[gowld]

What's interesting about stallman is that he is zealous about his philosophy, but like all philosophies, his philosophy is inconsistent when you take it to its logical extremes. (See the paradox of closed source microwaves). Stallman's philosophy is a veneer over utilitarianism and assumption that the computer is a unique construct in society -- software should be libre because libre software provides the most value to the most people due to the 0 marginal cost of software, even if it's less profitable to the creators, and even this claim is not quite true due to the security benefits of closed platforms and the virtuous cycle of profit motive motivating people to work harder to produce more. It makes sense when you consider that Stallman formed his views when he was working at MIT, with his material support from donations from people who made their money not from free software, or who shared such donations with him. The economics of his philosophy are tainted by that foundational flaw.

[craigsmansion]

> but like all philosophies, his philosophy is inconsistent

All philosophies are inconsistent?

> (See the paradox of closed source microwaves)

That's not a paradox. Binary blobs are okay if, and only if, there is no way to update them anyway. This means there is no way for the copyright holder of the software to force a user to cede their software freedom, so the point is moot.

> software should be libre because libre software provides the most value to the most people due to the 0 marginal cost of software

Software should be libre because it allows users to not be beholden to anything but their own interests. Value and cost are very secondary considerations.

> even if it's less profitable to the creators

That's not a criterium.

> due to the security benefits of closed platforms

Citation very much needed.

> Stallman formed his views when he was working at MIT, with his material support from donations

No. He was working, at MIT, you just stated that.

> The economics of his philosophy are tainted by that foundational flaw.

I think you might want to get better acquainted with "his philosophy", the economics of it, before diving head first into an argument based on nothing but ad-hoc analysis of shaky assertions.

[tokyodude]

I know of no security benefits to closed platforms. I know many people believe one platform that happens to be closed, iOS, is more secure than some other platforms but I've seen no evidence that it's more secure because it's closed. In fact, the platform that's generally considered the least secure, Windows, is also closed.

[mch82]

There was an entire controversy about how hard Apple made it for law enforcement to access iPhones, which indicates security benefits.

Apple’s business model also aligns with user privacy (so far).

It’s also worth considering Apple’s CEO personally values privacy because he had to keep his sexuality a secret his entire life until he reached such a prominent position he felt safe to speak out.

I agree that the strongest evidence is the source code, compiler code, and electronics schematics. However, there are other forms of evidence.

[jstanley]

> There was an entire controversy about how hard Apple made it for law enforcement to access iPhones, which indicates security benefits.

It indicates that Apple software is secure, it doesn't indicate that it is secure because it is closed-source. It might be even more secure if it were open source, because then many more people would be looking for vulnerabilities in it.

[mch82]

Good catch. I responded to “no evidence Apple is more secure” and missed the “because it is closed” context.

I think Apple’s products would be more secure if they were more open. I appreciate that the core is open (Darwin, WebKit, Swift, LLVM).

[throwawaymath]

The general argument is that iOS is more secure because Apple strictly controls both the hardware and the software. The two are very tightly integrated in Apple products, which means proprietary software for e.g. segregating userland or interacting with the secure enclave is specialized and well-audited.

The other (perhaps more compelling) argument is that Apple is only able to invest this level of security in its products because of its spectacular profits, which would likely be much lower if iOS were open source.

That's basically the gist of it.

EDIT: To whoeever downvoted this, I'm just relaying the argument.

[saagarjha]

The Secure Enclave is not well-audited in the traditional sense, as it’s just as proprietary as the rest of the device.