Even mozilla firefox is banned on the premise that it can run arbitrary code and yes, that is the official apple instance.
The fact that they apply it when they see fit and allow other times, and that it is totally arbitrary and opaque based on their own private interests, is exactly what everyone with common sense tried to explain when criticizing the walled garden.
My understanding is that what's banned on iOS is not arbitrary code per se, it's arbitrary code downloaded from the internet. Code you enter yourself, like in Pythonista, is just fine.
Isn't the problem JITing? Mozilla could ship Firefox, even with the JS engine, it would simply be unusable (compared to Safari) because they wouldn't be allowed to run JIT (only interpreter).
Firefox isn't banned, Gecko and SpiderMonkey are. For a few reasons, Apple doesn't want Blink/V8 demolishing users' batteries, and they have the excuse that allowing 3rd party browser engines is a security risk.
I complain about my TV showing me ads. I complain about my car not resetting one annoying light when i change the oil. I complain about the proprietary connectors on my generic batteries that restrict me to one brand of power tools (that get's discontinued for new proprietary connectors every 2 years).
It's fine if you love exploitation capitalism. But don't go assuming crap about others.
Does it make sense to destroy one feature for the illusion of having both?
Elements.io and telegram (to a much lesser extent) are safes. You place something there and it is locked. Signal, whatsapp, et al promise to be safes, but as soon as you place something, a hidden camera scan all the documents and print copies in a hidden printer at your home safe.
Would you trust that safe? would you still even call them safes? Yet some product manager/marketer convinced you that these are essential features for a "easy of use safe".
I don't think they meant "this released source tree" but as in "microsoft's source tree" since it is still actively maintained for the LTSC release channel.
people do not stay on projects forever and then they are literally stolen. Or companies adopt a project and then throw their weight around.
for the former case: do you think former gnome contributors (who started the project exactly because their feared the ossification of window managers trying to copy windows, see their https://web.archive.org/web/19990224084927/http://www.gnome.... manifesto) would be happy with designers that ignore users and copy everything from osx?
for the second case, just look up how much linus fought against tainted kernel and still ended up giving up because of corporate/funding pressure. Also how google employees do whatever they want to chromium, for example, removing every single contribution to restrict referrer because that is how they made money from clicks on google search ads.
AGPLv3 get the exact same level of flak as GPL got. And will lose (lost?) in exactly the same way.
GPL was the fight against device manufacturers using linux et al and not giving back/selling closed source linux devices.
We completely lost with tainted kernel and such, as they corrupted the only software that they couldn't live without and was promoting an open source license. Case in point: you cannot build 1% of your android phone software, proving GPL code (android, linux kernel) is as useless for open software as MIT (ios, darwin)
Now the fight moved from OEM manufacturers vs GPL to cloud providers vs AGPLv3. And source-available licenses are the tainted-kernel compromise all over again: get the thing you cannot live without but is fighting you with a pro-opensource license, and offer a carrot so they change, and they all changed.
Without the change the article talks about, cloud providers would have people using the AGPLv3 code in their derivative work of projectX. while they paid the closed source version from the company dual licensing it. With this new arrangement, they can use all derivative work at will with zero consequence, for the same low price.
Just like tainted kernel was a hard blow in the face of everyone who contributed to linux (heh, specially the GNU folks porting their stuff) with open source in mind. This is nothing but a greedy bait and switch on the community.
from my experience porting cyanogenMOD from android phones that only received 2.3 officially all the way up to 4+, you are likely running the binary kernel drivers as binary blobs for 2.6 and some kid in a forum either flipped bits at random while following a asm tutorial or wrapped it in a syscall shell that emulates an old kernel to the driver.
or maybe the n900 had less esoteric peripherals than android phones. I don't know... as I never got my hands on one despite actively trying to buy one for a couple years when they were announced.
Another PowerVR GPU for those that wonder. They quite notoriously don't have any open-source drivers.
There is a lot of information on the net why that's not the case, from the GPU architecture to source leaks. One could possibly make a shim to load older proprietary kernel modules, but it's hardly worth it: PowerVR GPUs don't seem to be used much nowadays, in contrast with Mali GPUs. And PowerVR GPUs seem to require quite different drivers depending on IP customization.
oh, i guarantee you it is not just a driver thing.
In a few months, when games start to get awful performance on those cards, they will claim they can't fix it because it is in the silicon and can't be patched.
But this is on everyone hoping graphic card driver authors would know anything about anything. heh.
Supporting system76, librem, etc was once about investing in support for linux....
Yet those companies provide zero contributions, rebadge open source projects, and just re-sell taiwanese white-label computers while going great lengths to hide that and fake innovation.
if pcpartpicker.com adds a single checkbox to their searchs: "[ ] support in mainline linux kernel", it would make more good to linux support than all those companies combined.
It is.
Even mozilla firefox is banned on the premise that it can run arbitrary code and yes, that is the official apple instance.
The fact that they apply it when they see fit and allow other times, and that it is totally arbitrary and opaque based on their own private interests, is exactly what everyone with common sense tried to explain when criticizing the walled garden.