Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Locked-Down Tablets Endanger FLOSS For End Users

Posted by timothy on from the debian-friendliness-as-coal-mine-canary dept.

itwbennett writes "If you buy into the idea that tablets (and ultrabooks, and smartphones) in the enterprise are nothing more than glorified thin clients, then Microsoft's Surface presentation seemed more flashback than future. And if you're a fan of free software, the announcement might also have struck fear in your heart. While Microsoft has never locked out apps based on license, it's not impossible that they might chose a more locked-down Apple-esque approach for Surface, writes blogger Brian Proffitt. 'And that could put free software for end users very much at risk.'"

22 of 242 comments (clear)

  1. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A post for some anti-Microsoft tinfoil hat? Must be a slow news day.

    1. Re:Really? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A post for some anti-Microsoft tinfoil hat? Must be a slow news day.

      Indeed.

      But you know, it's Microsoft's product, they can build it however they want - you're not obligated to buy it.

      On the other hand, if you DO buy it, nothing should stop you from at least trying to unlock it and load some other OS... You *do* own the hardware, but MS can design, build, and load it however they damn well feel like...

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:Really? by berashith · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why would this happen? Today there are two players in the market that are well ahead of MS, and seem to be standing strong where MS is trying to break in. One of these players encourages a lot of free and open apps, and has plenty of hardware industry support as well as an original enabler of the entire platform with possibly deeper pockets than microsoft.

      I would not expect a former monopoly holder on last decades technology who is well behind in the current fields to be able to re-assert itself into the same position as it had enjoyed previously.

    3. Re:Really? by Dogtanian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But you know, it's Microsoft's product, they can build it however they want - you're not obligated to buy it. [..] You *do* own the hardware, but MS can design, build, and load it however they damn well feel like...

      Yawn, it's the old "it's a free market and it's their product and you're not obliged to buy it so you have no right to criticise " response that keeps popping up on Slashdot, either from the mouths of fanboys or from those who (incorrectly) think this is how a free market works.

      Let's me be clear- the first (non-italicised part) is valid and reasonable. The problem is when the above types assume that the "no right to criticise" bit follows too. That part is either stated explicitly or implied (as in the above case, since the comment was posted in the context of being a response to criticism of MS's behaviour (*)). Either way, it's wrong.

      Yes... yes, they're entitled to do what they like (within reason). And similarly, people are morally entitled to criticise things about that they disagree with. See, it cuts both ways. I'm quite entitled to criticise a company and their products, services and/or practices, regardless of whether I have the intention of buying them or not. The company isn't obligated to sell it, after all.

      The implication otherwise is that anyone who doesn't buy a given product in a free market isn't entitled to have an opinion on it. See that car model you know is lousy- and can explain why to your neighbour or other forum members who are thinking about buying one? You should shut up about that because it's a free market and they can design it lousy if they want and you don't have to buy it. Matter of fact, logically the implication applies equally to those who did buy it- since they didn't *have* to. The engine fell out of your brand new Chery QQ after 1500 miles? You weren't obligated to buy it, so you have no right to whine.

      In short, no, that's not how it works.

      (*) Yes, let's remember that MS themselves haven't actually done this yet- only that someone is speculating that they *might*.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    4. Re:Really? by mapsjanhere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As the example of Apple clearly shows, it's impossible for a closed platform company to reinvent itself and become a market leader in a new tech segment.

      --
      I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
    5. Re:Really? by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And whose fault would that be? Time for a dose of cold hard truth boys and girls, if the community would have had a living shitfit at the half baked crap coming from the devs, you know EXACTLY what I'm talking about, crap like companies having to release new drivers even for old stuff because Linus and the kernel fiddlers kept breaking shit, the DE wars, Pulseaudio, repos full of half baked software with zero QC or QA, well then maybe you'd have enough marketshare that MSFT wouldn't dare!

      When Shuttleworth flushes millions down the toilet and Linux never breaks single digits and most places have it close to the same 2% its been in years, when you are offering your product for free with no strings attached and people would STILL rather steal the other guy's product, when forum hunts and CLI copypasta is treated as par for the course on update, when your forums are filled with "Ur a M$ Shill!" and "Works4me" because a vocal segment of your users treat your product as a cult instead of an OS? Well folks its time to suck it up and take a good long hard look in the mirror.

      I would STRONGLY suggest you read these two informative articles, the first by one of the RH devs, and then you will know why FLOSS is so easily blocked with so few giving a shit. The second one has over a hundred links pointing out serious long term problems that are either 1.-swept under the rug, 2.-Ignored, or 3.-Treated as hearasay if you even bring them up. I'm sure this post will be buried by those that treated FLOSS as a religion, aka the FOSSies as I've often called them, because their answer to everything that isn't "Gee Biff, isn't FLOSS Swell, it sure is Skip, RMS is a God among men and M$ burns babies!" is treated like crapping on the Baby Jesus, but in the end the numbers don't lie. if there hadn't been so much infighting, reinventing the wheel, NIH, ignoring of obvious issues, and using the fact that it was free as an excuse to settle for half ass? Well then frankly the numbers would be such that MSFT wouldn't dare block it. the fact that they can and most of the planet couldn't care less just shows a failing in FLOSS to give the people what they want and to offer a better product as far as I'm concerned.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    6. Re:Really? by morgauxo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Under the DMCA we aren't free to unlock the devices after we buy them. How is that freedom?

  2. FUDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    They may also make it such that it calls you mean names...

    1. Re:FUDD by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      +1. I was aboout to post the same thing. This is a BLOG that is filled with nothing but speculation to induce fear, uncertainty, and doubt about what Microsoft MIGHT do to lock-out devices. It was a waste of my time to read. 1/10 stars.

      The final paragraph should have been the /. summary: "Free software won't completely go away, of course. There's too much back-end functionality in too many IT sectors for that to ever happen. But with the rise of thin clients and the app store gateways, end users may have a harder time finding and installing free software for their personal or business use."

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  3. Lock Out by Grudge2012 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not Apple locking out GPL, its the GPL locking out the App Store.

    1. Re:Lock Out by HarrySquatter · · Score: 4, Informative

      Apple doesn't ban giving out the source code. I've downloaded the source to numerous iOS apps in Apple's store.

    2. Re:Lock Out by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Under the GPL, Apple become the party burdened with ensuring the license is fulfilled, as they are the distributor - so yes, the license is to blame. There is no scope in the GPL for Apple to be anything other than the distributor, there is no allowance for an agent model, or a silent party (who holds no liability) acting as an enabler between the recipient and the originator.

      And as this wasn't even duscussed during GPL v3 talks, yes it is a problem with the license - a deliberate one. The FSF and Gnu want to put entities like Apple into this position.

    3. Re:Lock Out by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And when did this happen? Oh you're referring to VLC where some of developers objected to it being placed in the App Store by someone else. The developers objected to Apple putting DRM on the code (which they put on all apps) which goes against GPL. So Apple removed it. How dare Apple respect copyright by following the wishes of the copyright holders!

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:Lock Out by gnasher719 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not even that. The problem is that some copyright holders of GPL licensed software _claimed_ that having software based on their code was against the GPL license, and threatened to sue Apple. Whether that claim is true or not is up for debate, but clearly these people didn't _want_ their code on the App Store, and the _threat_ of being sued was enough for Apple to remove the software.

      If the copyright holders agree that their GPL licensed software may be distributed through the App Store then there is no problem.

      And in practice, when GPL licensed software appears on the App Store, anyone can get the source code (you can even include it in the application package), you can make the application available to anyone else who wants it by telling them where to download it, you can create derived works. It's exactly the opposite of the Tivo situation where you had code that followed the letter of the GPL but violated the spirit - on the App Store, you can in practice do all the things that GPL is supposed to allow you, even if the letter of the GPL license isn't followed.

    5. Re:Lock Out by jschottm · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've bought plenty of GPL software through retailers who didn't have to supply me with the source code.

      "Your license to each App Store Product is subject to the Licensed Application End User License Agreement set forth below, and you agree that such terms will apply unless the App Store Product is covered by a valid end user license agreement entered into between you and the licensor of that App Store Product (the "Application Provider"), in which case the Application Providerâ(TM)s end user license agreement will apply to that App Store Product ... You acknowledge that: you are acquiring the license to each Third-Party Product from the Application Provider"

      Even if your argument was true, all they'd have to do is provide the ability to download the source code (which they get to charge for).

    6. Re:Lock Out by jo_ham · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The app store is not incompatible with GPLv2 - there are several GPL apps on there, in fact. They even changed some of their terms and conditions to clarify the position in the wake of the VLC incident.

      It *is* incompatible with GPLv3, but this is due to the specific design of the v3 licence. In other words, it was written specifically to be incompatible with such app stores and Tivo-type devices. Hardly the "platform tyrant's" fault there.

      Apple did not "make it that way" - the FSF did, and they have their reasons for doing so. I can respect their position, even if I disagree with it.

      I also find it interesting that you consider a corporation to be "fascist" if it has a service that is incompatible with a software licence that you happen to like. Does that mean that those who maintain the Linux kernel are also fascists because they won't include closed source code into it? I mean, it's incompatible, right?

    7. Re:Lock Out by jo_ham · · Score: 3, Informative

      Your comment only applies to GPLv3 - and that was not Apple's doing.

      GPLv2 code is fine on the app store (and there's a fair bit of it on there). Apple even changed their terms and conditions after the VLC incident to clarify the issue. There's nothing stopping you from releasing a GPLv2 app on the store and distributing the binaries and the source via other means (or even within the app).

      The "hostility" comes in the form of the GPLv3, written seemingly in a fit of nerd rage that while the Tivo box was technically using the code legally, the spirit of the licence wasn't being followed, thus the highly restrictive v3 was born. I can totally understand why it was written, but to try and claim that the reason you can't use GPLv3 code on the app store is *Apple* hostility is just not painting the true picture. The v3 licence is simply incompatible by design *of the writers of the licence* to be hostile to App Store and Tivo-type business models.

      Again, I can understand and respect that position, but it's not all on Apple for "being totally anti freedom".

  4. Fearmongering by mattr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    tl;dr: "they are could be closed devices"

    This typo is a good summary of the article.
    Perfectly good vocalizing about the death of open systems.. except that it hasn't happened yet has it. Wake me up after the product launch.

  5. Re:waste of time by Microlith · · Score: 4, Informative

    Metro is 100% locked, regardless of CPU architecture. Microsoft wants all future development to take place using Metro, and it isn't hard to see why.

  6. No, it's Apple by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Informative

    There is nothing inherent to the repository / app store model that is incompatible with the GPL. It's Apple's policies that are incompatible with the GPL, whic was a deliberate decision on the part of Apple to maintain their power over users.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  7. Anti-Microsoft Flame Douche by MrWin2kMan · · Score: 3, Informative

    This article is obviously written by someone who hasn't bothered to take a look at Metro development on Windows Phone. Having a locked-down environment does not prevent anyone from placing free apps in the Marketplace nor providing the source code. Marketplace, like iTunes, does have some control of what can get published, as all apps have to meet established criteria. Tell me, do we really need to tout 500,000 apps, when 100,000 have some sort of flatulence sound as their reason for being? Not having Chrome or Firefox or Opera on Windows Phone bothers me not a bit. The environment is web-based, and the evermore slight variations in the way the different browsers present the display can wreak havoc on the user experience. Microsoft is right to control this. The fact that API's are not available to allow an alternative browser to function on Windows Phone/Windows RT as it would on a full Windows 7/Windows 8 client probably points more to the relative youth of the OS. For once, Microsoft is taking direct control over its future, and following in the footsteps of the beloved Jobs. Windows RT tablets will directly compete with the iPad, and offer pretty much the same user experience. If you want something more robust, use Windows 8. If you want to write more robust applications and provide you sourcecode, write for Windows 8. It will be a much larger audience anyway.

    --
    Nothing to see here but us trolls...move along...
  8. Re:Installation Information by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    And a time machine to get GCC from 2 years in the future.