Do people like what Nokia has done with Maemo? It's a really nice device, and practically debian... That's pretty free software bigot compliant, no?
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Stefan Monnier <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 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 >
_______________________________________________ mlug mailing list [email protected] https://listes.koumbit.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mlug-listserv.mlug.ca
