Apple: iPad and Emacs
jjinux.blogspot.com
jjinux.blogspot.com
I fail to see the irony.
Quick link to demo:
It's a fair point, though.
emacs-w3m is a browser inside emacs
I just tried to run ymacs in a emacs-w3m, but it didn't work.
that woulda been cool though, emacs in a browser running inside a browser which is inside emacs.
That could be the basis of a very, very nerdy startup ;-)
Problem.
But what's great is that you can just buy yourself a $300 netbook that will run Emacs just great, and you have plenty of money left over to donate to the FSF.
They work pretty well, it just takes a while to remember which one is which (early on, trying to guess the Ctrl-C swipe can take quite a while.)
When you give control over YOUR computer to some third party, you are giving up you freedom. Apple insists on having that kind of control over iPad purchasers.
I can't speak for the FSF but I think it is a safe prediction that there will be no support port of GNU Emacs to iPad unless Apple changes its tune.
The iPad is not a computer.
It's a web browsing appliance. Hackers want computers, full computers. And plenty of vendors (including apple) sell them in many different configurations, styles, and prices. Many other people do not want full computers -- they're a pain to manage and maintain, and their interfaces are too general-purpose and get in the way.
Complaining about the freedom about an iPad is like complaining about the freedom in your TV's firmware or (fairly-advanced) toaster.
The iPad is a computer. It has a general-purpose operating system, and a very general-purpose input method.
The reason that people like me are irritated is that the limitations that lead to you saying "[it] is not a computer" are business/social reasons, not technical. Given that a lot of the people here are technical-minded, it's reasonable to complain that the iPad is artifically restricted.
The iPad went the other direction. The endpoint's the same -- a specialized device for a specific set of activities -- but now developers feel that things have been taken away instead of added. A social reason if I ever heard one.
We're only going to see more specialized devices -- embedded systems are getting enough power to get really interesting -- so it's best that us hackers get used to it now.
> it's best that us hackers get used to it now
I'd rather not, and I'd rather complain about companies that push computing in that direction. It seems to be a philosophical difference between us.
We've tried the "I know! Make it a real computer!" route before. They were called tablets. Tablets failed for two reasons: horrible interface (stylus, yuck) and it was a real computer. Netbooks got closer by fixing the interface but they still suck because it's a whole computer. It took Apple figure out to forget the computer. Give a good interface in an instant-on device.
Being able to install non-app-store applications wouldn't technically impact in any way on your, or my, or any other person's use of the device. Does the ability to jailbreak an iPhone somehow make it less usable for people who don't jailbreak it?
Edit: discussion -> thread.
There is no reason for the iPad to do everything. It should do the things it's good at and we should have other devices to do other things.
If your comment is no more complex than to just say "I want to install what ever I want!" then you're letting an idealogy blind you. I don't think Jobs is trying to take away anyone's freedoms. He just doesn't want to get a reputation for expensive devices that crash all the time. Much of the reason that windows has such a reputation for not being stable is that anyone could install anything they wanted. That does give them more flexibility for those who can use it, but it gives the opposite impression for the less tech savy (the bulk of Apples market, no?)
> just say "I want to install what ever I want!" then you're letting an idealogy blind you
What ideology? I fail to see how it is ridiculous to say "I'd like the ability to install application X" when X isn't in the App Store. This doesn't imply that I think Steve Jobs must fall over his feet to make it so, it's just straightforward criticism of a flaw that I perceive in the platform.
Do you see it as rediculous to say "I'd like the ability to install arbitrary things on my d-link router"? Of course you could say "I should be able to do that and just not get any support if I do". But what about reputation? How can e.g. Apple ensure that (a) just you can install things on the iPad (i.e. experienced people only) and (b) that you wont complain that their product sucks if the unsupported software you load causes your machine to become slow or unstable?
Your two reputation questions are good. How can Apple ensure that only I can install apps on my device and not others? I have some ideas, but as I'm not privy to the internals, I have no idea whether they are feasible or not. Perhaps an iTunes preference (plist-style would be fine, it doesn't have to be exposed in the interface) that allows unsigned applications to be added to the list of apps in iTunes? As for (b), I have no idea. Looking at the reputation of the Mac and OS X, I don't think it's that big an issue, but I can see the difference in reputation usability-wise of the desktop versus the Cocoa Touch products. I attribute this to the difference in interaction paradigms and the hard work that Apple put in to polishing the UI, rather than the business/legal restrictions.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wireless_router_firmwar...
I'm sure (a) would be feasible in the way you describe, or some other. I see the problem as (b) and that would trump (a).
The place where I differ with all the people saying Apple is so evil/closed/whatever is that I've seen Apple, from the beginning as far as I can tell, be obsessive about their reputation. And it’s hurt them along the way. It may end up hurting them in the end. But I’ve also seen Windows get a bad rap for things that weren’t actually their fault. That’s the cost of being so open and unless Google does a lot of testing they are going to feel this pain on Android at some point (unless it just never gets enough users).
Because they do have a PDK so you can run native code... http://developer.palm.com/index.php?option=com_content&v...
> The iPad is not a computer.
You and I both know that's a lie. And I don't utter lies, especially ones that only exist to serve big companies at the expense of ordinary people.
It's meant to be a device, regardless of what you think it's capable of. There is a reason nerds/geeks are never consulted by sales. If you don't like the device then don't buy it. I'm sure plenty of nerds will be out there saying "but! Lets make it a whole computer! Then we'll kill apple!". Buy one of their devices to go with your Android phone. Don't mind all the people laughing as you trudge your way through using them.
The iPad is not a web browsing appliance.
They are selling it as a computer, without mentioning the word "computer". Just look at the ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fihOmQY-JxY
A device that can do all that has usually been called "computer".
A second: distribute emacs as source and let people who own the developer kit compile and install it. Given the rather large overlap between developers and emacs users, this might not be so bad. But it may be hard to envision anyone going through the effort.
I'd be very curious to see what kind of emacs-like editor could be written in Javascript. Or a hybrid, with a JS front end Ajaxing away to a back end.
And, of course, there's the obvious alternative of writing something that looks and works sort of like emacs but is written in Objective-C. If indeed there is sufficient interest in a serious text editor for the iPad, the BBedit and Textmate folks would appear to be sitting pretty.
To get it running, you'd need (a) the ability to modify, redistribute, compile, and install arbitrary code (including GPL'd code), and (b) the ability to run interpreters and virtual machines (emacs lisp).
So emacs itself is just a bellwether for the things he really wants in a computer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mg_%28editor%29
Jailbreak your iPhone/iPad and Cydia will allow you to install Vim or mg, plus Ruby, Python, etc. MG even supports LaTeX syntax highlighting, although of course the compilation must be done elsewhere.
Anyway, Apple ships emacs with OS X, and I think they're one of the last *nix venders who still installs emacs by default.
How ironic?
I don't know if the iPad text system also supports emacs shortcuts, but if it did I'd rush out and buy a Bluetooth keyboard just as a token of solidarity.
And I suppose the iPhone will also work with Bluetooth keyboards when OS 4 is released. I can't wait to tell my mom that her cellphone supports emacs keyboard shortcuts.
A 3-second lag to start a program you use thousands of times a year adds up.
If you agree to the terms of the App Store developer license, it appears that you would violate the GPL.
See: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/03/iphone-developer-progra...
I think this is the most relevant section. Any distribution mechanism that bypasses Apple's app store is strictly verboten.
make the code freely available so others with app store accounts can also build & install on their devices.
If you make the code freely available so others can install it on their devices, then you would have a distribution mechanism that bypasses the app store.
You can do it, however, it violates your agreement with apple.
EDIT: actually, I'm thinking about this some more: are you saying that iPhone source code (for code modules, frameworks, etc) available online are violating the prohibition on alternative distribution?
What is more specifically at stake here is code licensed under one of the GNU free software licenses that may have wound up in iPhone apps. To my (non-lawyerly) eyes, any programs that include code derived from a third party's GPL or LGPL licensed code are likely being violated unlawfully.
Regarding L/GPL, which part do you think would be violated if one incorporated such code in an iPhone/ipad app, assuming one makes the resulting source code available?
Lastly, my original comment pointed out that one can port emacs and run on your device. Nobody can stop you because nobody would know.
Apps in the App Store are encumbered by Apple's right to disable use of the app by users who have already downloaded it. This is in clear violation of both GPL and LGPL.
Apparently (again, per the EFF) an app sold through the App Store may not be free distributed by other means. Another clear violation.
Also, you may not modify the app running on your apple device unless (and even then, only perhaps if) you sign the app dev agreement. That restriction on modifications is again in violation of GPL and LGPL (to, again, my non-lawyerly eyes and this is lay commentary, not legal advice).
We shall see. I'm confident that as a matter of principle the FSF would not support or endorse ports to these devices but what the EFF's discoveries make me wonder about is the extent of app store programs that are currently being distributed in violation of some of the third party code they use.
Finally, yes, I suppose that one may port GNU Emacs for personal use but, at the same time, it appears to me that one can not share the results lawfully, even with their friends. Taken to the extreme, perhaps everyone interested in running GNU Emacs (or XEmacs) on the iPad can do their own private port after paying Apple some money.