Yeah the community for years was doubling in size every year. The encylopedia was growing by leaps and bounds. It stagnated after the UserBox wars. That was when Jimmy Wales really hurt the community and took action to try and change the tone of wikipedia from fun to serious without having a consensus.
I can't understand how Citizendium ( http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Citizendium ) hasn't come up. Citizendium is a wiki, like wikipedia which ranks editors based on subject area knowledge. Everyone posts under their real name and links to a real resume. Who you are determines how much authority / deference you are given with respect to a topic.
Frankly, academics working in Citizendium and Wikipedia citing Citizendium strikes me as a good model to accomplish the goal in a practical way.
1Mac is not their least profitable part. Here is a slightly out of data graph of how their revenue breaks out: http://www.macstories.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/share-of-profit-graph.png In terms of the latest quarter: Apple sold 4.13 million Macs during the quarter, a 23 percent unit increase over the year-ago quarter. The Company sold 16.24 million iPhones in the quarter, representing 86 percent unit growth over the year-ago quarter. Apple sold 19.45 million iPods during the quarter, representing a seven percent unit decline from the year-ago quarter. The Company also sold 7.33 million iPads during the quarter.
As far as BSD goes. OSX (Darwin) isn't something that uses BSD software, it is a BSD. Apple doesn't directly work with the FreeBSD team for the same reason that OpenBSD. The FreeBSD relationship to Apple is more like Debian to Redhat. And you don't see RedHat funding Debian packages or visa versa. They don't work with BSD community they are an integral part of it. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Unix_history-simple.png ) They way they've support the BSD community has been by spending huge sums on building a BSD based system.
As far as the architecture (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Diagram_of_Mac_OS_X_architecture.svg ) everything in Darwin is open source. And then there are a huge number of technologies like Webkit.
How committed is the open-source community to Apple? Not very.
What are you basing this on? On most projects the majority of developers run OSX as their personal system. OSX is becoming the home platform for most Unix desktop applications not tied tightly to Linux (including KDE/Gnome) and creating a Macport (and often a native Aqua port) is a high priority. Just to give an example of a community I'm in GHC the mac version of the Haskell platform is key version. The Linux and Windows versions lag. For TeX, Mac is pretty much the home platform.
I guess could you be more specific? What do you think the Open Source community isn't doing for Apple that it says does for Microsoft which has 6x the market share?
I'm wondering how it is not true that "iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on everyone's phones".
Well remember there are 4 mechanisms:
a) Jailbreaking. b) Developer SDK, either having someone use this for you or buying one yourself. c) Registering with another authentication agent. That's using some one's Enterprise SDK or buying it. d) Vanilla system.
I don't think its accurate to pretend that (d) is the only state given there are something like a hundred thousand Developer SDK's out there and quite a few of the enterprise and that 10% of the phones are jailbroaken. It is just false to speak as if the situation were that restrictive.
As I understand it, Apple is free to deny you developer status and then you can't obtain an SDK from them, and if you want an SDK you do have to pay a tax (well, fee).
In theory, yeah they can. I don't know of any examples of them denying an SDK. In practice they know your email address and that's about it. They have made no attempt to build mechanisms of control for the SDK. And yes you have to pay a marginal fee. But lets consider this: An iPhone is about $500. Its sold with a smart phone data package that runs about $80 / mo for 2 years. Most of these people drop another $100 or so on applications. $99 for the SDK is a marginal fee given the cost of the device. Especially since a developer SDK supports 100 users per app, we are really talking a few bucks in practice.
Heck the FSF could just buy the Enterprise SDK for $299, set up their own authentication and let whomever wanted to use their servers. Assuming they could handle the bandwidth and wanted to take full responsibility for end user support.
Apple is the sole authority on what programs is allowed on an iPhone.
No its not. Apple has no idea what Enterprise users are putting on phones. And they don't have anything more than the checksum for a binary for a Developer provisioning file. They don't do anything more than authenticate the key for the developers. They do not regulate binaries.
Talking about things people could potentially do as if they are doing them, is just false. For example, "Obama nuked Chicago" or "Bill Gates gave $1b to the Neo Nazi party" are both false statements. Apple does not regulate absolutely what you can install on an iPhone. They do force you to jump through fairly easy hoops. That's a fair statement.
but as far as I know Apple is doing their best to make jailbreaking not possible
No, they could just lock the firmware if they wanted to make jail breaking not possible. They could deliberately send out viruses to attack jailbroken systems. They are jawboning a bit, about jail breaking; and their openfirmware updates have been a bit dangerous for jailbreakers.
a) Programmable small databases (i.e. Access) (this used to be a huge market and things like Filemaker pro were major players) b) Programming language IDEs. Visual Studio is really the only one left. c) Programming languages, the victory of BASIC / C++ (died with Java revolution and the rise of dynamic languages like Perl/PHP). d) Browsers (though this is slipped after 6 years of total control). e) Small business systems. Death of the mini computer to be replaced by the Windows client/server model. f) Death of dumb terminals g) Ubiquity of the Microsoft/Intel/Western Digital architecture for consumer systems. (Possibly collapsing with the rise of Arm). h) Embrace / extend for email -- Exchange i) SQL server pushing large databases into smaller niches, an attack from below j) Microsoft Dynamics ERP (gaining share very rapidly, with an excellent offering). k) Viseo -- Flowcharting l) Project management
I agree with you on the FSF in terms of them being a good organization. I contribute for over a decade to the EFF and am friendly with Kathy Hargraves who used to be an officer with FSF. I wasn't being too critical of their editorial, I was indicating that on matters of fact regarding how Apple works they are simply incorrect, oversimplifying too much. Statements like, "iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on everyone's phones" is simply not true.
The problem is when you combine aggressive rhetoric with factual error that really creates a severe credibility gap.
In terms of legislation in the US and its pro corporate anti-consumer bent. I'm pretty appalled. Copyright extensions is my #1 hobby horse but the telecommunications act of 1996 was a shattering moment in terms of faith in the government. I'm no fan of the vagary of the DMCA. So again nothing to argue there.
As far as things getting worse. During my lifetime, (born '69) thing in terms of censorship have collapsed. Services like http://www.clearplay.com/ , are very useful since they are setting precedents about the right to edit your own version of content, i.e. that everyone who owns a copy of a work has the "right to patch the copyrighted content" of that work and a limited right to redistribute. So I disagree with the general theory that things are getting worse, I think they are getting better. But yes there is movement in both directions. For example in the 1980s most employees that had a desktop system had dumb terminals, and far less freedom on their desktop than they do on a Windows machine without admin rights. The mass casette tape usage changed music freedom. The VCR and movie rental has done wonders for free video. Large hard drives have created a new world of movie freedoms.
As far as Apple and the capability for abuse. I agree, PCs used to be very low security. Security is going way up. In all fairness though the demand for security is being caused by criminals not corporations. Spammers, virus people, credit card thieves are the ones creating this problem. Then you add on corporate IT desks that want to lock down employee systems, and media producers that want to avoid rampant piracy. But ultimately it was spam that killed open protocols like SMTP relay and Usenet not corporate greed. And I also remember reading about Stallman's The right to read where he was talking about the dangers in 1997, and I think he's a great guy for pointing out the potential for abuse.
I see the technology companies as, on balance, doing their best to navigate a very tricky situation of individual freedom, protecting copyright and creating manageability. And I know in taking that rather optimistic perspective I'm being a bit pollyanish relative to the FSF. And there are two main reasons I don't make much heavier use of Kindle:
a) The price is way too high for most books b) I see books as a long term buy and DRM schemes rarely last a decade.
No doubt Apple is really liking the revenue stream from the Apple store. They are proving you can make a hell of a lot of money getting 30% of $2 applications and create a massive client software market which is nice since its been about a decade since PC software has thrived. But... we can look at them more charitably.
The reason Windows security is such a mess is not Microsoft. NT has mechanisms for excellent security and has had those since NT 3.51. The problem is they have a user base which makes dumb decisions and application developers that don't really care about security. Apple has solved this problem by implementing a very strong security system, well beyond what you normally see in secure OS, in a consumer OS and putting in an entire infrastructure to support this.
Apple cuts users into a few groups: a) General users who don't know what they are doing. They use the app store and enjoy its protections. In exchange they pay Apple. b) Corporate end users. They get apps from the company. Apple makes their money by selling lots and lots of hardware and maybe some consulting. Its not about the $299, its about $500k plus in hardware sales and maybe consulting sales on top. c) The knowledgeable or those people directly supported by the knowledgeable. $100 / yr, documentation that assumes you know objective C, Xcode... they do a pretty good of filtering out people who aren't knowledgeable from this group. And of course for people who really want to self support: $299 / yr and you have to have servers on static IP addresses which does a nice job of filtering. And at $99 / yr, as you mentioned that's like 30% of $330 and most Apple users don't spend that much. So I guess they would rather sell SDKs. Its not an onerous fee but its enough that your typical iPhone user wouldn't pay it on a lark. And that allows Apple to support actual developers pretty well. d) Hackers. They have jail breaking for this crowd. These people can pirate software, They get their own little hacker app store (http://cydia.saurik.com/ ) with all kinds of applications that won't end up on group (a)'s machines. And if something goes wrong, while this group isn't nearly as strong as (b) or (c) they can rebuild their system without calling Apple.
That's really a pretty nice system for practical security. And IMHO this is keeping with the spirit of the GPL. Global UI enhancements, video recording and streaming, multimedia SMS, Bluetooth file sharing, Internet tethering, and background processing. direct GPS access, and competing e-mail and Web browser clients make tech support complex. If you have those things then you are group (b), (c) or (d) and thus have an alternate support mechanism. If the system were open general end users would install this stuff, like it, but also make the platform much harder to support. People like the "it just works" but "it just works" requires Apple to be a total prick in a way that no consumer computer manufacturer has ever tried before.
As for the applications store remember there is one other thing. The copy protection mechanism is tied to the security mechanism.
One thing I have found interesting in this whole discussion is you've been focused on the $99 charge for the SDK. The real expense is that the SDK only runs on a Mac, so in theory you have to buy a Mac to even use this stuff.
As for the FSF. Their website is full of a lot of misinformation and oversimplification regarding the whole Apple SDK thing. I don't think they actually understand how Apple development works.
Apple is in the same position to contribute to the BSD community but just doesn't.
Huh? Apple makes a BSD which is more popular than all the others combined probably 50x over. In many ways they essentially are the BSD community. Macports is training millions in the BSD ports system. The Darwin kernel has all sorts of features that got ported to other BSDs. Via macports they've resolved huge numbers of problems for OpenBSD and FreeBSD. Further the whole launchd system which they are all standardizing on. Cups is another example. The app was GPLed and they bought the rights and made it BSD so the BSDs could standardize on it.
So I don't think you are being quite fair. That being said Apple could do more, I don't disagree.
____
As for IBM. Honestly I think the biggest surge was DB2 and Oracle. IBM was very 1/2 and 1/2 and after OS/2 they didn't have as much credibility for taking on Microsoft.
I don't think Apple is really breaking the intent of the GPLv3. The GPL is designed to insure the 4 freedoms and you have each of the 4 freedoms with iOS. The whole key thing is mainly just a very strong security system: anti-virus, anti-piracy, anti-worm system.
Well the patent clause Apple hates. No question about it. In general the no linking to proprietary software clause they hate as well.
Suppose I'm a user who buys an iPhone with GPL 3 Samba preloaded on it (which I cannot do since Apple does not include Samba on the iPhone, but suppose). Then we have looked at a clause of the GPL 3 that says that Apple must provide me all the "installation information" if I request it. The installation information includes any keys necessary for me to install modified versions of Samba on my iPhone. So I can demand of Apple that they provide me such a key, even if I have no intention of using it or compiling anything (so I don't already have an SDK, or perhaps I intend to compile on a non-Apple compiler).
Ah I see. Well that they do provide its called your device identifier. And yes you have it, whenever you get an iPhone. No special key needed. Its a 40 character string easily readable from iTunes and all sorts of other programs that is your iPhones/iPad's public key. They give it to anyone who has physical access to your device. So they meet that criteria. And that is the only piece of information specific to your device. And just to cut off an objection, no developer including Apple makes use of your device's private key. Only your device makes use of that, when reading the provisioning file.
But.... having that key doesn't do you any good. You need all 3 keys: a developer key, a device key and a key specifically generated for each binary. In a non jail broken iPhone there is no such thing as installing software that doesn't come from a developer. Your device needs to certify that: Application X was written by developer Y and intended for device Z; where Z = device you are trying to install on Y's identify is authenticated via. Apple's key (by default but you can change that) X = is authenticated by the iPhone/iPad itself
So you can't install, nor run any software including the original GPLed Samba without these 3 pieces of information. If you want to install software on your device a developer (someone with the SDK) had to have authorized you to do it. The device has no idea whether the Samba is "modified" or not, its just checking "is it signed by a developer authorized by my signing authority" and "does this binary match what he thinks he gave me". For consumer devices, by default, the signing authority is Apple and for Enterprise devices the signing authority is your corporation.
So you "I don't want to compile but I don't want to install" just doesn't exist on iOS. Its not a model the device supports. On iOS "installing software" is a joint task between a developer and an end user. Now I slight variant is, "I want to self sign my applications". OK you can do that but you need to register with the signing authority. They charge for that, its called buying the iOS SDK. Otherwise how do they know who you are?
Now you can setup your own signing authority that's part of the Enterprise SDK ($299). I have no idea if in theory (like your visual basic example) you could emulate all these servers yourself. But for the purpose or argument assume if you had 100 man years you could get a home grown Enterprise SDK up and running. Then Apple isn't even your signing authority and you don't have to buy an Enterprise SDK.
Finally of course you can tell your device not to use a signing authority at all, which I suspect does satisfy the GPLv3 in terms of keys.
_____
In terms of the anti-tivosation clause, I think the problem is that Apple is not really using cryptography to stop end users from installing software. The FSF simply never considered what broad based cryptographically signed applications would look like in practice because Apple is just so damn integrated. I mean could you imagine Microsoft building Visual Studio as the only sane way to create software for Windows Phones and Windows Media Player as the core interface with a Microsoft store bein
That's not so easy in the USA. US law has the notion of "shell corporation" and you can pierce the corporate veil to go after judgements. In fact setting up things this way allows the court to go after the owner's personal assets.
Actually let me correct myself. No changing the master key does work without having to reinstall. I don't know the details, but that is included with the enterprise SDK which is free but only comes with something like 1000+ devices.
First off, you aren't addressing how this is an "extra". Every developer who wants to install any software has to pay for the SDK. They aren't charging you extra, they charge $99 for the right to sign software. There is nothing extra about it.
I think we need to be a little more specific here what you mean by key. A provisioning file (remember to install an application via iTunes requires a binary plus a provisioning file) consists of 3 things:
a) A developer key which proves you are who you say you are. That key is included with the SDK. They are charging you for the SDK, however. But again I don't accept that paid compilers violate the GPL.
b) The device key, which comes from the end user not from Apple. If the end user registered with Apple they might have this, but this is readable from iTunes under device info among a 1/2 dozen other ways. The expectation is the end user will give you this information since in theory they are the ones who want the software.
c) The application key which comes from XCode. That one is binary application specific, it confirms that developer X really wrote program Y. Apple can't give it to you, they won't have your private key. They do make the software to generate it available with every Mac sold (so arguably again a paid compiler), and I think the algorithm is public domain. To generate this key you must have a developer key, but in theory you can lie to Xcode and put whatever key you want in here. The catch is that a device that uses Apple for its master key will know your key is a fake.
Thinking this through another way. Your end user is saying they will only trust Apple to confirm developer identities. You are paying $99 for a service, Apple to confirm to your end users that you are who you say you are. I don't think the GPL prohibits paying for additional services.
What exactly do you want them to give you that they aren't giving you that they can give you, other than you want them to give you the SDK for free. And here we just have to disagree I don't see anything in the GPL that prohibits reasonable charges that literally hundreds of thousands of people have paid for. I don't consider this "something extra" they are charging you. Since they charge you this to install any piece of software.
And also of course the end user of the software can a) change their master key if they wanted though I believe that would mean going to Linux since the binaries of the OS are signed by Apple. b) tell the system to ignore key violations / setup a situation that all keys automatically pass (a blank master key) which is jail breaking.
But that's up to the end user, not the developer and not Apple.
If someone wants to sell you GPL 3 software separate from the iPhone itself, there seems to be no requirements of keys as the anti-tivoisation clause seems to only apply to pre-loaded software.
Well then let me make it a little more complex. In theory at least iPhones and iPads don't have any software "included" other than the firmware. For most end users the entire system, all the software is loaded from iTunes during initial install. And iTunes is really just providing an easy interface For example you can go to : http://appldnld.apple.com/iPhone4/061-8619.20100715.4Pnsx/iPhone3,1_4.0.1_8A306_Restore.ipsw and get iOS 4.0.1 and download it to your computer.
So given that they aren't "bundling" any software in any kind of mandatory sense does that resolve the problem?
$100k / yr + is only 6% of the population. less than $50k is 75.4%. We can not worry about the $250kers, and if they want to exclude themselves OK. They are probably around 1% of the population.
Orig: rights granted or affirmed under this License.
So if the GPL 3 says I can get a key, I must be given the key at no charge, even if I have no plans to compile anything. However, this surprised me:
The catch is that's not a right granted under the license. Its simply a mechanism of installation. The iOS SDK / iTunes is the mechanism by which you install custom software. The GPL isn't granting you the right to do that, you already had that right. I can do X before I get software Y. I can do X after I get software Y. There is no granting of rights.
Assume the Apple store didn't exist at all. Then everyone would get the iPad with a bunch of software. If they wanted anymore software they would need to install it via. the SDK/ iTunes. Everyone just has to know someone who pays a $99 / yr fee for the right to create and install their own software. Your hangup is that you keep trying to conjoin Apple as a maker of the SDK and Apple as the guys who happen to have one particular slick provisioning file called "The Apple Store".
That seems very strange - e.g. Tivo can then just first sell you an almost (but not quite) do-nothing Tivo device with no GPL 3 software on it, and then afterwards and separately sell you GPL 3 software that you may install for full functionality, where the Tivo device itself refuses any modified version. This scenario is exactly the same as buying additional functionality in an app-store for the iPhone. If this reading is correct then GPL 3 does not actually resist tivoization, which seems strange to me.
Except when they give you the GPL3 software they have to convey to you why the Tivo will only accept it. But you are right if they built the Tivo itself in such a way as to prevent software from installing that didn't meet some criteria, like a particularly CRC, there is nothing the GPL can do about that.
And I agree with your analogy. That is relatively close to what Apple's doing except they are also granting you the ability to get software many other ways.
Well I get that. 50-100 machines (http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2003-07/msg01117.html ). As far as at Microsoft, yeah unless you are in one of a very few teams that's a bit of a problem.
Hmmm... He is using the word differently. What you are talking about I'd call an installation system. Now it happens to use the word "package" which makes things confusing, but I wouldn't call it a package management system. If the.dmg/.mpkg/.pkg system were a package system I could install software from sort of GUI where I go down a long list and it fetches and installs. It would automated installs.
Apple just moves in the opposite direction of that. Each program is mostly self contained they don't freely depend on other pieces of software....
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah the community for years was doubling in size every year. The encylopedia was growing by leaps and bounds. It stagnated after the UserBox wars. That was when Jimmy Wales really hurt the community and took action to try and change the tone of wikipedia from fun to serious without having a consensus.
I can't understand how Citizendium ( http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Citizendium ) hasn't come up. Citizendium is a wiki, like wikipedia which ranks editors based on subject area knowledge. Everyone posts under their real name and links to a real resume. Who you are determines how much authority / deference you are given with respect to a topic.
Frankly, academics working in Citizendium and Wikipedia citing Citizendium strikes me as a good model to accomplish the goal in a practical way.
That's not true. You can reference published materials not on the web like books or journals.
I agree with you. Wikipedia of 2006 was great it was fun. Wikipedia is just mean now. On the other hand it is less fringy.
Wow there is a lot to respond to.
1Mac is not their least profitable part. Here is a slightly out of data graph of how their revenue breaks out:
http://www.macstories.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/share-of-profit-graph.png
In terms of the latest quarter:
Apple sold 4.13 million Macs during the quarter, a 23 percent unit increase over the year-ago quarter. The Company sold 16.24 million iPhones in the quarter, representing 86 percent unit growth over the year-ago quarter. Apple sold 19.45 million iPods during the quarter, representing a seven percent unit decline from the year-ago quarter. The Company also sold 7.33 million iPads during the quarter.
As far as BSD goes. OSX (Darwin) isn't something that uses BSD software, it is a BSD. Apple doesn't directly work with the FreeBSD team for the same reason that OpenBSD. The FreeBSD relationship to Apple is more like Debian to Redhat. And you don't see RedHat funding Debian packages or visa versa. They don't work with BSD community they are an integral part of it. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Unix_history-simple.png ) They way they've support the BSD community has been by spending huge sums on building a BSD based system.
As far as the architecture (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Diagram_of_Mac_OS_X_architecture.svg ) everything in Darwin is open source. And then there are a huge number of technologies like Webkit.
What are you basing this on? On most projects the majority of developers run OSX as their personal system. OSX is becoming the home platform for most Unix desktop applications not tied tightly to Linux (including KDE/Gnome) and creating a Macport (and often a native Aqua port) is a high priority. Just to give an example of a community I'm in GHC the mac version of the Haskell platform is key version. The Linux and Windows versions lag. For TeX, Mac is pretty much the home platform.
I guess could you be more specific? What do you think the Open Source community isn't doing for Apple that it says does for Microsoft which has 6x the market share?
Well remember there are 4 mechanisms:
a) Jailbreaking.
b) Developer SDK, either having someone use this for you or buying one yourself.
c) Registering with another authentication agent. That's using some one's Enterprise SDK or buying it.
d) Vanilla system.
I don't think its accurate to pretend that (d) is the only state given there are something like a hundred thousand Developer SDK's out there and quite a few of the enterprise and that 10% of the phones are jailbroaken. It is just false to speak as if the situation were that restrictive.
In theory, yeah they can. I don't know of any examples of them denying an SDK. In practice they know your email address and that's about it. They have made no attempt to build mechanisms of control for the SDK. And yes you have to pay a marginal fee. But lets consider this:
An iPhone is about $500. Its sold with a smart phone data package that runs about $80 / mo for 2 years. Most of these people drop another $100 or so on applications. $99 for the SDK is a marginal fee given the cost of the device. Especially since a developer SDK supports 100 users per app, we are really talking a few bucks in practice.
Heck the FSF could just buy the Enterprise SDK for $299, set up their own authentication and let whomever wanted to use their servers. Assuming they could handle the bandwidth and wanted to take full responsibility for end user support.
No its not. Apple has no idea what Enterprise users are putting on phones. And they don't have anything more than the checksum for a binary for a Developer provisioning file. They don't do anything more than authenticate the key for the developers. They do not regulate binaries.
Talking about things people could potentially do as if they are doing them, is just false. For example, "Obama nuked Chicago" or "Bill Gates gave $1b to the Neo Nazi party" are both false statements. Apple does not regulate absolutely what you can install on an iPhone. They do force you to jump through fairly easy hoops. That's a fair statement.
No, they could just lock the firmware if they wanted to make jail breaking not possible. They could deliberately send out viruses to attack jailbroken systems. They are jawboning a bit, about jail breaking; and their openfirmware updates have been a bit dangerous for jailbreakers.
So in short, yes I think its inaccurate.
A few others:
a) Programmable small databases (i.e. Access) (this used to be a huge market and things like Filemaker pro were major players)
b) Programming language IDEs. Visual Studio is really the only one left.
c) Programming languages, the victory of BASIC / C++ (died with Java revolution and the rise of dynamic languages like Perl/PHP).
d) Browsers (though this is slipped after 6 years of total control).
e) Small business systems. Death of the mini computer to be replaced by the Windows client/server model.
f) Death of dumb terminals
g) Ubiquity of the Microsoft/Intel/Western Digital architecture for consumer systems. (Possibly collapsing with the rise of Arm).
h) Embrace / extend for email -- Exchange
i) SQL server pushing large databases into smaller niches, an attack from below
j) Microsoft Dynamics ERP (gaining share very rapidly, with an excellent offering).
k) Viseo -- Flowcharting
l) Project management
etc..
I agree with you on the FSF in terms of them being a good organization. I contribute for over a decade to the EFF and am friendly with Kathy Hargraves who used to be an officer with FSF. I wasn't being too critical of their editorial, I was indicating that on matters of fact regarding how Apple works they are simply incorrect, oversimplifying too much. Statements like, "iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on everyone's phones" is simply not true.
The problem is when you combine aggressive rhetoric with factual error that really creates a severe credibility gap.
In terms of legislation in the US and its pro corporate anti-consumer bent. I'm pretty appalled. Copyright extensions is my #1 hobby horse but the telecommunications act of 1996 was a shattering moment in terms of faith in the government. I'm no fan of the vagary of the DMCA. So again nothing to argue there.
As far as things getting worse. During my lifetime, (born '69) thing in terms of censorship have collapsed. Services like http://www.clearplay.com/ , are very useful since they are setting precedents about the right to edit your own version of content, i.e. that everyone who owns a copy of a work has the "right to patch the copyrighted content" of that work and a limited right to redistribute. So I disagree with the general theory that things are getting worse, I think they are getting better. But yes there is movement in both directions. For example in the 1980s most employees that had a desktop system had dumb terminals, and far less freedom on their desktop than they do on a Windows machine without admin rights. The mass casette tape usage changed music freedom. The VCR and movie rental has done wonders for free video. Large hard drives have created a new world of movie freedoms.
As far as Apple and the capability for abuse. I agree, PCs used to be very low security. Security is going way up. In all fairness though the demand for security is being caused by criminals not corporations. Spammers, virus people, credit card thieves are the ones creating this problem. Then you add on corporate IT desks that want to lock down employee systems, and media producers that want to avoid rampant piracy. But ultimately it was spam that killed open protocols like SMTP relay and Usenet not corporate greed. And I also remember reading about Stallman's The right to read where he was talking about the dangers in 1997, and I think he's a great guy for pointing out the potential for abuse.
I see the technology companies as, on balance, doing their best to navigate a very tricky situation of individual freedom, protecting copyright and creating manageability. And I know in taking that rather optimistic perspective I'm being a bit pollyanish relative to the FSF. And there are two main reasons I don't make much heavier use of Kindle:
a) The price is way too high for most books
b) I see books as a long term buy and DRM schemes rarely last a decade.
Well sounds like you are doing everything you need to. Other than you might want to take a look at windows services for Unix since it sounds like you need Unix stuff on a PC and this is kernel level:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=896c9688-601b-44f1-81a4-02878ff11778
http://www.suacommunity.com/SUA.aspx#bundles
No doubt Apple is really liking the revenue stream from the Apple store. They are proving you can make a hell of a lot of money getting 30% of $2 applications and create a massive client software market which is nice since its been about a decade since PC software has thrived. But... we can look at them more charitably.
The reason Windows security is such a mess is not Microsoft. NT has mechanisms for excellent security and has had those since NT 3.51. The problem is they have a user base which makes dumb decisions and application developers that don't really care about security. Apple has solved this problem by implementing a very strong security system, well beyond what you normally see in secure OS, in a consumer OS and putting in an entire infrastructure to support this.
Apple cuts users into a few groups:
a) General users who don't know what they are doing. They use the app store and enjoy its protections. In exchange they pay Apple.
b) Corporate end users. They get apps from the company. Apple makes their money by selling lots and lots of hardware and maybe some consulting. Its not about the $299, its about $500k plus in hardware sales and maybe consulting sales on top.
c) The knowledgeable or those people directly supported by the knowledgeable. $100 / yr, documentation that assumes you know objective C, Xcode... they do a pretty good of filtering out people who aren't knowledgeable from this group. And of course for people who really want to self support: $299 / yr and you have to have servers on static IP addresses which does a nice job of filtering. And at $99 / yr, as you mentioned that's like 30% of $330 and most Apple users don't spend that much. So I guess they would rather sell SDKs. Its not an onerous fee but its enough that your typical iPhone user wouldn't pay it on a lark. And that allows Apple to support actual developers pretty well.
d) Hackers. They have jail breaking for this crowd. These people can pirate software, They get their own little hacker app store (http://cydia.saurik.com/ ) with all kinds of applications that won't end up on group (a)'s machines. And if something goes wrong, while this group isn't nearly as strong as (b) or (c) they can rebuild their system without calling Apple.
That's really a pretty nice system for practical security. And IMHO this is keeping with the spirit of the GPL. Global UI enhancements, video recording and streaming, multimedia SMS, Bluetooth file sharing, Internet tethering, and background processing. direct GPS access, and competing e-mail and Web browser clients make tech support complex. If you have those things then you are group (b), (c) or (d) and thus have an alternate support mechanism. If the system were open general end users would install this stuff, like it, but also make the platform much harder to support. People like the "it just works" but "it just works" requires Apple to be a total prick in a way that no consumer computer manufacturer has ever tried before.
As for the applications store remember there is one other thing. The copy protection mechanism is tied to the security mechanism.
One thing I have found interesting in this whole discussion is you've been focused on the $99 charge for the SDK. The real expense is that the SDK only runs on a Mac, so in theory you have to buy a Mac to even use this stuff.
As for the FSF. Their website is full of a lot of misinformation and oversimplification regarding the whole Apple SDK thing. I don't think they actually understand how Apple development works.
Yep and cygwin isn't really all that good when alls said and done.
Still, Windows drives me crazy. I'm very happy I'm on a mac.
Huh? Apple makes a BSD which is more popular than all the others combined probably 50x over. In many ways they essentially are the BSD community. Macports is training millions in the BSD ports system. The Darwin kernel has all sorts of features that got ported to other BSDs. Via macports they've resolved huge numbers of problems for OpenBSD and FreeBSD. Further the whole launchd system which they are all standardizing on. Cups is another example. The app was GPLed and they bought the rights and made it BSD so the BSDs could standardize on it.
So I don't think you are being quite fair. That being said Apple could do more, I don't disagree.
____
As for IBM. Honestly I think the biggest surge was DB2 and Oracle. IBM was very 1/2 and 1/2 and after OS/2 they didn't have as much credibility for taking on Microsoft.
And let me just add on GPLv3.
I don't think Apple is really breaking the intent of the GPLv3. The GPL is designed to insure the 4 freedoms and you have each of the 4 freedoms with iOS. The whole key thing is mainly just a very strong security system: anti-virus, anti-piracy, anti-worm system.
Well the patent clause Apple hates. No question about it. In general the no linking to proprietary software clause they hate as well.
Ah I see. Well that they do provide its called your device identifier. And yes you have it, whenever you get an iPhone. No special key needed. Its a 40 character string easily readable from iTunes and all sorts of other programs that is your iPhones/iPad's public key. They give it to anyone who has physical access to your device. So they meet that criteria. And that is the only piece of information specific to your device. And just to cut off an objection, no developer including Apple makes use of your device's private key. Only your device makes use of that, when reading the provisioning file.
But.... having that key doesn't do you any good. You need all 3 keys: a developer key, a device key and a key specifically generated for each binary. In a non jail broken iPhone there is no such thing as installing software that doesn't come from a developer. Your device needs to certify that:
Application X was written by developer Y and intended for device Z; where
Z = device you are trying to install on
Y's identify is authenticated via. Apple's key (by default but you can change that)
X = is authenticated by the iPhone/iPad itself
So you can't install, nor run any software including the original GPLed Samba without these 3 pieces of information. If you want to install software on your device a developer (someone with the SDK) had to have authorized you to do it. The device has no idea whether the Samba is "modified" or not, its just checking "is it signed by a developer authorized by my signing authority" and "does this binary match what he thinks he gave me". For consumer devices, by default, the signing authority is Apple and for Enterprise devices the signing authority is your corporation.
So you "I don't want to compile but I don't want to install" just doesn't exist on iOS. Its not a model the device supports. On iOS "installing software" is a joint task between a developer and an end user. Now I slight variant is, "I want to self sign my applications". OK you can do that but you need to register with the signing authority. They charge for that, its called buying the iOS SDK. Otherwise how do they know who you are?
Now you can setup your own signing authority that's part of the Enterprise SDK ($299). I have no idea if in theory (like your visual basic example) you could emulate all these servers yourself. But for the purpose or argument assume if you had 100 man years you could get a home grown Enterprise SDK up and running. Then Apple isn't even your signing authority and you don't have to buy an Enterprise SDK.
Finally of course you can tell your device not to use a signing authority at all, which I suspect does satisfy the GPLv3 in terms of keys.
_____
In terms of the anti-tivosation clause, I think the problem is that Apple is not really using cryptography to stop end users from installing software. The FSF simply never considered what broad based cryptographically signed applications would look like in practice because Apple is just so damn integrated. I mean could you imagine Microsoft building Visual Studio as the only sane way to create software for Windows Phones and Windows Media Player as the core interface with a Microsoft store bein
We've had the internet for almost 40 years now. And how to do things on the internet isn't always obvious.
That's not so easy in the USA. US law has the notion of "shell corporation" and you can pierce the corporate veil to go after judgements. In fact setting up things this way allows the court to go after the owner's personal assets.
Actually let me correct myself. No changing the master key does work without having to reinstall. I don't know the details, but that is included with the enterprise SDK which is free but only comes with something like 1000+ devices.
First off, you aren't addressing how this is an "extra". Every developer who wants to install any software has to pay for the SDK. They aren't charging you extra, they charge $99 for the right to sign software. There is nothing extra about it.
I think we need to be a little more specific here what you mean by key. A provisioning file (remember to install an application via iTunes requires a binary plus a provisioning file) consists of 3 things:
a) A developer key which proves you are who you say you are. That key is included with the SDK. They are charging you for the SDK, however. But again I don't accept that paid compilers violate the GPL.
b) The device key, which comes from the end user not from Apple. If the end user registered with Apple they might have this, but this is readable from iTunes under device info among a 1/2 dozen other ways. The expectation is the end user will give you this information since in theory they are the ones who want the software.
c) The application key which comes from XCode. That one is binary application specific, it confirms that developer X really wrote program Y. Apple can't give it to you, they won't have your private key. They do make the software to generate it available with every Mac sold (so arguably again a paid compiler), and I think the algorithm is public domain. To generate this key you must have a developer key, but in theory you can lie to Xcode and put whatever key you want in here. The catch is that a device that uses Apple for its master key will know your key is a fake.
Thinking this through another way. Your end user is saying they will only trust Apple to confirm developer identities. You are paying $99 for a service, Apple to confirm to your end users that you are who you say you are. I don't think the GPL prohibits paying for additional services.
What exactly do you want them to give you that they aren't giving you that they can give you, other than you want them to give you the SDK for free. And here we just have to disagree I don't see anything in the GPL that prohibits reasonable charges that literally hundreds of thousands of people have paid for. I don't consider this "something extra" they are charging you. Since they charge you this to install any piece of software.
And also of course the end user of the software can
a) change their master key if they wanted though I believe that would mean going to Linux since the binaries of the OS are signed by Apple.
b) tell the system to ignore key violations / setup a situation that all keys automatically pass (a blank master key) which is jail breaking.
But that's up to the end user, not the developer and not Apple.
If someone wants to sell you GPL 3 software separate from the iPhone itself, there seems to be no requirements of keys as the anti-tivoisation clause seems to only apply to pre-loaded software.
Well then let me make it a little more complex. In theory at least iPhones and iPads don't have any software "included" other than the firmware. For most end users the entire system, all the software is loaded from iTunes during initial install. And iTunes is really just providing an easy interface
For example you can go to :
http://appldnld.apple.com/iPhone4/061-8619.20100715.4Pnsx/iPhone3,1_4.0.1_8A306_Restore.ipsw
and get iOS 4.0.1 and download it to your computer.
So given that they aren't "bundling" any software in any kind of mandatory sense does that resolve the problem?
You have to upgrade on an Apple. The whole community upgrades. There isn't the culture of long term support like exists for Windows.
$100k / yr + is only 6% of the population. less than $50k is 75.4%. We can not worry about the $250kers, and if they want to exclude themselves OK. They are probably around 1% of the population.
The catch is that's not a right granted under the license. Its simply a mechanism of installation. The iOS SDK / iTunes is the mechanism by which you install custom software. The GPL isn't granting you the right to do that, you already had that right. I can do X before I get software Y. I can do X after I get software Y. There is no granting of rights.
Assume the Apple store didn't exist at all. Then everyone would get the iPad with a bunch of software. If they wanted anymore software they would need to install it via. the SDK/ iTunes. Everyone just has to know someone who pays a $99 / yr fee for the right to create and install their own software. Your hangup is that you keep trying to conjoin Apple as a maker of the SDK and Apple as the guys who happen to have one particular slick provisioning file called "The Apple Store".
Except when they give you the GPL3 software they have to convey to you why the Tivo will only accept it. But you are right if they built the Tivo itself in such a way as to prevent software from installing that didn't meet some criteria, like a particularly CRC, there is nothing the GPL can do about that.
And I agree with your analogy. That is relatively close to what Apple's doing except they are also granting you the ability to get software many other ways.
Well I get that. 50-100 machines (http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2003-07/msg01117.html ). As far as at Microsoft, yeah unless you are in one of a very few teams that's a bit of a problem.
Hmmm... He is using the word differently. What you are talking about I'd call an installation system. Now it happens to use the word "package" which makes things confusing, but I wouldn't call it a package management system. If the .dmg/.mpkg/.pkg system were a package system I could install software from sort of GUI where I go down a long list and it fetches and installs. It would automated installs.
Apple just moves in the opposite direction of that. Each program is mostly self contained they don't freely depend on other pieces of software....
Yep agree with what you wrote. The guy is clueless. As an aside, I should mention you can actually use those unixy tools on windows:
http://www.cygwin.com/
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=896c9688-601b-44f1-81a4-02878ff11778
http://sourceforge.net/projects/unxutils/
Any takers for the packaging mess in OSX that resembles Windows more and more?
Yeah I wrote a post about it http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2058104&cid=35645816 . He doesn't know what he's talking about. He mentions the Debian system... well the Debian system is Fink.