KatolaZ <katolaz@???> wrote:

> Beyond the legends, Apple wins because they have always treated their
> users like monkeys to be locked in (something that they have been
> extremely successful at), and have focused on an extremely reduced set
> of supported hardware.

Being a bit pedantic, but for completeness this is a relatively new phenomena - I have a feeling that the Steve Jobs that started Apple would have hated what he became (and his principles) later on.
In the early days, Apple was about as open as you could get - both hardware and software. The Apple II was no closed environment.

In was only in the early 90s with the release of the Mac that we started to see the "appliance" approach to systems - but even then it wasn't all that closed. It started before the Mac, but the Apple III and LISA didn't really take off.

What really got the bandwagon rolling on the closed ecosystems was when they released the portable devices - iPhone and iPad. As I say, I can't help thinking that if Steve Jobs of the 70s had been shown the Steve Jobs of the 90s and 00s, I have a suspicion he'd have been horrified.



Antony Stone <Antony.Stone@???> wrote:

> I've been following this discussion thread with interest - I'm relatively new
> on this list, and it's been good to see the debate and opinions going back and
> forth.
>
> A fairly fundamental question strikes me about the entire topic, though:
>
> - what is the Devuan project aiming to do, and who for?
>
>
> I can think of a few potential answers to that myself, from the simplistic:
>
> - It's Debian without systemd (as far as that is possible / feasible)

That's basically it. Enough people with the skills and desire wanted "Debian without SystemD" (or more correctly, "Debian with choice") that they announced they were forking Debian.
Many were sceptical - I'm glad they managed it.

The rest, such as discussions about Gnome, basically stems from "what can we realistically manage to de systemd-ise in a maintainable way ?"



Bruce Perens <bruce@???> wrote:

> About the time I started working on Free Software, I also founded No-Code International with the goal of eliminating Morse Code exams as a requirement for the ham radio license, worldwide. This required a change in international law, the International Telecommunications Treaty of the ITU, a UN organization, and a corresponding change in the laws of many nations after that.
>
> The president of TAPR (a digital ham communications organization) said in a keynote that we were looking at the end of ham radio within 20 years if we could not do something about the declining licensing of young people. He said that many of us would preside over the demise of ham radio in our lifetimes, and we sure didn't like that. I was out to reverse the trend.
>
> People pleaded with me not to "dumb down" Amateur Radio. At ham radio gatherings, I got cursed out and yelled at. ARRL dispatched an ex-president of their organization to IARU (International Amateur Radio Union) meetings with one mission: preserve the Morse Code requirement.
>
> Our side won. Today there are more hams in the US than ever before in history, and we are no longer expecting the demise of Ham Radio.

Again for completeness, it is my understanding that "no morse" doesn't apply to all levels of license. I'm not a radio amateur myself, but I do have friends who are - correct me if I'm wrong.
So yes, you've made it a lot easier to get the basic license, but morse is still needed when you progress past some level. As you've observed, that's a good thing - the entry barrier is a lot lower, so you get more people joining the community. When they are on the bottom rung of the ladder, it's then a lot easier to make those steps up to higher levels - but you have to get on the bottom rung first. If that bottom rung is too far off the ground, many will simply not attempt it, and will never get to see what a view they can get from that bit higher up which encourages to them to try and get further up.