R.I.P. Steve Jobs

[urfe]

So, basically money is evil. And lack of money is noble, I assume? Please, this is not 1200 AD. He didn't steal any of it. He was an excellent business man, and he earned it all. Apple fired him and they went down - this shows how much of a difference he made. You can't create something that cohesive with engineering power alone, and this is one of his major merits.

And my Wikipedia argument does hold - you can't just post snippets out form someone's speech/book and use it as proof. People directly involved with Steve Jobs knew better than any of those anonymous Wiki editors, and if they respected him for what he did, it means damn more than a <quote> on a forum. Look up what Wozniak had to say about him, if you're so interested in his off-stage character.

Stallman's contribution to the world is almost null - he wasn't the first one to think of free, open source software. He's so aggressive and absurd in some of his views (people writing non-free software and their companies deserver to crash, no pity for their troubles etc.) that he alienates (almost) everyone with real influence. On the other hand, Apple used to sell/sells computer kits starting back in the 70'. Hm, yes, indeed, how could anyone see their merits in pushing the idea of an affordable, complete PC, smartphone or tablet...

As for OLPC - what does it have to do with any of it? That's like expecting to have Windows in your washing machine. Different software for different needs. If it wouldn't have been Linux, it would have been another free OS, it's that easy. And why did you mention a 'hegemony'? Again, it has nothing to do with Stallman and everything to do with Jobs and Gates: it's about technical merits, cohesion and user friendliness more than anything else. Linux is not the best desktop by far, and this is why people prefer to buy something else. Blaming them for offering a better product is absurd.

This is really just semantics, nothing more. A passion for something could always translate to a passion against something else

There's no such thing as 'passion against something else'. There is, however, a 'passionate hate'. Which is everything but rational, as some of the posts here obviously prove.

Edit: Typos

[susikala]

So, basically money is evil. And lack of money is noble, I assume? Please, this is not 1200 AD. He didn't steal any of it. He was an excellent business man, and he earned it all. Apple fired him and they went down - this shows how much of a difference he made. You can't create something that cohesive with engineering power alone, and this is one of his major merits.

And my Wikipedia argument does hold - you can't just post snippets out form someone's speech/book and use it as proof. People directly involved with Steve Jobs knew better than any of those anonymous Wiki editors, and if they respected him for what he did, it means damn more than a <quote> on a forum. Look up what Wozniak had to say about him, if you're so interested in his off-stage character.

Stallman's contribution to the world is almost null - he wasn't the first one to think of free, open source software. He's so aggressive and absurd in some of his views (people writing non-free software and their companies deserver to crash, no pity for their troubles etc.) that he alienates (almost) everyone with real influence. On the other hand, Apple used to sell/sells computer kits starting back in the 70'. Hm, yes, indeed, how could anyone see their merits in pushing the idea of an affordable, complete PC, smartphone or tablet...

As for OLPC - what does it have to do with any of it? That's like expecting to have Windows in your washing machine. Different software for different needs. If it wouldn't have been Linux, it would have been another free OS, it's that easy. And why did you mention a 'hegemony'? Again, it has nothing to do with Stallman and everything to do with Jobs and Gates: it's about technical merits, cohesion and user friendliness more than anything else. Linux is not the best desktop by far, and this is why people prefer to buy something else. Blaming them for offering a better product is absurd.



There's no such thing as 'passion against something else'. There is, however, a 'passionate hate'. Which is everything but rational, as some of the posts here obviously prove.

Edit: Typos

No, money is definitely not evil. And capitalism in itself isn't evil either. Evil are people who want more than a human being ever needs, or could spend. Once you reach a situation where even if you don't work another day of your life, you'd never have to worry about anything, and in that situation, you still desire more money (and power), that makes you a capitalistic pig. Like jobs.

Sorry, but I trust wikipedia a lot more than I trust any of the people who worked with him. Why? Because if to believe the things told about his approach to work, and when seeing with what blindness some people buy and use apple's products, I do not feel I can trust people who've worked with him to give a neutral and non-biased opinion of him. I assume that people who didn't like him either left apple or were made to leave. That would leave, amongst the people who worked with him, only people who believe in his way and see him as a positive person. I mean, you read the text on the official website. 'Mentor'. Come on, you want to ask those people about him? The people who call him 'mentor'?

Stallman's contribution to the world is almost null? Dude, you have to get your facts right. Stallman wrote the GPL. The linux kernel is under the GPL. Who knows, if the GPL didn't exist, perhaps we wouldn't have the freedom today to study, understand, and further develop the components that run our computers (or at least mine). I mean, Linus did already hint that he might have gone with another license if it didn't work out with the GPL.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the major explosion of the Internet's popularity -- you know, the thing apple fanboys use their toys for -- can be almost strictly attributed to Linux's popularity as a server OS. Linux's success can be almost strictly attributed to its development model, which I don't think would be possible if it weren't free software.

The apple concept functions only so long as there people dumb enough to buy those toys and lock themselves in. That's what I don't understand. No person would voluntarily go into a prison cell. Why do they do it with their computers and other electronic devices? Freedom may mean a lot of choices to make, things to decide upon, things to improve and _fix_ in your life so that they work properly, but it's still a thousand times better than prison. All I conclude is that there is a new generation of technology consumers who care less about their freedoms and more about shiny things and status symbols. But unfortunately it's not my problem.

[urfe]

Sorry, susikala, this is basically your post:

1. calling people 'capitalistic pigs'

2. somehow having this crazy idea that Apple was created in the year 2000. They used to sell the first complete, cheat PC almost 35 years ago! There was always free code. There were always free licenses (like BSD). There was always Unix. But there weren't any home computers. So drop Stallman and stop putting the license before the piece of hardware and code. Before arguing about networks, free-software and costs, think about the generation that helped create the complete, affordable personal computer.

3. forcing your concept of openess on every computer/phone/table buyer, because you sure know better what they need.

It's hard to take you seriously. Please stop focusing on the ideologic agruments instead of technical accomplishments - the computer is not an idea, it's a pyshical device.

[susikala]

Sorry, susikala, this is basically your post:

1. calling people 'capitalistic pigs'

2. somehow having this crazy idea that Apple was created in the year 2000. They used to sell the first complete, cheat PC almost 35 years ago! There was always free code. There were always free licenses (like BSD). There was always Unix. But there weren't any home computers. So drop Stallman and stop putting the license before the piece of hardware and code. Before arguing about networks, free-software and costs, think about the generation that helped create the complete, affordable personal computer.

3. forcing your concept of openess on every computer/phone/table buyer, because you sure know better what they need.

It's hard to take you seriously. Please stop focusing on the ideologic agruments instead of technical accomplishments - the computer is not an idea, it's a pyshical device.

I didn't call people like that. I defined what I believe capitalistic pigs are. Then I brought an example -- if you believe my definition is incorrect, please tell me why you think a person should have more than they'd ever need or could spend. "Because they can" is not an argument; we live in a society, social means living together. This side of capitalism treats money making as a process distinct from society. You make money off society, you need it to spend it, it's a circle, it's not a one way street. You give it back anyway to society, whether you or the people who will come after you and spend it at some point. So hoarding it like a pig and working to increase it is a despicable way to act, sorry. Bill Gates is a good example of someone who understands this concept.

apple didn't invent computing. I won't deny they have a history in it, but I also never met older people who 'grew up with apple'. They all grew up with amiga or atari, or something from ibm. You are right however in taking the approach that most of my criticism of apple concentrates on the last few years: it is true. Because especially in these years it has become a horrible evil, paranoid cooperation with megalomanic tendendies and too much power (example: they sue samsung and convince the courts samsung shouldn't sell one of its pads here; although almost all pads look almost the SAME). It's something I'd never say of microsoft, for example.

The fact you ignore what I said about the gpl and the central use of free software in the systems on which we depend for almost everything speaks for itself. Are you running a website? A server? Does it run with windows? apple? BSD? no, it probably runs with Linux. There are exceptions, but they serve to prove the rule. Here's your "the computer is not an idea, it's a pyshical device". The fact I get myself a really cheap and reliable vps server is because linux -- and free software. Which is exactly why so many companies contribute back to the stack.

I don't know better what anyone needs -- but neither does apple. We write here on cigarette packs that smoking may and probably will harm your health. Why shouldn't we write on apple computers or devices that they may or probably limit your freedom in using what you bought?

That's why I wrote it's not my problem (it should have been 'fortunately', though). I see this development though and I'm concerned where it's going, since the outcome of the popularity of such companies is less choice for all and less freedom.

[urfe]

I didn't call people like that. I defined what I believe capitalistic pigs are. Then I brought an example -- if you believe my definition is incorrect, please tell me why you think a person should have more than they'd ever need or could spend.

Sorry, you're horrible wrong: he doesn't store it as cash, under a mattress. Banks have it and use it. The same goes for shares. Most of that fortune is actually more volatile than you think. Second, and more important: it's his right.

apple didn't invent computing. I won't deny they have a history in it, but I also never met older people who 'grew up with apple'.

Read about the impact of Lisa on the public.

the fact I get myself a really cheap and reliable vps server is because linux -- and free software. Which is exactly why so many companies contribute back to the stack.

And Apple's designs weren't influential? You keep talking about now, ignoring how we get here.

We write here on cigarette packs that smoking may and probably will harm your health. Why shouldn't we write on apple computers or devices that they may or probably limit your freedom in using what you bought?

Because Appple won't destroy your health. Or create addiction. Instead, Apple sells a tool which people buy when they need to solve something - arguing about OSS freedom in this case is like yelling to my mother that she won't be able to have a root account on her smarphone; she will not care. This is Apple's market. It provides everything that ordinary people want. And it works quite good.

We, more technical inclided, have alternatives (which doesn't mean that a third of my colleagues won't have Mac's). Everyone buys what they want - this is more of a freedom than the GPL one.

[susikala]

We, more technical inclided, have alternatives (which doesn't mean that a third of my colleagues won't have Mac's). Everyone buys what they want - this is more of a freedom than the GPL one.

I guess we sum down to the eternal bsd vs. gpl argument, which is really free. I believe gpl is really free because it enforces freedom, while you see in gpl's enforcement a limitation of 'real' freedom. Well, I don't mind differing, since I don't think common ground can reached in that respect.

I don't agree with the rest, even though I didn't quote it.

[Panix]

Sorry, you're horrible wrong: he doesn't store it as cash, under a mattress. Banks have it and use it. The same goes for shares. Most of that fortune is actually more volatile than you think. Second, and more important: it's his right.

You're the one who's wrong.

If he did something unethical, immoral and was ruthless with his business (and ascent), then how is that excusable? So, people excuse how he progressed in business because the end product are user-friendly, versatile, fun gadgets? Not to mention, expensive, closed-source, exclusionary, and this is valued and heralded especially by Linux users?!? I, for one, don't understand it. Not when there's so many OSS fans here.

I would think Jobs/Mac would be one where the attitude or philosophy is criticized even if the general functionality (if the closed nature is disregarded for argument) is thought as favorable.

I think one can be positive and complimentary about the design and user-friendly usability (esp. the GUI/looks/appearance) but why can't you be critical/objective about the philosophy at the same time?

Apple/Mac have the rare quality of being both functional (i.e. it works) and good quality/design/looks wise. The problem is that the business model of closed source and gouging on price cancels it out. It's not that it's expensive but that there is an obvious amount of greed in how the company operates. That's why it gets compared to MSoft, imho.

Anyway, that's my two cents.........

[yogi_berra]

Of course Stallaman is right

No he's not. He's just a sad little man attacking a dead guy that he demonized for daring to make money from his software.

[V!NCENT]

I agree 100% with Richard; I'm not glad he's dead; I'm just glad he's gone.

People make fun of Richard because he doesn't look like anyone else, or behaves like them. But people do not listen to what he actually says.

While the MIT license is good to get people started with their business, it's dangerously unhealthy at the same time, because the license leads to an unfair advantage for closed source products that then compete with its software base.

The GPL might restrict you, but it only restrict unhealthy progress. I can understand where the hate comes from; the GPL software can swallow MIT software without MIT software being able to take back the code. Well hello, that's what the MIT license is all about. If you hate GPL because of this, then you should (re)considder hating your own license, instead.

The only real freedom that MIT License has is that it's compatible with every other license on the planet. Yet that's not the other way around, because of that advantage.

[urfe]

You're the one who's wrong. You're an apathetic idiot. But, don't worry, there's lots like you.

We, thank you for having the decency to edit it out. But I will not address your or any of your points.

its just about how much money do you have if you have much money you can crush everyone in every place and yes you can hurt and punish people just because you are a ruthless business man.

Well good thing we're on a technology board, then, and not in business ethics.

you just FAIL here because i only quote wikipedia stuff with 100% source mark

Don't use memes in a conversation, they're brain-dead jokes.

About Wikipedia: please read what I wrote about it in the following posts (if you don't want to search for it, here it is: you can't just post snippets out form someone's speech/book and use it as proof. People directly involved with Steve Jobs knew better than any of those anonymous Wiki editors, and if they respected him for what he did, it means damn more than a <quote> on a forum. Look up what Wozniak had to say about him, if you're so interested in his off-stage character).

i consider what he did create and my result is he create nothing only Wozniak do something.
Wozniak=100% true hacker with 100% true work and Steve Jobs only use Wozniak as a slave !
Steve Jobs business model only was to exploit Wozniak.

And the conductors role is to exploit the pianist... Please remember that Steve created more than Apple: Pixar and NeXT. Both successful and with great influence. No one will remember him as an engineer - this is out of the question.
Also, once Steve was forced to leave, Apple went down - so, voila, your precious engineers are not always the only good investement. This is what he was great for. If you refuse to acknolewdge that, then you're dimissing how actually any project works.

its my freedom of chose to be against the apple bullshit and brainwashing machines

in our world there are not so many brainwashing resistant humans I'm one of them.

I Don't care how rich there are and i know very poor people buy apple stuff just because they try to lift them up with expensive status symbols and apple know that they just suck these poor people out like vampires.

You need to grow up. The consumer is not a victim, he's the one making the choice.
You also shouldn't have 3600+ posts on an Internet forum if you're as 'brainwashing resistant' as you claim, because no one anchorded in reality would waste all that precious time arguing like a veritable news-consumer, without any real goals, on a Internet forum (and I will follow my advice, thank you).