XPost: comp.sys.mac.advocacy, comp.os.linux.advocacy   
   From: goldee_loxnbagels@gmail.com   
      
   On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 13:57:21 -0400, ZnU wrote:   
      
   > In article ,   
   >  Peter Köhlmann  wrote:   
   >   
   >> ZnU wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> In article   
   >>> ,   
   >>>  -hh  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> ZnU  wrote:   
   >>>> >   
   >>>> > What iPhone OS *has* done, by requiring signed apps approved by   
   >>>> > a central authority, is greatly reduced the vulnerability of   
   >>>> > unsophisticated users to social engineering.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> And the reason why the customers are willing to accept the   
   >>>> restrictions of this "Walled Garden" may represent is because the   
   >>>> outside world has become so relatively dangerous and full of BS that   
   >>>> they are willing to make the trade-off.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Say what you want about "those willing to give up their freedoms don't   
   >>>> deserve it", etc, etc. but the reality is that the customers don't see   
   >>>> it that way - - and they're the ones who aren't spouting empty words,   
   >>>> but are actually "Walking The Walk" because they're  voting with their   
   >>>> wallets IRL.   
   >>>   
   >>> I think most regular consumers aren't even thinking of things in these   
   >>> terms. Unlike the geeks, who want to endlessly second-guess every design   
   >>> decision, regular consumers are much more likely to just take things as   
   >>> they are. They're not thinking about "walled gardens". They're looking   
   >>> at the device and saying "OK, so I get my apps from this place",   
   >>> accepting that's just how the device works, and evaluating it in terms   
   >>> of what capabilities it provides.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Not everyone wants to be a lemming.   
   >> And certainly not have apples incredible censorship   
   >>   
   >> For that reason alone, there will *never* be an iPhone or iPad for me.   
   >> I don't let any imbecile from apple control what I can do with a device   
   >   
   > You're calling people "lemmings" for buying a device with a user   
   > experience and set of capabilities they find attractive, because *you*   
   > don't find that user experience and set of capabilities attractive.   
   >   
   > And what's extra funny about this is that you also claim to be an   
   > advocate of "choice".   
      
   If it were a Linux based device, the Linux loons would be drooling   
   over it and telling us all how superior it is to Apple, Windows,   
   Microsoft etc.   
      
   But it's not a Linux device, thank goodness or it might end up   
   being a blackboard with a #prompt and no instructions on how to   
   make it work.   
      
   But of course the end user would have the source code, as if that   
   matters to most users.   
   It doesn't.   
      
   It's getting quite humorous watching the Linux cracked pots try   
   and discredit the iPad, iPhone, iPod etc.   
      
   All the usual adjectives apply:   
      
   Lemming.   
   Dumb user.   
   Click and pointer.   
   Apple fanboi   
   etc.   
      
   You would think that since this tactic hasn't worked with the   
   iPod, hasn't worked with the iPhone, hasn't worked with the   
   Macbooks that the chances are pretty decent it isn't going to work   
   with the iPad.   
      
   The public has spoken and they are most certainly NOT speaking the   
   Linux word because for 15+ years desktop Linux has been free and   
   it's still going no place at less than 1.0 percent of the desktop   
   market.   
      
   That in and of itself is pathetic and true testament to the   
   failure of Linux as a desktop operating system.   
      
   But that won't stop the religious, zealot Linux cracked pots from   
   circling the wagons and trying to cover up the open sores on their   
   beloved Linux.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)