Summary: Misconceptions in the press and blind faith in Hollywood-friendly DRM prisons from Apple
What we find rather curious is that Apple enthusiasts sometimes fail to understand what GNU/Linux is all about and what “open source” means (some think that Apple is “open source”).
Well, Gizmodo, which was possibly bribed by Microsoft for some rave reviews of Vista 7, is currently mocking Doctorow for his criticism of the iPad. Some writers at Gizmodo have zero understanding of GNU/Linux, as shown in the following part of the new rant that’s also cited elsewhere.
Who brought Linux to the mainstream? Google. Giant, corporate, rule-bending, corruptible Google.
The funny thing is that Canonical’s new COO, Mac [sic] Asay, is also among the iPad apologists who antagonise Doctorow. He writes:
Cory Doctorow believes the iPad signals an end to innovation. It doesn’t. Apple’s iPad actually points to a beginning of innovation in personal computing.
Asay does not believe in ‘his’ own products and the associated philosophies, which also resonate with the clients. Why again does he work for Canonical? It becomes embarrassing when a self-proclaimed “open source” champion is salivating over proprietary software, just like Miguel de Icaza.
Here is another piece of utter nonsense from Apple apologists who speak about GNU/Linux:
Consider Linux, which still doesn’t have a user-friendly GUI.
While we’re at it showing or debunking FUD, here is another piece of inaccurate description from the press.
Nokia has finally ditched Symbian in favour of Maemo, which, like Android, also borrows its design heavily from Linux.
There are at least 3 mistakes in that very short sentence.
In another short piece with an Enderle-like headline (“Microsoft, Apple, Google – The Battle for Domination”) the following statement is made:
Contrary to Apple’s iPhone, Google has been the pioneer for open source technology.
Here we go again. Google is not even an open source company (let alone “the pioneer for open source technology”).
Finally, Gizmag has this to say:
Although open source software is playing an increasingly important part in our digital lives, most of still use commercial applications where the code running them is locked down tight and rarely caters for too much uncontrolled tinkering.
They probably mean “proprietary”, not “commercial”. Microsoft deliberately fails to make a distinction between the two. █