>> Raising awareness about the problem. Until people are aware of the >> problem, there's little hope to see significant competitors that provide >> the freedom we want. > But there currently can't be any competitors that provide the freedom we > want.
Yes, that's a corollary of what I wrote above. >> Just becuse there is currently no alternative, doesn't mean we shouldn't >> critize what there is, right? > Absolutely. But in the end you have to recognize that a great deal of what > you are criticizing is out of that providers control. If the underlying > problem was dealt with, a lot of these issues would work themselves out. The underlying problem can't be "dealt with" until a large fraction of people understands that it's a problem. I.e. at this point, there's no point putting pressure on anyone, all that matters is to raise awareness. >> >> In the obvious sense. In which sense have they made efforts to keep the >> >> end products free? >> > Which end products? Android, Chrome? What exactly is it you want, search? >> > If it's obvious then you can give plenty of concrete examples. >> That's the thing: I can't think of any sense in which they have made >> such an effort. So, obviously, that means that from my point of view >> they haven't made any such effort. > http://code.google.com/opensource/ In what way is that related to the freedom of the end products? > This specific comment is directed at the platform. Even if someone were to > accept that Google was supportive of the Open Source movement but not the > Free Software movement, the point is that Android is covered under a Free > Software license and anyone is free do to with it as they please (including > getting it running on your FreeRunner > http://code.google.com/p/android-on-freerunner/). Yes, but as you pointed out, the issue is not just the manufacturers but also (and maybe more importantly) the phone companies. And neither Google nor Android has put any pressure on them to change the slightest bit. >> My point is that there are many other ways to protect it, such as >> barriers of entry. > This is Apple's model. And Debian's, and many others, yes. > As in they approve everything that goes into the market place. > That way you would never know about a application not being allowed on > the market, because it would never get approved. That doesn't have to be the case, as long as installing apps outside of the app store is not made impossible. > Furthermore, it would be pretty easy to write a trojan/etc and wrap it > into another application so that Apple/Google/etc won't even > detect it. That's a theoretical possibility, of course. There are many other interesting theoretical possibilities (e.g. the trojan could start by deactivating the remote-removal code). But there again, there are many ways to try and address them. > Anyone that uses a phone they received as part of a contract is part of the > problem. I can't see how a platform provider can be held accountable, is > there a solution you can come up with so a platform provider can fix the > issue? Of course. As mentioned, a good enough system that phone companies would want to distribute could impose more openness. E.g. the iPhone is exactly in this situation of power. Stefan _______________________________________________ mlug mailing list [email protected] https://listes.koumbit.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mlug-listserv.mlug.ca
