Re: required makeinfo version

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On 26 April 2013 10:39, Ben Abbott <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Apr 26, 2013, at 10:23 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
>
>> On 26 April 2013 10:07, Leo Liu <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>> On OS X makeinfo is stuck with version 4.8 which is too old but apple
>>> isn't upgrading anything in GPL3.
>>
>> This is a good reason to avoid using Apple products. GPLv3 forbids
>> Apple from restricting your devices and from certain patent
>> litigations. Which ones of those is Apple keen on?
[snip]
> For example, I think it reasonable for Apple to protect its
> customers from viruses an such.

This really doesn't apply when it's about "protecting" users from free
software such as Octave. When everyone can see the source code and
modify it, how likely is it for malicious software to sneak through?

I will grant that you are correct that more malware is written for
Android:

    http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/16/symantec-mobile-malware/

yet, in F-droid, when we can always inspect the source and catch that
much more easily:

    http://f-droid.org/posts/security-notice-textsecure

(There is a kerfuffle in the comments above exactly how the harmful
software was distributed, and it wasn't intentional malware, but my
point is that the problem was discovered quickly and solved thanks
to access to the source.)

You can have freedom and security and commercialisation all at the
same time. F-droid is a testament to this.

The "security" card has also been played with the recent "Secure" Boot
option with UEFI for other hardware. The obvious reason Microsoft is pushing
"Secure" Boot isn't to protect users from boot sector viruses, which
are exceedingly rare nowadays, but rather to make it much more
difficult to install an unlicensed version of Windows that Microsoft
hasn't approved. Their real goal is to curb unlicensed copies of
Windows. I am quite certain that this is a big part of Apple's real
goal too, but they tell you it's "for your own protection".

Even if it's about maintaining the perceived coolness of Apple
products, is this sufficient reason to allow Apple to forbid you from
installing Octave on some of its devices? I don't think it is.

> No doubt GPL based Linux is a preferred solution, but I'm not sure
> what practical alternatives there are for a "for profit" company
> selling an OS.

Dell is selling GNU/Linux, and has been doing for quite some time:

    http://www.dell.com/Learn/us/en/555/linux-solutions?c=us&l=en&s=biz

There are many other smaller players selling this OS too.

Un autre monde est possible.

- Jordi G. H.