| |||||||||||||
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com)QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com)Posted Mar 16, 2010 15:13 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304)In reply to: QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) by trasz Parent article: QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com)
Hm, that's not an ad hominem, exactly. Argumentum non sequitur?
(Log in to post comments)
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 16, 2010 15:26 UTC (Tue) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link]
Do you see any arguments in "The iPhone vision of the mobile Internet’s future omits controversy, sex, and freedom, but includes strict limits on who can know what and who can say what. It’s a sterile Disney-fied walled garden surrounded by sharp-toothed lawyers. The people who create the apps serve at the landlord’s pleasure and fear his anger."? I don't. What I see here is just a plain old FUD.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 16, 2010 17:18 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
No, you don't get it. I'm pointing out that disparaging Tim Bray's earlier work says *nothing* about the validity or otherwise of his statements about Apple: they're in a different field entirely.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 16, 2010 19:41 UTC (Tue) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link]
Yeah, that's just because I personally think XML was a mistake almost as awful as Java. Sorry about that.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 17, 2010 1:15 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
I use it every day and must agree. Even when converted to sexps, the
underlying ugliness of XML and its family of misbegotten standards still shines through. Some of the works it has 'inspired' are quite remarkable, e.g. XExpr, because everyone wants to write scripts by building a parse tree in XML.
(A lot of this blame must be laid at the door of SGML, though.)
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 16, 2010 17:23 UTC (Tue) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] The iPhone vision of the mobile Internet's future omits controversy, sex, and freedom, but includes strict limits on who can know what and who can say what. That's an absolutely factual statement. Take a look at the EFF's expose of the iPhone developer's agreement. Apple's agreement definitely includes strict limits on what you can say. You can't even make any "public statements" about the agreement itself! What I see here is just a plain old FUD. Then you are closing your eyes to reality.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 16, 2010 19:40 UTC (Tue) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link]
Please go to the URL you posted (EFF's expose of the iPhone developer's agreement). Search for words "controversy", "sex", and "freedom". Notice that even EFF doesn't claim that the agreement says anything about that.
Also, notice that the agreement doesn't include any limits on what one can say, except for the usual NDA stuff, which is pretty common practice.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 17, 2010 6:35 UTC (Wed) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link]
>Please go to the URL you posted (EFF's expose of the iPhone developer's agreement). Search for words "controversy", "sex", and "freedom". Notice that even EFF doesn't claim that the agreement says anything about that.
What, seriously? You're trying to refute the argument by scanning for specific words, rather than reading for meaning?
There needs to be a new fallacy name for this thing: argumentum ad regexum, perhaps.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 17, 2010 8:31 UTC (Wed) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link]
Ok. Show me where it says anything that is even remotely related to controversy, sex or freedom.
Right. Was is peace, Freedom is slavery and Ignorance is strength Posted Mar 17, 2010 8:55 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Ok. Show me where it says anything that is even remotely related to controversy, sex or freedom. It's kinda pointless to discuss anything with you. 1. Ignorance is strength: if something is not written directly in EULA it does not exist. Acts of Big Brother^W^W Steve Jobs^W^W Party ^W^W Apple are irrelevant. 2. War is peace: when Big Browser^W^W Steve Jobs says it's bad idea to allow Flash or Opera on the device it's not a war, it's peaceful coexistence of Oceania and Eurasia. 3. Freedom is slavery. When you get approval and later your program is removed because it contains sex it's freedom. Steve Jobs^W^W Big Brother imposes antisexualism so of course such programs must be removed. Actually they were never admitted - check archives of Minitrue if in doubt! It's scary to talk with citizen of Oceania like you - they can always accept any fact and fit in their worldview where Steve Jobs ^W^W Big Brother is always right and Party ^W Apple can do no wrong. P.S. Oh and I like the infamous clip too. They did one thing wrong, of course: David Graham played Big Brother, not Steve Jobs. But I must admit that David Graham looks much better in this role on TV... Steve Jobs plays it much better in real life.
Right. Was is peace, Freedom is slavery and Ignorance is strength Posted Mar 17, 2010 13:21 UTC (Wed) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link]
That's because you're not paying attention. I was replying to a comment by dskoll, who said that the EFF FUD was not, in fact, a FUD, and that I should go read the developers agreement. I replied that the agreement doesn't say anything that would back the claims.
I's hard to argue with Party member, but I'll try... Posted Mar 17, 2010 14:22 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] I replied that the agreement doesn't say anything that would back the claims. Ignorance is strength, right? Agreements says quite straight: "You understand and agree that Apple may cease distribution of Your Licensed Application(s) and/or Licensed Application Information or revoke the digital certificate of any of Your Applications at any time". Apple is Judge, Jury & Executioner, but obviously it's not a shot against freedom because freedom is slavery, after all. And as for sex, yes, it's not written in agreement - it does not need to be: Apple can do anything it wants and developer is absolutely powerless so why write dirty words in the agreement?
Right. Was is peace, Freedom is slavery and Ignorance is strength Posted Mar 17, 2010 15:01 UTC (Wed) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link]
Such a feeble refutation of that comment, indeed. Even if one decides to take the original opinion ("Apple's vision") as a black-and-white guide to the here-and-now, it doesn't take much effort to find sections in the Apple agreement to back that up.
For example, 3.3.14 talks about "content or materials... that in Apple's reasonable judgment may be... considered pornographic, or defamatory" - that's talking about "sex" and "controversy", by the way.
Now, as a lot of the apologists for Apple might say (and have done in comments on the referenced article), this just applies to Apple's own store, which sounds like you can take your ball away and play elsewhere. Except that to do so requires you to jailbreak your phone and encourage others to do so, something which Apple regards as a DMCA violation. That, including a section (3.2e) in the developer agreement, pointed out in what you all too readily regard as "FUD" (a feeble debating tool when used as often as you have done) from the EFF, is a direct influence on "freedom".
Who isn't paying attention again?
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 17, 2010 15:19 UTC (Wed) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] From the iPhone developer's agreement: 3.3.14 Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content... Note that Apple in its sole discretion gets to decide what is "obscene", "pornographic" or "offensive". See also Sec. 7.3 of the Agreement, which forbids you from distributing your apps except via Apple. And see Sec. 8(l) which allows Apple to revoke your application if it feels like it.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 16, 2010 15:56 UTC (Tue) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link]
Argumentum ad pomum
"If it's pro-apple, anything goes."
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 17, 2010 1:16 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
I must endorse this rhetorical term and shall use it whenever possible :)
|
|||||||||||||