Linux and Open Source

warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/drupal/public_html/modules/taxonomy/ on line 33.
About Linux and Open Source

Apple iPhone source code is being demanded.

Exemplifies why I am not keen to own one of these boxes!

- To gain freedom from lock-in, owners have 'jailbroken' their phones.
- Subsequent updates have screwed with those phones and the personal data of their owners.
- Ironically theyre now the ones being targetted by malicious worms.

If you havn't changed your passwords to make yourself immune from the latter, more fool you... but there's a wider issue here of how the vendor, and the telcos, have attempted to retain control of the machines even as theyre sold and used by their owners... with disasterous results for some.

Why would you buy an appliance that an external party can fiddle with at whim? Because it's 'cool' ??

In case you've been hiding under a copyright rock - This clip, taken from , is definately worth a watch. Seems like an appropriate time to once-again plug the excellent work that the Creative Freedom Foundation are doing in getting the message out there in a coherent fashion.

© kiwiright from fyminc on Vimeo.

I don't know about you but I really don't know that being taken to court for taking photos in a tourist spot is really a risk I see as in any way reasonable. And yet that day may well be coming.

Nicely done, Colin. ACTA is a threat to all of our freedoms and the Government needs to remember it's obligation to remain transparent to the public... ! Nevermind that the logic of ACTA itself is flawed.

Kudos to Mark for writing this up..

Strongly recommended reading to anyone who values their freedoms - online or otherwise.

The more I read about copyright, the more i'm convinced it's being taken too far...

35 UK Councils forced into an expensive migration path after vendor discontinues service.

Tells a tale all of it's own, doesn't it? One big plus to the FOSS world is you don't wind up subject to the whims of a single vendor/manufacturer.

Door is indeed "Slammed".

I'm not sure about the rationale here; it seems key that Flash would open the door to flash-built apps - and in effect provide a bypass to the Apple Store.

Heaven forbid Apple should lose their totalitarian control over their appliances!
(do we need to mention Apple threatening a lawsuit against Woolworths due to their new logo?)

That's a bit what this sounds like. Essentially it appears that Apple iPhones which've been syncing with MS Exchange have been leading people to believe their data is encrypted on-device. And now that the bug that caused this to be reported has been patched... Exchange sync no longer works.

This doesn't personally affect me, as I run neither Exchange nor an iPhone. But it does thoroughly convince me that my previously doubts about Applies business practises were right on the money.

I've previously blogged about it. And now this issue adds to the mix.

I seriously wonder what people inside Apple are thinking right now?

Nicely said by Dave Lane.

"$1.4 Million" is a lot of money. But when we're talking about them providing $140,000 (actual cost) of software (worth $1,400,000 retail) to a charity, it is indeed self serving when you think about it!

- Continues to lead people down the path of using the MS template.
- These packages use closed formats by default. What about interoperating with others - or working from home as Dave points out?

I do agree that if Microsoft wants to truly be seen as benevolent to charities, they should offer cash equivalent - even at the wholesale price equivalent. The Charity could then opt to use the Software - or do something else potentially more useful, with the funds.

It is on the surface a great deal for the charity concerned - but you do have to read between the lines, eh?

I hope you get it too - an excellent and eye-opening Groklaw piece.

It's yet another example of why Patents can be bad news, too. Funny how it all ties together isn't it?

Don't be sucked in by Microsoft offering to do big things in the Open Source world; theyre doing it to ensure that Windows itself isn't marginalized in the process. On the contrary, they want Open Source apps to be running on Windows - and Windows only?? The latter is of course, the question.

At a business level it's probably good thinking, as they're losing, if anything, against their competitors (both Linux and MacOS) - so it's not a bad stake-in-the-ground.

All I can say, is, be wary. I still appreciate _complete_ openness. Not this hybrid that continues to cause our reliance on a single-vendor closed platform.

I spotted this last week, but this is with a more local focus.

This is a key risk for organisations that choose to:

a) Run a closed source package which leaves them at the whim of the vendor; and

b) Run a Windows based system without allowing for updating to a 'current' generation OS.

Windows 2000 is closing on 10 years old (obviously) and most people have moved to Windows XP or Vista (on the desktop) or Windows Server 2003/2008 (servers). Those who havn't are either poorly organised or have a particular reason for staying with Win2k; perhaps compatibility with hardware or a particular software package.

However these people are now left without an option for the security of their system, thanks to the Vendor deciding 'no' (this despite the fact that I read somewhere, MS had previously agreed to keep patching the OS until next year!)

It brings me back to one of the reasons Im becoming a big fan of the open alternatives; The decisions of a profit-focussed monopoly vendor should not be allowed to have such potentially far-reaching effects.

Me thinks those with remaining W2K machines will be working to replace them fast - or isolate them behind a suitably configured firewall... I hope however this is something of a learning experience!

Syndicate content