babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Introducing the rabble.ca app for iPhone, iTouch and iPad! And how you can win an iTouch!
Comments
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
Well, to continue with the car metaphor, some people may know that at one time Rolls-Royce would sell cars with locks on the front hood. If you wanted to have any maintenance done, RR would fly out a mechanic to do the work. Lots of this unfree, proprietary software is like having one of those Rolls Royces. You can't look under the hood even if you want to.
No thanks. I'll stay with my dual boot OS, etc.
You're forgetting though that your "Windows car" has door that don't really lock. While your in the grocery store people can just get in and take it for a ride. They can even commit crimes with it and then just leave it in the parking lot and you won't even know it was gone. Until you find some blood splatter in the trunk a week later.
Linux is not about tinkering. You can install a version of Linux and never tinker. I worked at a place where we all used linux and nothing ever went wrong.
There is a reason that there is a whole industry around teaching people how to use Windows and a whole Help Desk industry around fixing peoples crappy Windows computers.
Again, people should try Linux and not listen to Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or Sven tell you how difficult it is or that it is just for developers.
You didn't mention what programmes you downloaded and installed on your phone. I have no way of knowing whether these programmes were "open source" or not.
In any case, if you download and install software on your devices, you always are responsible for what you do...or don't do...whether you are running on a proprietary platform or a free software platform.
As far as I know IBM hasn't produced a "smartphone" since 1992. They did produce some PDA's.
Not always. For example its illegal to drive a car without having auto insurance. You can't "choose" not to have insurance.
Also, the right-wing often promotes the idea of "choice" in healthcare services...choices that often undermine the public medicare system.
The dominant way of doing things is still "big daddy corporation knows best". It's in no danger of disappearing any time soon. I just don't think that a progressive organization should buy into this way of doing things...any more than they should buy into "big corporations know best" when it comes to environmental protection or workplace occupational safety.
No you've got it wrong. When you buy a car, General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota
and Moskvitch for that matter don't make you sign a license that forbids you from
"tinkering" with your car.
You don't have to tinker, but you should have the freedom to tinker if you want to.
Also, nobody says that you personally have to do the tinkering with your computer. Just
recently I did a GNU/Linux installation on someone's laptop and they paid me for my
labour.
This individual was quite happy to part with some hard earned cash to make sure their
system was setup right.
I will agree that the "open source" movement isn't all that political. But the free
software movement from which the "Open Source Initiative" (OSI) emerged, very definitely is.
The Free Software Foundation was setup in 1985 for some very political reasons...namely
to fight for freedom for computer users.
Specifically when it comes to software it means:
Freedom Zero: The freedom to run the software as you wish
Freedom One: The freedom to study the source code of the software and change it to
meet you needs (access to the source code is a pre-condition for this)
Freedom Two: The freedom to help your neighbour by distributing exact copies of the
software
Freedom Three: The freedom to help your community by modifying the software and
releasing your own version of it (access to the source code is a pre-condition for
this)
When all four of these freedoms exist and are not limited in any substantive way the
software is considered "free software". When these freedoms are restricted in any substantive way the software is considered "non-free software" or "proprietary software".
Whenever I use the term "free software" I am using this definition. You'll note that I did not say "free as in doesn't cost anything".
The GNU General Public License, created by the FSF in 1991 goes a step further than most free software licenses in "copylefting" software issued under this license to ensure that free software remains free.
The Free BSD license for example gives you these four freedoms, but does not do the
same "copylefting". The MacOSX operating system is based on Free BSD Unix, which is
free software. But Apple has done some tweaks, put a pretty GUI on it and turned it
into some very locked up proprietary software.
The term "open source" originated with an organization created in 1998 called the
"Open Source Initiative" (OSI). The OSI was concerned that the radical "freedoms"
promoted by the FSF were "scarey" for big business. And so they downplayed the
ideas around user freedom and instead focused on development and cost issues.
Also,the "Open Source Definition" is much looser than the FSF's "Free Software Definition".
It's so loose that even Microsoft has some software that meets the
"Open Source Definition". IMHO, the term "open source" has very little meaning.
I'm not saying that "open source" is evil...just that it's weak and mushy.
The other things the FSF is involved in is the fight against DRM (Digital Restrictions
Management) and software patents. They also promote the "Open Document Format" for
office documents, promote the use of patent-free media formats like ogg vorbis, FLAC
and ogg theora video. And of course...they promote the development and use of free
software.
All of these things are "political" issues.
Rabble.ca should be part of this movement.
This particular "i-promo" sends the wrong message.
It might be helpful to point out the practical meaning/some practical applications of the four freedoms as outlined by radiorahim.
Let me just draw attention to one practical issue: security. If you have free software installed on your PC/phone/whatever then it is difficult (impossible?) for the vendor to be putting spyware or any other malware or crap on your machine. Microsoft Media Player is a case in point; the software sends reports to the corporation about the sites you visit. This is not just some cookies that you can delete. Given the Orwellian intentions and role of the capitalist state, a left wing website (and progressives in general) should be keenly interested in ensuring that that Big Brother is watching as little as possible. Perhaps I've expressed this somewhat clumsily but hopefully people get the idea.
And by the way, I have a small file of assembler code and circuit board design for a remote control car starter if anyone's interested. It's on a hard drive of another PC in the attic somewhere. The code's a bit spaghettini, as I was just tinkering at the time. But it works to start your car, shut off with key ring transmitter, and even beep the horn a couple times. With some more tinkering, one could add remote door and trunk locking and unlocking.
And not to pick on Microsoft...actually I understand that Real Player does the same thing...and did it first. (Microsoft has never been particularly innovative) ;)
Also, alot of very innovative software applications have emerged from the free software movement. One very important one is "Tor" The Tor Project's software allows web users to surf the web anonymously by bouncing your web traffic through a network of "Tor Servers" around the globe. This kind of thing is very important in countries with repressive regimes that monitor web traffic.
But if there was such a thing as a (insert auto manufacturer here) "End User License Agreement", as there is with proprietary software, your device would be illegal! It's a good thing that Apple and Microsoft don't sell cars ;)
[nag mode]
You see, I can't participate. Why must Rabble promote a consumerist, eletronic gadget made in sweatshops, produced by a global corporation, using proprietery technologies? Why? Read this. I know you have to promote and fundraise, but Jebus!
[/nag mode]
I raise this issue the last time Rabble offered Apple products as a prize:
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/labour-and-consumption/ipods-made-ikids
Juicy bits:
Posts 7-9
me:
-----------
I remember Rabble giving ipods away as gifts.
-----------
Michelle:
-----------
I don't think there are any electronics anywhere that aren't tainted by bad labour practices, or if there are, I'm not aware of them. Although the digital restrictions management is an issue that I'd also raise regarding Apple products.
E.Tamaran, just curious - what kind of computer are you using to read babble and do other online stuff? I'm assuming it's one that you were very careful to ensure was made by unionized North Americans, right?
me:
-----------
Michelle, you've fallen into the "oh well everybody does it" trap. Just because "every" piece of electronics has child labor in it doesn't mean it's ok for a progressive organization like Rabble to give it away as a prize. Did you consider perhaps, instead of a blood Ipod giving away a piece of FN art. That would have helped to support a native artist and it would have no child labor inputs.
Michelle: -----------Good point. I'll bring it up the next time we discuss a fundraising drive.
Is it okay for a progressive person to use electronics that have child labour in them, though? Especially one who makes a point of being critical of others for using them?
I'd be really interested in finding out how much discussion went on about offering FN art as a prize? Any mods want to answer?
We haven't had a fundraising drive since then. But thanks for the reminder.
It wouldn't make sense to offer artwork as a prize in this case - the site is promoting an iPhone/iTouch/iPad app, so that's why they're offering the iTouch as a prize.
Which raises the obvious question of "Why is Rabble continuing to deal in products which exploit children and workers?" Yes, FN art doesn't work on an iPad. I get it. Why offer an Apple app in the first place?
I suppose so.
There are two ways to stop dealing with exploitive corporations: 1) you die 2) you overthrow capitalism. You can achieve 1) by shopping but not 2). Using or writing open source software will likewise lead to 1) in the end, but not 2).
Have a look at the dotCommunist Manifesto
(He should probably remove the sexist language from that document
But that's a relatively small issue.)
"In overthrowing the system of private property in ideas, we bring into existence a truly just society, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."
The idea that this is the route to a just society is mind-boggling. (I think it will be part of a just society but it won't lead us there!)
Google's Android is just one small indication of what's wrong with this theory. (Mac OS X, of course, is built on FreeBSD.)
We need to overthrow the system of private property.
I think your sentence might be better written thusly: "The main question for me is whether or not I as a user have the maximum possible control over my devices."
For you, radiorahim, having "maximum possible control" over your devices is obviously very important.
That just ain't so for most people.
I have a BlackBerry which I use all the time away from the office for work matters. Whether or not I have "maximum possible control" over that device is irrelevant to me. It just does what it's supposed to do...consistently, reliably, and without any futzing around with it.
Indeed. But, no one is forced to live in those housing developments. If living in cookie-cutter neighorhood happens to be someone's thing, then great. Have at it. If not, then don't.
Same with device choices. Don't like Apple? Then don't buy anything from them. Get something else.
Individual choice is a beautiful thing!
Yeah millions are free to live in poverty in any old corner of America. And they're free to not to see a doctor on a regular basis, too. Arm bands for residents of LA Hooverville
Rabble, as a business, should be able to do what it wants. When I pay rabble my annual $50 I consider it just that - a payment. The service I get in return is generally worth the money. Rabble's performance dictates whether I send them money or not.
Having said that, I was surprised and disappointed to see rabble jump on the mobile app crap movement. And that leads me into the overhanging feeling that rabble has tried to do too much with technology and not enough with content. Rabble has decent editorials and a lot of content but it's so messily stuck around a big site I have trouble figuring out what to read, watch, listen to. It's great to have an app that ties in with a promotion... that's classic net marketing. But I think rabble's editorial staff needs to take a look at what's actually on the site.
Compare rabble with The Tyee. I read the Tyee and the articles are usually plain vanilla print... and they're outstandingly progressive while being newsy. I don't get the same experience with rabble. So maybe The Tyee will be getting $50 and rabble can keep riding the the app video commons tech train without my help in the future.
I don't think rabble is using its resources properly.
I have no way of knowing if they were open source either, since, as I mentioned, I am not that techy but I was told they were open source. I know the three programs, one which was a game, one which allowed me to view PDF's and one which allowed me more control over editing Word documents on my smartphone, were not big name programs that you normally paid for and I got them for free. They were other versions which did the same thing that big name programs would have done. I don't know if they were open source and someone didn't do the programming correctly (because I don't know enough about programming to be able to fix those problems) or if they were programs that had viruses.
I know that I am responsible for anything that I download to my smartphone. That is the point. I didn't want to pay 150-200 to have a program to do those three things that was from a source which I knew would not affect my phone while at the same time being simple to use (and both programs minus the game cost that much if I were to download from a reliable source). With apple I get the same software for free, plus 55 other software programs for free without having to worry about my responsibility if something goes wrong because I know the apps I download or safe for the phone and easy to use.
I didn't say that Windows made my smartphone I said that it was a Windows based smart phone (a version of the Pocket PC if you want to know specifics). Windows made applications that could be downloaded onto the smartphone mainly for a fee except for a very few and silly ones which were free. I only had one free one from a reliable sources - google maps. I tried adobe acrobat for smartphone but it never worked on my phone.
You are comparing choosing a phone to use to choosing not to have car insurance on your car? I think that one is obvious in use of apples and oranges.
You are also comparing choosing to have no health care coverage over having health care coverage which is set up by people who don't need it for people that need it over choosing one of many types of phones that are available? As I mentioned earlier. If there was a campaign to get rid of all other phones which can have open source programming on them taken away to be only replaced by iphones I would agree, very unleftest but there are plenty of options to get the one that suits you. By taking away my iphone options you are the one that is actually being the "very rich" who doesn't need health insurance so why should you have to pay for what others need when you are not going to need access to it - ie the very techy person who doesn't need to worry about free, easy to use software that is safe so why give it as an option because then you have to pay for it by not being able to access it because it doesn't meet your needs. I am the "poor" one here who needs access to "computer insurance" that I am not going to have to worry about not being able to figure out how to use programs, that they won't wreck my system and that I won't have to pay an arm and a leg for. Apple provides that "insurance" for the same price that I would pay for a phone which I could download open source programming onto. The actual programs are free. Therefore it is free for me.
I am not saying that we should just buy into what apple is doing. What I am saying is that given all the information I have on how apple is doing things versus how other computer systems and phones are doing things I think that apple is doing them the way that I want them to be done. They don't allow you to tinker with the phone, which doesn't matter to me, but it gives me added security of knowing the programs are easy to use, bug free and free so I prefer to do it that way, which does matter for me. I can't have a phone that gives me the ease of use, being bug free with free apps outside of the iphone but you, however can choose to have a phone that you can program how you like, fix up or change programming on, all for free. You said freedom zero on the policical open software is the freedom to run the software that you wish. Well what if I wish to run the this software?