Slashdot Mirror
A Linux User At MacWorld
usermilk writes "Linux Journal just posted a pretty cool article, A Penguin Angle on the Ox: Day One at Macworld. It features a Linux user's perspective on MacWorld, OS X, Darwin, and how all these things play together. Most interestingly, he comments on the large number of open-source-Unix bigwigs who are now on Apple's payroll. There's also a pretty concise description of the difference between Apple building off of BSD compared to Microsoft trying to also reap the benefits of open source." Doc Searls' perspective makes a great companion to the report from the floor (and part II) that chrisd posted.
Well, we recently had a Mac user in our area have his HD crash and burn. While I was swapping out the HD he was complaining about how often it crashed, etc, etc. So on a whim I installed OS 10.1 for him. All I can say is wow - what an amazing OS. Not from a "look Ma, a bash prompt" and not necessarily for me - I like my Gnome desktop. But from an average user's perspective, OS X is sweet! The interface is very nice - and it is so stable. The user made that very comment "Why hasn't it crashed on me?" He used to have crashes all the time. Now he has the other Mac users asking if they can upgrade anytime soon.
No its not perfect. but Apple really managed to finally create a non-technical user desktop and OS built around a stable fast core. Good for them, I hope it really works out for them. I'll stick with Linux case its fun, but my wife, anotehr Mac user at work complains about usign Windows to do stuff at home - maybe she'll get an iMac for her birthday with OS X - nah - the new ones are too ugly :) Don't want people to think my LCD screen took a dump on my desk :)
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
I am all against Apple trying to take on M$ (I'm not saying they could). I think M$ as bigger teeth and claws, and Apple would be shredded in 5 secs. What a Machead like me really wants is Apple going on making it's 5% market share every year and earning enough money to invest enough back in R&D to still make the best hardware/software combination out there in the future. Plus I think the breakthroughs Apple makes would not be possible if they targeted commodity hardware, where you have to support everybody and his cousins graphic card, motherboard,... If Apple is a luxury brand (and it is), I'm fine with it, I'm ready to pay, and that as long as it is still worth it. Apple going for commodity hardware and big market share would have to scale back its innovation factories and would kill itself in the process.
I don't have much to add.
>I also don't think OSX, while being UNIX-compatible, should be called a version of UNIX
Well, if I remember, OS X has been recognized POSIX-compliant, and as such, is probably as close to the Unix throne as Linux is. It is amusing that talking about computer we should hear such arguments as "original source code" and "traditional architecture". If being Unix is running on 30 years old computers, I guess Mac OS X is far from it. But as far as I'm concerned, Mas OS X is as Unix as it gets, if only because any developer used to any Unix variant out there will master Mac OS X internals in 5 minutes time.
But I think you're right about Apple PR having completely changed its stance on Unix, and most of this change was brought by Copland's complete failure, prompting Apple to buy NeXT to get a memory-protected operating system.
I don't have much to add.
I also don't think OSX, while being UNIX-compatible, should be called a version of UNIX
I also don't think Linux, while being UNIX-compatible, should be called a version of UNIX. After all, once you start up KDE/GNOME and start working with apps written specifically for KDE/GNOME, you, as an ordinary user, will hardly ever come across evidence of there being a traditional UNIX architecture running your system.
Darwin is UNIX, period. It's just that Apple were smart enough to ditch X and come up with a better graphical system. I wish someone would do the same for other UNIces.
News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
Actually, Apple has been selling unix based servers for years, well before OS X Server.
They used to sell some Apple-badged AIX boxes, which admittedly weren't really macs, but prior to that (back in the early nineties) they actually had their own version of unix, A/UX. It was truly bizarre, an Apple desktop (circa system 6 or so) with a terminal window in it to actually get at the system.
I used to admin a couple of these things, they were unusual, but they worked. The weirdest things were the manuals - all standard Apple typesetting, but detailing how to use "ls" and "cd"...
Apple is really only going to expand if it can start making software for PCs...
This is the constant advice Apple gets and fortunately Apple wisely disregards it. Apple is very successful when considered as a hardware company. It's marketshare is comperable to it's hardware competitors. It has better gross profit margins, and far better customer loyalty. It has been expanding while it's hardware competitors are laying people off. And considering it's share of the overall market if they can convince just 5 more consumers out of 100 to buy macs they will double in size. Apple is a large, profitable hardware company with a lot of room to grow.
When considered purely as an OS vendor they do horrible with only 3% worldwide marketshare and pitifully small percent of their revenue coming from OS licenses.
When considered more broadly as a software company Apple does OK with several successful software titles in a wide variety of markets - A multimedia file standard and authoring software (Quicktime), Office productivity (Appleworks), Video editting (Final Cut Pro), DVD Authoring (DVD Studio Pro), Web Application Server (Web Objects) and database software (FileMaker) as well as a bunch of applications they give away for free to spur hardware sales. Still with all of their success in software it accounts for less than 1/6th of their revenue. The Year 2000 number I found had software revenue of $966 million out of total revenues of $6.135 billion.
Why would a company severely undermine a hardware business that brings in $5.168 billion dollars ion revenue to pursue a software business that only brings in $966 million? Yes they could start selling the software they currently give away for free and maybe expand MacOS marketshare - lets be generous and say that despite the enormous risks and costs they TRIPLE their software revenues by the time the completely transition from a hardware company to a software company - they would still by only HALF the size they currently are. It just doesn't seem worth the risk especially when the current business plan of using the software business to enhance the hardware business has proven to be quite profitable even in a recession.