Stallman withdraws claim : No Evidence of Backdoor in Mac OS X

http://www.osnews.com/story/22259/Stallman_No_Evidence_of_Backdoor_in_Mac_OS_X

by mgrouchy • 17 years ago

10 16 17 years ago

mgrouchy• 17 years ago

Gah, as not to double post here. I meant to post the source url: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/mac-osx-mistakes-and-malfeature...

ptomato• 17 years ago

original posting: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=849789

SamAtt3• 17 years ago

This was inevitable. Apple's shown they'll go after people who tell the truth about them if Apple doesn't want a paticular truth told. So it was just a matter of time before they smacked Stallman down for slandering their OS.

nwjsmith• 17 years ago

I haven't been able to find the part in the article or RMS's quote that states Apple went after him for this particular "truth".

Do you have any evidence there is such a backdoor in Mac OS X?

SamAtt3• 17 years ago

I specifically called it slander which means I don't think it's true. That's what slander is.

tomjen2• 17 years ago

You think Stallman would get smacked down by Apple? They can't sue him, he doesn't own anything.

zandorg• 17 years ago

MacArthur grant?

calambrac• 17 years ago

He would probably love nothing more than to get sued by Apple, honestly.

SamAtt3• 17 years ago

He has more than you think. To give one example, Apple could include the FSF in the suit meaning whatever assets the FSF has could be put into jeapordy. I'm not saying that's right or fair and I'm not saying they'd even win but they could inflict some damage (legal fees alone would be an issue)

When someone's using the law as a weapon they're trying to take away what the other person values. Just because someone doesn't value money doesn't mean the law can't take away other things.

JeremyChase3• 17 years ago

Please read RMS's original letter here: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/mac-osx-mistakes-and-malfeature... and here http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=849789

I can't see a motivation for him to post a retraction for something he can't confirm in either regard, so I also assume that Apple has pursued some legal action.

Apple does have complete control over the software on your system. Every time you do an update you give control to them, but this is no different than any other OS that is upgradable. The difference is that OSX users have no transparency into what they are doing, and no way to audit it. So why would they need a backdoor if you will sudo and hand them the keyboard?

gjm11• 17 years ago

I can't see a motivation for him to post a retraction for something he can't confirm in either regard: Honesty, perhaps?

rbanffy• 17 years ago

"but this is no different than any other OS that is upgradable"

Except for the fact that in free and open-source you can examine the code that conducts the update.

For instance, my iPod-to-TV cable stopped working when I update my iPod touch (http://www.dieblinkenlights.com/blog_en/i-really-want-to-lik...). Could I examine the update, I could rather easily change the part that broke perfectly functional hardware and reverse the change in functionality Apple imposed upon me.

TomOfTTB• 17 years ago

The mistake you made here was commenting on a topic that involves Apple fanboys and Open Source Zealots. It is a thread where the stupidest among us converge. You were just asking for down votes

(and Yes, I'm probably going to get downvoted too but it was soooo worth it)

Stallman withdraws claim : No Evidence of Backdoor in Mac OS X

Related Stories