Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

R.I.P. Steve Jobs

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    ...now is the time for OpenHardware.

    If it wasn't for the Steve Jobs there might not have been any PC hardware that Linux runs on today. We don't really know.
    Steve Jobs is no worse than "ANY" other greedy patent-hungry corporate in America that only lives for his/her uber profits, while everyone else starves'. Its the "system" ppl that is screwed.

    Of course Stallaman is right, I agree with him, but even if there wouldn't have been a Steve Jobs/Apple, then it just would have been a Motorola/Atari/Amiga ? instead that would have filled the vacuum or without Microsoft, it just would have conrtnued with IBM and it's PC, or some other greedy corporate. ....
    But one thing is for sure, it would have been the same outcomes, -greedy patent-hungary Corps that "only" want uber profits all the time.
    Stallman, and many others', have been screaming about this for years, ok fine, but no one has ever seen any other manufacturers', then or now, stepping up to the plate, to build "OpenHardware" !?
    Hardware "costs" time, labour, materials ... ! just like anything else, -what does Stallman expect, have it built for nothing. ? There isn't anyone here who wouldn't gladly pay for a "real" GNU/PC.
    And if so, would it also be built according to Stallman's GNU Standards' ???
    Just look at the Linux Audio mess still, Stallman can't even get the different Linux camps together on any sortof "quality" approach -that's just one of many other internal examples.
    Talking 'bout audio - I only own one stoopid Apple product, an iPOD. I think I bought it 4 or 5 years ago.
    But it still works great. the sound quality is one of the best for its time, and still is. Yes it's closed propretary.... whatever.
    Linux/Stallman sound can't even get that really right yet, and it's been decades.
    Stallman should clean up his own GNU Linux backyard first too. As Linux/BSD advocates, we should "ALL be more vigilant. Beaching about steve Jobs, ain't gonna fix that.
    I've have hated Microsoft and Apple so long, that I refused to buy into them (except for my iPOD), for atleast the last 7 years.

    The changes Stallman wants would potentially involve tearing down our "existing" corrupted and broken Capitalist model, and replacing it with a new one, maybe even radically different one.
    That ain't gonna happen anytime soon, unless we start a bloody revolution -think about it. All industries would be affected by something like this.

    I'm thankful for Steve Jobs (well, moreso for the "WoZ") for building their Home Computer, back in '76, and later Jobs, for competeing fiercely with the IBM/Microsoft's PC scrap, ... It's becuase of ppl like Steve Jobs that we even have Hardware,... to install Linux/*BSD's on, in the first place. ! think about it
    -it's not "open", but it could have been a lot worse.

    Stallman didn't have to be such a cold-hearted Daemon about Steve Jobs - in the end, thats all.
    Hey Stallman, We need "real" OpenHardware now, for OpenSource/GNU/BSD/Freesoftware Foundation/...whatever open software, for it to flourish and really grow !, instead of just you being an egotistical protester, all the time, a little more action, and a lot less words please - u 'ole timer.
    Lets do it -I'm raring to go.
    Last edited by scjet; 10-11-2011, 05:20 AM.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by urfe View Post
      No it's not. He was a ruthless business man, which is neither illegal or repulsive. This is how business works, and this is why so few succeed at it.

      You have posts after posts of little anecdotes and Wikipedia quotes - and who in their right mind would use Wikipedia snippets as a valid source, when most of the people Steve Jobs worked with are still around, published books or expressed their personal, direct opinion about him, it's beyond me - which prove more about you than about Steve Jobs.

      So:
      1. don't quote Stallman, he's at such an extreme that it basically makes him a lunatic

      2. don't argue about what he didn't do, or hypothetical discoveries that never took place - consider what he DID create

      3. Let me quote Linus: "It’s not passion for something, it becomes passion against something else" - this is you, posting right now. Because (rich) people willingly buying Apple products means enslavement and exploitation. Jesus Christ, how biased can you get...
      From my perspective, he was evil. A ruthless businessman with no ethics is evil. That is the point. If you earn enough money than you could ever spend, more money than you'd ever need, more money than all the people you know taken together would ever need, and you still remain the way you are, that is evil. This is one of capitalism's dark sides. You know, that is the reason for the expression 'capitalist pigs'.

      Your wikipedia argument doesn't hold. Wikipedia is somewhat of an omniuseful thing for most people. When it suits their arguments, it's useful and credible. When it's not, it's just the wikipedia any jackass can edit. But wikipedia has been mostly neutral, except its natural nerdy-white-boy-geek bias. Which is not going anywhere.

      1. Why shouldn't people quote Stallman? He definitely did a lot more than jobs for a better world. Ever heard of OLPC XO-1? Know what runs it? Think such a thing would ever be possible with apple's software? With proprietary software? (other when Microsoft tries to give it away to win more potential users). In fact, even though people now quote jobs as someone who has done a lot to improve the world, I consider what he has done a step back after we've been slowly getting rid of Windows' hegemony. What makes RMS a lunatic? The fact you don't agree with his opinions? The fact he says what he thinks?
      3. This is really just semantics, nothing more. A passion for something could always translate to a passion against something else.
      Last edited by susikala; 10-11-2011, 05:38 AM.

      Comment


      • #63
        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
        Last edited by urfe; 10-11-2011, 06:06 AM.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by urfe View Post
          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.
          Last edited by susikala; 10-11-2011, 07:10 AM.

          Comment


          • #65
            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.
            Last edited by urfe; 10-11-2011, 08:16 AM.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by urfe View Post
              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.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by susikala View Post
                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.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by urfe View Post
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by urfe View Post
                    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.........

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by scjet View Post
                      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.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X