Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bullshit

marco.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 233 posts

Re: Bullshit

#191

Post by jsavimbi »

chc wrote: post #188
jsavimbi wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't call the fifty thousand @paulg followers to be passive, exactly, as I see a lot of interaction and he only tweets about the business, nothing personal or news breaking. (I don't follow him on twitter, btw.) And aside from his personal distaste for the artist Dale Chihuly, I havent derived much about him from either his essays or speeches, so please don't tell me that he's met all 50k of his followers and s…

You're drawing weird lines that I wouldn't agree with. It's a false dichotomy to say "Either these people have met this guy and know him intimately or they want to interact with a brand." I didn't know any of my friends very well before I became friends with them, but they still interested me enough with what I did know of them that I wanted to know more. That's not called "interacting with a brand", it's called "int…

Even if he's not sharing any of his ideas or extending any of his influences to his followers? Wes Welker signed up to Twitter a week ago (under his own brand/name) and now has 175K followers, all of whom presumably want to interact or at least be associated with (a form of interaction) Wes Welker, the football player. They'll never get close to interacting with the person outside of a charity event or a sly hookup, so why call bullshit when a social media company claims that its user do in fact want to interact with brands when they, and we, have evidence that they do?

I don't think OP's premise holds true in all cases and it's equally valid to assume that people are interacting with a brand when they're following, liking, friending, retweeting or mentioning personified brands, human or bot.

Re: Bullshit

#192

Post by fauigerzigerk »

davidedicillo wrote: post #176
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

App Store policies restrict what I can put on my own device. I do care about that. Switching search engines seems pointless as they all have the same business model (maybe duckduckgo is different), but blocking all the tracking and analytics stuff solves this problem. Facebook isn't a huge problem for me either. I basically use it in read only mode, blocking them on all third party sites.

> App Store policies restrict what I can put on my own device. I do care about that. IMHO I think that's a wrong affirmation. They restrict what developer can sell through their platform. Big different. You could then complain about not allowing not approved apps on the device, but it would be like saying that Playstation or Xbox limit your freedom by not allowing Super Mario Kart run on their consoles.

They restrict what developers can distribute via the App Store, at the same time mandating that the App Store be the only distribution channel. That amounts to restricting what I can install on my device (short of jailbreaking).

I'm not sure I understand your Super Mario example. You seem to suggest that it's perfectly normal to face such restrictions. I can assure you it's not normal for me and I'm not going to put up with it.

Re: Bullshit

#193

Post by danson »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #136
KeithMajhor wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not trying to have an attitude. I said it once but I'll say it again: You're reading too much into whats being said. I like your analogy. It perfectly exemplifies what I'm trying to say. Can I not use their services and be careful while doing it? Driving my car is dangerous but I do it every day. I'm not trying to say that they're bad . If you're distilling the word "dangerous" down to it's connotation then I can…

>You're reading too much into whats being said. After reading this last reply, I think I am. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that everyone is thinking about it in the same way you and I are. There are a lot of people (often even on HN) that decry new Google products or features as some sort of "attack". Have no doubt, they want and live on data and ad-intel, but that's just part of the game, at least to me (an informed c…

I know this is a meta-comment but I thought this was a wonderful exchange - a misunderstanding was explained clearly and respectfully and then acknowledged accordingly. A great example of the maturity of the readership here, which is refreshing to see for someone relatively new to HN. Kudos to you both.

Re: Bullshit

#194

Post by bau5 »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #122
edw519 wrote: post #102

You forgot the biggest bullshit of all, Marco. Hacker News users: I'm so mad that the government is doing ! I'm so mad that big business is doing ! I'm so mad that venture capitalists are doing ! I'm so mad that angel investors are doing ! I'm so mad that got funding! I'm so mad that language doesn't do ! I'm so mad that I can't jailbreak ! I'm so mad that I'm actually expected to pay for ! I'm so mad that more peopl…

Isn't this comment just as cheap and reductionary? Many of the things you've listed their affect developers, startups and the system in which they are either able to succeed or fail. Even the characterization as nothing more than "I'm so mad" seems unfair.

Not quite. It a pretty good list of things that don't affect HNers as much as HNers think they might. What HNers learn about Angel investors prior to trying to raise doesn't help that much when it's actually time to raise. Jailed devices affect developers, and are important to factor into decisions, but jailbreaking itself is a distraction for the vast majority of developers who do it. Worrying about government regulations is a waste, instead we should build things that will make it difficult for regulators to stop things they don't like without also stopping things that they need.

Re: Bullshit

#195

Post by bad_user »

jballanc wrote: post #169
bad_user wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot build and sell / distribute your own devices with OS X on it. Apple has been very aggressive with companies that tried that, in particular with Psystar, the first company that sold "hackintosh" computers [1], which they sued into oblivion. So no, OS X is not open and there's nothing vague about it. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psystar_Corporation

Hold on there. Psystar was attempting to sell copyrighted software in violation of a EULA by breaking encryption, which is specifically prohibited by the DMCA. I'm not saying that I agree with that specific case, but I think a great many open source advocates would take issue with you comparing the actions of Psystar with the desire to have a fork-able OS (which, BTW, OS X is). Had Psystar sold computers with OpenDar…

You cannot compare OpenDarwin + X with OS X. Come on ... none of the polish and mostly none of the applications working on it. It would be completely useless and it wouldn't be OS X.

Your argument is like saying Windows is open because ReactOS exists [1] or that you could say a Linux distribution + Wine is Windows. It's not.

And comparing to Android, you can distribute / sell Android devices, even with your own modifications to Android and Android is also "copyrighted" btw.

That's what open-source has always been about - the right to fork. You cannot fork OS X. You cannot fork iOS. You can certainly fork Android.

     in violation of a EULA by breaking encryption,
     which is specifically prohibited by the DMCA
You mentioned 2 separate issues here btw - is it either violation of an EULA, or breaking encryption? And how are these issues separate from the freedom to distribute it or from the freedom to fork it?

[1] http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html

Re: Bullshit

#196

Post by redthrowaway »

jballanc wrote: post #166
notatoad wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no, OSX is not open. you can't take the published source code and compile it into a useable copy of OSX. you can take the published android source code and create a useable copy of android from it. the entire operating system is there. android is open source. the people criticizing android for not being open are either lying, or have forgotten that we have moved on from the 3.0 branch which was not open.

You can take the published source code and compile a useable copy of OS X. In fact, for many years the OpenDarwin project did just that. What you could not do is run the Aqua GUI or many of the default applications that come with a Mac bought in the store. But that's the point. Sure, you can compile and run "Android", but is it the same as the OS that runs on a phone I buy from Verizon? Android phones sell with propr…

>Android phones sell with proprietary software that is most definitely not open. Macintosh computers sell with proprietary software that is most definitely not open.

Ubuntu comes with proprietary software that is most defnitely not open...

Just because OEMs and carriers ship versions of Android that contain closed components does not mean that Android itself is somehow "less open". You can download and compile the source and throw a vanilla, open version of Android on any device that will allow it. It's not Android's fault that OEMs lock you out of their devices, any less than Linux would be responsible for UEFI.

Re: Bullshit

#197

Post by bad_user »

blinkingled wrote: post #175
bad_user wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Left most is turn-key software that never gets distributed. Far-left is proprietary software, such as iOS that comes with severe restrictions on how and when you can use it. You cannot install it on non-Apple devices and any app you install on it (i.e. any use case) has to be approved by Apple. Other software on the left, but closer to the center, is Windows, that does get distributed in binary form and that you can…

I think it's extremely unfair to place Android anywhere on the left side of this scale. And I didn't place Android on the left - farther right in fact. That and I was limiting what can be on the scale to Mobile platforms - so licenses or Windows for instance do not belong there.

Right, I was trying to paint a larger picture of the whole landscape.

Re: Bullshit

#198

Post by nl »

jballanc wrote: post #143
nl wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android is Open Source[1], which has a real definition[2] that means something. You can fork it, and create your own distribution (as Amazon has shown). It is open in other ways, too - Android phones can load applications from sources other than the Market (unless that feature has been disabled by your carrier - which goes back to the first point). Most Android phones have a sdcard slot, too, which allows you to get…

Out of curiosity, would you call OS X "open"? You can find enough of the source for OS X to create a booting OS here: http://opensource.apple.com/ . Obviously, this isn't all of OS X, but then not all of the Android OS is "open" either. I'm not trying to be contrarian, but I think the people criticizing Adroid for not being "open" are primarily picking on precisely the vagueness that you have highlighted. There are w…

Darwin + X Windows is Open Source (ie, you can fork it etc).

OS X isn't.

For other people, there are ways that Android is not "open" that really matter. Just ask Stallman, for example.

No, Stallman argues that Android isn't Free Software (according to the FSF definition)[1]. He's correct in that. He also argues that the hardware for Android isn't open enough. He is correct in that too, but fails to note that most of what he says there also applies to the x86 PC platform (assuming it is using binary graphics drivers, which is how most Linux desktop boxes are deployed).

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/sep/19/android-fre...

Re: Bullshit

#199

Post by nl »

hub_ wrote: post #161
nl wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android is Open Source[1], which has a real definition[2] that means something. You can fork it, and create your own distribution (as Amazon has shown). It is open in other ways, too - Android phones can load applications from sources other than the Market (unless that feature has been disabled by your carrier - which goes back to the first point). Most Android phones have a sdcard slot, too, which allows you to get…

But Android is not an open source project. Because Google does not open its development to external contributors, nor do they develop it in the open. They only do code drops. They don't take patches.

Many people had similar arguments about how GCC and glib were developed back in the day (specifically, that the GCC team wouldn't take patches).

People didn't like it, and ended up forking because of it. No one argues it wasn't Open Source though.

Re: Bullshit

#200

Post by antirez »

If you focus on the news title itself, without clicking, it suddenly starts to make sense:

Bullshit (marco.org)

Post reply on HN