Nothing unreal exists.
And by the way, genetic evolution has zero to do with economic competition, other than being spelled out using the same alphabet and sentence/grammar rules.
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Ethical question why are Closed systems wrong?
- Thread starter wingman4ever
- Start date
Nothing unreal exists.
And by the way, genetic evolution has zero to do with economic competition, other than being spelled out using the same alphabet and sentence/grammar rules.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
But you are still making the following argument:
XYZ company acted unethically.
XYZ company uses a closed system.
Closed systems are unethical.
The one has nothing at all to do with the other IMO.
XYZ company acted unethically.
XYZ company uses a closed system.
Closed systems are unethical.
The one has nothing at all to do with the other IMO.
Cause and effect.
IBM, Microsoft and Apple have all acted unethically precisely by exploiting their closed system architectures.
The first two were the targets of anti-trust suits over it, and the third has been up for it in the EU, just a matter of time before it happens in the USA.
That's the big 3 in computing, all called on the carpet over unethical practices involving their operating systems. And there are others.
That's not an arcane, hard-to-connect theory over a mythical company XYZ.
Closed system architectures present the temptation. The very thing making the money creates the temptation. Make the stakes high enough and history - not me, not theory, history - shows that a tipping point occurs and the temptation for unethical behavior becomes compelling, or even irresistible.
They do it because they can.
It's a causal (cause and effect) relationship.
Nothing unreal exists.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Could I not also argue the following:
XYZ company acted unethically.
XYZ company makes widgets by hand.
Making widgets by hand is unethical.
Therefore we must use machines to make our widgets.
What's the difference?
XYZ company acted unethically.
XYZ company makes widgets by hand.
Making widgets by hand is unethical.
Therefore we must use machines to make our widgets.
What's the difference?
Did making the widgets by hand present the temptation and the means for unethical behavior, that would have been absent if the widgets were not made by hand?
Closed systems - presents the temptation and the means for unethical behavior.
Open systems - the corporate temptations for unethical business behavior may occur in any case, but the means of using the software to achieve the unethical behavior are removed.
Cause and effect.
The means are not a coincidence and therefore neither is the temptation to use those means.
You seem to suggest that the two are coincidental.
"Here is some software that you have to buy. It's closed. Once you've bought in, I can screw you. If you reverse engineer my software to fix it, I can sue you on top of screwing you. You have just paid me to have the motivation and means to screw you."
"Here is some software with associated costs. It's open. Once you've bought in, I can try to screw you. But if you don't like it, you, anyone you hire, or the community of programmers at large can take the open source code, and un-screw you. And there's nothing that I can do about it. I therefore have no motivation or means for making money screwing you."
Cause and effect.
Nothing unreal exists.
I believe they do have permission now...
Cisco and Apple Agreement on IOS Trademark
Is this a first for Apple?
Speed Daemon
Android Expert
The comments were the most interesting. Did you know that Apple also ripped off the Iphone brand name from Cisco?
Here's a good one:
Speed Daemon
Android Expert
It looks like rms is hypocrite when it comes to closed systems!
From Free as in Freedom: Chapter 1
From Free as in Freedom: Chapter 1
Yes, rms is a closed loop builder! :rofl:
Speed Daemon
Android Expert
Closed has more than one meaning.
I mention this because...
Prove it!
No thanks, existence in the physical world is always real, except when sophistry or complex numbers are involved.
Speed Daemon
Android Expert
Yes, and none of use know which meaning the OP is referring to. This reminds me of the blind men describing an elephant!
That was a joke. I guess that I shouldn't plan on a career in comedy...No thanks, existence in the physical world is always real, except when sophistry or complex numbers are involved.
No, I laughed like crazy at the challenge, I guess complex numbers aren't as funny as I thought. 
Speed Daemon
Android Expert
I'm having a crisis of faith. I'm supposed to believe in imaginary numbers, but I have doubts...
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Did making the widgets by hand present the temptation and the means for unethical behavior, that would have been absent if the widgets were not made by hand?
Closed systems - presents the temptation and the means for unethical behavior.
Open systems - the corporate temptations for unethical business behavior may occur in any case, but the means of using the software to achieve the unethical behavior are removed.
Cause and effect.
The means are not a coincidence and therefore neither is the temptation to use those means.
You seem to suggest that the two are coincidental.
"Here is some software that you have to buy. It's closed. Once you've bought in, I can screw you. If you reverse engineer my software to fix it, I can sue you on top of screwing you. You have just paid me to have the motivation and means to screw you."
"Here is some software with associated costs. It's open. Once you've bought in, I can try to screw you. But if you don't like it, you, anyone you hire, or the community of programmers at large can take the open source code, and un-screw you. And there's nothing that I can do about it. I therefore have no motivation or means for making money screwing you."
Cause and effect.
Nothing unreal exists.
The temptation for unethical behavior is ALWAYS there. Open source OSes can behave unethically as well.
yes.. you have the right to do as you please with the thing you created. you can choose not to dial 911 when you see someone in danger.
Yes.. it is immoral to with hold that info from the world... and let people die.
it is bad/immoral for you to watch someone in danger and not dial 911.
No. No, they don't.
Operating systems don't behave unethically because they can't. Neither can closed source operating systems nor can openers.
Only people and the companies that they form can behave unethically.
Ample examples exist of closed source operating system vendors using the nature of the closed source system itself to behave unethically and being called before a competent court to answer for that. That is real.
No examples exist for that for open source systems. That is not real.
You're trying to show an equality based on comparing something that exists with something that does not exist, iow, comparing something real with something unreal.
That's why I have repeated that one phrase.
With open source software, you can change anything injected into or removed from the software to facilitate unethical behavior, should it ever occur, because access to what you need to do that, it exists. With closed source, you cannot, because access to what you would need does not exist.
That's all there is to it.
Regardless of which way you approach it, one thing exists and is real and the other thing does not exist and is unreal.
The only way to compare them is to set them as equals. To do that, one must either deny that reality exists or else pretend that something unreal exists.
Until you can show that IBM and Microsoft did not use their closed software for unethical behavior and were called before the Department of Justice for it, you'll have a hard time convincing some of us that that never happened. Likewise but opposite for any open software vendor.
Of course you're entitled to your opinion and I fully respect that.
My opinion is that unreal things don't exist, so we may have to agree to disagree on this.
No offense, but if you can't find strong opinions attributable to Stallman you are doing poor research.
Love his ideas or hate them; the man is extremely passionate.
davoid
Android Expert
The temptation for unethical behaviour may always be there, but it isn't CREATED by an open system, whereas a closed system CREATES temptation, and also provides the MEANS.
It might be easier to comprehend open systems as inherently ethical, and then evaluate closed systems in comparison. SHARING vs. GREED... TRANSPARENCY vs. SECRECY
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
One more time, you're still arguing that companies acted unethically BECAUSE they have closed systems. This is a completely bogus argument IMO. If Microsoft were to open source it's OS tomorrow you're telling me they'd never act unethically again?
I'm telling you that if they were to open source their software, they could not make unethical changes that people would have to simply lie down and take.
Microsoft acted unethically because they were unethical.
They used their closed source as the weapon.
If you remove the closed part and make it open, you remove that particular weapon.
You can wish otherwise, but wishes aren't facts.
I don't know why that is so difficult to understand.
If you don't believe that their closed source has been used as the weapon - the MEANS - in unethical practices, then I really can't help you.
You have defended Microsoft to the bitter end in every debate we've had.
To continue this debate here really defies logic because nothing unreal exists and because real things exist.
Microsoft acted unethically because they were unethical.
They used their closed source as the weapon.
If you remove the closed part and make it open, you remove that particular weapon.
You can wish otherwise, but wishes aren't facts.
I don't know why that is so difficult to understand.
If you don't believe that their closed source has been used as the weapon - the MEANS - in unethical practices, then I really can't help you.
You have defended Microsoft to the bitter end in every debate we've had.
To continue this debate here really defies logic because nothing unreal exists and because real things exist.
10 AM - Microsoft announces that their software is now open source. The market goes wild, pundits proclaim a new day. Most users don't care. Those never burned before continue to trust Microsoft. Microsoft stock rises.
11 AM - Microsoft announces changes in their software that are detrimental to consumers and foster anti-competitive use of their products.
11:15 AM - Independent Microsoft software distributions without the detrimental changes spring up across the internet, with legally free downloads. None of your data are at risk using these distributions.
1:00 PM - Pundits point out that there's no assurances for business users that the new distributions are virus-free and supportable for enterprise use without Microsoft.
1:15 PM - Redhat announces their virus-free Windows distribution, with full enterprise support. The software is free, the support is reasonably priced.
1:30 PM - Microsoft stock plummets while pundits in their pocket try to save their jobs on Wall Street. The gamble to behave unethically for profit with an open software base backfires miserably as Microsoft loses money hand over fist for having made the attempt.
2:00 PM - The blogosphere is filled with stories that insist that no one could have seen this coming. Decades into the future, some people will continue to believe those stories.
2:15 PM - Microsoft withdraws their software as open source and returns to closed source, having proven that only closed source works with unethical schemes for profit.
You can call believing reality bogus all you like - have a nice day!
AntimonyER
CHANGED FROM AF ADDICT MIKESTONY
I While a closed system in a vacuum is not unethical, it is not in a vacuum. The reality is it exists in an environment that often is unethical. It's environment imparts it's characteristics where the system is receptive.
Let's say solid/cold is ethical, liquid/hot is unethical. In an ethical world, every system is ethical. In a cold world, all water is a solid. Also all rocks are solid. Both systems are ethical in an ethical environment. Move to the hot, unethical world. The ice is more receptive of the heat, and becomes liquid (unethical). The rock has characteristics which better resist the (unethical) heat, and it is able to remain solid (ethical).
in our world, closed systems accept the characteristics of our unethical behavior, while open systems do not. While you may point to the ethical environment, and say look, in that world, a closed system is ethical, the fact is, we are in the unethical environment, and i see a puddle of water.
Let's say solid/cold is ethical, liquid/hot is unethical. In an ethical world, every system is ethical. In a cold world, all water is a solid. Also all rocks are solid. Both systems are ethical in an ethical environment. Move to the hot, unethical world. The ice is more receptive of the heat, and becomes liquid (unethical). The rock has characteristics which better resist the (unethical) heat, and it is able to remain solid (ethical).
in our world, closed systems accept the characteristics of our unethical behavior, while open systems do not. While you may point to the ethical environment, and say look, in that world, a closed system is ethical, the fact is, we are in the unethical environment, and i see a puddle of water.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
I'm telling you that if they were to open source their software, they could not make unethical changes that people would have to simply lie down and take.
Microsoft acted unethically because they were unethical.
They used their closed source as the weapon.
If you remove the closed part and make it open, you remove that particular weapon.
You can wish otherwise, but wishes aren't facts.
I don't know why that is so difficult to understand.
If you don't believe that their closed source has been used as the weapon - the MEANS - in unethical practices, then I really can't help you.
You have defended Microsoft to the bitter end in every debate we've had.
To continue this debate here really defies logic because nothing unreal exists and because real things exist.
10 AM - Microsoft announces that their software is now open source. The market goes wild, pundits proclaim a new day. Most users don't care. Those never burned before continue to trust Microsoft. Microsoft stock rises.
11 AM - Microsoft announces changes in their software that are detrimental to consumers and foster anti-competitive use of their products.
11:15 AM - Independent Microsoft software distributions without the detrimental changes spring up across the internet, with legally free downloads. None of your data are at risk using these distributions.
1:00 PM - Pundits point out that there's no assurances for business users that the new distributions are virus-free and supportable for enterprise use without Microsoft.
1:15 PM - Redhat announces their virus-free Windows distribution, with full enterprise support. The software is free, the support is reasonably priced.
1:30 PM - Microsoft stock plummets while pundits in their pocket try to save their jobs on Wall Street. The gamble to behave unethically for profit with an open software base backfires miserably as Microsoft loses money hand over fist for having made the attempt.
2:00 PM - The blogosphere is filled with stories that insist that no one could have seen this coming. Decades into the future, some people will continue to believe those stories.
2:15 PM - Microsoft withdraws their software as open source and returns to closed source, having proven that only closed source works with unethical schemes for profit.
You can call believing reality bogus all you like - have a nice day!
Would never ever happen because at the end of the day the quality isn't there in a close system. So MS could open source it's products, still engage in anti-competitive practices and still make a crap ton of money simply because the quality they can offer is far better than any competitor. You can absolutely act unethically while having an open system.
Which company is one of the biggest advocates of open systems? Google. Which company is settling an anti-trust suit in the EU? Google. So yes, having open systems doesn't mean you're immune from being anti-competitive.
argedion
The TechnoFrog
One problem with closed software is you don't know how much of the Software was "Borrowed" from the open source crowd. There for people who deserve credit for thier code are not getting that credit under a Closed System. The Company M$ in this case gets the credit and the Copyright to some function that has been apart of the Open Source Community for years. However Since M$ has NDA's(Non Disclosure Agreements) No One can blow the whistle without suffering some fairly damaging personal interest (an unethical practice) and with M$'s money they can claim that this person is a liar and they themselves created this code. Any Judge in a case like this is going to where the money is which is to the unethical who keep their stuff hidden from the community in order to profit off of others coding. Since M$ owns the "Copyrights" the Judge would have to follow the side of the law and give M$ the courts approval.
argedion
The TechnoFrog
seems to me your mixing apples and oranges. Companies are for Profit. Most of them practice in Unethical behavior strickly for profit and cause they can. Companies put out vehicles with know issues and then send out a recal later to fix them because they didn't want to put the money into fixing the issues in the first place this seems to be and Unethical thing to me. So really by definition "Companies for Profit" are unethical
Ah, another hypothesis - only Microsoft can make a quality product, or rather, in your opinion, Microsoft products are higher quality.
And you know this based on your idea of how Microsoft software would be in a system that is completely fictional and does not exist.
And when their software contains anti-competitive, unethical bits - are those high-quality unethical bits?
Better let Apple and the entire unix community know about that whole quality thing. Maybe a bunch of IT managers would be interested in that theory as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/technology/google-offers-to-settle-eu-antitrust-case.html?_r=0
Oh, I'm sorry - was that case for Google's closed source search and advertising software and had nothing to do with the open source Android base??
Why yes. Yes, it was.
Have a nice day!
And remember - nothing unreal exists.