But going the other way hinders progress in the name of very few people (if any) who may benefit from this kind of measures in very early stages. When the company gets a broad audience, then it becomes a concern.
And since the founders have growth in mind anyway, they'll be sure to make it possible to implement the measures later on (or they'll pay the price in court, either way all is well).
Apple "I-want-all-your-data" and AT&T "you-have-to-opt-out-of-tracking". Of all companies. We have to count on our enemies to protect us because we are powerless. Let's just hope they start privacy wars.
That's really a lazy mischaracterization of Apple. They've never been especially interested in your personal data. The only service they have where they maintain any sizeable, persistent consumer information seems to be the iTunes store, and as far as I can tell, they've never tried to monetize/share that information with anyone. I'm more curious why you would think of Apple this way - "I-want-all-your-data"? Maybe Apple "you-didn't-really-buy-your-hardware", but "I-want-all-your-data"?
If anything, I would liken Apple to a jealous and abusive boyfriend - they'll beat and abuse their customers with sometimes arbitrary controls over what they can do with their hardware, but God help you if you try to do the same to their customers. Whether you're a third-party developer, an accessory manufacturer, or anyone with a relationship with those customers, Apple will come down on you HARD if they think that you're harming their platform or exploiting their customers. From that point of view, Apple's action here - trying to interfere with RS' sale of Apple customers' personal data - is typical of Apple.
Is _Apple_ known for being "I-want-all-your-data"? Historically, they don't seem to have been terribly interested, certainly not as compared to the web-centric companies.
The first part is rather pertinent. Android is precisely bad because it contains very little of GNU, which allows Google to develop the OS on an Apache license, and is the root of our closed-source Android problem. See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.htm...
The second part is also problematic, first because it's inaccurate (MIT- and BSD-licensed software is also open source but not free software i.e copyleft, which is bad), and second because it misses the point of free software: allowing others to use your work without contributing back is is very comparable to the right to enslave. So free software says that software being free is more important than people being free to do what they want with it. Much like we generally think that people being free is more important than others being free to do what they want to their neighbors.
So it's only petty if you're not accustomed to these ideas, which you are supposed to be anyway if you go through the effort of reading these rules. That's why this label exists after all: so you don't have to give it as much thought as these people did.
MIT/BSD are free software though; Open Source adds licenses that allow viewing the source, but have various restrictions on redistribution. They're just not copyleft. Regarding Android, Google provides the source, and there was nothing precluding them from using something like DirectFB instead to build android on. With such a system, you'd end up with something that looks a lot like gtk/gnome, which "...is licensed using the LGPL license, so you can develop open software, free software, or even commercial non-free software using GTK" [1].
Additionally, it makes for awkward copy. Made with GNU/Linux can be mentally parsed a few different ways; it could mean they're joined, or could mean an either or. Furthermore, the FSF shows their pettiness in other ways, such as how they cram GNU/ into the names of Linux distributions that don't use it [2]. Their actions on this front just end up feeling petty and petulant.
Really? I'm getting serial number 0X043f60 (instead of 0x1599c5), validity starting on May 7 2015. Might that have to do with using Firefox or anything client-related? Or he switched it?
>Who would want to compete in this space if you have to disclose trade secrets to do so?
Someone who wants money. It's the same argument that Big Pharma presents against those who want to make the patent system lighter, or any company that protests against IP freedom. They just don't want fair competition.
If you take people who feel so strongly against libertarianism, the country won't remain libertarian for long. Of course, it means the person is charge is shaping his society, which is non-libertarian, but it's a sort of trade off.
How much money does Windows make from OS licenses vs licenses from SQLServer/Office/Exchange/Sharepoint etc. etc. It's not impossible that a free OS would lead to selling more SQLServer and Office licenses and making up some of the difference there.
Office is the real cash cow, what users really want.
Everything else can be emulated away, but no accountant will ever work without MSExcel, no lawyer will work without MSWord, and Outlook is still the best integrated mail/calendar tool. Exchange and SQLServer are profitable, but they don't provide the same amount of lock-in and revenue that Office does.
However, this won't continue forever, especially with the move to mobile. I'd argue that giving away Windows Server would be a good move to try and secure the Office monopoly beyond the next five years.
Welcome to the free market. If the price decreases, it means the offer is too large and it should happen.
I'm very afraid the government would one day impose a minimum price for everything, and poor families will never have a shot at any productive activity and will just stay poor forever.
In my country, they voted a law that bans free newspapers and imposes a minimum cost of about 50 cents. Why limit access to knowledge and the effects of a free market? This is the whole "job creator" logic all over again.
I can;t comment specifically on the Linux group, but in general you are absolutely correct. As a consultant, I see it daily in my practice. When I talk to people individually, they seem smart/knowledgeable, but as a group, they often make not-so-smart decisions.
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.
Explain to me why this is wrong: the last mile is what costs a ton to ISPs (much less than what Comcast charges though) to build and maintain. So why would you make it more expensive for people to use their personal pipe, which just stands there anyway?
You know what, let's do that usage-based billing, the difference between 5GB and 300GB would be about 1%, because of the small cost of the shared pipe. This is just more bullshit from Comcast, unheard of anywhere else on this planet.
Maybe I'm biased, but I can't see where I went wrong.
> So why would you make it more expensive for people to use their personal pipe, which just stands there anyway?
It's not your personal pipe. The bandwidth on the segment connected to you is shared with your neighbours. Upgrading the bandwidth on your segment costs money, ergo we do not want you to use "too much" bandwidth. Pre-emptively curbing bandwidth usage with threats of and/or actual overage fees, ensures higher operating margins and puts off upgrade expenses, thus increasing profits.
Not perhaps the answer you were hoping for, but hey, corporations gotta make money, right?
Also, because they can, because what other choice do you have aside from paying their ransom? Personally, I'm super happy that they're doing this, since it's more ammunition to shut down the TWC merger. Really really hope that their penny pinching backfires on them.
And since the founders have growth in mind anyway, they'll be sure to make it possible to implement the measures later on (or they'll pay the price in court, either way all is well).