And while Apple can readily fix a bug in its own software, at least for users who keep up on patches, "Linux" refers to a broad range of systems and vendors, rather than a single company, and the affected systems include some of the biggest names in the Linux world, like Red Hat, Debian, and Ubuntu.
And thanks to the LGPL license of GnuTLS, all the users have the possibility to upgrade their systems, independently of whether Red Hat, Debian, Ubuntu, Apple, Microsoft believe that maintaining those systems is still commercially convenient or not. GPLv3 would be better, as it would give the users the warranty of being able to actually install the updated code into their devices, which is important for non-PCs.
Don't like software form Canonical? Don't use it. They're a commercial company, so they have to break even ultimately. I understand if, after listening to everyone, they make their own decision. Their Mir project is all about Ubuntu phones: should that platform be successful, they'll take the merit, should they fail, the Free Software Community will still have Android as their reference platform. Even if Google is a commercial company, too, and compared to them Canonical is Candy Candy.
because they can't just hard code that right into the chip and never let you see it
No, because we would see either the software interfacing with the hard-coded backdoor, or some undocumented hardware means of communication coming out from the chip, and we'd start asking questions.
So if I just embed my code into the processor itself, you won't bitch.
Thats just silly.
Embedding code in (readonly or flash) ROMs is actually preferred from Stallman's point of view, because it allows the hardware to work out-of-the-box when using free software to control that hardware. Binary firmware is problematic for free software operating systems, not because free software enthusiasts have some maniac obsession about not running binaries that they haven't compiled themselves, but because the copyright holders of the firmware binary blobs often attach very restrictive licensing conditions to them, making them very hard or impossible to redistribute.
Now name one that the UN left for the US to hop the bag on for over a decade instead of taking care of business
Then next time Russia or some other country you don't like "takes care of some business" without waiting for the U.N. don't act outraged. Principles can't be bent to one's convenience.
WARNING TO ALL PERSONNEL: Firings will continue until morale improves.