Summary: Misconceptions in the press and blind faith in Hollywood-friendly DRM prisons from Apple
WE have already written many posts about the iPad [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9], putting aside the fact that Apple is arrogantly suing Linux [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8].
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.
Huh?
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.
Really?
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.
⬆
Comments
Needs Sunlight
2010-04-08 09:14:01
http://images.apple.com/ipad/business/pdf/iPad_Security_Overview.pdf
This basically blocks using the iPad at any school...
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-04-08 09:15:58
Needs Sunlight
2010-04-08 12:18:00
The above agreement ties the ability to DDOS an iPad to the fragility of Windows + Exchange. That's not a winning combination.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-04-08 14:45:16
your_friend
2010-04-08 01:00:16
Through all of Microsoft's FUD against Google, we should never lose site of the fact that software freedom gives Google and others to do exactly what they are doing. The technical excellence and success of Google are a direct result of the excellent tool set software freedom produces and something most people are not aware of. All of the racket about the dangers of software as a service is spun to give ignorant people the impression that Google is something similar to Microsoft. The two are not remotely comparable.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-04-08 01:23:20
dyfet
2010-04-07 23:18:07