The post's parent appears to be replying to this, but for some reason didn't actually reply by by pressing "reply to this" or whatever, as the threading is lost. So I don't think it's an unreasonable comment to make.

Actually, we've stripped all the redundant lines out of the adoptable lines in the database well before we launched. Including that one, including try, except, blah blah. :) And Miro *IS* written in python, fwiw.

Linux boxes are rootable. They *should* be rootable. The only time they aren't are when you don't have control any more (because of DRM & etc). But then they are only Linux in as much as the Kernel goes, not as much as the kind of Linux that Linux users advocate. I've recovered a broken plenty of times by popping in a boot cd and chrooting it.

The only time a system can be protected from this type of stuff is if it's encrypted. But then again, that's only protecting someone from accessing information you want to keep private, not protecting from reinstalling your operating system.

Why do you care if non-free python, C, or whatever apps run on your computer? Code is code, and websites aren't what they used to be. The web has become a platform for client/server applications. So if you do care about free software on the desktop, it's reasonable that you should care about free software in your browser.

"from the beware-hidden-dollarsign dept"

I would think slashdot would know better what Stallman means by when he says free or non-free software. Generally these webapps area available at no cost anyway, and obviously that's not what he's talking about. He's talking about the classic ideas of free software, not whether or not it is okay to sell software. I just think that should be clear here.

Anyway, if we do argue that applications are moving into the web sphere, (which most web 2.0 advocates of course do,) then this is indeed something important to think about within the domain of free software.

I'm noticing the tag 'gonvidia', and it's true... as in terms of hardware, Nvidia does seem to be the best. But as in terms of the linux community, they pretty much create problems for everyone. And yes, I know, to the end user that's not always apparent. But the linux desktop really would be a lot farther along if it weren't for nvidia's refusal to open up to the free software community.

If Intel's new open source graphic drivers suck, then obviously yes, that's shitty. But between them and nvidia, if you're going to praise one or the other in the Linux community, it shouldn't be nvidia. Intel's graphic cards still don't support GLSL and the like, but at least you can run an open source driver and it works.

It's not just an issue of them deciding what to do with their products. It's a matter of them deciding what you can do with the products you've bought from them.

Apple's monopoly is worse than Microsoft's. They have a monopoly on both software and hardware.

I'm sorry, but if my motherboard breaks on my machine, I should be allowed to replace it with whatever motherboard I want. If I bought software, I should be able to install it wherever I want.

This isn't about them controlling their stuff. It's about them controlling yours.