with their own software or software of their choice. He merely complains about Jobs being good at it because that helps convince users to use machines that otherwise restrict their freedom.

The thing is, a lot of people are willing to trade their freedom for a little convenience, especially if that freedom seems abstract and the convenience is immediate. But if enough people do that, you can run into serious trouble.

Everything in moderation? Arguing that a little bit of X is inherently bad because a whole bunch of it would be awful is silly. You can die of water poisoning. Not everything is a slippery slope.

I like a certain amount of convenience and a certain amount of freedom. iOS affords me a lot of convenience and a lot of freedom, including the freedom to stop using it when something better, or just as good but cheaper, comes along. (Consider that my sunken cost into iOS software is probably about $200 whereas my sunken cost for Windows software was closer to $10,000.)

Stallman advocates a world where, for example, I am not free to sell software I write or install proprietary software on my computer. Admittedly he is probably exaggerating for effect, or his supporters assume and hope he is.

Oh come on! As if you would be handcuffed by using a iOS device. Think about all those viruses and all those people who are not IT-guys, they don't need this complicated "you can do everything but you need to read a bunch of books before"-thing.

It is simple: Just make it easy and iOS is easy. There is one AppStore not 7 like on the Android. There are iOS updates for the newest devices not like Android for those who are the chosen ones. I could go on and on.

If you want crappy software and hardware back then please go and support those crappy software and hardware makers. I will stick to simpleness and convenience.

So you prefer it that apple can reject any app at will?

Yes if they think your App has errors and is not self explaining or working properly it is ok to reject your App.

Is it ok that you can only develop for the Playstation if you are a game development studio? Yes I think so too.

You're not a fan of the relatively low barrier to entry on the WiiWare, Xbox Live Arcade, and Steam platforms? You don't enjoy relatively new people creating games without large war chests or corporate backing? That's too bad. :c

i take it that you are a monarchist then?

Software freedom is more important than "products people love".

I'm not a big fan of RMS, but this is a good point, in our current world the freedom to control the software that runs on devices you own is becoming more and more essential, not having that freedom undermines all other freedoms (from privacy to free speech).

Not everyone agrees on that. In fact, it's easily arguable that the vast majority disagree.

Based on the number of upvotes my comment got, I'm not sure that a vast majority disagrees.

Might be some selection bias going on there. ;)

It's not about the content; it's just about the level of empathy implied. This correction had some, and he went to greater length to explain that he had nothing against Steve personally.

Downvoted for your ad hominem. Quality discussion is valued on HN. Please argue your point without rhetorical tricks.

I am confused by one of such points: > He designed them to refuse even to let users install their own choice of applications — and installing free (freedom-respecting) applications is entirely forbidden.

Is installing free software (open source) on Apple products forbidden? Or that means something else?

You can't (re)-distribute GPLv3 apps through the App Store.

This is largely because of the GPL, not because of the App Store.

In other words, it's not that the App Store says "you can't distribute software licensed under the GPL"; it's because the terms of the GPL (which the software's author chose to apply to it) prevent it from being distributed on the App Store.

Yet, the terms of the App Store are such that the end user is effectively incapable of re-distributing the stoftware, nor modifying it, unless he pays an additional "developer licence", at which point he's not an end user any more…

So, yeah, you can't distribute GPLv3 through the App Store. But even if you can do that with a BSD licence, what comes out is not free: it has been locked by the App store. So it doesn't really change anything: whatever the end user have access to is not free.

Please illuminate me on this, as I'm honestly curious. From what I've read the App Store places this restriction on what type of distribution is allowed for software sold on the App Store. However, what's stopping the developers from using a dual license for the same app, and using one for the App Store and another that they distribute from their website.

I could easily envision an app I purchase through the App Store giving me access to the source code from the developer's chosen distribution channel under the GPL. It seems to me that main gripe is that they want to use the App Store infrastructure to spread this.

Or am I missing something? I'll readily admit I'm not an expert on these GPL issues, but I'm interested in this topic.

I have a free game that you can download from my website. How do you propose to install it on your phone? Under iOS ecosystem rules, you can't (beyond some limits like 99 friends and family copy and a USB connection or something).

You can have free apps in the App Store as far as I'm aware. The only restriction that I'm seeing is that you can't put a GPL on it. But you could just slap on any other license for purposes of the App Store, and allow access to the source code from your website.

However, if you rely on other GPL'ed code then I can see that it would be impossible to do that, as then it break the licenses of that other software. In which case it seems that the strong copy-left is what's screwing things up.

It has been suggested elsewhere that the App Store probably excluded the GPL on purpose. Even if it didn't, it is unreasonable to say that it is copy-left's fault.

Also, I must repeat: "whatever the end user have access to is not free". My point is, if we want to free the end user, then the copy hold by the end user should be free. But a regular user isn't free to modify and redistribute the copy he hold on his iPhone, even if the original licence was a BSD one. Heck, even if he could, his modifications still have to pass through the App Store review process, which means there's no guarantee other users could benefits from them.

I think you are incorrect. See ajross's post lower down on this page to get a better explanation of the reason, the terms of the GPL are at odds with the App Store EULA.

> free software (open source)

Whoa there, buddy.

Apple goes out of their way to make it difficult for end users to install apps that are not approved by Apple.