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.'"

14 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).
  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. 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. Re:Installation Information by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

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