petrjanda wrote:Well first of all, you seem to be making some conclusions, but they are based on wrong assumptions that i said this, said that, didnt say this, didnt say that. Im equally against all companies that support microsoft. and thats why i build my own computers, always.
Good luck with building your own laptop.
If you bought MacBook and put Linux on it, you still knowingly support company that doesnt make free software
English, do you speak it? I said that Apple contributes to KHTML, GCC, Samba and other projects. Therefore they ARE making free software. True, not all of their software is free, but they are making free software as well. So your forementioned claim is FALSE.
Name one hardware-company that makes free software and ONLY free software. When you build your machine, better not use NVIDIA or ATI vid-cards in 'em because they too make closed-source software. AMD and Intel make closed-source software, so their CPU's are out of the question. I think most MoBo-makers also make closed software, not to mention chipset-makers. So you are basically stuck. Everywhere you look, you see companies making closed software, so their products are off-limits to you. Do tell me: what are the specs of your machine? Then we can go through all the closed software the component-makers make. After we are finished with that, I expect that you will destroy your computer, since it's infected by companies that make closed software.
Besides, you better stop using Linux then, since Linus Torvalds uses PowerMac as his main-machine. Oh the humanity! I believe Keith Packard uses an IBM-laptop, and since IBM makes closed software, you better stop using X then as well.
hides source code from you
Yeah, they sure do
and limits your freedom.
[
IBM limits my freedom. HP limits my freedom. Countless other companies limit my freedom. Yet when they contribute to the community, we welcome them with open arms. Lots and lots of people buy hardware from them. But when Apple does it, you bitch and moan. Fact remains that they have still contributed a lot to the community, and the community is that much better, thanks to those contributions.
Basically Apple could keep everything closed. They could still sell closed software and limit my freedom, and not contribute anything back. But instead they sell closed software and limit my freedom, but they also contribute a lot to the community. I don't know about you, but I would rather prefer the latter than the former.
The world of free and open software needs real supporters, that is why GNU was made, and that is why we have the GPL.
Would free software be better off if Apple DIDN'T contribute to KHTML, GCC, Samba and other projects? Would GCC be better off if it didn't have Apple's backing? Would KHTML be better off if Apple didn't have legion of programmers improving it?
They contribute to those because they depend on them. if they didnt, their reputation would suffer terribly: they do it because used because half of Mac OS X comes from open source.
Read my lips: so_frigging_what? Do you think that IBM contributes to Linux out of the goodness of their hearts? No. Do you think that Red Hat contributes out of the goodness of their hearts? No. All those companies contribute because they see an advantage in doing so. Now that Apple does it, you bitch and moan.
Like I said: smells like double-standards and hypocrisy.
