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

Support the FSF: Help us stop Restricted Boot

fsf.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 65 posts

Re: Support the FSF: Help us stop Restricted Boot

#41

Post by betterunix »

microtonal wrote: post #10
josteink wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. I find it odd that despite Apple winning the world-championship in patent-trolling and is leading the fight for closed systems and walled gardens, FSF still decides to go after anyone but Apple. Despite this tarnished image of a former tech-innovist, does the FSF really still feel it's impossible to fight the root evil here because of public perception? Is it only picking on Microsoft because that is easier to…

We should fight against the forces against general purpose computing I have very mixed feelings about this very topic. As a developer, I completely agree with you. Hardware should be hackable and software replaceable. But there's also another side: computing has become a lot easier for the average user. E.g. the iPhone and the iPad were the first computers that my mother really grasped and was able to use comfortably…

"The limited walled garden approach to computing ensures that she doesn't accidentally install malware, etc"

OK, but why not have a sanctioned, free, voids-your-warranty way to disable these restrictions, so that users who want to install software without using the app store can do so? This would not be hard. It could be buried somewhere deep where users cannot find it, it could be loaded with warnings, but all that would be fine.

Apple wants control, because control is profitable. Control lets them spot the next cool application early, so they will not be blindsided like they were by the Web. Control lets them promise developers and media partners that copyright infringement will not be such an issue. Control lets them maintain their image on a level that was not previously possible -- they can make sure that iPads are not associated with pornography, that iPhones are not associated with political cartoons, that nobody will point at Apple devices as a symbol of some national rebellion, and so forth. Control lets them slow down their competitors until Apple has a chance to market their solution (even if that solution is a total boondoggle).

It is hard to believe that Apple's policies on the app store were created with users as the top priority.

"the inherent danger is unfair competition - the gatekeeper can decide to reject software whenever it wants and impose fees and crazy rules"

Which is already what happens.

"I think it is best that the European union would regulate such walled gardens, e.g. by limiting the percentage that the gatekeeper can charge,"

Did they regulate video game consoles?

Re: Support the FSF: Help us stop Restricted Boot

#42

Post by dave1010uk »

kryptiskt wrote: post #13
mtgx wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree FSF should fight against Apple, too, and even though they would make a lot of enemies because of it, I think making a lot of enemies this way and becoming that controversial is a lot better than being obscure, because in the same time they'd be gaining a lot of allies, too. I think FSF fighting against Apple's closed policies would ultimately make them more popular and help them. That being said I don't reall…

> Better (and easier) to kill off a bad idea early on. Yeah, so they should have gone on an all out offensive when the iPad launched. Now there's a huge precedent they will have to try to explain away, why it doesn't apply and Microsoft's stuff have to be open but not their competitors'.

The the FSF have campaigned against Apple many times. For example: http://www.defectivebydesign.org/ipad

Re: Support the FSF: Help us stop Restricted Boot

#43

Post by geofft »

The FSF's attitude towards new technologies seems awfully reactionary (this is somewhat unsurprising when you remember that rms doesn't use a web browser; occasionally he emails interesting-sounding URLs to a service that emails them back to him in plain text, and he only checks email once a day).

Secure Boot where you can only run Microsoft-approved software is bad for software freedom, no question about it. Secure Boot as defined by the spec, where there is no requirement to have preloaded MS keys and where users explicitly can load their own keys, is absolutely _good_ for software freedom -- it makes the "evil maid" attack much, much harder. (The "evil maid" attack on full-disk encryption involves someone having access to your computer while it's off, and trojanning the bootloader and having it leak your disk password or the contents of the disk once your system boots. People naively expect full-disk encryption to stop this, but it's as easy as booting from a CD or thumbdrive. With secure boot, it involves physically opening the case and probably replacing chips.)

Let's make sure that Secure Boot stays good for software freedom, instead of throwing out the technology along with the policy, and leaving users with no defense against this sort of attack.

Re: Support the FSF: Help us stop Restricted Boot

#44

Post by mlinksva »

josteink wrote: post #8
recoiledsnake wrote: post #6

>We will fight Microsoft's attempt at enforcing Restricted Boot on ARM devices like smartphones and tablets. Like any other computer, users must be able to install free software operating systems on these devices. We will monitor Microsoft's behavior to make sure they do not deceive the public again by expanding these restrictions to other kinds of systems I love how Windows RT devices which are struggling to ship a…

Yeah. I find it odd that despite Apple winning the world-championship in patent-trolling and is leading the fight for closed systems and walled gardens, FSF still decides to go after anyone but Apple. Despite this tarnished image of a former tech-innovist, does the FSF really still feel it's impossible to fight the root evil here because of public perception? Is it only picking on Microsoft because that is easier to…

FSF campaigns against Apple plenty.

https://www.fsf.org/search?SearchableText=apple

The banner at the top of every page currently says

"Giants like Microsoft and Apple are trying harder than ever to control the software you use. The FSF brings software freedom supporters together to amplify your voices and make an impact."

Re: Support the FSF: Help us stop Restricted Boot

#45

Post by belorn »

recoiledsnake wrote: post #6

>We will fight Microsoft's attempt at enforcing Restricted Boot on ARM devices like smartphones and tablets. Like any other computer, users must be able to install free software operating systems on these devices. We will monitor Microsoft's behavior to make sure they do not deceive the public again by expanding these restrictions to other kinds of systems I love how Windows RT devices which are struggling to ship a…

In regard to Ipads, Kindle and Iphone (the three major products mentioned in the comment), FSF has criticized and campaigned against each of them in their campaign defective-by-design. The Windows phones are just a small notice in a long list of criticized products with DRM in them that the owners of the device do not have the keys.

Still, the threat of Restricted Boot is a bit different than then ordinary threat from DRM, in that it targets general purpose computers instead of semi-specialized products like phones and e-readers. The ARM move, while not very threatening today, is the foot in the door to push lockdown to more devices than phones and e-readers. It moves the language from talking about devices (a phone, a e-reader, a microwave), to talking about CPU's in computers.

Re: Support the FSF: Help us stop Restricted Boot

#46

Post by belorn »

kryptiskt wrote: post #13
mtgx wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree FSF should fight against Apple, too, and even though they would make a lot of enemies because of it, I think making a lot of enemies this way and becoming that controversial is a lot better than being obscure, because in the same time they'd be gaining a lot of allies, too. I think FSF fighting against Apple's closed policies would ultimately make them more popular and help them. That being said I don't reall…

> Better (and easier) to kill off a bad idea early on. Yeah, so they should have gone on an all out offensive when the iPad launched. Now there's a huge precedent they will have to try to explain away, why it doesn't apply and Microsoft's stuff have to be open but not their competitors'.

While they could have included a link to their existing campaigns against Apple DRM, focusing on one company in each campaign is better than trying to focusing on everyone.

But for explaining why Microsoft should stop even if Apple has locked down devices, if a company is dumping oil in the ocean, people are allowed to complain and create a boycott against that company. If the companies defense is "well, other companies dump oil in the ocean too, so why are you picking on us?" the answer is not to say sorry and let them continue.

Re: Support the FSF: Help us stop Restricted Boot

#48

Post by belorn »

microtonal wrote: post #10
josteink wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. I find it odd that despite Apple winning the world-championship in patent-trolling and is leading the fight for closed systems and walled gardens, FSF still decides to go after anyone but Apple. Despite this tarnished image of a former tech-innovist, does the FSF really still feel it's impossible to fight the root evil here because of public perception? Is it only picking on Microsoft because that is easier to…

We should fight against the forces against general purpose computing I have very mixed feelings about this very topic. As a developer, I completely agree with you. Hardware should be hackable and software replaceable. But there's also another side: computing has become a lot easier for the average user. E.g. the iPhone and the iPad were the first computers that my mother really grasped and was able to use comfortably…

I am slightly concerned that you might have got mixed up different concepts here. One is simplistic design which users with little or no previous experience can still feel comfortable to use on their own. A second is enforced uniformed interface cross multiple application which users feel familiar with (and thus also comfortable with). The third is safety against malware, which is a security concern. The last is market and user incentives.

A device without a walled garden can still maintain a simplistic design, encourage a uniformed interface, and maintain a similar security against malware. However, it has a harder time to incentivize software developers to strictly follow the uniformed interface and to always use the official store. Android market place has also less incentives to turn away new software, because developers has an alternative (thus Android app store have incentives to be lenient). For the Iphone app store, there are no alternatives for developers so Apple can be as harsh they want (thus they have incentives to be harsh).

Unwalled gardens also has a harder time to discourage users to run unknown software with malware in them. In practice, iphone users are less likely to try run downloaded software from a random internet site (or dl via bittorent), because no legit iphone developer ask them to do it. Android developers however often teaches users to use third-party stores. Thus, a android virus has a much easier time spreading than a Iphone one because on user base are trained to run untrustworthy programs, and one user base is not.

Thus a walled garden has two functions. First it maintain a monopoly grasp on a market, to extract tax on each purchase. Second, it provide incentives to developers so they follow a strict uniformed interface, to App store approvers so they will be more strict in judging new software, and to users so they are less inclined to run untrusthworthy software.

The first thing should be regulated away. The second thing should be understood when designing unwalled devices so to create the correct incentive for everyone.

Re: Support the FSF: Help us stop Restricted Boot

#49

Post by sigzero »

Karunamon wrote: post #23
rimantas wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every dollar spent in an Apple-store is money spent > against the core of your profession. Bullshit. Every dollar I spent on Apple was spent on top quality product which made me more productive. I also spend a considerable amount on App Store paying my colleagues for their work. > Stop spending money > there. And throw away your iPhones and Macbooks. They are > bad karma and software blood-money. Even more bullshit…

>Every dollar I spent on Apple was spent on top quality product which made me more productive. And also spent on patent trolling, stifling innovation, and leading the world of tech down a dark path (locked down "app store", restricted boot, the whole nine yards). How does it feel to know your money will go directly to the cause of stopping the evolution of technology in its tracks? Your view is terrifically selfish i…

Stallman is that you?

Re: Support the FSF: Help us stop Restricted Boot

#50

Post by markrages »

sliverstorm wrote: post #40
kryptiskt wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Better (and easier) to kill off a bad idea early on. Yeah, so they should have gone on an all out offensive when the iPad launched. Now there's a huge precedent they will have to try to explain away, why it doesn't apply and Microsoft's stuff have to be open but not their competitors'.

What do you think the chances are Apple has some "influence" in the FSF?

Apple and the FSF have long had an antagonistic relationship. Some history in this talk: http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn/talks/LinuxTag-2011/compliance.html
Post reply on HN