… they just love the ability to enforce THEIR borders.
Apple has a border around Ipad to protect THEIR SOVEREIGNTY. You have to get permission for your app get in, and if at any point, you do something they dont like, you will deported until you do what they want. The also want you to show your green card, called itunes, to show your citizenship to Apple so you can have the right to transfer movies and music. Hell, they even claim they have a border and thus, sole ownership, around shapes like circular rectangles.
Microsoft, before it got cozy with Linux, had a border around a lot of PC devices in the early days of Windows 10, as in secure boot, to discourage you from being multi-cultural in your operating systems.
Game Developers have protected their property within the border of Launchers such as Steam, Origin, and now Epic, where you must get permission to use the things you have bought. Some of them believe in borders so much, that they don’t even support inter-state travel between Launchers.
Phone companies have created a nice, bigly wall around the drivers for their devices, making installing any alternative linux bases phone operating system virtually impossible. No Free, Open Source Driver Care for you.
And just like a Country defends their borders (or is supposed to) by military force , these companies defend their borders … BY LAWFARE, court order force. They dont call the generals … they call the lawyers.
It seems like when it comes to their ecosystems, their property, their best interests …. the don’t only love borders … their business model DEPENDS ON THEM.
skane2600
<p>I don't think secure boot was much of border both because it could be easily disabled and because the vast majority of users weren't interested in running Linux anyway. A border that would be comparable to the iPhone's on Windows would require <em>all </em>programs be obtained from a store and MS approval of any new programs. Not really comparable.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#447509">In reply to Waethorn:</a></em></blockquote><p>Not sure what you mean by "value for production". </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#447578">In reply to Waethorn:</a></em></blockquote><p>Generally you need to produce an output (product) if you are going to be paid for your work. If you're just working for the joy of creation and you have another source of income then great.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#447869">In reply to Waethorn:</a></em></blockquote><p>If you build a windmill and use it to power your house then you can benefit economically without having to deal with someone else's agenda, but in most cases to earn a profit you need to satisfy someone else's needs. Whether it involves an exchange of money or bartering, the principle is the same.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#447898">In reply to Waethorn:</a></em></blockquote><p>I was trying to find something you could do to profit without following someone else's agenda, not to draw an analogy between software and windmills obviously. The software case is much, much weaker.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#448463">In reply to Waethorn:</a></em></blockquote><p>Ah, the service agreement. We found the missing somebody else's agenda item. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#448145">In reply to Waethorn:</a></em></blockquote><p>Let's be serious, it's extremely rare for any significant open source code to be audited. The bare minimum for an audit would require reading every line of code, something most downstream developers don't even do. </p><p><br></p><p>The theory that the GPL license keeps code open while other open source licenses don't is bunk and always has been. Keeping your code open doesn't require that linked or derivative code also be open. The GPL is the "strings attached" open source license.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#448462">In reply to Waethorn:</a></em></blockquote><p>They call such tools "computer-aided" for a reason. They can't perform the audit for you. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#448832">In reply to Waethorn:</a></em></blockquote><p>You're still producing a product for money.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#447508">In reply to Waethorn:</a></em></blockquote><p>The antitrust efforts against MS were lobbied-for by competitors with deep pockets, There were no deep-pocket desktop Linux companies that could motivate the government over Secure Boot.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#447580">In reply to Waethorn:</a></em></blockquote><p>Well, it's the system that needs changing. Microsoft learned that you can't ignore the government if you want the government to ignore you.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#448662">In reply to smartin:</a></em></blockquote><p>If we reduced "defense" spending from "world policeman" to just defending our own country there would be plenty of money for other things.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#448855">In reply to karlinhigh:</a></em></blockquote><p>Sure, Liechtenstein gets criticism for not intervening all the time. But seriously, if a country acts as a world policeman it's logical that they be criticized for selective enforcement.</p>
vinay001
<p>It is a high Risk <a href="www.ekyth.in" target="_blank">but intersting</a></p>