While I realize your primary objection to the iPhone probably has more to do with the "closed system" but than the "Marketing" bit, I'll point out that the "Sent from my iPhone" thing is merely the default signature for the Mail app. It's trivial to delete it, change it, or otherwise do something else with it.
Out of curiosity, which functions you currently use require a jailbreak? There's been a App Store version of SSH since like the third week the store opened. There's probably two dozen of them now. I was getting nervous for a bit when the store first opened, but it seems that the delay was on the developer side, as they tried to figure out the best way to do a terminal on such a non-standard layout. TouchTerm seems to have figured it our pretty well. That's what I use.
Actually the iPhone is great compared to the available competition in most markets. If I lived in Japan, and had access to the phones they have over there, I no doubt wouldn't have an iPhone. But for innumerable reasons relating to market, availability of networks, willingness to spend money for particular functions, etc Japanese style portable communications devices (you can hardly even call them phones anymore) aren't available in most of the rest of the world. An iPhone 3GS is feature comparable to the vast majority of its competition in the US (and Europe as far as I know), but nicer to use than most of it. The bleeding edge Android stuff is better, I'll admit, hopefully the new iPhone will fill the gap soon. If not I'll get an Android phone.
See now I would (and have) argued that because of the mission critical nature of cell phones for many people's lifestyle, Apple's lock down makes a lot more sense on phones. I own, and like, an iPhone. It's a nice device that is primarily a reliable phone with good battery life, secondarily a reliable Internet device capable of looking at most websites and handling my mail, and tertiarily a multifunction minicomputer capable of doing a bunch of other stuff I sometimes need or want. On a phone I am willing to sacrifice on the tertiary function and accept a level of lock down that I would not accept on other types of devices, because it is PRIMARILY a phone. I need it to be able to make and receive calls reliably. If Apple can convince me that by playing in their walled garden I can get the vast majority of the tertiary functions I want, while being very unlikely to lose the primary function... I can play that game. And let's face it, the walls on the garden aren't exactly 1000 feet high. If I really want to run arbitrary code on the thing, a developer license isn't a HUGE expense.
By contrast, the same level of lock down on the iPad seems unacceptable to me. In my mind the iPad is a "computer" and I'd like to be able to use it as one. It is primarily a multifunction minicomputer and Internet device. I want to be able to run whatever I want to run on such a device, and unlike the phone, I can't see a good reason to restrict it. This is not to say I'm gonna run out and shout on the streets that Apple is evil for locking down the iPad. It doesn't appeal to me, but it obviously appeals to someone. I'm willing to accept a level of lock down on my phone that is unacceptable to you. Someone else is willing to accept a level of lock down on a tablet that they wouldn't on their laptop. Some people don't care at all as long as whatever it is let's them get their e-mail and surf Facebook.
Sees to me that if they were going to fire him, they would have by now. And since apparently the world reads his Facebook page, we'd probably know about it. Personally I hope they keep him on and use some of these hilarious advertising/promotional ideas I'm reading.
I suspect this is a "Cat's out of the bag" situation. When Lufthansa is e-mailing you free ticket offers, it's probably time to accept that your name is out there and roll with it. Publishing his name now isn't going to make him any more or less famous (or infamous).
Realistically how long term is "long term". They've been playing by the rules for what? 15 years now? Is it still possible that hey can totally sell out and go back on what they've done? Sure. It's also "possible" that RMS might spend a weekend playing with an iPhone and the App Store and realize he's been wrong all these years. (Which will no doubt lead to yet another complaint about the pain and suffering which is his life.) Red Hat has done a good job of balancing corporate health with Open Source values. Standing around just waiting for them to screw up doesn't accomplish anything. They are and have been good citizens of the community, if they cease to be, feel free to complain. Pro-active complaining about what they might someday do is really not fair.
Re:Buying ARM for a leg?
on
Apple To Buy ARM?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I don't see it. The only way Apple could have an immediate chilling effect on ARM licensees would be to immediately cancel or change the terms of current licenses. That won't fly. Regulators won't have to get involved. The licensee will immediately sue, and likely win quite quickly. It's a matter of civil law, not criminal law, to violate the terms of a contract. It will take years to whittle down the current licensees to a point where Apple would wield significant competitive advantage. Plenty of time for a new player to get into position.
Anyway, I still don't see Apple even wanting to do this. ARM's profits are considerable; almost certainly on par with any other single division within Apple. This isn't a case of Apple buying a struggling supplier to prop them up; ARM can easily be a profit center in and of itself. There's no way that leveraging ARM, in and of itself, will increase profits on iPhones and iPads enough to completely eclipse the profit potential of ARM itself. Why buy a goose that lays golden eggs then strangle it for Christmas dinner one year.
I see the thing working like this (assuming there is anything to the rumor at all). Apple makes an offer on ARM. Regulators get involved (as Apple is no doubt expecting that they will). Apple agrees to keep ARM as a wholly owned subsidiary, and otherwise makes various guarantees that they won't simple eat ARM and spit out the bones (as they likely hadn't been planning to do anyway). Regulators agree. Apple buys ARM. They give themselves excellent terms on licensing ARM's technology (obviously), and make it clear to ARM's management that several up and coming technologies (which Apple no doubt wants for iPhone 6.0) are now priorities. Otherwise, they leave things alone. ARM continues to license it's technology, it continues to make piles of money, and Apple adds a reasonable portion of those piles to its own piles.
Does Apple gain certain competitive advantages? Certainly. They're going to be licensing ARM's tech at a significant discount I'm sure, and guiding ARM's R&D in the directions they need it to go (as well as knowing what those directions are ahead of time). That's not really game changing though. At best it let's Apple shave $10 off the cost of an iPhone (or make $10 more of each one). It's good. It helps them. It doesn't slaughter the competition. Meanwhile everyone else is still licensing ARM tech and Apple is making money off of that too.
I guess I find his definition of "success" incomprehensible if that's the case. When your only measure of success is "Everyone agrees with me and the world has remolded itself to my standards exactly", you can pretty much expect to be disappointed. Free Software is everywhere. Maybe all software isn't Free, but that's an unrealistic goal. It's not possible to live, work, and exist in the real world of business while using exclusively Free Software. That's a Hell of an accomplishment. It's something to be proud of. People who don't even know what "Free Software" means use it all the time (Firefox is only the most obvious example). That's real progress.
The guy defined his dream, spent his life working towards it, and has real, measurable victories to point at. That's more than 99 people out of 100 can say. Probably more than 999 out of a thousand can say. But hey! We all don't agree with him totally, and things he considers to be bad still happen, so his life is pain. Got it.
Re:Buying ARM for a leg?
on
Apple To Buy ARM?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I just don't know where to begin. There are several points around which the "Apple is evil, this will kill the industry" hysteria fails:
1)This is a rumor. It's a completely unsubstantiated rumor. It may be true, there are a number of reasons it could be a good move for Apple, but it's sure as Hell not a fact yet. Calling Apple "evil" for something they may or may not even be doing seems a bit harsh.
2) In the event that this rumor turn out to be true, the deal will face regulatory scrutiny from agencies in (at the minimum) the US and EU. Probably several Asian countries as well. So assuming that Apple is considering this bit of "evil", several country's regulatory agencies will have to be either "evil" or "stupid" before it becomes a problem.
3) Assuming that Apple is really planning to make this bid, and it gets by the regulators, there are lots of reasons Apple would buy ARM, then simply continue with business as usual. ARM is hugely profitable. Buying them, then continuing their business model, would simply increase Apple's profits. Of course they would guide ARM's development to make things that Apple needs in particular, but a lot of those thing are the same as any other CPU customer would want. In this scenario Apple, at worst, is getting to guide ARM's dev model while getting their own licenses at a discount. Nice for them, but not game changing.
4) Assuming the worst case scenario, Apple buys ARM, gets it past the regulators, then takes their new found power and starts abusing it; is it really all that bad? They won't simply be able to cancel all the license agreements ARM already has. They'll have to slowing cut off the supply of ARM tech to the industry as old agreements expire and new tech isn't licensed. Given that it will have to be a slow process, there's plenty of time for a new player (or players) to simply inch into the niche as ARM is inched out. I'm sure Intel, AMD, or some other company no one has heard of yet would love to take over ARM's spot.
TL;DR: This is a rumor not a fact. It'll have to get by the regulators if it happens. If it turns out that it is real, and the regulators go for it, Apple may not abuse it. There's plenty of good reasons to leave things as they are mostly. If all of the worst possibilities occur, it still doesn't seem like it would be that awful for the industry, though it would certainly shake things up.
Yep, this. Spent the afternoon manually fixing machines, myself. I'm not normally a Windows Admin, I handle Unix systems, but they co-opted everyone with an admin account for this mess.
I don't think that's even the more significant issue. Microsoft may well be willing to provide the info, but it would be havoc getting users to do upgrades in the same specific order every time. Even if you automated things so that the AV system always updates before the OS you'd have problems. What if the AV vendor's site was down and the AV update goes through late? What if the user shuts the computer down then powers it back up in between update times? There is just no practical way to assure that the AV is ALWAYS updated before the OS.
I believe Stallman is medically manic-depressive (I recall reading this somewhere). If he's not actually diagnosed he probably should be. I mean realistically I can't see what he's experienced that has been all that painful (outside of normal run of life's little tragedy's that all of us experience). He's got a reasonably comfortable life doing work that he enjoys and considers important. It's more than most of us get. The fact that he hasn't completely succeeded in freeing all software is as much attributable to the unrealistic nature of a goal as to any personal failing of his (not that he doesn't have them). He has succeeded in helping to build a thriving Free and Open Source software infrastructure with numerous standout projects used by millions of people.
Personally I think the man is a fanatic, and I don't actually like him much, but I can respect his success. I can't see how he can consider what he has accomplished as anything other than "success". He's taken on some of the biggest players in the industry and come out with his hide intact and a large and thriving community embracing varying degrees of his philosophy.
it must be nice to be perfect. The rest of us sadly fall short of you, and occasionally make mistakes. Granted this was a big mistake, and guy will no doubt feel repercussions, but firing him is probably over the top. We'll see.
Now you're changing the rules. The OP stated that the device wasn't Turing Complete, the GP pointed out that it was. Now Turing Complete isn't enough? Don't get me wrong, I don't care whether it's Turing Complete or not. It does what I need it too. Changing the rules of argument mis-stream is not good rhetoric though.
My point is that I bought my refrigerator to be a refrigerator; it could be more, but it would suffer as a refrigerator and I'd risk having more problems with it. I bought my iPhone to be a phone and portable Internet device. As a bonus, it does a lot more things, but that's kind of secondary to the analogy. It could potentially do even more, but it could suffer in it's primary function (become less secure, less stable, whatever) and I'd risk having more problems with it.
Is there a market of people willing to take that risk? Sure. There are also devices to serve that market (or there will be in the case of the iPad). I'm quite likely to be in that market if I ever decide I need an iPad like device. For something like that, I'd rather be able to play with it and hack around on it. For my phone I prefer Apple's method. I need my phone to be stable and secure, I rely on it in ways that I don't rely on other devices. If I screw up my desktop, there's always the laptop. If I screw up the laptop, there's always the desktop. If I get a tablet and screw it up there's always the laptop I can carry in a pinch. If I screw up my phone... I can't contact people in an emergency and they can't contact me if THEY have an emergency.
The iPad doesn't do it for me either, despite that I like my iPhone. I'd rather something more hackable and customizable. I won't buy one, though I may check out the G-clones. For people that don't care about hacking or customizing though, it's there and they can make their own judgments.
Which is no "charge" at all. Yes, it could be more than it is. So what? I could make a refrigerator with a built in microwave so I don't have to carry my food so far. The only problems are I lack the engineering and fabrication skill to do it, I don't want to damage my refrigerator, and I'm not all that sure it would actually be that great to lose so much refrigerator space. My refrigerator could be so much more than it is... but in the end I can't make make it more and I'm not really sure I'd be that happy with it if I did. My iPhone could be so much more than it is, but in the end I can't make it more and I'm not really sure I'd be that happy with it if I did.
Apple could make it a more open system, but while it would make you happy, it would be unnoticed by the majority (until it bit them somehow), and probably make just as many people unhappy as are now unhappy with the closed system.
This is the best reply so far, as it answers my question about the legality of keeping found property. There's still the question of what constitutes a "reasonable and just efforts to find the owner", but clearly if they can be found not to have made such an effort they can be charged.
Let's say a professor gives us both the same very easy assignment. Something that can be done in ten lines or less, and is meant to display how a for-loop works. We're to comment the code and explain what each line does (because it's a classroom assignment, and that's almost always a requirement even for the simplest tasks). Now chances are we'll need at least two or three variables, and just like the comments we'll be expected to use descriptive names; even though the task is mind numbingly simple. You just have to do these thing in classrooms, even when you're only dealing with two variables and "x" and "y" would serve just fine.
So, what are the chances that we will choose the same variable names, use the same comments, put the same number of spaces and/or tabs in our indents, and insert our white space lines in the same places? Pretty slim most likely. It's more than just "did they use the same basic approach to the problem" or even "did they use the same functions and control structures in the same order?". It's more like "Is this exactly the same program?" or at least "are parts of these two programs completely identical or nearly so?" Of course they also manually chaeck what the automated tools flag. Or at least they should and they claim too.
Actually they state that Apple has acknowledged losing "a" device, which they would like back. It's unlikely that Gizmodo could be sure the device they have and the device Apple is looking for are the same device. I would call Gizmodo's actions here questionably moral, but probably not illegal. Someone found a phone, there was no obvious way to identify the owner and return it; so they gave it to Gizmodo who took it apart. The fact that that both the finder and the website staff likely guessed what they had doesn't likely legally obligate them. They didn't know for sure it was an Apple prototype (they still don't in fact, they're just guessing and supporting that guess with some data), they never signed any sort of NDA, and Apple apparently did not mark the thing with any obvious "If Found..." stickers or software.
They found a phone that *might* be an iPhone prototype (or it might be a hoax, or a well designed knock-off), they have since found out that Apple is looking for a missing prototype. It does not follow that they have a legal obligation to assume that what they found is the missing prototype and that they therefore have a responsibility to return it. I think most people would say that this is what they *should* do, morally, but I doubt that they are legally obligated to. I'm not sure that the law even requires you to make a "reasonable effort" to returned found items to be honest.
The problem with this statement being: Oracle doesn't care. They are asking the "community" to prove that the software can be profitable, because it's in the "community's" interest for Oracle not to abandon the software. Open Solaris is likely to simply disappear without Oracle's support. A good portion of it's developers work for the company. I don't know what the numbers are, but most estimates seem to hover around "almost all of them". It could be forked, sure. Assuming you can find enough strong developers to get behind yet another Open Source operating system. More likely it will die. In which case the "community" of its users suffers. Hence they have a vested interest in helping Oracle find a business model.
Given that iPhone OS 4 was well into development when the iPad was released (since it went into developer beta literally days later), and was almost certainly in the planning stages while the hardware of the iPad was being chosen; and given that iPhone OS 4 support multitasking.... Your argument make no sense at all. Not that I don't agree that the writer is quite likely wrong, but your reasoning is completely flawed.
Slashdot Mirror
While I realize your primary objection to the iPhone probably has more to do with the "closed system" but than the "Marketing" bit, I'll point out that the "Sent from my iPhone" thing is merely the default signature for the Mail app. It's trivial to delete it, change it, or otherwise do something else with it.
Out of curiosity, which functions you currently use require a jailbreak? There's been a App Store version of SSH since like the third week the store opened. There's probably two dozen of them now. I was getting nervous for a bit when the store first opened, but it seems that the delay was on the developer side, as they tried to figure out the best way to do a terminal on such a non-standard layout. TouchTerm seems to have figured it our pretty well. That's what I use.
Actually the iPhone is great compared to the available competition in most markets. If I lived in Japan, and had access to the phones they have over there, I no doubt wouldn't have an iPhone. But for innumerable reasons relating to market, availability of networks, willingness to spend money for particular functions, etc Japanese style portable communications devices (you can hardly even call them phones anymore) aren't available in most of the rest of the world. An iPhone 3GS is feature comparable to the vast majority of its competition in the US (and Europe as far as I know), but nicer to use than most of it. The bleeding edge Android stuff is better, I'll admit, hopefully the new iPhone will fill the gap soon. If not I'll get an Android phone.
See now I would (and have) argued that because of the mission critical nature of cell phones for many people's lifestyle, Apple's lock down makes a lot more sense on phones. I own, and like, an iPhone. It's a nice device that is primarily a reliable phone with good battery life, secondarily a reliable Internet device capable of looking at most websites and handling my mail, and tertiarily a multifunction minicomputer capable of doing a bunch of other stuff I sometimes need or want. On a phone I am willing to sacrifice on the tertiary function and accept a level of lock down that I would not accept on other types of devices, because it is PRIMARILY a phone. I need it to be able to make and receive calls reliably. If Apple can convince me that by playing in their walled garden I can get the vast majority of the tertiary functions I want, while being very unlikely to lose the primary function... I can play that game. And let's face it, the walls on the garden aren't exactly 1000 feet high. If I really want to run arbitrary code on the thing, a developer license isn't a HUGE expense.
By contrast, the same level of lock down on the iPad seems unacceptable to me. In my mind the iPad is a "computer" and I'd like to be able to use it as one. It is primarily a multifunction minicomputer and Internet device. I want to be able to run whatever I want to run on such a device, and unlike the phone, I can't see a good reason to restrict it. This is not to say I'm gonna run out and shout on the streets that Apple is evil for locking down the iPad. It doesn't appeal to me, but it obviously appeals to someone. I'm willing to accept a level of lock down on my phone that is unacceptable to you. Someone else is willing to accept a level of lock down on a tablet that they wouldn't on their laptop. Some people don't care at all as long as whatever it is let's them get their e-mail and surf Facebook.
Sees to me that if they were going to fire him, they would have by now. And since apparently the world reads his Facebook page, we'd probably know about it. Personally I hope they keep him on and use some of these hilarious advertising/promotional ideas I'm reading.
I suspect this is a "Cat's out of the bag" situation. When Lufthansa is e-mailing you free ticket offers, it's probably time to accept that your name is out there and roll with it. Publishing his name now isn't going to make him any more or less famous (or infamous).
Realistically how long term is "long term". They've been playing by the rules for what? 15 years now? Is it still possible that hey can totally sell out and go back on what they've done? Sure. It's also "possible" that RMS might spend a weekend playing with an iPhone and the App Store and realize he's been wrong all these years. (Which will no doubt lead to yet another complaint about the pain and suffering which is his life.) Red Hat has done a good job of balancing corporate health with Open Source values. Standing around just waiting for them to screw up doesn't accomplish anything. They are and have been good citizens of the community, if they cease to be, feel free to complain. Pro-active complaining about what they might someday do is really not fair.
I don't see it. The only way Apple could have an immediate chilling effect on ARM licensees would be to immediately cancel or change the terms of current licenses. That won't fly. Regulators won't have to get involved. The licensee will immediately sue, and likely win quite quickly. It's a matter of civil law, not criminal law, to violate the terms of a contract. It will take years to whittle down the current licensees to a point where Apple would wield significant competitive advantage. Plenty of time for a new player to get into position.
Anyway, I still don't see Apple even wanting to do this. ARM's profits are considerable; almost certainly on par with any other single division within Apple. This isn't a case of Apple buying a struggling supplier to prop them up; ARM can easily be a profit center in and of itself. There's no way that leveraging ARM, in and of itself, will increase profits on iPhones and iPads enough to completely eclipse the profit potential of ARM itself. Why buy a goose that lays golden eggs then strangle it for Christmas dinner one year.
I see the thing working like this (assuming there is anything to the rumor at all). Apple makes an offer on ARM. Regulators get involved (as Apple is no doubt expecting that they will). Apple agrees to keep ARM as a wholly owned subsidiary, and otherwise makes various guarantees that they won't simple eat ARM and spit out the bones (as they likely hadn't been planning to do anyway). Regulators agree. Apple buys ARM. They give themselves excellent terms on licensing ARM's technology (obviously), and make it clear to ARM's management that several up and coming technologies (which Apple no doubt wants for iPhone 6.0) are now priorities. Otherwise, they leave things alone. ARM continues to license it's technology, it continues to make piles of money, and Apple adds a reasonable portion of those piles to its own piles.
Does Apple gain certain competitive advantages? Certainly. They're going to be licensing ARM's tech at a significant discount I'm sure, and guiding ARM's R&D in the directions they need it to go (as well as knowing what those directions are ahead of time). That's not really game changing though. At best it let's Apple shave $10 off the cost of an iPhone (or make $10 more of each one). It's good. It helps them. It doesn't slaughter the competition. Meanwhile everyone else is still licensing ARM tech and Apple is making money off of that too.
Gah! One letter typo changes the entire meaning of sentence! "It's not possible to live..." should be "It's NOW possible to live...".
I guess I find his definition of "success" incomprehensible if that's the case. When your only measure of success is "Everyone agrees with me and the world has remolded itself to my standards exactly", you can pretty much expect to be disappointed. Free Software is everywhere. Maybe all software isn't Free, but that's an unrealistic goal. It's not possible to live, work, and exist in the real world of business while using exclusively Free Software. That's a Hell of an accomplishment. It's something to be proud of. People who don't even know what "Free Software" means use it all the time (Firefox is only the most obvious example). That's real progress.
The guy defined his dream, spent his life working towards it, and has real, measurable victories to point at. That's more than 99 people out of 100 can say. Probably more than 999 out of a thousand can say. But hey! We all don't agree with him totally, and things he considers to be bad still happen, so his life is pain. Got it.
I just don't know where to begin. There are several points around which the "Apple is evil, this will kill the industry" hysteria fails:
1)This is a rumor. It's a completely unsubstantiated rumor. It may be true, there are a number of reasons it could be a good move for Apple, but it's sure as Hell not a fact yet. Calling Apple "evil" for something they may or may not even be doing seems a bit harsh.
2) In the event that this rumor turn out to be true, the deal will face regulatory scrutiny from agencies in (at the minimum) the US and EU. Probably several Asian countries as well. So assuming that Apple is considering this bit of "evil", several country's regulatory agencies will have to be either "evil" or "stupid" before it becomes a problem.
3) Assuming that Apple is really planning to make this bid, and it gets by the regulators, there are lots of reasons Apple would buy ARM, then simply continue with business as usual. ARM is hugely profitable. Buying them, then continuing their business model, would simply increase Apple's profits. Of course they would guide ARM's development to make things that Apple needs in particular, but a lot of those thing are the same as any other CPU customer would want. In this scenario Apple, at worst, is getting to guide ARM's dev model while getting their own licenses at a discount. Nice for them, but not game changing.
4) Assuming the worst case scenario, Apple buys ARM, gets it past the regulators, then takes their new found power and starts abusing it; is it really all that bad? They won't simply be able to cancel all the license agreements ARM already has. They'll have to slowing cut off the supply of ARM tech to the industry as old agreements expire and new tech isn't licensed. Given that it will have to be a slow process, there's plenty of time for a new player (or players) to simply inch into the niche as ARM is inched out. I'm sure Intel, AMD, or some other company no one has heard of yet would love to take over ARM's spot.
TL;DR: This is a rumor not a fact. It'll have to get by the regulators if it happens. If it turns out that it is real, and the regulators go for it, Apple may not abuse it. There's plenty of good reasons to leave things as they are mostly. If all of the worst possibilities occur, it still doesn't seem like it would be that awful for the industry, though it would certainly shake things up.
Yep, this. Spent the afternoon manually fixing machines, myself. I'm not normally a Windows Admin, I handle Unix systems, but they co-opted everyone with an admin account for this mess.
I don't think that's even the more significant issue. Microsoft may well be willing to provide the info, but it would be havoc getting users to do upgrades in the same specific order every time. Even if you automated things so that the AV system always updates before the OS you'd have problems. What if the AV vendor's site was down and the AV update goes through late? What if the user shuts the computer down then powers it back up in between update times? There is just no practical way to assure that the AV is ALWAYS updated before the OS.
Sufficiently painful to seriously wonder if you should have ended it all? That's a bit over the top doncha think?
I believe Stallman is medically manic-depressive (I recall reading this somewhere). If he's not actually diagnosed he probably should be. I mean realistically I can't see what he's experienced that has been all that painful (outside of normal run of life's little tragedy's that all of us experience). He's got a reasonably comfortable life doing work that he enjoys and considers important. It's more than most of us get. The fact that he hasn't completely succeeded in freeing all software is as much attributable to the unrealistic nature of a goal as to any personal failing of his (not that he doesn't have them). He has succeeded in helping to build a thriving Free and Open Source software infrastructure with numerous standout projects used by millions of people.
Personally I think the man is a fanatic, and I don't actually like him much, but I can respect his success. I can't see how he can consider what he has accomplished as anything other than "success". He's taken on some of the biggest players in the industry and come out with his hide intact and a large and thriving community embracing varying degrees of his philosophy.
it must be nice to be perfect. The rest of us sadly fall short of you, and occasionally make mistakes. Granted this was a big mistake, and guy will no doubt feel repercussions, but firing him is probably over the top. We'll see.
Now you're changing the rules. The OP stated that the device wasn't Turing Complete, the GP pointed out that it was. Now Turing Complete isn't enough? Don't get me wrong, I don't care whether it's Turing Complete or not. It does what I need it too. Changing the rules of argument mis-stream is not good rhetoric though.
My point is that I bought my refrigerator to be a refrigerator; it could be more, but it would suffer as a refrigerator and I'd risk having more problems with it. I bought my iPhone to be a phone and portable Internet device. As a bonus, it does a lot more things, but that's kind of secondary to the analogy. It could potentially do even more, but it could suffer in it's primary function (become less secure, less stable, whatever) and I'd risk having more problems with it.
Is there a market of people willing to take that risk? Sure. There are also devices to serve that market (or there will be in the case of the iPad). I'm quite likely to be in that market if I ever decide I need an iPad like device. For something like that, I'd rather be able to play with it and hack around on it. For my phone I prefer Apple's method. I need my phone to be stable and secure, I rely on it in ways that I don't rely on other devices. If I screw up my desktop, there's always the laptop. If I screw up the laptop, there's always the desktop. If I get a tablet and screw it up there's always the laptop I can carry in a pinch. If I screw up my phone... I can't contact people in an emergency and they can't contact me if THEY have an emergency.
The iPad doesn't do it for me either, despite that I like my iPhone. I'd rather something more hackable and customizable. I won't buy one, though I may check out the G-clones. For people that don't care about hacking or customizing though, it's there and they can make their own judgments.
Which is no "charge" at all. Yes, it could be more than it is. So what? I could make a refrigerator with a built in microwave so I don't have to carry my food so far. The only problems are I lack the engineering and fabrication skill to do it, I don't want to damage my refrigerator, and I'm not all that sure it would actually be that great to lose so much refrigerator space. My refrigerator could be so much more than it is... but in the end I can't make make it more and I'm not really sure I'd be that happy with it if I did. My iPhone could be so much more than it is, but in the end I can't make it more and I'm not really sure I'd be that happy with it if I did.
Apple could make it a more open system, but while it would make you happy, it would be unnoticed by the majority (until it bit them somehow), and probably make just as many people unhappy as are now unhappy with the closed system.
This is the best reply so far, as it answers my question about the legality of keeping found property. There's still the question of what constitutes a "reasonable and just efforts to find the owner", but clearly if they can be found not to have made such an effort they can be charged.
Let's say a professor gives us both the same very easy assignment. Something that can be done in ten lines or less, and is meant to display how a for-loop works. We're to comment the code and explain what each line does (because it's a classroom assignment, and that's almost always a requirement even for the simplest tasks). Now chances are we'll need at least two or three variables, and just like the comments we'll be expected to use descriptive names; even though the task is mind numbingly simple. You just have to do these thing in classrooms, even when you're only dealing with two variables and "x" and "y" would serve just fine.
So, what are the chances that we will choose the same variable names, use the same comments, put the same number of spaces and/or tabs in our indents, and insert our white space lines in the same places? Pretty slim most likely. It's more than just "did they use the same basic approach to the problem" or even "did they use the same functions and control structures in the same order?". It's more like "Is this exactly the same program?" or at least "are parts of these two programs completely identical or nearly so?" Of course they also manually chaeck what the automated tools flag. Or at least they should and they claim too.
Actually they state that Apple has acknowledged losing "a" device, which they would like back. It's unlikely that Gizmodo could be sure the device they have and the device Apple is looking for are the same device. I would call Gizmodo's actions here questionably moral, but probably not illegal. Someone found a phone, there was no obvious way to identify the owner and return it; so they gave it to Gizmodo who took it apart. The fact that that both the finder and the website staff likely guessed what they had doesn't likely legally obligate them. They didn't know for sure it was an Apple prototype (they still don't in fact, they're just guessing and supporting that guess with some data), they never signed any sort of NDA, and Apple apparently did not mark the thing with any obvious "If Found..." stickers or software.
They found a phone that *might* be an iPhone prototype (or it might be a hoax, or a well designed knock-off), they have since found out that Apple is looking for a missing prototype. It does not follow that they have a legal obligation to assume that what they found is the missing prototype and that they therefore have a responsibility to return it. I think most people would say that this is what they *should* do, morally, but I doubt that they are legally obligated to. I'm not sure that the law even requires you to make a "reasonable effort" to returned found items to be honest.
The problem with this statement being: Oracle doesn't care. They are asking the "community" to prove that the software can be profitable, because it's in the "community's" interest for Oracle not to abandon the software. Open Solaris is likely to simply disappear without Oracle's support. A good portion of it's developers work for the company. I don't know what the numbers are, but most estimates seem to hover around "almost all of them". It could be forked, sure. Assuming you can find enough strong developers to get behind yet another Open Source operating system. More likely it will die. In which case the "community" of its users suffers. Hence they have a vested interest in helping Oracle find a business model.
It's a shame you can't recognize an obvious parody hen you see one. Your ignorance is pretty astounding, but typical.
Given that iPhone OS 4 was well into development when the iPad was released (since it went into developer beta literally days later), and was almost certainly in the planning stages while the hardware of the iPad was being chosen; and given that iPhone OS 4 support multitasking.... Your argument make no sense at all. Not that I don't agree that the writer is quite likely wrong, but your reasoning is completely flawed.