Google's software mistreats or harms the user - <AUTHOR> https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-google.html <comment><USER2> Almost all of this is heavily exaggerated, presenting relatively innocuous features as if they were harmful, or calling out simple bugs as if they were intentional and actively malicious. None of it is flat-out wrong per-se (at least as far as I can tell), and I can certainly see where GNU is coming from, but I think for the average user most of the features they're criticizing actually do a lot more good than harm.

Just a few examples, to demonstrate my point:

\- They describe Google's demonstrated ability to remove malware from user's devices as a "backdoor"

\- They describe parental controls as "censorship"

\- They consider the fact that Android supports DRM "malware"

\- They cite the fact that Android malware exists as a security flaw. (Ignoring the fact that there is basically no OS in existence that _can 't_ be infected with malware.)

\- They consider the ability for users to remotely reset their Android lockscreen combo if they know their Google account password a "back door"

\- They describe a bug where Google Assistant incorrectly identified the "Okay Google" hotword as "Google Assistant recording users' conversations"

\- They describe the fact that a Google message app doesn't delete conversations until the user asks it to as "surveillance"

Again, I'm not saying this point of view is necessarily wrong. From a certain point of view, all of the claims I described above are actually quite logical. (I even find myself agreeing with some of them.) But from the perspective of the average user, the vast majority of this stuff simply isn't worth worrying about, and I think it's a little extreme to characterize it as "malware". Just something to keep in mind.

<comment><USER3> If you come at it from the perspective that Google is your friend, as in not like a real friend (who I wouldn't let change my passwords), but a friend that's even better than a real friend, then sure, these points are paranoid. The GNU perspective is very distrustful of the idea that anyone else should be administrating their devices, and refuses to trust any corporation more than they would a friend.

<comment><USER4> The GNU completely ignores the value that you get from Google. For instance this point:

> Google Chrome contains a key logger that sends Google every URL typed in, > one key at a time

They are describing the auto complete feature...

I get that people should be making informed choices about what data they share, but for the FSF to so intentionally mis-describe what is going on does not help inform anyone.

<comment><USER5> Wait but that's literally what the auto complete feature does. Most users understand the value of the feature (they use it!) but there's a good reason to spell out the cost too.

I agree with the criticism that they should draw a clearer line between the cost and the benefit but there's nothing to be gained by softening the language used to describe the cost.

<comment><USER6> I'd naively consider a keylogger to be software that captures your keypresses universally.

I use Firefox and have search suggestions disabled there so I am somewhat sympathetic to their point.

That said, calling server-side autocomplete on a field you explicitly are typing in strikes me as about as sensible and forthright as calling an Amazon text field that takes my credit card number a card skimmer.

<comment><USER7> > calling server-side autocomplete on a field you explicitly are typing in > strikes me as about as sensible and forthright as calling an Amazon text > field that takes my credit card number a card skimmer

Exactly, and waters down the impact of the termminology. If "card skimmer" is anything that can read a credit card, than the term is meaningless for security.

If "keylogger" is anything connected to the web that responds to a keypress...

GNU is risking turning into the boy who cried wolf here.

<comment><USER8> > GNU is risking turning into the boy who cried wolf here.

As with a lot of the FSF's messaging, I think the substance of the message may be correct, but the way they convey it just isn't effective.

If this is for a general audience(!), no-one was ever convinced by the 48th item in a list who wasn't already convinced by the 47th. You don't persuade people just by being right, and certainly not by banging on about the very many subtly-different ways in which you're right. Pick few strong examples and prosecute those decisively.

If this is a resource for campaigners, set out the audience and intent before you start. Preface it with something like "Here are various ways that certain aspects of Google's software can be seen as indistinguishable from malware. They may be useful counterarguments if someone suggests Google's software is trustworthy."

<comment><USER9> There's a lot to appreciate about Stallman, but as an ideologue, he's never going to prioritize a gentle & incremental articulation of his ideas. We could call it a failure to empathize, but you see ideologues all over undermining their communication by making it as distilled & radical as possible. But that's not what tends to convince other humans they're wrong about something.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> All of this is trivially and obviously true to power users of GNU/Linux systems.

My machine does precisely what I want, when I want it, in the way that I want it. If it doesn't, within reasonable constraints like physical possibility, I can open a text editor, and make it do so. Sure, that might take me a long time.

I can add almost all of this configuration to stuff like git repos; back it up; transfer it between completely different machines; I can have a very high degree of certainty that any laptop or desktop I pick up off the shelf will just work and that within 30mins - 1hour I can have it working _identically_ to the old one.

By contrast, right now I am using my phone for USB tethering. There is literally no way for me to make this automatic because it's a black box. I have to enable it every time; if the cable moves a bit and disconnects; etc.

Trivial, basic example? Sure. The fact that even this most basic behaviour is completely unfixable proves the point.

I'm really looking forward to stuff like the Librem, pinephone, etc.

The IBM-compatible PC might well be the greatest contributor to the progress of technology in the last few decades. It's heart-breaking that smartphones are this custom random locked down mess of nonsense.

Hell, this article has reminded me I was meaning to set up a donation to the FSF. Off it goes. A small impact but an impact nonetheless. I really appreciate the work you guys are doing for those who can't.

<comment><USER11> Even worse: tethering uses a different APN, which allows providers to rate limit tethered traffic, and without root access, you can't bypass it.

<comment><USER12> I'm fairly sure tethering can also be trivially detected by inspecting the TTL of packets, as a device sitting "behind" the tethering device will increase the TTL by one.

[https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/47819/how-can- ph...](https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/47819/how-can-phone- companies-detect-tethering-incl-wifi-hotspot) seems to have more on the matter.

<comment><USER13> This can be spoofed/hidden extremely easily if both devices are open source and you want to change it though. It's not like TTL can't be changed.

The tethering device can just rewrite the packets to hide the tethered device.

<comment><USER11> Even better - you only need root on either device. Just set a higher initial TTL on your tethered device, or rewrite the TTL on the phone.

But carriers don't use that anymore, too easy to bypass.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The "censorship software" point is extremely dumb.

I have kids. I want them to have a phone for communication purposes when they move from place to place (come back from school). I also want the to lock down the phone so if they sneak it out or something, they can't watch it for 12 straight hours.

That's it. That's what this does.

<comment><USER15> I am not commenting on you directly, but, in general, I find the kind of control that the Google parental control app gives to be excessive. It makes talking unnecessary and gives a direct window to a personal dimension of the kid. You really have a total power over the kids phone and activity. I get the reasons to install this on the phone of a child, but at the same time I'm afraid that it might be too much and that it might give to the kids the sensation of being watched by the parent _all the time_. Respecting their spaces, having their own dimensions that is out of the eye of the parent is also important, in my opinion.

<comment><USER15> To further specify: go read the user reviews of the kids in Google Play Store for the app. Apart from being hilarious, they are actually quite sad and I understand, in part, their points.

<comment><USER16> Sorry, for which app?

<comment><USER15> Sorry, I didn't specify it. It's "Google Family link for children and teens" (and not the similarly named app for the parents).

<comment><USER13> Thanks, the reviews were entertaining.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> [https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary.html](https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary.html)

Actually, they listed most of software companies in their set of malware. While I don't necessarily agree with them, but their stance have been at least consistent.

</comment><comment><USER18> I feel like DRM is basically the prisoner's dilemma at this point where it's in everyone's interest to give it up, but no one wants to be the first person to do it.

But honestly it's weird for GNU to fault the person being held at gunpoint for the situation, not the person holding the gun.

<comment><USER19> If you have a choice between doing the right thing, and the wrong thing, and you choose to do the wrong thing, you've chosen poorly.

I'm increasing _not_ a fan of naked individual initiative as the _sole_ response to abuses of power; that itself is and long has been a tool of power, to skirt its own responsibilities. Annie Leonard's essay on the "Crying Indian" anti-littering (that is: pro-disposable packaging) advertising campaign is a key case in point: [http://www.pfree.co.uk/wp- content/uploads/2018/04/Moving-fro...](http://www.pfree.co.uk/wp- content/uploads/2018/04/Moving-from-Individual-Change-to-Societal-Change- Annie-Leonard-2013.pdf) (PDF)

But raising awareness and consciousness _can_ help us get to a collective action promoting the common weal, which is the goal here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> [https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware- apple.html](https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-apple.html)

Apple's Operating Systems are Malware

Is there anything these guys like? Stallman and Gnu are extremists

<comment><USER21> > _Is there anything these guys like?_

Free (as in freedom) Software.

> _Stallman and Gnu are extremists_

The word you're looking for is "radicals"; "extremists" carries connotations with violence and illegal behavior, which is the exact opposite of what Stallman/FSF stand for.

Are these views radical? Yes. But are they _wrong_?

The way I see it, RMS has been writing about what's wrong with the software world for decades and predicting the consequences. The industry has been ignoring this for just as long, and then people keep complaining about consequences materializing as predicted. Makes you wonder whether it's RMS that's really radical, or whether our Overton window has shifted so much that doing the right thing fell off it?

<comment><USER22> Look, I like RMS. I casually know him. We had dinner a few times, mostly with other people at the table. He is very interesting to talk to.

It pains me to say it but he is a Luddite. He would be quite happy in the world of late 1980s because that's where him and his quaint way of technology, society and progress fits in swimmingly. And maybe he is right.

But here's the thing: he simply outsourced his need for modern communications to others -- he does not call restaurants to make reservations, his hosts do. He does not use GPS and maps -- drivers that his hosts use do. He does not need to use a banking app/deal with payments/scheduling/etc that are needed for him to appear at conferences -- those that invite him do.

I wish I could have a life like that. Probably a lot of us would. All the advantages and none of the inconveniences.

<comment><USER23> I think it's one of those situations where he has the ability to wax poetic from his ivory tower simply because he doesn't have to exist in the real world in terms of technology.

If he had to exist in the real world, he would find it a lot harder to stick to those principles.

<comment><USER20> I think it's also that his entire livelihood depends on him continuing to do so.

<comment><USER23> It's the problem with leaning into a niche viewpoint. You have to continue to lean harder and harder into that viewpoint as the times change in order to keep the people who also believe in that viewpoint supporting you.

I genuinely think the FSF/RMS level hate of non-free software will continue to die out as everyone starts to die/retire from public eye. Whether or not that's a good thing overall is not something I'm going to touch, but it seems like there's not enough being this aggressive to keep this viewpoint sustainable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> There's one each for Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Amazon at [https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware- microsoft.html](https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.html), [https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware- google.html](https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-google.html), [https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware- apple.html](https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-apple.html), and [https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware- amazon.html](https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-amazon.html).

Funny there's no [https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware- facebook.html](https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-facebook.html).

</comment><comment><USER25> This is purposely written in a foreboding way. A lot of this stuff is standard SaaS procedure. Google does tend to make some boneheaded moves though and Transparency is constant struggle for them.

I personally stopped using chrome due to manifest V3. Not because of the tracking, the tracking makes my life easier. Just keep things secure, ok?

<comment><USER21> > _This is purposely written in a foreboding way. A lot of this stuff is > standard SaaS procedure._

Just because it's _standard_ , doesn't mean it's _moral_. FSF has been speaking about immorality of these practices for decades now. Their point is essentially that as a software creator, you _shouldn 't_ do it, and as a user, you _shouldn 't_ (for both ethical and practical reasons) subject yourself to these practices.

<comment><USER25> I just want to avoid technology becoming the boogeyman to normal people that don't necessary understand this kind of thing. Then again, I suppose the odds of a normie going to FSF is probably moderately low.

They aren't wrong. I would just appreciate a bit more finesse in their wording.

<comment><USER26> The FSF's goal is to make technology not a boogeyman, modern tech culture has a goal of making the inside of every device opaque enough that a boogeyman could hide there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> We need the Librem phone today. It is long overdue.

<comment><USER28> We? Pardon me, I'll rather wait for the next Pixel.

<comment><USER29> We = kd3 + jazoom + whoever else kd3 was referring to.

"We" doesn't have to include all 7 billion human inhabitants of Earth. You were not included.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> As an Android user, what are some ways that I can deal with the problems addressed here? (I already do a number of things, but I'm curious what everyone else does.)

<comment><USER31> Ignore this list and find a better one that actually represents the issues fairly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> > Google/Alphabet intentionally broke Revolv home automatic control products > that depended on a server to function, by shutting down the server. The > lesson is, reject all such products. Insist on self-contained computers that > run free software!

The last two sentences seem a little pretentious. The people who bought these products don't know (or want to take the time to learn) how to use git or edit config files or install docker. A consumer IoT product that provided an easy GUI, uses device discovery, and of course was only LAN would be a big win for privacy conscious people, but I'm not aware of something like that existing.

<comment><USER33> One technical person could make this work for everyone else.

I have a few pieces of hardware right now that are "broken" because the companies that made them went of business. These products have millions of owners. With the source code and encryption keys I could personally make this hardware work for those users indefinitely. And there are hundreds (if not thousands) of users just like me.

<comment><USER21> > _One technical person could make this work for everyone else._

Yup. An oft-missed but crucial point.

The benefit of software freedoms isn't that everyone has to do everything themselves. The benefit is that everyone _can_ do it themselves if they like, but they can also delegate the job to anyone else that wants to take it, like someone's friendly neighbourhood techie, or a small local business. In this way, free software actually promotes free markets, by enabling unrestricted competition on _adding value_ on top of what free software offers (vs. locking it down and making money by rent seeking).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> The DRM stance is ambiguous IMO. Property rights of content creators are generally considered worth protecting in a good society. The issue is with locked down software which 1) abuses this privacy to violate user privacy, and 2) takes the creative freedoms that the software publishers enjoyed when they wrote their software and creates a contract which denies those freedoms to their users. I feel like we would better highlight the core complaint by calling the issue Digital Rights Reciprocity.

<comment><USER35> DRM (Digital Restrictions Machinations) being an ineffective and harmful measure isn't ambiguous. There is no reciprocity to them, and they are generally neither imposed by nor respectful of creators.

<comment><USER36> Don't consume that content then! You don't own the content!

Does DRM work against businesses who implement it? I'd say hell yes it does. It drives people to piracy.

But I don't think inventing childish, misleading names is going to fix anything. Much better to point out how it causes people pain (unstoppable commercials, inability to play content on all the devices you own, etc).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I used to hate all this FSF stuff. That, though, was back in the day when taking back control of your devices was as simple as changing a couple of settings, uninstalling a few things, and flipping a couple of switches in a registry. Now that I've been screwed a few times by this "we know better than you" tech culture my opinion has changed. Richard Stallman is still a lunatic with poor personal hygiene but he makes some excellent points.

</comment><comment><USER38> People should be more concerned about the location tracking inserted into Android in the form of Google Play Services.

Generally those who know the technical details of these systems are bound, as current or former employees, not to reveal confidential information that includes technical details about how these systems work, how they could be corrupted or manipulated, how auditing works, and how far they are subject to warrants, subpoenas and national security letters for law enforcement and intelligence agencies. For a layperson and an outsider, if you don't fully trust Google, you should probably uninstall all Google-bundled software, principally Google Play Services and maps. Some settings can reduce the tracking but it is mercurial and often opaque, and informed user consent is specious here, since the technical details are so secret.

Location data is the next goldmine of advertising. There is already an economy springing up around it. Even if it is banal today, it won't be tomorrow. Pervasive location tracking is the backbone of a terrifying technological dystopia. Fight it.

</comment><comment><USER39> This article claims that Netflix is malware. I don't have an opinion about Netflix, but would like to hear why someone considers it malware.

<comment><USER40> I know Stallman hates Netflix because they use DRM, but I don't know what part makes it "malware."

<comment><USER39> Yeah, that makes sense why it's in the article. As much as people hate DRM, I can't see a way for Netflix to be offered for the same price and content selection if the users were able to own the content indefinitely. It seems like it would just devolve into the iTunes Store where you purchase each episode/movie.

Am I misunderstanding what DRM accomplishes?

<comment><USER40> They _could_ just stream unencrypted movies in the browser, but that would make it trivial for people to save copies of the stream, and no big film distributer would go for that.

Even moves you buy from the iTunes Store have DRM so they only play on authorized devices (to keep one person from buying it, and giving all of their friends a copy).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Ironically, I opened this in a new tab just before going on a two hour saga of fighting Chrome's autocomplete behavior and losing. That particular decision of Google's is so painful to deal with, and I'm not alone, this issue is well worth skimming through, just for fun: [https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=587466](https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=587466)

It's been three years since they broke autocomplete="off", and in the meantime forms are less secure (for multi-user computers), user-friendly (e.g. when the web app provides its own autocomplete, which then gets hidden by Chrome's), and error-prone (when the same field means different things in different contexts, like when filling out a customer's address rather than your own).

<comment><USER42> My Safari iOS is crashing opening that link :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Such screaming! The issue I perceive is that Google and FSF are both at opposite ends of a spectrum. I know that Google has a commercial agenda, and I know that Google uses my data. Maybe the headline should be that Google harms clueless ignorant users. The rest of us have made a partial deal with the devil, and we live with it.

FSF has its own screeching issues in any case. I understand much of where Stallman comes from, and how this influences the FSF, but I don't necessarily agree with Stallmaan or the FSF on every point. In particular, I think that GPLv3 is useful for some individuals, but a hindrance to others, who are free to use GPLv2 (or BSD/MIT/...) as they wish.

The screeching, at times, comes across like that of PETA.

Also: a lot of this post is _old_ and needs to be updated. Android 5.0 anyone?

</comment><comment><USER41> Honest question: in many cases, how can you _not_ have a backdoor? Obviously, it depends on what kind of software you're writing, but pieces like this seem to have this utopian goal of software that "just works", independent of any human except its user. In reality though, other humans are always necessary — whether to explain how to use the technology, to do something that can't be done through the software, to fix the software (after isolating the problem using your data).

If there's trust between the user and the software provider, why not leverage it to fill in the gaps that software leaves in functionality. If there's no trust, how do you use software without giving the provider the keys to the kingdom?

<comment><USER21> All your questions have a single answer, which FSF is arguing for: Free Software. No, seriously:

> _In reality though, other humans are always necessary — whether to explain > how to use the technology,_

You can do that through good UI design, manuals, tutorials and support (possibly paid support).

> _to do something that can 't be done through the software, to fix the > software_

This doesn't mean the people doing this have to be the vendors selling the software. You should be able to do it yourself, or hire a third party.

> _(after isolating the problem using your data)._

Doesn't justify getting that data without consent.

> _If there 's trust between the user and the software provider, why not > leverage it to fill in the gaps that software leaves in functionality._

One of the point of Free Software is that this shouldn't be a two-party relationship. The relationship should include all other users of the software, and put them all in similar positions of power.

(Personal aside: maybe this is because I'm past my 20s, but I start to hate this growing trend where buying a product forces you to establish a relationship with a vendor. I don't want a relationship, I want the product.)

> _If there 's no trust, how do you use software without giving the provider > the keys to the kingdom?_

Open source.

<comment><USER41> Maybe it has something to do with the domain I work in, or maybe it's just a problem with how software is done, but the expectation in my industry that there ought to be a relationship that comes along with the software.

Also, Open Source is not an answer to the last question. The majority of software users don't have the technical expertise to evaluate the safety of a given OSS, even if there's a community established around making recommendations — but even then, that's a trust relationship too.

Edit: maybe I should be more open minded. How is OSS a substitute for trust? Is it a redirection of trust to a group whose interests are aligned with yours? How do you facilitate that network without putting too much burden on the user? Are there any good examples of working OSS that involves non- technical end users?

<comment><USER21> > _Maybe it has something to do with the domain I work in, or maybe it 's just > a problem with how software is done, but the expectation in my industry that > there ought to be a relationship that comes along with the software._

It absolutely is a problem with how software is done. A decade or more ago, back before everything turned from a product into a SaaS subscription, you could _buy_ software, and any relationship was strictly optional.

> _How is OSS a substitute for trust? Is it a redirection of trust to a group > whose interests are aligned with yours?_

I should have said more and not just dropped a term, sorry. OSS is not a substitute for trust in general; trust is a desirable quality. But it is a refinement of trust (per the usual "trust but verify" approach), and also potentially a redirection - you have an option to base your trust not just on promises of the software provider, but also on the opinions of other people who looked into it, and who give you more reasons to trust them.

> _How do you facilitate that network without putting too much burden on the > user?_

Open Source helps with that by allowing communities of users with knowledge about the inner workings to form. These communities naturally connect to other communities. It's not effortless, but humans in general are good at navigating this. OSS isn't a necessary thing here, but it's very helpful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Glad someone is pointing these out. All may not be true, but, it certainly shows what all is going on

</comment><comment><USER45> Haha, privacy advocates love this sort of sensationalism. They run around saying the world is ending.

Then, when they spend all their time yelling that autocomplete is surveillance, they wonder why no on is listening.

I, for one, am fully informed of all this and choose to share my info. Even better, when Google gets "My Timeline" wrong, I correct it. For free. That's right. For free.

Because there's no nuance to their arguments, they end up looking like the crazy guy with the sign about contrails on Market St. Then when MKULTRA comes out, they act like they predicted it when the f-score of their predictions is near zero.

</comment><comment><USER46> I would like to add to the list software_reporter_tool.exe which spontaneously consumes 100% CPU on windows machines

</comment><comment><USER47> > Updated: $Date: 2019/08/17 09:55:24 $

Are those $ signs an Emacs limitation?

<comment><USER21> It looks more like automatic interpolation of values in version control systems from the times of CVS and SVN.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I mean, anyone who bothers to take the time to do a Google Takeout and actually looks at the data in the JSON files can see just how much information they are storing, and it is quite alarming.

Thing is, companies keep data about you even if you don't have an account, which is impossible to GDPR.

Some of the sources here are questionable; there's a sun.co.uk URL which is obviously tabloid trash, so please apply critical thought, the article presents what appears to be a convincing piece but some of the "sources" are not to be trusted.

But even on Linux you can't escape Google's web, even if you really really tried, some developers use Google's APIs for fonts, jQuery/scripts etc, so it's really hard to use the web without Google knowing about it and building up their knowledge graph.

</comment><comment><USER49> Given this thread and the one about Apple, I can't help but notice that Microsoft feels, to me, much better on that front. Far from perfect or even good enough for the (very sane) criterias GNU aims for, but I feel very much more in control of my Microsoft box that I am of my Apple or Google one.

Of course there are dozen of areas where Microsoft fails as bad as the other two, but I notice there are a couple dozen where they let me while the others don't, while the reverse is not quite true.

<comment><USER48> > but I feel very much more in control of my Microsoft box that I am of my > Apple or Google one.

Hahaha, you haven't seen the data MS collects on Windows 10 users? Try enable full telemetry and download their tool, every damn URL gets logged and even some of the "basic" data might reveal trends when combined with other data sets.

NO "big tech" company is to be trusted. Cambridge Analytica and co taught us that.

Data and information is being weaponized, the 2016 election proved that, go read the Mueller report for more information on this.

<comment><USER49> You may have missed my point, which was not about the default or intent, but about the amount of _control_ they let me have on my actual computer; the ability to change its behavior to make it do what I want.

I have done what you say about having a look at the telemetry feeds, and as such I know that a simple run of 0&0 ShutUp 10 allows me to stop it. Not a complex kernel thing or whatever, just a simple user land application that has like 3 buttons to click and doesn't even require an install.

So I stand by my opinion, which again is not intent or what they do by default, but how much they allow me to change it on my own hardware.

<comment><USER50> >0&0 ShutUp 10

What is this?

<comment><USER51> [https://www.oo-software.com/en/shutup10](https://www.oo- software.com/en/shutup10)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> What is interesting about this and the Apple post[1] is that no one is actually taking responsibility or signing their name. It's just a generic blog post with a list of issues. Where is the GNU's "open" log of who is publishing this info? Without a source, I can't really verify if the author has some ulterior motive.

[1] [https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware- apple.html](https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-apple.html)

<comment><USER53> The author has an ulterior motive, which is that to advance the agenda of the FSF*.

<comment><USER54> Sorry to nitpick: GNU is a project, the foundation is the Free Software Foundation. There's no GNU Foundation.

<comment><USER53> Indeed, thanks!</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: PlaceAnything, HTML placeholders from Reddit - <AUTHOR> http://placeanything.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi guys; I created this in Node.JS; hope you guys find it as useful as I do. If you have any questions don't doubt about posting them here.</comment>


High Performance Python Extensions: Part 1 - <AUTHOR> https://www.crumpington.com/blog/2014/10-19-high-performance-python-extensions-part-1.html <comment><USER2> Here's how I would write this, in Cython using "pure C" arrays:

[https://gist.github.com/syllog1sm/3dd24cc8b0ad925325e1](https://gist.github.com/syllog1sm/3dd24cc8b0ad925325e1)

It's getting 18,000 steps/second, in the same ballpark as your C code.

I prefer to "write C in Cython", because I find it easier to read than the numpy code. This may be my bias, though --- I've been writing almost nothing but Cython for about two years now.

Btw, if anyone's interested, "cymem" is a small library I have on pip. It's used to tie memory to a Python object's lifetime. All it does is remember what addresses it gave out, and when your Pool is garbage collected, it frees the memory.

Edit: GH fork, with code to compile and run the Cython version: [https://github.com/syllog1sm/python-numpy-c-extension- exampl...](https://github.com/syllog1sm/python-numpy-c-extension-examples) . I hacked his script quickly.

<comment><AUTHOR> If I could have your permission, I'd like to incorporate this into a future post in the series. I can credit you in any way that you'd like.

<comment><USER2> That's fine, please link to [http://honnibal.wordpress.com](http://honnibal.wordpress.com) . I'll probably write a short note on it, I've been meaning to say more about "my way" of using Cython.

Edit: Submitted here. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8483872](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8483872)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> If I understand correctly, the `pypy` people strongly encourage the use of `cffi` instead of the CPython API, as the latter is tied too much to CPython and does not permit efficient JITing.

<comment><USER4> It's not so much about efficient JITing, and more about the fact that Pypy is written in Python and does not have a C-backend.

That said, I advocate CFFI even in CPython--CFFI is a clean way of calling C libraries without having to

\- write interface code in C (CPython extensions) \- write something that is not C or Python (Cython) \- use a compiler or linker (CPython extensions and Cython)

I have personally written nontrivial CPython extensions, Cython extensions and numerous CFFI bindings, and I vastly prefer CFFI over any of the alternatives. With CFFI, you write your interface code in Python, and dynamically load C libraries at runtime with no compiler/linker required. It's fast and easy.

Plus, it's all pure Python and thus one source file works across Windows/OSX/Linux and CPython/Pypy without modification or compilation. I really can't say enough good things about CFFI!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I recently cythonized the performance critical parts of a numpy/scipy based project with much success.

One does not necessarily need to get you hands dirty writing c-extensions ( although it can be a good exercise to learn the CPython API ).

In cython, you just need to sprinkle some static types to the inner loops and bump the speed up.

</comment><comment><USER6> There are also other approaches like the HOPE jit [https://github.com/cosmo- ethz/hope](https://github.com/cosmo-ethz/hope) and Theano which is more about expression optimization and compilation: [http://deeplearning.net/software/theano/](http://deeplearning.net/software/theano/)

<comment><USER7> I wrote a blog post about HOPE [http://blog.goranrakic.com/archives/2014/10/evaluating_hope....](http://blog.goranrakic.com/archives/2014/10/evaluating_hope.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Have you tried using ctypes? In particular ctypes.from_buffer is such a useful function.

[https://docs.python.org/2/library/ctypes.html](https://docs.python.org/2/library/ctypes.html)

Unfortunately it doesn't work in PyPy.

[https://bitbucket.org/pypy/pypy/issue/869/](https://bitbucket.org/pypy/pypy/issue/869/)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Part 2 of this series is posted here:

[https://www.crumpington.com/blog/2014/10-21-high- performance...](https://www.crumpington.com/blog/2014/10-21-high-performance- python-extensions-part-2.html).

Hacker News thread:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8493366](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8493366)

</comment><comment><USER2> Why not Cython?

<comment><AUTHOR> My preference is to work in C directly. That being said, I may look into a Cython implementation for a future post.

<comment><USER9> Cython lets you avoid a lot of C API boilerplate. The code to parse function arguments is quite distracting, and especially when it comes to managing reference counts it's error prone to do it manually.

With Cython you get to choose whether to work in a purely low-level style that maps directly to C code, or whether you want to mix in Python code. This lets you speed up existing code gradually.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Gmail not formatting URLs pasted from Firefox? - <AUTHOR> If I type https://test.com into the address bar of Firefox, cut/copy said URL, and paste it into Gmail there is no automatic formatting (IE I can't visit the URL, it is purely text).
If I paste the URL into a Chromium address bar, immediately cut/copy it, and paste it back into Gmail (which is still open in Firefox) - it is now formatted as a link.
Why? <comment><USER2> Chrome now adds the formatting when it puts the URL on the clipboard; Firefox doesn't

</comment><comment><USER3> Check your clipboard? If it's plaintext and the same both times, a glitch? I don't see there being enough info or malice on Gmail's part

<comment><AUTHOR> So I recently switched to FF from Chrome (at home and work). Whilst at work I often create email drafts that have links to articles I may wish to read later.

I have noticed recently the links in my drafts are no longer pre-formatted.

So I tried a few times copy/pasting URLs from Chromium into Gmail, and then pasting the same URLs into FF and subsequently copying/pasting into Gmail again (and vice versa).

Each time links from FF are not formatted, whilst ones from Chromium are.

<comment><USER4> Once you send they'll be interpreted as clickable by the recipient's email client anyway in 99.5% of cases.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Your opinions about bots? - <AUTHOR> Facebook, Microsoft are putting lot of effort behind pushing bots inside a conventional ui.<p>What's your idea about bots? Worth investing? <comment><USER2> I don't like these "bot assistants" that seems so popular nowdays. Like who wants to type some string that may or may not be picked up correctly by some bot?

Some examples I see is something like

\- "hey $financialbotnam"

\- "Hey $user what do you want?"

\- "Please send me my transations for groceries, bla and bla for july 24 2032 until august 23 2064, thanks"

\- "Okay!"

\- "Your transactions are bla and bla"

\- "Thanks $financialbot, and what about my blah and bleh?"

\- "bla bla bla"

And so on, seems just.. annoying.

That being said, on my local phone-website there have been one of those "Ask Sara" bots (since like 10 years) which I found works okay for what it is, but I suspect (and treat it like) it is just some search. So I usually just ask some keywords.

Which is kind of my point against the bots, I don't want to type stuff..

And I don't use voice stuff like for Siri etc. But if I did I might have a different opinion.

</comment><comment><USER3> I am very bullish on bots, with certain reservations of course. Do I think they will replace apps? Probably not. But I do think they are creating new "field" for which they are the best use case.

One type of chatbots that I think will be revolutionary is making chatbots that bring people together. Messenger just hit 1 billion users[0] so that's a huge userbase that's already connected together just by virtue of having a Facebook account. Chatbots imo have the advantage of not needing a "share with your friends" button that apps do. For chatbots, sharing and social connectedness is already built into the platform and the winners will be the ones that take full advantage of this.

Of course I might be biased because I am currently building a chatbot and have made one that is slowly gaining traction. But this is just my opinon, and the verdict is still out on whether this is just a fad or here to stay.

[0] [http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/20/12235476/facebook- messenge...](http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/20/12235476/facebook- messenger-1-billion-users-milestone-ios-app)

</comment><comment><USER4> Well eventually when they become smart enough they will surely be useful.

At this point I cannot say to Cortana, "the Camera App doesn't work, it probably requires some drivers, fix it" and get any meaningful help out of it.

</comment><comment><USER5> toomuchtodo's comment is on the money, it is a bit of a fad right now with the recent acquisitions. But only by a margin.

AI is a bit of a counter-intuitive market: it's a high growth segment, but the structure of the market top heavy, and several things make it an unattractive investment:

1\. Democratization: much of the technology is the public domain, meaning anyone with a CS degree can muddle together their own (and many have). That means if you invest, you investing in pure AI, which means you're investing in cutting-edge technology - i.e. Research, which very difficult to assess.

2\. Dependencies & Go-To-Market: intelligence (i.e. pattern predictions) that's actually useful on a market wide basis require massive amounts of training data. There are a couple of resources, like ImageNet & Yahoo's data dump, but in the interim - AI needs to be domain specific. As such, the dependency is a widely used application (i.e. Facebook, Instagram, Google). You see the dilemma. Therefore, what seems the likely outcome is acquisition.

3\. Unit of Economics: For this sector, it's the accuracy of its predictions. This is almost too one dimensional to assess as the basis for investment. Acquisitions decisions are made almost exclusively by the R&D department. Therefore, if you invest, you need to know what makes one AI different/better than the next.

IMO, it's too early to put money in. The structure of the market is still nascent, heavily favoring incumbents (Google & Amazon offering AI predictions as a service). It's difficult to see how an AI startup can break in, and how it can be profitable.

Take the above with a grain of salt, as it's tailored to my risk appetite.

</comment><comment><USER6> Our obsession with AI has come and went several times in recent history. Conversational AI is becoming more promising thanks to neural network. However, I don't think we are quite there yet in terms of the technology or the application.

The thing is, if a company is actually able to figure out how to do this conversational AI right, that company is be a game changer.

<comment><USER7> A lot of bots don't use any sort of machine learning, many are quite simple

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11915194](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11915194)

</comment><comment><USER9> Bots streaming from big popular commercial corporations? Not worth the time.

Bots emerging from finance, law, academia, eastern european kids in a garage? Treasure.

</comment><comment><USER10> It seems to still be in the fad phase.</comment>


Looking Back at Lean: 6 lessons for winning - <AUTHOR> http://measuringmeasures.com/blog/2010/6/2/looking-back-at-lean-6-lessons-for-winning.html <comment><USER2> I wish there were more service based examples of this type of thinking.</comment>


More than 18 000 photos licensed under Creative Commons Zero from 37 sources - <AUTHOR> http://zoommyapp.com <comment><USER2> Zoommy is available on Windows, OS X and Linux just for $2.99 - how many will buy program to get free photos?</comment>


Indefinite Causal Order in a Quantum Switch - <AUTHOR> https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.090503 <comment><AUTHOR> No paywall: [https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.04302](https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.04302)</comment>


Ask HN: How do you know when you are an expert? - <AUTHOR>

I know that I'm almost an expert in something when, given a task, I only see the annoying small details.
So, I'm curious about how you know you became or are an expert in something. <comment><USER2> Four stages of competence[1]:

* Unconscious Incompetence: The individual neither understands nor knows how to do something, nor recognizes the deficit, nor has a desire to address it.

* Conscious Incompetence: Though the individual does not understand or know how to do something, he or she does recognize the deficit, without yet addressing it.

* Conscious Competence: The individual understands or knows how to do something. However, demonstrating the skill or knowledge requires a great deal of consciousness or concentration.

* Unconscious Competence: The individual has had so much practice with a skill that it becomes "second nature" and can be performed easily (often without concentrating too deeply). He or she may or may not be able teach it to others, depending upon how and when it was learned.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence>

<comment><USER3> The weird thing about unconscious competence, is that when things do become so intuitive and second nature I've personally started to find that I feel as if I _don't_ know something.

If asked... I feel I can't answer. If interviewed I'll probably fail. Yet I also find that when put in front of a problem the solution just presents itself.

What's weird about this is that in feeling I know so little about things that I've 15 years experience in, I feel like I need to learn. So I expose myself to all opportunities to learn only to find that all tell me what I feel is evident and obvious.

This is close to what I take to be the meaning of "forgotten more than I've ever learned".

Whether this makes me an expert is debatable, I'd say no. I'd say that there was a re-learning stage after the last stage in which you acquire the means to understand deeply and to be able to communicate and pass on those skills. I'd say that an expert is someone who can pass on their skills, someone who can mentor others.

(I also find it uncomfortable writing a post implying I know anything)

<comment><USER4> I have an inverted experience...

I have gone back to unconscious _in_ competence in some subjects I haven't touched for a decade, that I used to know better than most anyone I worked with.

It is embarrassing sometimes. :-)

I am still happy that I reinvented myself as a script programmer instead of a system programmer; what is fun for me is sitting down and generating lots of functionality in a short time. I can go to work with a smile and low risk of burnout.

On the subject of expert or not: I guess that locally I am considered an expert on what I do, but I don't see me as one because I know how the _real_ experts are.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm not an expert at anything but I do follow my University's motto 'Ancora Imparo' (I'm learning). I personally think it's difficult for you to know when you're an expert at anything but other people will start labeling you as an expert. They'll ask for your opinions, help, etc and wouldn't mind paying for it. Just do whatever interests you. Share what you've learned. But always know you're just a student of the field, let other worry about how they perceive you.

How did PG become an expert at starting up? He did it himself. He wrote essays about it to share what he learnt. I'm sure he was never trying to be an expert. Even in his essays now, he never makes "expert claims". It's the people who found the advice helpful that labelled him so.

</comment><comment><USER6> You know you are an expert when you start saying "it depends" to questions you are asked.

<comment><USER7> I must have been born an expert, then. It's taken a lot of learning for me to answer with "try this", rather than "tell me more about your problem and the parameters of an acceptable solution".

Incidentally, I'm currently doing some research on a problem and it pains me that I have to constantly come up with the justifications to the solutions I find proposed. There's a lot of cookbook math around.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think being able to disagree with a point most other experts in the field agree upon, with reason, while being able to explain the more common POV, is sufficient but not necessary evidence of expertise.

</comment><comment><USER9> I suppose you don't.

By the time you know a shitload in details and depth of some subject, you also know another shitload of related things that you know you do _not_ know yet, so you still keep considering yourself a half-newbie. And because you're interested in things you don't know, you rarely talk about the subject with people who know less than you, which distorts your field of vision.

Indirectly, perhaps you could consider it a sign of an "expert" to have been so alienated from what is generally considered normal that people label you as a geek.

But then again, you can never declare yourself an expert or you're just selling to be something you aren't.

</comment><comment><USER10> "I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I _do_ and I _understand._ " -- Confucius

</comment><comment><USER11> I would say it could be when you have to search _really hard_ to find an article/book/course/conference/etc. in your area of expertise that actually teaches you something. It is when the only way to perfect your skills is by yourself, by pushing the limits on your own without relying on others. It is when the only way to get better is not to buy the book but to write it. Anyone agrees?

</comment><comment><USER12> "Expert" is a tricky word, and I only know how to measure this in relative terms. For a given area, I know I have a high degree of expertise when colleagues who are working in similar areas begin to regularly ask for my help. That doesn't necessarily say anything about my abilities relative to a different population: I know a hell of a lot about image analysis relative to the other engineers in my group, but I know there are plenty of people who can kick my ass in this.

I suppose I might also measure this based on my own need for assistance, i.e. I am an "expert" when I only rarely need to turn to colleagues or the literature for help. But this isn't a very functional definition for me, as I strongly prefer to be working at the edge of my knowledge; thus I am almost always in conversation with others who know more than me.

</comment><comment><USER13> This seems relevant: <http://norvig.com/21-days.html> "Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years"

"Researchers (Bloom (1985), Bryan & Harter (1899), Hayes (1989), Simmon & Chase (1973)) have shown it takes about ten years to develop expertise in any of a wide variety of areas, including chess playing, music composition, telegraph operation, painting, piano playing, swimming, tennis, and research in neuropsychology and topology. The key is deliberative practice: not just doing it again and again, but challenging yourself with a task that is just beyond your current ability, trying it, analyzing your performance while and after doing it, and correcting any mistakes. Then repeat. And repeat again."

</comment><comment><USER14> According to my experience: never. I'm always surprised when I know something other people don't, but I always seem to know ~10x more every passing year than I did before. Going through theoretical CS papers always reminds me how much I have to learn.

</comment><comment><USER15> Most experienced technologists know the real danger in ever claiming to be an expert in anything.

Rarely will two jobs be so similar that the expertise gained from a previous job can guarantee the same level of output in the new job. While its not impossible, its so rare that its not worth the risk in making the claim that you are an expert.

In general, those that ever claim to be experts are using the word to justify a high payrate or lock in an opportunity.

So as business owner, be wary of anyone claiming to be an expert. And as a technologist, be wary of ever claiming to be an expert and risk overselling yourself.

</comment><comment><USER16> You will never really be able to tell that you're an expert, if you are an expert. One of the reasons for this is because of the Dunning-Kruger effect in cognitive psychology whereby "the highly skilled underrate their abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority". (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect>)

</comment><comment><USER17> Ah, I think it would be a mistake for anyone to assume they are an expert unless they are in a field that has nothing left to be discovered (rare!). If you are in tech, then I think "Ancora Imparo" (I'm learning) - as referenced in an earlier comment - is the way to go. If you have anything to do with startups, then I think you should be ready for your knowledge and expertise to be disrupted everyday.

</comment><comment><USER18> I think it's relative. Anybody who claims to be an expert is selling you something.

It's not a black and white thing; there are varying levels of expertise. The more people there are that think you're an expert, the more of an expert you are.

</comment><comment><USER7> I don't think I've ever been an expert in anything where being an expert is somehow worthwhile.

That said, I'd say you're an expert when you know what the bad parts are, why they're wrong, and why they're there anyway.

</comment><comment><USER19> You'll know you're an expert when you don't care about being labeled as such. You know your stuff really well, so well that it's a matter of intuition. If you care about being an expert, you're not one.

<comment><USER20> >You know your stuff really well, so well that it's a matter of intuition.

So experts are people that don't think about what they're doing?

<comment><USER19> Correct, but maybe not in the sense that you are implying.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> When people in your field cannot answer your questions, but you can.

</comment><comment><USER22> An expert is someone who is sought out by others for their skill and paid well for it.

<comment><USER23> No - that's someone who _markets_ themselves to be an expert. Of course, they might be an expert but I haven't noticed much correlation between claiming expertise (or being paid huge amounts of money) and actual expertise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> When respected people in the field value your opinion and perceive you as their peer.

<comment><USER25> Can this really be true and how much respect is required? Consider Zed Shaw, who is quite clearly a very competent hacker.

A lot of people _refuse_ to respect or give value to his opinion, much less see him as a peer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> when you know you'll never pretend becoming one

</comment><comment><USER27> When my karma got to 10, I knew I was an HN expert.</comment>


Youtube Testing 'Watch Later' Feature - <AUTHOR> http://www.gadgethon.com/youtube-watch-later-feature-200/

<comment><USER2> Excellent. There's been quite often that I'm sent a video and want to watch it later, and I'm forced to stuff it in readitlater with other random links.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah..and the best part is when this feeds into the leanback product</comment></comment>


How I resurrected my MacBook Pro by putting it in the oven - <AUTHOR> http://ales.io/2014/03/09/how-to-bake-a-mac.html <comment><USER3> "with people having apparently similar but in reality completely unrelated problems"

Not sure what he was reading - this is a known problem with at least many early 2011 MBP - I had one (still do - it's in the closet). Apple is refusing to acknowledge this as a problem, and will offer to replace the motherboard (or something like that) for ... $300 and approximately 5 business days.

From what I've read, whatever they replace doesn't actually do the trick; by many accounts, even when you drop it off for repair, they've claimed to not be able to reproduce the problem. Hint: use the external video chip, or force a use of it.

FWIW, if you're in the triangle area, sixrig.com gives _really_ good service, and got me a new refurb laptop the day after xmas at 9pm at night.

Source: apple forums and [http://mbp2011.com](http://mbp2011.com)

<comment><USER4> > Source: apple forums and [http://mbp2011.com](http://mbp2011.com)

Wow: "The problem might be on the GPU" Said the "Genius". That's exactly what I was hoping to hear (he didn't mentioned this until I pushed them this far.) So I replied, "You all knew exactly what's going on here and you intentionally kept this from the customers, right?" Right this moment, the "Genius" has left.

That's insane.

<comment><USER5> There's a lot of variability these stories in terms of how you're treated by a Genius when you take your computer in. When I took my problematic 2011 MBP in, they pretty quickly determined that it was a motherboard issue and replaced it.

Two months after my motherboard was replaced the video glitches started appearing again.

Coincidentally (or not?) it happens that I use Coda every day, and Coda forced Macs (inadvertently, apparently -- Panic used Apple's guidelines on how to implement this "gracefully", but Apple's flag was buggy) to use the discrete card all the time.

Interestingly enough, once Panic disabled the 'use discrete gpu' flag in Coda, my screen glitch problems basically went away on my new motherboard.

<comment><USER6> Graphics switching on dual-GPU Macs used to require you to log out when you changed the GPU. They never quite got the automatic switching right but it's much better on the current generation. I very rarely see random red-and-white checkerboard patterns flash on the screen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Do NOT try this with a microwave oven.

If you do, there will be a bad smell, and lots of sounds and lights, and you will not read Hacker News today.

<comment><USER8> Sorry, but why?

Why it is bad to do this with Microwave Oven rather than conventional oven?

<comment><USER9> Microwaves interact with metal in interesting ways. It will likely induce high voltages in the computer's wiring, causing the chips to release all of their magic smoke.

<comment><USER10> I grew up in a time when microwave ovens were first released. As such the very first thing you learned is no metal in the microwave oven.

I'm wondering if people who are younger somehow think of this differently or aren't automatically taught the same thing. I mean it seems so obvious (to me) that I wouldn't even think to point it out to someone actually. It's like saying "don't let the car run over you" or "don't play catch with the laptop".

<comment><USER11> This is entirely not true. When microwaves were first released, they were so low powered that microwave cookbooks gave advice like "wrap the edges of the chickin in foil".

[http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/281275232630?lpid=82](http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/281275232630?lpid=82)

Also, most microwaves have a large metal rack inside them.

Only certain configurations of metal are dangerous in a modern microwave. A computer has those, though.

[http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/08/why-you- gene...](http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/08/why-you-generally- shouldnt-put-metals-in-the-microwave/)

<comment><USER9> I don't think "most" microwaves have a metal rack, although they're not uncommon.

It's also not uncommon to see microwave-safe food containers that contain metal. I've seen grocery store deli soups, for example, that end up with a big ring of metal around the top when you open them, but can still be microwaved.

Still, "no metal" is a good approximation. "Unless it says you can use it" is probably OK to leave implied.

<comment><USER10> I've seen that as well. I'm wondering (from my own experiment) if it has something to do with angles vs. no angles [1] in terms of the metal in addition to the blocking by metal of the actual microwaves.

[1] Same as with stealth airplanes avoiding radar, right?

<comment><USER12> microwaves induce a current in metal. if there's a gap for that current to jump, you'll see it jump, and it'll probably cause problems including fire, but if there's no gap to jump, all that voltage potential just stays in the metal.

put a table spoon in the microwave and turn it on - nothing happens. i do this all the time when reheating soup.

i've won money on small bets like this too. non-technical people have no idea WHY metal poses a problem in the microwave, so i just bet them $10 that i can put a spoon in there without problems and they never believe me. they just think i have special spoons.

<comment><USER10> Preface for anyone reading this: I don't have any technical degree only what I have picked up over time. That said:

So in terms of the instructions "wrap the chicken" assuming the chicken were wrapped in a way that there was no crunchiness that produced metal gaps then it would merely block the chicken from cooking in the area wrapped, right? So in theory a nice idea but in practice people slap on the tin foil and then you have sparking? Hence "no metal in microwave" is really simply not being able to rely that the general public using the product will know the nuances (which makes sense). (Human behavior is something that I do know quite a bit about..)

Maybe you've done this one: You take a glass of water in pyrex (or coffee cup) and heat it just until it is ready to boil. Then you put a spoon or other object in and it explodes. Because apparently (I think..) breaking the surface tension is the issue (which can be done with anything if you don't remove carefully and shake a bit it will also happen).

Another thing that I've noticed is that water obviously boils at different times depending on the humidity in the room (I'm non technical enough to think that I figured that one out but feel free to correct me..)

<comment><USER13> I think that water in a microwave can get super-heated (hotter than 100C) if the surface is smooth, or there are no more little air bubbles to start the boiling. Then, when you put something in, it gives a surface for bubbles that are desperate to form something to form on, and they all do it at once.

I had a spectacular explosion with my glass teapot one time. The microwave at work was in a different room, so I would heat up the water to boiling, and then not hear the bell, so some time later I'd remember, and do it again. Apparently reheating causes the bubbles to basically get used up so there wasn't anything to start the boiling. So the third time I was standing there waiting so I wouldn't forget, and suddenly I hear a BOOM and the pot was half empty with a lot of water outside. I think there was just one giant bubble that eventually formed and blew everything out. (The pot was unharmed)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> How does this work? Is the idea that there's a loose chip, and you're reflowing the solder to re-attach it?

Relatedly, one of my friends successfully revived a bricked playstation by heating up the motherboard with a heat gun.

<comment><USER15> This sounds like a BGA issue. They also had the on PS3/4 and XBox if I'm not mistaking.

The chip has a grid of small solder balls on the bottom instead of pins sticking out. Due to thermal differences during operation some rows can experience mechanical stress due to uneven heating of the device. When there are cracks the contact disconnects from the board. Some images here:

[http://www.playbackups.com/Playstation3-xbox-360-repair- repa...](http://www.playbackups.com/Playstation3-xbox-360-repair-repairs- manchester-bga-solder.html)

When it's cooled again the contacts join, placing it in the oven applies an even thermal load across the entire board and you basically anneal the cracks.

<comment><USER16> And from a manufacturing/engineering point-of-view (which I am neither), I guess it's really hard to solve this problem.

You have some unpredictable 1/100 or 1/1000 defect that occurs long after production and sale.

Just how do you go about isolating the cause, and testing a solution? Make 5 changes, and put through a production batch of 1000 units, and then do accelerated testing? If 5 fail from one batch, and 2 from the rest, is there even enough statistical power to confirm that you've come across a solution? And you just burned through 5000 units.

Sounds like fun trying to solve this kind of problem.

<comment><USER15> There are PCB design/layout rules that deal with BGA. I'm not saying it's a 100% guarantee, but (much like EMC/EMI design rules) there are a lot of solid pointers that remove 90% of the issues. The remaining 10% are (again, much like EMC/EMI) subject to the layouter's level of experience.

Currently on mobile, can't link a PDF right now but if you Google " BGA PCB layout guidelines" you'll get a ton of documents.

Lastly: PCBs go through several optimization cycles, some occur after release for high volume stuff. There are always revision numbers of the silkscreen, sometimes they catch an issue like this after x1000 devices in the wild and do an update.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Similar story: I was at a friend's house, and we wanted to play Nintendo Wii. Tried to turn it on, but nothing happened. My buddy grabbed the power brick, tossed it in the microwave, and blasted it for 3 seconds. After plugging it back in, it started like nothing was wrong. I was flabbergasted (one: because WTF! who puts a power supply in a microwave? and two: OMG! it worked!)

<comment><USER18> Stupid Wii power supplies, these are known to be pieces of junk. I keep a spare for this reason. Simply letting it "rest" unconnected for some unknown duration also does the trick.

<comment><USER19> That's probably an open polyfuse. Unlike the fuses of old, the new ones actually regenerate themselves (re-crystallize).

<comment><USER18> That is a good idea. I should have thought of that. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> For anyone interested in the nerdy details of why this works: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflow_soldering](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflow_soldering)

Anyway, this isn't new - I remember seeing this on Slashdot, HN and a lot ofter other places over the years:

[http://voices.yahoo.com/how-reflow-laptop-motherboard- oven-6...](http://voices.yahoo.com/how-reflow-laptop-motherboard- oven-6784790.html)

[http://mr-mediocre.hubpages.com/hub/How-Baking-A-Motherboard...](http://mr- mediocre.hubpages.com/hub/How-Baking-A-Motherboard-in-the-Oven-Worked-for-Me)

etc...

</comment><comment><USER21> You might want to get rid of that Vertex 2 as soon as reasonably possible. It has an issue where at some point when switched on or resumed from sleep it will corrupt all your data and refuse to boot. Some have a different bug where it will silently corrupt some of your data and the only way to find out is by the HDD light being on for longer than usual. Back up your data and get rid of it. I had it happen to me twice (warranty replacement after the first one, but then second one did it too). OCZ died as a result of this. Save yourself before it's too late.

<comment><USER22> +1 for that.

Had exactly the same trouble. Moved to Samsung 840 Pro since - <USER2> works just fine.

<comment><USER5> I had one Vertex 2 just up and die, but another one is still going strong on Macbook, but that one's just for surfing, so it's not critical if I experience a catastrophic data loss.

Will have to agree with you, the 840 Pro's are great.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Reminds me of my first Raspberry Pi. It was from the first batch, and only worked if I gave it a blast with a hairdryer. Once it warmed up it booted fine, but if I turned off the hairdryer it would turn off after about 30 seconds.

At the time it was about a month wait for a new one to arrive, so I did a lot of initial Pi discovery with a hairdryer.

<comment><USER24> Tried it on mine, no luck. Basically it didn't run properly because the resistance of the fuse was ridiculously high resulting in a voltage drop of almost 1V. Meaning I had to power it with a 6.5V power supply. Well, you don't find those easily so I just got rid of the fuse.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> This is a known method for fixing this type of problem where the solder has been damaged due to excess heat and/or improper cooling from the start. It's also known that this is most likely a temporary fix where it will fail again in a couple of months (depending on the usage etc.).

This is also why I would take great caution purchasing a used laptop (especially with a discrete graphics card). It's a real risk that the previous user did this trick to quickly sell it while it's "working".

As an owner of a 2011 Macbook Pro with AMD graphics (known to fail) I sure hope that Apple acknowledges this issue soon.

</comment><comment><USER26> I have a friend, that lived in a dodgy part of town. And the day he bought his new Powerbook, he hid it in the oven before he left the house.

Sadly after a visit to the pub, he thought pizza would be a good idea and preheated the oven. Only to suddenly realise his new computer was inside it.

He rescued and cooled it, and oddly, it survived! Only it had shelf marks permanently moulded into the chassis forever more.

<comment><USER27> "that lived in a dodgy part of town."

^ How is this relevant to your story?

<comment><USER28> I read that as an explanation for the "hide notebooks in the oven" thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> See also [http://support.apple.com/kb/TS4088?viewlocale=en_US&locale=e...](http://support.apple.com/kb/TS4088?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US)

I printed the article, the GPU kernel panic log and took them to the Genius bar. Apple replaced the mainboard for free, more than 3 years after the purchase.

It took me more than a year of dealing with random crashes and several visits to the genius bar before I found this article.

Though the downside is that you'd miss the excitement described here...

<comment><USER30> I have searched the definition of existence out of this issue but have never found this article, if I had just seen this article before the 3 year mark. But I have already solved the issue by installing Linux and not installing the Nvidia driver. I will buy a new laptop soon anyways, but I will still run Linux tough. I will try OP's method when I get a new laptop.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Hilarious!!

At some point I spilled water all over my MacbookPro and I turned it off and let it dry overnight. The next morning it refused to turn on. I took it to Apple and they say they must send it to repairs for 750 dollars!!

I refused to pay money, went home, asked some friends about it, and concluded that I should put my computer in an inverted position like a teepee.

I let it sit for 2 days. And Voila! Good as new!

<comment><USER32> Same exact thing happened to me! Brand new hot starbucks green tea spilled all over my 4 month old MacBook Air mid-2013. I was devastated. Stupidly I tried to turn it on right after the spill and it turned on for a moment then shut off and wouldn't turn on again. I put the keyboard face down on paper towels and indirectly in front of a fan for a few days and it came back to life! I now have a keyboard spill guard of course...

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I recall some years ago (7?), some other mac having some characteristic issue that could almost always be fixed with a little time in the oven.

Having a kitchen with an oven and living in a student area where Apple products were popular, I sensed a business opportunity.

I put up an ad on some local classifieds with a lowball price for these units (but not much different than what the broken ones would sell for on Ebay, minus the hassle). I quickly learned that, after investing in a premium product, people would rather hold onto their brick rather than turn it into at least some cash. I never even got a chance to try out the procedure, people would counter-offer with ridiculous prices for, what is for them, a brick.

The sunk cost fallacy at work.

edit: I think I even offered pickup and some data recovery/security as a part of the offer, no takers.

</comment><comment><USER33> Remember that there might be a law in your country that regulates complaints.

In Sweden we have "reklamationstid"[1] which gives you sort of a legislated warranty (applies to almost all goods) for three years. All goods that I have complained about using "reklamationstiden" have been replaced.

[1] [http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&h...](http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.konsumentverket.se/mobil/Din- ratt-som-konsument/Reklamera-och- klaga/&usg=ALkJrhh34gx7-dXD27hTnEIGRK1VK2Oa2w)

<comment><USER16> Is it common to have your replacement/repair refused unless you bring up the "reklamationstiden" argument?

<comment><USER33> Yes, many people don't know about this law. The shops know this and takes advantage of it. Of course there is also the manufacturer's warranty, which lasts for as long as the manufacturer decides.

<comment><USER34> Why have that law, and then make it legal for the shops to not acknowledge it up front? Why does the law have to be some weird kind of game where only people in the know benefit from it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I think this process is really baking out moisture as the PCBA is not in the oven long enough to get to temperature and the temperature is not hot enough to reflow the solder.

Most of the components on the board are not hermetically packaged and there probably are moisture sensitive parts on the PCBA. So the baking at 170C for 7 minutes is essentially a drying process.

Also, I think Apple probably has to be ROHS compliant and that means they have to use lead-free TnSn solder. The transition temperature for lead-free solder is typically about 20C higher than normal leaded solders.

</comment><comment><USER36> I've done this twice on different laptops. It works like a charm :)

The explanation I got when I did it the first time was this: When the computer heats up and gets cold a lot, over time the solder joints on the motherboard might "crack", or something, effectively giving loose conncetions. By heating the joints in this controlled manner, the metal melts and solidifies properly when cooled down.

</comment><comment><USER37> So, first reflow your motherboard, then bake some bread, get all those toxic flavours in? (Wondering if this would somehow ruin your oven..)

<comment><USER38> Actually, a lot of electronics from this era failed because they manufacturers were still experimenting with RoHS (read: no lead) electronics production, especially lead-free solder.

While heating a RoHS PCB in a food oven might still be kinda toxic, at least it's lead-free ;).

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> This is due to failure of the ball grid array solder, I'm assuming? Most of what I've seen has been due to failure of the video card - I think the nvidia ones were notorious on certain models, but I've had it happen on my 2009 iMac with a radeon card.

Sort of what sold me on integrated GPU's as being the ideal in these form factors - less parts to blow up in your face....

<comment><USER40> I can confirm that my 2008 iMac had this same problem with the nVidia card. And yes, cooking it in the oven did bring it back long enough to grab the few items that I wanted. At the time, I read that it had to do with Apple switching to lead free solder. Sad to know I may face this with the 2011 MBP that I am typing this on (and I love so dearly)

<comment><USER39> fortunately, I had my mac setup with ssh enabled...so I was able to rsync it off to another computer off network. (Who needs graphics anyway?)

Apple support, to their credit, handled my case extremely well, even though I was out of warranty.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Reminds me of the Xbox 360 "towel trick" tutorials for combating RROD back on the original models.

</comment><comment><USER42> This is a hackish form of "Reflow Soldering." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflow_soldering](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflow_soldering)

I used to work at Cray, the supercomputer company. Back in the 1970s, 30 yrs before I got there, they used to solder the circuits on each board by baking the entire board in an actual kitchen oven. With smaller and more delicate circuitry on mainboards these days, this is less practical and more dangerous, but that doesn't mean it isn't still possible with some degree of luck. I'd still recommend removing the BIOS battery if you're crazy enough to attempt this.

</comment><comment><USER43> It makes me sad to read how some mistreat their laptops. Why keep it on 24/7? Even if you're using your computer 12 hours a day you're letting it burn for nothing for the other 12! And then you buy a new one every year.

<comment><USER44> Burn what, precisely? It's not a woodstove.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> This has been an issue as far back as a decade ago with G3 iBooks. I had my G3 800's logic board replaced twice under warranty, but it failed again after that. The 'hot coin on the gpu' trick solved the problem, albeit temporarily.

[http://forums.macnn.com/69/mac-notebooks/210232/diy-ibook- du...](http://forums.macnn.com/69/mac-notebooks/210232/diy-ibook-dual-usb- logic-board/)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBook#Quality_issues](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBook#Quality_issues)

</comment><comment><USER46> Some of these weird hardware fixes are due to manufacturers using adhesive.

I believe Creative (creative.com) for instance intentionally uses adhesives that ware out after a certain period.

This would cause your product to stop working, I did a writeup on fixing their MP3 players some years back : [http://vistev.blogspot.com/2010/02/harware-fix- for-creative-...](http://vistev.blogspot.com/2010/02/harware-fix-for-creative- zen.html)

Now merely hitting the device or doing some other crazy stuff may cause the necessary components to align and viola things work :)

</comment><comment><USER47> Same procedure done by Mio Cugino, but way more accurate! :) [http://www.miocugino.com/macbook- resuscitato/](http://www.miocugino.com/macbook-resuscitato/)

<comment><USER48> Autotranlation: [http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=...](http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.miocugino.com%2Fmacbook- resuscitato%2F&sandbox=1)

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> I gotta say, I would've never thought of baking the motherboard. Makes sense in regards to overclocking and as the op stated, he constantly ran his MBP. Baking, I guess, would kinda resolder connections...total guess.

My recommendation, I repair devices all the time now, after you remove all the little screws and the piece you need (like a motherboard or pcb), take the time and put every screw in the hole it came out of. Trick I learned as a mechanic. It helps prevents losing them and guessing, since sometimes screw threads and height vary.

<comment><USER48> I usually make a map of the board and use masking tape to fix the screw to the map.

<comment><USER49> Yeah, if I'm running a fast fix (like pull a battery, ect.) I'll usually arrange the screws in an orientation to how I pulled them out, but long fixes like the op had (or when your waiting for parts)... I put the back in.

Not a bad idea with the masking tape, guess a magnet would work too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> > leave it in there for precisely around 7 minutes

Nice.

</comment><comment><USER51> I had a somewhat similar issue with an Acer Aspire Aspire One ZG5 netbook, except my problem was that the device would power off after about 1.5 minutes from powering on.

Apparently a thermal cutoff switch needed some recalibration/replacement, so my fix was 2 hours in the freezer followed by a few more hours waiting for condensation to evaporate before attempting to power the netbook on again...

I used the above method for nearly a year before acquiring my present laptop, relegating the netbook to my growing pile of disfunctional hardware.

</comment><comment><USER14> If you use a temperature hot enough for reflow (200C or more, according to andyjohnson0), is there any risk of heavy components on the bottom side falling off?

<comment><USER52> Except for extreme cases, no. The cohesive force of molten solder is more than enough to hold your components in place. Also interestingly enough, this is also what causes surface mount components to automagically "settle" over their pads when you have the proper amount of solder/flux.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> This was a "well-known" (quoted because it's well known as far as enthusiast communities are concerned) fix attempt for discrete GPU cards on desktops. I've seen a lot of success stories where old GPUs (think GTX 8800) would crap out; owner would take off the shroud, heatsink, and any other removable parts, put it in the oven for a few minutes, and boom, reflowed solder fixed the issue.

</comment><comment><USER54> There are chips on both sides of this board, is there a chance you could re- flow them off because of gravity on the other side of the board?

</comment><comment><USER55> Dealt with similar issue with HP tx2000 (HP is a horrible company that refuses to acknowledge a problem that has plagued their entire series). I removed the processor, applied fresh thermal paste with a copper shim & gave it the oven + hair dryer treatment. It worked for a while but failed again. Not worth wasting time on it. It's better to ebay it for parts.

<comment><USER56> I used to have an HP with this problem as well. Eventually I managed to get my files off the computer, and then promptly bought a new, not-an-HP laptop. Never again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> There is a huge uprising about Mac Book Pro's motherboard's failing. I wonder if this would work for the issues described here. [https://discussions.apple.com/message/25163418?ac_cid=tw1234...](https://discussions.apple.com/message/25163418?ac_cid=tw123456#25163418)

</comment><comment><USER58> Did it too successfully 3 years ago with my Acer laptop. It worked but as you're saying, didn't lasted so much. Anyway was pretty cool ;) Pic here: [http://imgur.com/iDaYpBD](http://imgur.com/iDaYpBD)

</comment><comment><USER59> This is astonishing... But anyone else feels like this sounds like trolling? There is no actual video, but only pictures. And perhaps, maybe it's just me, but I don't see how high heat can resurrect the logic board?

</comment><comment><USER60> I had ram slots die in my mbp due to warping. the solution was to loosen the screws around the ram slots, letting the bent board unbend. I imagine cooking would soften things up and allow loose connections to better connect.

</comment><comment><USER61> I used a Sterilair (a small heater that supposedly cleans the air) to ressurect a Sony camera. It also stopped working with no obvious reason, I suspected of humidity and left it hung about 30cm above the heater for one day.

</comment><comment><USER62> I resurrected my old 2009 Macbook Pro that was doing something similar by turning it on and putting it under a blanket for an hour. It generated enough heat to reflow whatever BGA had busted and has worked perfectly since.

</comment><comment><USER63> Sounds like tin (solder) whiskers:

[http://nepp.nasa.gov/whisker/background/index.htm](http://nepp.nasa.gov/whisker/background/index.htm)

</comment><comment><USER64> I had the same issue on early 2011, fixed it for 600$+ because I'm not in the US, and sold it for 768$ and got the new Retina with hate.

</comment><comment><USER65> That reminds me of [http://viennot.biz/reflow_oven.pdf](http://viennot.biz/reflow_oven.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER66> I have done this with a handful of Xbox 360s. Works like a charm! Also makes for some interesting questions from your housemates...

</comment><comment><USER67> If it's reflowing then couldn't the same be accomplished with more focused application of a heat gun?

</comment><comment><USER68> Is there any cause for concern about toxic chemicals being released into an oven that you use to cook food?

</comment><comment><USER69> > For a perfectly golden and crunchy crust make sure you leave it in there for > precisely around 7 minutes.

Comedy gold.

</comment><comment><USER70> Or you can use a hot air gun if you have one. Reflowing does work wonders.

<comment><USER71> Be careful not to use vigorous airspeed. It's possible to blow balls of solder away from the pads. These then cause shorts and are annoying to fault find and repair.

<comment><USER18> Huh? The solder balls are under the chip sandwiched between the IC and the PCB. There is no direct contact with the hot air.

<comment><USER71> Yes, on a BGA the pads are under the IC package. That BGA will be on a PCB close to other ICs which has other packages. Using a hot airgun risks distributing small balls of solder.

<comment><USER18> If you can accidentally create solder-bridges with a hot-air rework, then there was too much solder; even if you're talking about fine-pitch TQFP's. I've accidentally made bridges using QFN's but only on crappy homemade PCB's and again, with too much solder. It is usually easy to correct. You can dislodge nearby capacitors, diodes, resistors, etc. but that's about it.

On a good PCB that's been cleaned properly there won't be any errant solder- balls, and surface tension will not allow them to form even when using a hot- air gun or rework tool. I've never seen a hot-air tool that blows with enough force to overcome the surface tension of the solder.

I _have_ managed to get make a mess with solder when removing IC's using _compressed_ air (not for the faint of heart), but that's a different story and it is still easy to clean up.

<comment><USER71> You're talking about people who know what they're doing, using correct hot air rework tools.

I'm talking about people who don't know what they're doing using paint- stripper style hot air guns.

I have seen faulty PCBs caused by people using that style of hot air gun to rework devices. I used to have photographs but don't have them any longer, but there should be photos in some of the "soldering problems" engineering books.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> This gives "cooking the books" a whole new meaning.

<comment><USER73> Nicely done. Best quip I've read on HN today.

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> One thing that I love to make is mac & cheese.

</comment><comment><USER75> My MBP17 died one week ago. Way to go Apple!

</comment><comment><USER76> Rise again from the ashes.

</comment><comment><USER77> I once had a Toshiba laptop that would work only after spending twenty minutes in the freezer, and then only until it warmed up.

I don't think it had the same problem as this MacBook, though.

<comment><USER78> That sounds like the old harddrive trick where a harddrive refuses to start until it's cold enough.

<comment><USER79> I unbroke an iPod 5G by slamming it into my desk fairly hard. That was about 3 years ago and it's still working. Something about the HDD bearings seizing because of shock.

I have a Seagate HDD in the freezer for 2 years now. Every method of recovery I've used has been unsuccessful. I'm waiting to send it into a recovery service, and $1500+ that I haven't got lying around.

<comment><USER80> While doing desktop support, one of my Mac user's hard drive was failing, wouldn't spin up at boot. So you had to help spin it up. One trick was to give the HDD housing a rotation jerk the moment you turn on power. Another was to use a pencil eraser to spin the exposed spindle, also during power on.

Good times.

<comment><USER79> I've talked to a few recovery experts. They told me taking the cover off destroys the drive. Apparantly the head has some tracks embedded in the cover. If it's not removed in a certain way you can rip the entire thing out.

<comment><USER81> I don't think he removed the cover. The spindle was was exposed, not the platters.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> Did not read story, but if it it what I think; HP had the same problem with a bad nvidia chip, poorly designed cooling system, etc. They denied the problem, until sued. Meanwhile, desperate users where putting their motherboards in the oven, curling the hairs in the nvida chip, and sticking pennies on the hot chip. I will never buy another HP laptop! I'm surprised Apple won't admit to a problem. I think if Steve was still alive he would admit to the defect and offer a fix--why?? Because Steve was one of us--he liked his toys, and expected them to work. A video card problem would have irked the hell out of home, and his engineers would have to pay for their mistake. What's his name-- Tim Cook--just worries about the books. Which will eventually be Apples fall from grace.

<comment><USER83> > Did not read story

Then please don't comment. This is Hacker News, not slashdot.

<comment><USER73> Right. It's not like the story was War and Peace. Not even the Cliff's Notes of War and Peace. It took about a minute for me to read, including time looking at the pictures.</comment></comment></comment>


GPL vs startups - <AUTHOR> http://moviestorm.blogspot.com/2008/01/gpl-vs-startups.html

<comment><USER2> Not necessarily. If your startup is based on selling the software itself, then the GPL might be detrimental to your business plan. (Then again, it might not.)

But not every successful business plan involves selling the software itself. There are countless web services that could GPL their software and keep right on making money. Some have, in fact. The code that runs Slashdot is released under the GPL, but it takes more than code to make a successful online community.

The software that runs on FreeHand digital music notebooks (<http://www.freehandsystems.com>) is released under the GPL, but the major selling point isn't just the software; it's the specialized hardware.</comment>