While Apple fans are all silent, Maemo guys have had a serious reaction to previous post, Apple’s iPad is meant for drivers, not mechanics.
I have just dropped some fragments of the article over in talk.maemo.org and asked for their opinions, as part of an open source community.
So I have selected the most interesting so far from the opened thread here. Also I’ll paste some of the comments written on the blog.
Most of the responses were, as expected, very hot and sour, but they “hold water”:
1. Ruskie says:
“The article is well thought of but I have to disagree strongly with the sentiment of:
I need to know that I use a computer as a tool that really is far above my comprehension, meaning it’s made in years of research and it’s made by teams of hundreds of smarter people than me, in order to rely on it.
You are aware that Apple doesn’t do anything like this? You are aware Microsoft doesn’t do anything like this? NOBODY does it like this.
To have such a computer you would require AI level things.
Here’s my viewpoint on computers. They are merly tools. They should be considered as such and used as such. And as such people should have a fairly good understanding on how they work and what they can do.
Imagine a simple crowbar. You could replicate it with the necessary skills, you see all the component parts. But that doesn’t exclude you from actually using it or understanding how it works or it being simple.
Another example:
An electric drill. Nothing impressive there. It’s just an electro motor you can see how it goes togheter from any school textbook on physics in a nice shinny package. Yet people are still willing to pay more for certain brands. Why? because they offer extra value. Either in how powerfull is, how well put togheter. Yet in the end it’s still fully transparent.
Even the original IBM PC is fully transparent. Because IBM made it so. They provided the specifications for it. Others used those to improve it. Yet for the most part modern computers are still more or less fully transparent and anyone could make their own from scratch.
What Apple actually did was create computer applications that were simple as crowbars to use. But they lack the transparency for it. I can respect them trying to make a living but progress is not about the bottom line. It is about improving the world for everyone not just those that can pay you the most.
So to recap:
Tools should be simple and transparent to use and understand.
Tools that are not so tend to die off.
Knowledge is important, knowledge you know is priceless. Share the knowledge, build a better future for everyone.”
2. YSSS says:
“Though I don’t agree 100% with the article, I think he has made some good analogies.
I also think that many people (read:zealots) commits the common fallacy of clumping a few variables that are not always related into a single side/entity.”
3. vvvlad says:
“with no more tinkerers, there will be no more streetcorner guru’s. can you ask them to become real persons?
great writing, and it permeates to more than just cars, it is a mindset that everyone can do everything that puts us in narrow spots. just look around.”
4. RFS-81 says:
“Oh, he’s so right! I will immediately stop doing all the things I like, and start doing things he likes instead.
I will just looove to pay hundreds of euros to be able to do things he likes! How exciting! Why didn’t I realize this earlier? I just stupidly spent my money on things I like myself 
Silly me.”
5. giannoug says:
“Well, let me boot into Fedora on my N900 and read this article through Lynx.
Anyway, Apple doesn’t have customers. Apple doesn’t like customers. Apple wants fanatics who will buy everything they serve them.-”
6. Sopwith says:
“I have to say I mostly disagree with the points you’re making in your article. First, I believe the analogy between cars and computers is inappropriate; while cars are perceived only as tools, computers nowadays are something much more: they are an extension of our personality. Tinkering with your car is strictly a hobby; tinkering with your computer is a necessity. A car has to be safe, fast, and comfortable; a computer has to be anything you choose it to be — a communication device, a fashion accessory, an entertainment center, an oracle…
I could have agreed to some extent if you were only comparing cars to computer hardware. Fixing your car is similar to modding your hardware, but when it comes to software, it is a completely flawed simile.
Most people, without a doubt, are only concerned with content consumption, and for them a generic polished closed-up device is fine; but for many people the boundary between viewing and editing is blurred; the content that they are interested in does not exist on any commercial system, because it gets created by themselves.
Believe me I understand your sentiments against the DIY mentality from a former Easter-blocker point of view: after years of demagogy and lack of market competition, it must feel nice to be reassured that someone cares about you as a customer. However, waking up from the post-communist nightmare one pretty soon realizes that the coveted free market of the West has its drawbacks too; the one that is relevant to the current discussion is the fact that any idea that isn’t profit driven and that doesn’t generate revenue is unlikely to survive. Alas, we live in an age when money no longer drives progress, but instead stifles it.
In a way, the iPad follows an old tradition by Apple to use well established trends with a 1-2 year delay, presenting a polished albeit somewhat unimaginative product that “just works”, and not much more. There are, however differences that stem from the current economy downturn: unlike some other Apple products, the iPad is by far not the pinnacle of technology advancement, its design is driven by necessity and want. While previously Apple have been temporarily crippling features as part of their marketing strategy, they are now sacrificing them altogether, to target a certain price point. They couldn’t maintain their usual profit if they had added to the iPad a camera, a screen with higher pixel density or modern aspect ratio, e-ink display, connectivity ports, etc. Thus, the iPad is another example where customers are not presented with the best that could be designed, but with whatever makes most profit…
As to the teams of hundreds of people smarter than us, well I don’t know about you, but in my case that just isn’t possible. And I find your suggestion to go to MIT to learn computers preposterous: I already have my degree in a completely different field, and I do not see why this should prevent me from writing up some C code when I want a calculation to finish today instead of next week…
Well, you asked for opinions, here is mine. I hope this post isn’t longer than your original article…”
and again Sopwith says:
“I think it is very important to fight against proprietary systems. I am not a software developer myself and I admittedly do not see much difference in usability between free or closed OSs. However, I feel I can trust the open source community, while I have a huge mistrust for the closed source software, whether it is made by Apple, MS, Google or Nokia. I am not saying the latter is necessarily bad, I am just saying I do not trust it. Can you trust anything that by definition is kept secret from you?”
Me:
“@Sopwith
Can you trust anything that by definition is kept secret from you?
Yes, at least food recipes 
)
Now, seriously, I don’t know if it’s about trusting sw or companies / brands, but it’s about securing the revenues, the employees jobs, the third parties deals and so on. In my article I say that on the long run, closed source does all the above better than open source.”
7. Mars says:
“Nice insight! I say what you’ve already said, we need to be only drivers, no need to push everybody be a “mechanic” 
“
