Slashdot Mirror
Take a Mac User to Lunch
A Slashdot reader writes "LinuxWorld is running a story explaining how Mac OS X may help break down the walls for non-Windows operating systems, including Linux."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Sounds interesting.
Because those walls contain Windows.
They way they talk on the commericals I could transport everything I have, put it over on a mac, and it works flawlessly. It runs faster and never crashes. And it only costs me a bit more for the machine.*
However, I think the linux people here are fine and windows XP doesn't quite crash like Windows ME did. I don't have to reboot for days now. For a desktop machine, its better you shut it down at night anyways to save electricity. I think Mac's arguement is too little too late.
* Excludes the mental bills for using their mouse for any period of time.
Up until OS X was released I used Linux (on my G3 and on various intel boxes) nearly exclusivly. OS X (after its quirks were mostly worked out), for me, is acting just like a Unix system. I control most things from its terminal. I run XDarwin and use blackbox as my primary control when I am writing code. I use the standard Aqua interface when I'm just being a bum and surfing. Its a web server, file server and just about any other kind of server I can get running.
So now my time is spent working with both OS X/BSD and Linux and im loving every minute of it. Im forced to use Win 2K at work - but hells if I am ever gonna buy a windows box of my own.
OK - the point: (I knew I was getting there) OS X is a great way to get people to migrate into a Unix world. The Apple servers are selling well, and its adding a great deal of Unix exposure...
You can still read and write your Microsoft Office documents.
You can still play your MP3 files.
You can still go to all the same websites with your Internet Explorer.
Those three things alone make it easy for the average user to switch from Windows to Mac.
siri
The point of the Apple server is that most people want a server to run out of the box. You, as a geek, probably love to tinker. Thus buying one of these things is kinda pointless.
What happens when you run a large company and want a set of new servers? You look to Dell, Gateway, Apple. Then decide who can give you the better product. Apple is just trying to say "Here, we can sell you a nice UNIX server, with a nice interface on it so anyone can admin it". They seem to be reasonably sucessful doing it as well.
I recently got a G3 mac for free from someone who no longer wanted it. I had never used a mac before and I was kind of curious how they worked. It had MacOS X on it, including the developer tools which include command line tools all Linux developers are used to. After a few minutes of playing around with the interface I was hooked. Everything is so clear and tidy. The Unix core is not hidden away, but it never gets in the way. Real hackers have everything they need, but in an interface that makes the interaction with this Unix power elegant. Now I have the mac I am porting my softwre to support it as well as Windows and Linux. It is a pleasure to develop in, and I am really glad I found it. Give it a go.
The answer is, "This operating system will open up the path for non-MS operating systems."
BZZZZ. What is "Any operating system that ISN'T Microsoft??!?!"
Correct for $400.
... Knowing most Linux users, since they want everything for free they'll almost certainly try and stick the Mac user with the bill. And he/she will pay it too, but not without a _whole_lot_ of whining after they find out their free lunch isn't free anymore.
___
Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
OSX is the proof that all those people screaming that Linux on Joe Average's desktop is impossible are wrong.
If you can do is with bsd you can do it with linux as well.. (well.. for this particular case that is).
It IS possible... the question is : will it ever happen ? And secondly... do 'we' want it?
When the article says apples sells more "Unix" boxes than dell or hp does that not count linux boxes too ? Is this a misleading statistic or is this true, are they puting linux and OSX in the general Unix (vs MSWin) category ?
sp
Reading the article, I can't see many things that make Xserve different from conventional BSD or Linux systems, and maybe there are still some server tools for linux or bsd that are still not ported, so I find it rather unimpressive.
It isn't about destroying Microsoft! Think about it; we destroy Microsoft and replace them with Apple. Another closed system! Why is that of any benefit to us, as users and developers? All we will have done is swapped the "Microsoft Tax" and all that comes with it, for an "Apple Tax", and the same all over again (See .mac Say no more).
If you're just using Linux, or BSD or whatever, just because you want to destroy Microsoft, many you should re-evalute your belief system. Free Software is about having freedom; the freedom to use your software as you see fit, and the freedom to modify that software to fit your needs. Its not about destroying commericalism, simply because you think they have too much money.
Yes, Microsoft have too much control over the industry, but thats only because the industry has allowed itself to be lead by the nose by them. It is true that Free software provides an alternative to that, and get out clause if you will, and yes, that may altimutly lead to the reduction of Microsoft. That would simply be a secondary, a side effect, if you will.
So yes, take a Macintosh user out to lunch; and then try to get them to understand the issues surrounding the use of Free software.
Oh, and for everyone who thinks it isn't worth running OS X on a G3 (there are many), it runs beautifully on my Pismo. Give it a try!
***
The latte(s) could get expensive there. Mac user would if he could put it on his tab. Unix person otherwise since he most likely makes the big bucks.
The point of the Apple server is that most people want a server to run out of the box.
Who says? Maybe a small mom and pop company that just wants to add a server but most companies are going to configure the hell out of their box anyway.
Yes, you forgot to read the article, he goes over costs in great detail.
http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html
I'm not saying they are right. But a duel G4 system was losing out to an Athlon 1.6gighz.
I do imagine the price in those machines is quite a difference. Its $61 for an Athlon 1600. If Intel has a hard time price matching that performance, I can only imagine Mac has deemed it impossible to match that speed for $60.
what part of osx is open source ?
:) and he's always spending money or promoting apple and it's products some how. This whole thing is weird...
if it's open source then why isn't it free ?
how is it different from linux open source code ?
it seems apple is just confusing the terminoligies here to facilitate the marketing and the push to win over OSX devotees. Trying to take advantage of the impetus that linux and the OSS movement has generated on its own. Jobs seems very wily in bringing apple to a stage where he is trying to win (or trick) the linux crowd over to the apple "side". i know a devoted apple follower
anyway can someone elucidate my initial observations ? in simple terms.
Mac apps actually work.
I see a small percentage of Xserve's making it into shops that already have Unix servers or a substantial base of Mac workstations. I don't see Apple making much headway into 100% Windows shops run by MCSE's.
People that have/allow Unix or Linux boxes in thier shops generally are more open to a wide range of technologies and have a good understanding of them.
MCSE's - oy vey. I've seen Macs running on their own separate networks because "they can't do Windows networking" or "Macs can't do DHCP" or "Macs can't ". Hell, there probably isn't a Mac user out there that hasn't heard "I hate Macs". Then you ask if they've ever used one and you get "No." Basically, if they don't know whether or not a Mac can do something or not, it's assumed they can't.
Unix sysadmins seem more open to other technology and generally better knowing how things like networks really function. MCSE's, on the other hand, know what button to push when happens and if that doesn't work, reboot. They don't really have a deep understanding of the underlying technology and generally don't keep up with computing trends. They know how to run a Windows network and "what else do I need to know, thank you" attitude.
Because of MCSE's, I just don't see Apple making inroads into the corporate server room anytime soon.
...some recognition from the linux world. Mac OS X is the largest 'distro' of Unix out there right now and it's acceptance by both Joe Consumer and the generally less-than-apple-friendly media is a huge step for *nix. Sadly most linux users see Mac users as simple minded elitists who can't even compile their own software and wouldn't know a kernel unless it was selling them fried chicken. Which they wouldn't eat, as they are all vegans. Get a grip, guys. If you want to see all this as some kind of jihad against MS then you may as well embrace the Mac for making real inroads against them in the OS market and for the benefit of any free software initiative. Yes, the Mac is a fairly closed system, aside from Darwin. Yes, Apple is controlling with their systems. And yes, we even have to pay for .mac now, but I'll take the control and the $99 to avoid the root access granted Microsoft (if Win had a 'root' per se) as soon as anyone uses XP or intalls necessary security updates. Take what you can get, and if what you can get is an Apple/Unix dominated market thank the deity of your choice it's not MS.
As much as I like linux, this proves next to nothing. Linux's 'lack' of user friendliness is not a matter of technology, it is a matter of politics.
The technology is fine and no one will dispute that. You can build a nice gui over top of any sufficiently good core, which almost all modern OS's offer now. For example, XP's core is the evolution from the NT core, which was heavily inspired by VMS. You can see in the taskmanager particularly signs of the VMS underpinings underneath. VMS by itself is quite similar to Unix systems, so XP itself demonstrates that the UI on top makes the usability difference, and the solid core only helps (by delivering good performance with high stability).
The difference between Mac/Windows and Linux is that a single entity controls the system from top to bottom. Any disagreements as to how to do it are settled inside the company and a single offering is made to the public that is highly integrated, where each part knows *exactly* what to find where when it needs something. For a small example, an application installing on Mac or Win knows exactly how to register itself to show icons and menus in the right spots, whereas in linux, it isn't clear cut. You can probably manage to show up in Gnome and KDE, but there are other options. I love the breadth of choice and how I can pick and choose my favorite component for everything, but it does prevent offering a unified interface to home users.
Also, they distribute easy-to-install binaries. This relates to the previous point in that they *can* do this and not run into any wildly devating configuration that won't run that particular version (i.e. kernel/gcc/glibc versions differ a lot in the linux world). This is also because they don't have the free source ideology as a driving force. Sure, Darwin is open, but it is more of a side note, and what comes out of apple (with MacOSX) is tightly controlled. Source is easy for me to install, but it can take a long time and some people think it difficult. They could care less about the philosohy of Free software, they just want stuff to work easy and quickly.
Finally, these systems don't try to fit into an existing standard. I'm of course referring mainly to ditching X. X is a great and powerful/flexible system. I love X, but current implementations lack a lot of things XP and OSX have in terms of colorspace handling and access to hardware functions. Two clear things that come to mind are true alpha transparency (not copy and blend as all the translucency under X is) and the ability to change resolution and color depth on the fly without the 'slippery desktop'. Sure, extensions could be written to patch over this stuff, but it was more efficient to simply write a new low level graphics system and let X lie on top of it if needed. This is the way to go, it works well with Windows (Exceed) as well as MacOSX(XDarwin). You optionally get all the power of X without the limitations underneath. For linux users and developers, X is 'good enough' and there is no dominating business authority to force developers to do something more advanced.
Linux remains my preferred platform, though I want to try OSX. I like having choices and am a good enough admin to not care about the roughness around the edges, but for a common user to be satisfied, it needs to be consistant no matter where they may go..
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Besides a hammer of course. :-)
Is to offer Mac OS X on the PC platform. If I could get that quality of a system on my computer, I would instantly switch over. I think a lot of other people would as well. Considering how user friendly, and quality of an interface it is.
Mac could be the OS Monopoly if it only started to port its stuff to the PC Platforms.
~ kjrose
An OSX user I know was impressed by Apples performance claims with BLAST (basic local alignment search tool) and challenged my dual AMD to a drag race. We went through some wild contortions to find a benchmarking condition in which his similarly priced Apple box could win a race (mucking about with word sizes), but the AMD box won by a significant margin.
OSX will likely appeal to bioinformatics tool users as well as at least some tool makers.
First entomology, then virology, and finally bioinformatics systems. Bugs follow me wherever I go.
Why should we take them to lunch?
We (the opensource community) have been "Beta testing" a lot of the software they've jumped on the Bandwagon of for years, before they even knew what it was.
Mostly, though, if someone can afford a Mac, it's far more likely that they can afford to take us to lunch.
Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
The xinet's benchmark results do not show any significant performance topics. The two tests are : Photoshop Open Tests and Output Generation Tests. The first and the second is biased because it specifically uses photoshop which is better in certain cases for macs. It shows nothing for the real world. You can find many other true benchmarks to compare Apple machines with Intel,AMD machines. Those benchmarks clearly show that Apple lacks a lot.
I've been a Mac user since 1984. I worked at Apple for a while in the 90s, but then I got a better paying job at IBM. I have worked at IBM since then, almost exclusively with UNIX and Windows. It's strange to see the reactions of other IBMers when they learn that I'm a Mac user. Even the die-hard UNIX guys and open-source fans are often prejudiced against the Mac. This is ironic, especially given that Macs compete more with Windows boxes than with IBM boxes. That said, I do see that people at IBM are beginning to take Mac OS X seriously. IBM makes a lot of money from its software and services businesses -- more than from its hardware business. The software can be easily ported to Mac OS X, and services are profitable no matter what OS the customer is running. Unfortunately, thare still a lot of people at IBM who haven't figured this out. Maybe discussions like this one will help to change that.
Let me know when when you want to go. And no cheap stuff; I'm a Mac user, I have expensive tastes... ;-)
You sir, are the only person in the world that sees OS-X's GUI as minimalistic. They limit all your options, then bombard you with so much eye candy and animations with no hardware acceleration (until Jaguar, then only with a hand full of video cards). Pretty disgusting the UI is using more processing power than any app you might run, isn't it?
Perhaps you could say the responsiveness follows the "less is more" mantra.
open sauce!
boom boom
I'm going to giva Apple/OS X a flame here so hold on to your hats.
I do not think Apple are making the other Unix/BSD/Linux vendors any favours. Unix has traditionally had problems with fragmentation. With the help of POSIX, GNU tools and other open source software this has been alot better.
Now we see Apple intruducing a whole desktop system for Unix without any open specifications. Many of us run Un*x on the desktop, possibly different kind at work and at home. We need open standards.
If apple are going to play with other Unixes please do it with other Unixes and release those specs. If you are serious and think you have the best Unix out there people will still buy your computers.
As you can see I don't have anything against the Aqua interface or Mac OS X when it comes to the technical merits. I would probably give it a shot if the specs for the Windowing System where open. Possibly even buy a mac. But as it isn't a standard I can't use it, as a standard windowing system is quite a big deal for Unix.
And I know I can still run X on Macs/Darwin but I don't want to as I don't think Apple as a company are doing the right thing for Unix. I don't think Office X would be realeased for Solaris/Linux/FreeBSD anyway(and I don't care) so Macs would still have a great advantage over the other Unixes.
Just my thoughts on Apple/OS X.
from article:
... i say so what . what are they NOT telling us. well, tack on Aqua and all those apps and $$ for upgrade you got one expensive Apples... the dell RH machine you can DL free GUI's apps from all over --> no price change on Dell RH box. .
What's particularly interesting about this is that it contradicts some common wisdom: Intel boxes are cheaper because so many are made, right?
me:
Situationally maybe you can find a OSX running box that costs as much as a linux box. But then these days with x86 hardware geting faster and faster the cost comparison will be nothing compared to the difference in processing speed/memory comparison.
my main point is that POTENTIALLY you can get more out of x86 machine running linux. Not only would you have more options in software and hardware but also more flexibility in future upgrades. The OSX nuts here are getting on my nerves. Just admit that you purchase and work with OSX for personal reasons. The overall cost and feasibility of maintaining a linux boxen is so less stressing than a pretty little apple box.
These OSX articles/promotions are so skewed.
from article:apples xserve $2900 vs. dell RH $2900 (not exact numbers)
my point:The potential expense for the linux box is way less than job$' apple$
Point is, earlier this year - after reading a bunch or articles about how great the new Mac OS is - I decided to go check the Mac out. Let me just say, I was very impressed. I recently replaced my Linux development box with a TiBook. The Aqua user interface is incredibly intuitive, easy on the eyes, and has support for many things that a desktop linux system just doesn't, IMHO.
Anyway, I still use Linux boxes for our servers but I have found the Mac to be the best development environment I've ever used. The UI might take a few days to get comfortable with (coming from the KDE/Gnome or Windows platform), but once you use it for bit, you really start to appreciate it's consistency and beauty.
That said, my interest has been peaked by the new Xserve. Like I said, I do a lot of Java development and the JVM implementation on OS X is nothing short of amazing. Java Swing apps look native and don't feel over-bloated and the speed and efficiency of the JVM for non-UI tasks is also astounding.
The pure java application that I am currently working on runs faster on my TiBook than on the Linux server on which I am also testing it. The process overhead and cpu usage for completing the same tasks are relatively lower on the Mac meaning I can run many more processes at once on the Mac. This is leading me to the conclusion that getting my hands on an Xserve might not be a bad idea before I go ahead and deploy on a Linux box.
I think everyone else should take a serious look at the Xserve as well.
Anyone wanna take me to lunch?
more importantly, bring along your smart, cute, single, forgiving, sarcastic female friends and / or relatives so lunch will be more fun.
Can travel.
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Yeah....If I have an admin working for me that is so bad at admining that he / she needs a mac, they probally won't be working for me for very long. MacOS X server is like unix. Except for the huge price tag. And the UI that drains resources. And the crappier hardware. Yes, I know that you can just run it in command line mode, but once we're in command line mode, we've just thrown out the only advantage that apple has over PCs, which is an easier to use UI.
Put them out of my misery.
Simply put:
Microsoft is alive because they're entrenched. If Microsoft loses it's dominance, it's not going to be immediately to Apple.
It's going to be a slow process, and once MS starts slipping, it's going to be a free-for-all. Apple's corporate legitimacy can bring down the MS barriers, but once they're down, it's going to be time for Linux to truly rise.
Apple can try to become the next MS, but I don't think they can succeed. Not in the current environment. With open source, the entrenched players can stay entrenched a while, but no one else is going to have a chance to become entrenched in the market.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
I've used it and it's not that great, and it is less responsive on my dual-533 than Windows 95 or Linux/ICE is on a $100 P200, or 2K/XP/Linux+KDE/Gnome on a $300 PIII/500. (Or BeOS on a P120, heh.) I've run it on two Beige G3s (a 266/224MB at work and my own 300/256; value: ~$300 according to http://www.baucomcomputers.com/ ) and it is like death, only worse. If you want a windowing UI + a UNIX CLI, get Linux or Windows+cygwin.
My first computer was an Apple II+, my second was an XT. I started using windowing UIs with a Mac, followed by Windows 3 a year later. So no, I'm not some schmuck who always used Windows, then used a Mac for 10 minutes and said "It sucks!" I started on Macs and *vastly* prefer Windows. I use 2K, OS X, and OS 9 daily.
Let me end with a link to my favorite article, which I can attest is true from daily experience. Q: What does everyone buy a computer for? A: surfing. By all means, *avoid* Macs for this. And don't respond to talk about other browsers. I've done tests and overall, they're all slower than Win or Lin. But don't take my word for it: download this, change the code to make the colors proper hex triplets (just add '00' to the end of each) and check it out yourself. Open it off the HD to remove variances due to network speed.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
I have been using Linux for well over 3 years. Until I started my first job back in june, I had gone a full year without using winshit for anything of any importance. I just recently switched to debian, and while the install was a bitch, I appreciate the "cold truth" approach of it.
... 105879 files and directories currently installed.) .../nethack-gnome_3.4.0-3.0woody1_i386.deb) ... ...
My next computer will either be a Mac or a Sun system. How much hardware is Linux compatible with? Does it use all 128 bits of the processor, or just the first 32?
Can I run OS X software through X? Does XDarwin support gnome? Is the kernel source available, or do I have to wait for apple to support my hardware? Has forte for Java been ported to it?
Most importantly: Does it have an automated package installer like apt-get?
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
The following NEW packages will be installed:
nethack-gnome
0 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 790kB of archives. After unpacking 1831kB will be used.
Get:1 ftp://ftp.us.debian.org stable/main nethack-gnome 3.4.0-3.0woody1 [790kB]
Fetched 790kB in 28s (27.5kB/s)
Selecting previously deselected package nethack-gnome.
(Reading database
Unpacking nethack-gnome (from
Setting up nethack-gnome (3.4.0-3.0woody1)
flame#
If I could have that and M$ Word, nothing could stop me! lol. The Abiword, KWord, and OpenOffice people need to get some sort of grammar check in their projects. I am setting up an winshit NT system in bochs just to run Word. BTW, Ximian Evolution is SO much better than Outlook.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
I'm trying like all hell to get an XServe in here. I probably pimp that puppy three times a day but to no avail. It's just not that simple.
One thing you have to take into account is that the 100% Windows shops are not a new thing and have been around long enough to become very closed in their thinking. Where I work we have four people involved in IT support for a total of 300 users. Out of those four people three of them have Macs at home and use them. One, myself, actually brought a Mac from home to use at work. The problem in our case isn't about trying to get the machine considered by the IT folks. It goes higher than that.
The PHB's are the ones who have been listening to our predecessors and marketing sluts for years and who have had this "standardize on Windows" drivel pounded into their heads. Hell it's the only reason I even HAVE my MCSE. Because someone higher up than myself decided I needed one to be effective at my job.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
I don't know what I'm doing wrong. I put the CD in the tray but the icon doesn't appear on my desktop like the manual said it would. I'd like to switch to Mac OS, but it seems harder to install than any distro I use. Please help, it cost over $130.
Apple Running Out Of Macintosh Users For "Switch" Commercials
In a surprise announcement, Apple CEO Steve Jobs said Friday that Kansas resident Carmen Inez is the only Macintosh user that hasn't starred in one of the new Mac "switch" commercials.
The "switch" commercials were designed to encourage Windows users to abandon Microsoft's proprietary operating systems in favor of Apple's proprietary operating system by showing actual Macintosh users talking about how easy "the switch" was.
Despite the high cuteness factor of the iMac and the opensource appeal of OS-X's Darwin, Macintosh's userbase has steadily declined over the years, and recently fell to a total of 10 users, a fact which wasn't discovered until the commercials were already underway.
"It's really quite embarrassing," says Apple CEO Steve Jobs, "we started the new ad campaign thinking it'd be nice to showcase our diverse userbase, but we ran out of users in very short order."
Macintosh user Carmen Inez declined to be in the commercials, saying "I've just got a bunch of old Mac Word Perfect files that I keep on there. It's really nothing to get excited about."
The fate of Apple's next line of commercials, which were to feature programmers pretending to like Macintosh's FreeBSD spin-off, Darwin, instead of actually getting FreeBSD, has not been decided.
Apple started out with the Apple I. It only sold to hobbyists, a small market. Apple learned.
They quickly moved on to the Apple II on the 6052. That grew the company sereval times. Apple learned.
The less said about the Apple III hardware the better. There were lots of manufacturing problems. Apple learned.
Then came the Lisa. There were lots of marketing problems. Apple learned.
The Mac started as a cute, slightly runky-dink 680x0 machine. They tossed out compatibility. Cost them their entire existing software base. Apple learned.
The original Mac lap-top was an embarrassment. Apple learned.
Then Apple became the leading manufacturer of RISC machines in the world when they went to the 60x hardware architecture. This was accomplished without repeating the previous mistakes. (What Apple learned was purely internal politics that time.)
NeXT failed as a hardware manufacturer but it had great software. It was the NeXTStep... Jobs came back and Apple learned.
Apple did the iMac because Apple had learned: Ugly, beige is boring "office-ware."
Apple did the PowerPC, the colored iBook, the Titanium and the white iBook because Apple had learned.
Apple did the sexy, "fold-out completely open" towers because Apple had learned: Hard to maintain is, uh, hard to maintain.
Apple went to OS X. It could even attempt this because it had SUCCESSFULLY migrated CPU hardware platforms before. It had SUCCESSFULLY migrated form factors (Mac, desk-top, towers, laptop.)
Look at the Newton. Carefully. With time-lines, feature-lists, internal structures and compared with what else was out there and what spun off.
Apple has survived more changes, flops, failures, created more products that are a delight to use, been imitated by more companies regardless of industry, than almost any other company I can think of BECAUSE it DOESN'T listen to its customers UNTIL they start saying "No We don't buy it." (*)
It will soon have shiped more BSD/Darwin (OpenSource) RISC (G3/G4[/G5 soon?]) boxes than the sum total of Unix/Linux boxen out there.
This is a GOOD THING.
Will Apple grow to dominate the desk top?
Get a grip. It doesn't even want to go there.
That may be where the money WAS but growth is flat, the competition is outrageous, Linux is already there, its darn near (as in beer,) carving out its own space and has an enormous developper base.
The OS wars are OVER. Unix is going to win hands down.
Linux runs on EVERYTHING!
Unix is used for every serious, mission critical system.
OS X is locking up the creative market place.
Windows has NEVER migrated to ANY other platform than the x86. Its not for want of trying. They have already failed at it.
The new PC chip architectures (Intel/HPs & AMDs) are already Linux playgrounds. The chip makers are tired of the x86 architecture and want to get on to the next stage. But windows is holding them back.
Windows is extremely vulnerable to security breaches and even more vulnerable to the processing requirements of biometric security data.
The changes M$ themselves are fostering (DRM, and securing their sieve-like OS) are going to be their undoing. Entire countries are rebelling at having to get on and stay on the upgrade tread-mill. The day Linux becomes "good enough" (and OpenOffice is almost there,) M$ sales will start a downward curve faster than the supporting economy.
Remember. Desktop machines are OVERHEAD. Reducing overhead is how M$ got to be where it is today. Its how Linux will get to where its going. Its been happening time and time again. (Read "The Innovator's Dilemma.")
*) That is one thing Jobs and Linus share: The ability to say, "Lets do this because its cool (least I think so!)" And then tweak, fiddle and put in the hours fixing things until they damn well work. If they don't... "Well lets see what we can learn from this."
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
You might not owe anyone a free lunch granted (I'm a Mac user and I certainly don't want anyone to take me to lunch for buying a Mac, other than Steve Jobs maybe - that dude owes me one) but you aren't going to help the cause of Linux/UNIX on the desktop by accusing people newly arrived at your part of jumping on the bandwagon.
You want to displace MS on the desktop then you have to be more accepting of new arrivals in your camp.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Why did I just flash on the whole "Have lunch with an Executive VP" thing from Dilbert?
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Her: "It so cute!"
Me: "Yeah, but you're used to Linux, and I'm not sure if you'd like a Mac."
Her: "I know, but it's so cute!"
Me: "But you only get one mouse button!"
Her: "It's just too darn cute!"
The iMac commercial where the guy sticks out his tongue and the machine ejects its CD tray clinched the deal - we were bound to get an Apple. Last weekend we finally decided to make a short roadtrip (120 miles to the local dealer) to get her new machine.
I have to admit, Apple did it right. Samba was easy to set up (I haven't bothered with NFS yet, but it's supposed to be equally slick) so she has access to her old Linux home directory, her old email, the MP3/Ogg directory, etc. The interface is just plain beautiful, and I was quite happy to open that terminal window and start playing with sudo. Last night, she just downloaded and installed software by herself for the first time ever ("Hey, that was pretty easy!"), which was something that she was never really interested in on Debian.
Would I personally switch to Mac OS X? Probably not - I'm a big Free Software advocate. Still, her little iMac is the nicest-looking Unix workstation I've ever seen, my wife loves it and its ease of operation, and it took less time to integrate into our LAN than it's taking me to type this. I'm impressed. Congratulations, Apple. You made a Unix workstation that non-geeks can fall in love with.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
When I was in kindergarten, every computer I ever saw was an Apple ][E. At the time, I thought it was a pretty rockin' little box. When you said computer, at the time it was pretty much synonymous with the ][e. Later, I found out about Commodore 64 and thought it was cool. However, IBM PC came around and killed them both, and Microsoft became dominant.
The point: Just because something seems hopelessly ubiquitous doesn't mean that the right situation can't come around and kill what seemed like such a stable position at the top.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Now that we can include the mac community in the community of 'unix users', suddenly, the percentage at my workplace jumped.
Instead of having a huge percentage of windows users, then a small minority of Mac, Linux, Solaris, and Bsd variants, we decided to 'consolodate' the statistics into "windows users" and "unix users". IT seems fair, because XP, 2000, NT and so on all count as 'windows'.
Now, we have a significant user base that is using unix, so we get more of the system administrator budget for it!
People are going to use free software or they aren't. The fact that they OS X has UNIX underneath (which they barely know.comprehend/care about) isn't going to compel them to do so. Furthermore, no one in Apple's target audience knows about Open Source or cares about (or could even undertand the concept of) Darwin. Just because they happen to be using OSS tools doesn't mean they know about or care about OSS in general.
Let me say this again: Joe Average user doesn't care about OSS or UNIX. How do I know? They've already shown they're happy to buy computers from closed-source vendors (Apple (OS 9 and half of X) and MS), one of whom has been found in court to be a monopoly. PEOPLE DON'T CARE ABOUT POLITICS WHEN THEY'RE BUYING COMPUTERS! They'll buy it an use it, period.
Besides, openoffice 1.0 also runs on the nine zillion (estimated) existing Windows desktops out there, much better than the OS X DR.
Final random note: I was in CompUSA and saw a couple talking to a rep about the flat-panel iMac. First question out of the customer's mouth, who apparently liked the look of the system: "Does it run XP?" That proves one of two points: 1) the customer doesn't know the difference between Apple and Intel hardware, or Apple and MS operating systems, or 2) the customer *does* know there's a difference but wants XP instead. One last time: PEOPLE a) DON'T KNOW OR b) DON'T CARE. or both.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Can you say "Darwin"?
you can use xfree86 in rootless mode with a three button mouse (the logitech scroll wheels work nicely) and have all your unix apps too.
t ilities/
and theres fink, which lets you use debian style package management (including dselect) for the unix stuff. with the rootless hacked version of blackbox and the dock set to autohide, the setup works like it was meant to be like that, except for the visual devide between unix and mac apps (which looks like the visual difference with classic apps running in the os-9 sub system)
thus you get both.
use a fast window manager becasue xfree is slow on os-x. but with a fast window manager (like blackbox) you dont really notice the difference. the actuall apps (like the gimp) will still run at an acceptable speed.
one more difference, cut + paste in unix apps is still first and middle mouse, but you can cut + paste between X and os-x apps. (for example, highlight in xterm and "paste" into mozilla with either the right click menu or ctrl+v) so that inconsistancy is there but still workable since you have the visual cue (the obviously differently decorated windows)
ive found myself running all my apps under the x server and its still nice (xterms, gabber, gimp, remotely running openoffice.org and mozilla from a debian box etc) (remotely running it so i dont have to merge bookmarks) and it works great. turn off sleep if you have ssh session you want to keep active. for some reason sleeping hangs the ssh session and you have to close that term.
all of this is at http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/unix_apps_u
slashdot puts a space in utilities but the link should work.
Sorry, but I couldn't let this one go without a reply.
I use a Mac G4 running OS X 10.1.5 on our Windows 2000 network. As a sysadmin, I use XDarwin to connect to our VMS box and administer our DP software. I use VNC to control our optical system server and our Windows 2000 file server. In addition, I use this machine for Web development (we're a small place, I wear a lot of hats). In this capacity, I use ssh in Terminal to work on our Linux Web servers.
I don't use OS X because I can't do CLI; I've been using CLI for years, on Solaris, Linux, AIX, and now BSD (OS X). I held out for a Mac for my job because I don't have the time for my personal machine to crap out because I installed an RPM that broke something or tried to compile source code that bombed because of some arcane dependency. My machine is too important for me to spend all my time making it work. I have too many other machines to worry about.
Besides, since XServer ships with Samba, you actually save time and money using an XServer vis-a-vis a Windows box. I spent hours trying to get Samba working on Red Hat 6.2. It took minutes to set up this machine to work on our Windows 2000 network.
When you buy Apple, you're not just buying good hardware; you're also buying the Apple philosophy: "People want to use their computers productively. Let's make it work so they don't have to." With Macintosh, the machine disappears so you can concentrate on the task at hand. I can't explain it to you; you have to experience it. With a Mac, things work, the way you expect, the first time. And they don't mysteriously break later, leaving you scratching your head. By using Macintosh for my job, I have more time to do my job. The hardware and UI are tools that make me more productive. For the "huge price tag," You get reliability, simplicity, and stability - exactly what any real sysadmin wants in a server.
JA
http://www.johnalex.org/
One of the best things about GUI environments like KDE, Gnome, and MS Windows is that you can change the font and font sizes so you can actually read the text regardless of your resolution.
I used to use Mac OS 9, and the text was readable at low res, but the menu text was a cast-iron bitch to read in the 1024x768 and above range.
Mac OS 9 & X have accessibility options panels, but those are a joke without the ability to change font size.
P.S. I think OS X would be a lot more usable if they got rid of all that damn eye-candy. I run KDE on an old Pentium 166, and it smokes OS X on a G4 speed-wise. Boooooo Apple.
I'm not sure if Apple and the GNU/Linux community are as compatible as you might think, for the following reasons:
But I imagine that the Apple and free software community will get along for the most part, mostly because the enemy of my enemy is my friend. They both share specifc goals in common including:
However, there is a very large risk with the free software community getting too friendly with Apple and Co. Nobody wants to see one monopoly simply replaced with another. And if Apple managed this position, their monopoly would be much stronger. With the control over the hardware as they do, they'd have no one to publish specifications of the hardware.
In other words, if Apple was in Microsoft's position right now, a free software rebellion couldn't happen. GNU/Linux would simply not exist.
Academic applications are often Mac or Unix only.
For example in math (Unix): Pari, EIS, Hecke, Casa
In applied linguistics (Mac) Lerner's transcript analysis system
That is both Unix and Mac have a great deal of software that has little commercial appeal because of a limited target audience. While few people want any individual application almost everyone can benefit from one or two of these applications. Not everyone who isn't a programmer uses their computers as a word processor + a stereo.
More than anything else the application that Unix has that Windows doesn't is "make".
If OSX was ported to Intel, present Windows users could miagrate to OSX on their existing Intel hardware. They would also have the benefit of a the large number of OSX office applications including Microsoft Office!
OSX could loosen Microsoft's death grip on the home and office markets while at the same time offer a viable alternative to the Microsoft conundrum.
The author fails to note, that to run OpenOffice in MacOS X, the user needs to install and run an X server. Until OpenOffice is fully Carbonized or Cocoafied, the extent of OpenOffice usage in MacOS X users will be miniscule. For you trolls out there who say that the user can install and run the X server rootless, this is a moot (sic.) point--even the sound of installing an X server rootless is daunting to the regular joe schmoe user--because it still requires a bit of technical expertise (especially requires a bit of UNIX commandline know-how). I guarantee that the vast majority of MacOS X users feel that the Terminal app is daunting and hence, will shy away from adopting OpenOffice. Until OpenOffice can work in MacOS X natively, without the need of an X server, the author's claim is not valid.
Linux at home
Last night, she just downloaded and installed software by herself for the first time ever ("Hey, that was pretty easy!"), which was something that she was never really interested in on Debian.
Can you blame her? Downloading and installing a program on a mac is just a weeeeeee bit easier than doing so in Linux.
"And like that
There are an awful lot of corporations that order $5000 Proliant and PowerEdge systems running Windows for file and print. The XServe fills that market nicely for less monsy. Apparently you are one of the many legions of people who believe Apple owes it to them to market a box specifically at them.
Apple suffers no such obligation and those of us who do happen to fit their target are happy to use their stuff. When I have my IT hat on, I'll recommend Windows, Linux, or Mac depending on whether it's the best tool for that particular job. The number of jobs for which Mac is the best tool just happens to be expanding lately.
I wish I could say it would, but the introduction of a new alternative OS or improvements to an existing one don't draw away Windows users. The market for non-MS operating systems stays pretty constant. It's a lot more likely that OS X will draw users away from Linux (it already has) or that at some point a new release of a Linux distro could move users away from MacOS.
Why do most people use Windows? It's a no brainer, literally. They really don't care a whole lot about what features it has. The just know that everyone else uses it, and that it works. They know that they have Windows and MS Office at work, and so that's what they buy for home. They know that their tech buddy who helps them install stuff uses Windows, and they know they'll have help when something doesn't work.
What can really help to bring more users to Linux/*BSD is if Apple succeeds in making a strong business case for OS X and getting penetration into the business market. People who use Macs at work or at school will be far more likely to want them at home.
That's the key to ensuring that Mac OS X increases the overall number of "alternative" OS users--increases the market size, that is, rather than just cannibalizing the existing market.
And that's what Linux users need to do, too, of course.
byroniverse
The entire useful existance of Steve Jobs is that he's an anal retentive, obsessive compulsive maniac whose focus is to make sure that your user experience is very good. Mac OS X is the first useful desktop system in the Unix family that is use appropriate for secretaries and grandparents.
One thing that your Windows XP system doesn't have is Open Firmware (IEEE-1275) which makes plug and pray into true plug and play. If you add a bunch of hardware and have to reseat a card to get rid of an IRQ conflict, you'll understand why IRQs simply suck. Implementing IEEE-1275 in the PC standard is simply not in the cards so there is a permanent ease of use advantage.
Opps, I reread it a couple of times but after hitting "submit" realised that I wrote something misleading. The 43,000 linux boxes shipped by Compaq was in a single quarter - NOT the entire year. The way I wrote it was misleading.
I wasn't looking very hard and most press releases where sort of old (aside from Apple's) and about quarterly results. To recap: the numbers are 808,000 MacOS X boxes in the latest quarter this year (down from previous years) and somewhat over 188,000 (servers & workstations combined) shipped by market leader Sun in a single quarter in the year 2000. And 43,000 Linux servers shipped by market leader Compaq in a single quarter in the year 2000.
Apple Servers come with an "Unlimited Clients" guarantee from Apple. That's a big plus in comparison with servers that charge for clients (such as NT).
MS would probably be a lot less keen about providing/supporting Office/IE for Macs under those circumstances.
Suck figs.
I don't know, I read the article and feel the author is making a bit of a logical leap.
His basic point is people who buy Macs are going to be more inclined to use Open Source software in other ways.
I don't think this is accurate - the geeks know what OS X really is and what it can really do, but to someone higher up with decision making abilities, is it not just another computing platform with it's own OS?? Eg, I buy a Dell server, it comes with Windows (usually). I buy an Xserve from Apple, it comes with OS X. Difference?? Not much, if our server geeks can make it work, it's all about the cost. If you can convince them of the cost angle (and on the desktop, this might be harder - hardware I think is somewhat more expensive), then you're good. Otherwise forget it.
Having said that, this is being posted from a Titanium PowerBook running OS X - I love it!! Hardware and OS beautifully intertwined, dev tools available for free!!
The article says that the XServe takes advantage of the cheapness of open source software by eliminating the cost of an OS. This is actually not true. An unlimited user liscence version of Mac OS X Server costs $1000 (the 10-user liscence costs $500). The XServe comes with absolutely no choice of OS. The $1000 is included in the price of the XServe. While this is much more reasonable than Windows Server pricing (currently MS's website lists $1200 for a 25-user win2k server liscence and $4000 for a 25-user win2k advanced server liscence -- unlimited liscencing wasn't even mentioned). I think XServe is a great product. The price very easily justifies the ridiculous ease (and even pleasantness!) it puts into server administration, but it should not be misrepresented as coming with a "free" operating system.
one of them out of the closet we've locked them in. They do serve a nice function, the building blueprints look good but that about it, and we have to listen to them attempt to convert people constantly if we let them roam freely :)
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Keep in mind that the mac development has had a long tradition of making usable, user friendly software. Many of the programmers in the mac development community are meticulous about designing their interfaces, and they understand that the will catch hell from their userbase if they put out a crappy, inconsistant UI that was developed for the software as an afterthought. Finally, the mac until recently has not had a command line (excepting some stuff in MPW), which has forced mac developers to think in a totally graphic way. They are coding for a desktop, but it is not a "Unix Desktop", it is a "Mac Desktop that Just Happens To Use Unix".
Linux programmers, on the other hand, come from a development community that has had a 30 year long tradition of calling end users stupid and telling them to go read the fine manual (which usually is anything but fine). There's an attitude that if an end user cannot perform a task that is confusing or ambiguous, it is because they "don't want to learn". Much of the linux development community thinks that HCI is a BS field of study and that usability design principles are sheer nonsense. Unlike in the mac community where deriding unusable software is widely accepted, in the linux community criticizing software usability is scorned by developers. It's referring to as "bitching" or "whining". Users who complain about badly designed interfaces are either told to shut up an code a better one or to "quit whining about what you get for free" or to "Stop spreading FUD about linux being hard-to-use". And finally, linux developers are severely tainted by their command-line heritage. Many interfaces they cook up have command line ways of thinking that just don't work on the desktop. Desktop linux will always crawl miles behind OS X if it's developers can't come out of their shell (pun intended).
Nothing prevents linux from taking over the desktop. Other than its entire developer community.
The first step in solving a problem is to admit that you have one
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
No, I don't hold that against her in the slightest. She's a doctor, not an engineer. It's easy for me to 'apt-get foo', but far easier for her to click 'Download now!'. I'm actually thrilled that she loves her new machine, and very happy that she can do the things she wants without having to have me around.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Yeah, you might be right but it's the closest thing to it that you're going to get a lot of people to buy and that should pretty much cinch the deal.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
It seems to me, upon casual inspection, that the current Apple iBook designs cost less than other laptop computers. If anyone has recommendations for a laptop to run Linux, please post a reply.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...
OS X IS NOT UNIX! GET A GRIP!
Oh, really? Os OSF/1 is not running unix either? FreeBSD isn't Unix? If free bsd isn't unix-- based on the first branch of the original Unix tree, then Linux certainly isn't.
Is SVR4 the only Unix in your book?
Sheesh.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
I know you can do it on the old ones.
As for installing programs... maybe work on deity-gtk? I think apt and dpkg are pretty easy as they are.
And what if a good admin can manage 3n Mac servers with the same effort as it takes to manage n Windows servers? This is another form of the argument "Macs are only for people who don't know anything about computers", which has always been ridiculous. Regardless of your skill, it's better to spend your time actually accomplishing tasks on computers than getting them to work right.
Except for the huge price tag. And the UI that drains resources. And the crappier hardware.
Read some XServe reviews. You're 0 out of 3.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
I just bought an iMac free lunch woohoo...
Too bad I bought it two weeks before the stupid 17" came out.
"It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
q
I've never thought OS X was helpful to linux what so ever. Apple, being not the most popular OS had a lack of software. Now that it's BSD based, linux software can now be ported to it. A blow to linux, IMO, not helpful to it. Sure, it brings people to use unix, but to stick a propriotery layer over it, and then apple programs only run on that layer? I'd give apple credit if they actually helped linux and allowed OS X and other apple programs to be ported to it, but I seriously doubt that will happen. Apple may not be as bad as microsoft, but they're not much better either. I have yet to see apple make one attempt to help the linux community, but I've seen things that could hurt it.
If you don't want someone to copy something, don't give it to anyone.
Apple MUST file patents for everything they can. And this is a GOOD THING.
Apple learned its lesson by having its competitive advantage taken away from it by Microsoft copying its technology. Apple was refuesed a patent for the Mac UI (and this is a LEGITIMATE PATENT CLAIM) and thus lost their ability to protect it when windows ripped it off.
Now that the patent office is once again allowing patents for novel processes (the definition of what's patentable) apple should patent all of their novel processes.
Not being allowed to do so is what led to the Microsoft monopoly in the first place.
The thing is, Apple, by nature is not a draconian company. All this fearmongering is silly.
XWindows runs fine under OSX. Apple has consistently gone to significant lengths to support the Darwin project--- hell the branch was created so that darwin can get "more wild" not so that Apple has more control. Sheesh, the point was to let darwin get more expirmental and go in directions that would undermine the stability of OS X, while still sharing code back and forth. This was a movement for MORE FREEDOM, not LESS.
Only Apple could release the first commercial OS into Open Source, go to great lengths to support it, support it in competition with *itself* and be accused of not supporting open source by open source "advocates".
To quote from "The Patriot": "Your sense of freedom is as pale as your skin."
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
typical *nix attitude.. it's so sad..
whining like that..
it's so unfair!! awwww.. give it up..
unix is stronger as a whole the less it fights among its constituent members.
os-x is adding 4 million *nix users where otherwise they'rd
be proprietary M$ software in the offices that use it.
the *nix brethern can't succumb to infighting, because if you split the unix camp,
then M$'s homogeniety will win.
i'd rather be friends with the '4 million new unix users'
than at odds with them -- an insular mentality and not cooperating
with other vender's standards is what frag'd the unix camp into
impotence in the past. i'd hate to see that happen again.
Did anyone take a gander at the "Defenestration guide" referenced in the article? I browsed the preview and was compelled to write the following to the author.
Hi - I was previewing your defenestration guide when I came across the following: "A very important difference between Windows and Unix arises from usage patterns. In Windows the standard mode of interaction between users and the system consists of point, click and type operations that implicitly limit user action to affecting one thing at a time. In Unix GUIs that isn't true. You can not only have multiple applications open and active [meaning that processing is visibly affecting the window content while you work in some other window] but, more importantly, you can start multiple concurrent processes that function independently of each other." There is a footnote on this page which references Mac OS-X, which certainly dates the page past the days of Windows 3.1 (which also multitasked, albeit "cooperatively" and not preemptively - which was also the case with all versions of Mac OS prior to OS-X).
I'm sure you know that Windows, especially in the age of NT/2000/XP, is a fully pre-emptive, multi-tasking environment. It is not unusual for me to be compiling C++ in one window, playing audio in another, downloading email, performing a backup, and capturing (capturing!) (via Firewire) and/or editing video footage in another. My dual processor Pentium handles this all with ease under Windows NT, 2000, or XP. I also multitask when I boot from my Linux partition. In both systems, I "point, click and type" into various applications, and this does not "limit my action to affecting one thing at a time," implicitly or otherwise, in either system.
In the article in LinuxWorld that led me to your defenestration guide preview, you state that "it's frustrating but true, a lot of people who've given my Defenestration Guide to their bosses have told me that these people often won't read or understand it, in large part because they feel no social pressure to do so." Perhaps the obvious misinformation contained within your book (at least in the preview) is another reason that "bosses" don't take it seriously?
I send you this note in the spirit of promoting ACCURATE information that allows people, including "bosses," to make INFORMED decisions. Please accept my apologies if I've taken your comments about multitasking out of context (the preview did not contain the page immediately before or after the page that contained these comments about Windows and Unix multitasking).
I think the point is that Apple has a large existing userbase, 4 million-a-year unit shipments, and the pockets to run New York Times spreads and Superbowl ads.
Unix can now gun for mindshare against MS in the massive consumer space.
Lies about crimes
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/5419 66/ref=gw_br_pc/002-0603305-5832826
hahaha tape driver haha you're wearing a stripe in the tape
so sad.. no tape backup will ever be as reliable as a medium that will stay with us.. removable hard rives/firewire externals.. oh well.
haha tape drivers haha
Do you really think anyone will read 5 pages of rambling crap??
Mac OS X may help break down the walls for non-Windows operating systems, including Linux.
I'll believe it when APPLE releases QUICKTIME for LINUX.
Until then.. Apple is only helping apple.
Think where Apple would be if MS hadn't ported OFFICE, IE, and Windows Media player to the platform?
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
Does anyone know if a G4 PowerBook can run Linux? And ideally, VMWare on top of it? If so, it would mean a GOOD piece of portable hardware (G4) with a GOOD operating system (Linux) and VMWare to take care of the little bits of Windoze I NEED to run Windoze only software to serve my clients... but I want to get far away from Windoze as pos.
Please don't let me know, "Powerbuks suck, dude." I just want to know if Linux can run on a Powerbook (and by run I mean CDRW/DVD/USB ports, etc). Thanks!
Happy SysAdmin Day
Writers imply. Readers infer.
Sure, it has a couple of problems. The internal SCSI-fast bus is locked up after boot (a connector for the external bus was only an inch away on the montherboard, though), and the 13GB ATA drive I pulled out of an old PC gets random "General error" errors when writing to it. And with that blazing fast 50mhz FSB, it doesn't play DIVX worth a damn. But it did provide enough log messages that I was able to tell that my old 10/100 Ethernet card was failing negotiation and going to 10mbit half duplex mode. So that's why it was always so slow on network speed!
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Well, it doesn't especially matter if people KNOW or CARE about OSS. They will be affected by it nevertheless, and that's ultimately what matters. If the Darwin kernel sucked ass people wouldn't use it. It is much more important for those in the know to be aware of OSS; people in enterprise and development. The only thing that should matter to the end-user is whether it works well, and whether its cost is reasonable. OSS accomplishes both, so its reputation is assured among developers and within enterprise.
I do believe most people are aware of at least the gross differences between Windows XP and Mac OS X, such as the fact the XP will run a hoard of games that Mac OS X won't, and that it runs on a wider variety of inexpensive computers.
The main point of the article is not that Mac OS X will help the "political" cause of Open Source, but that it exposes more users to software which originated within the Open Source movement. Thus it imbues a stronger reputation on those *titles*. As more OSS *titles* gain wider recognition the OSS Movement gains mind-share, regardless of whether any of those minds know or care about OSS.
By way of example, a vast number of long-time Mac OS users have suddenly become aware of the power-trio of Apache / PHP / MySQL (or PostGres). I'm constantly helping newbies configure and compile these services. A large number of people - through projects like Fink - have installed X-Windows on their Macs along with The GIMP and other well-known GNU applications. These folks are excited about OSS in a way that XP users will never know. They're excited because they can sample so many exotic domains, even running Windows and Linux through VirtualPC if they desire.
The down-side to all this exposure to OSS is that an awful lot of it seems to suck when compared to tightly-managed closed-source apps like Photoshop. In order for open source applications to gain acceptance on the Mac desktop they need to be polished and enhanced to meet the expectations of users weaned on professionally designed products. Which essentially means they need an Aqua branch in the source tree.
-- thinkyhead software and media
For the record, I'm in the mood for Italian today.
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
I was originally a Mac only guy...a serious one. 7 Macs in my house. And I was content with it too, until I got older. Wanting to learn more and use a more powerful operating system, I installed OSX. I mean, you look at the GUI...then you open the Terminal and play around in bash. It was amazing. Now all my Macs are dual booting Debian and OSX (or OS9/8/7, whichever works best), and I have a few x86en running Debian too.
Just give me apt-get for OSX apps...yum.
Orange
Unfortunately, for all its good points, the Mac is a proprietary platform. I see a lot of confusion about this in these forums. People say things like, it's based on Darwin which is open source, so OSX must be an open platform. Wrong. There is a simple test to see if a platform is open or not, namely, can make my own version and then sell it. With a Windows PC, you can get partially there, as you can build your own PC and sell it, but you can't do that for the OS. A Windows PC is semi-open.
Could I make my own Mac? No, I could not, as the hardware is closed. Nobody but Apple may make Macs, or even computers that look like Macs, as the "brand" is one of their most valuable assets. OK, so let's say I tried to clone OS X. Could I? No, I could not. I would get as far as downloading and customising Darwin, and then .... oh, whoops. It seems the rest of OS X is not open. I couldn't even recreate the artwork without getting sued. Yes, I know you can compile Linux apps on MacOS, but you can do that on Windows too. I don't see people telling me to take Windows users out for lunch.
So the Mac is proprietary. It dismays me to see people supporting such a platform. We've all, every one of us, learnt the hard way what happens when a company gets control of an important platform. Are people really willing to throw away not only openness of the OS, but also the hardware, merely to get a colour co-ordinated desktop? And for those who believe the 3 platforms could exist in peaceful cooperation, I have bad news: proprietary platforms have a tendancy to get a tight grip, as people get locked into them. Mac apps cannot be easily ported to Linux for instance - the flow is one way only.
In short: has nobody learnt anything from Microsoft? Do we really have to learn the same painful lessons twice, once from Gates, and once from Jobs?
There's no value flowing from Apple to the rest of the world. The Mac users should be taking the Linux users to lunch.
Mac doesn't validate Unix in the enterprise. Unix validates the Mac to those who think of Macs as toys and Unix as serious computing. Those folks would be the execs that make the decisions. Not the people in the art department. They're not consulted on server decisions.
Well that was the point. Linux weenies are so obsessed with their tiny little world that something like *GASP* being able to DL and install an app in less than 5 days of configuring and compiling is like some goddamned miracle! Linux is nothing but rocks and sticks and the rest of us left that shit behind 10-15 years ago. The rest of you are crippling yourselves for no reason. Sheer jackass stubbernness and nothing else.
Spoken like a true noob.
Since a lot of the discussion here is on the technical/coolness/usability merits of OS X, I think most of you may have missed the point of the article: the insightful analysis about how for Windows/x86 systems, the OS cost is becoming more and more of the total cost of the system. And more than that: how this kind of report is exactly the kind of thing that gets attention of managers, because it's a cost/benefit analysis. Not only that, but it's a big-picture, trend-based analysis. It gives some indication of what to expect in the future, it gives some indication of how to save now, and finally, since it's slightly non-obvious, it flatters those who understand it.
We need to get better at our advocacy. This is a prime example of how. That's the cool thing about this article.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
Maybe that's "interesting", but it isn't really much of an advantage. First of all, X11 now supports the same imaging model (antialiasing, transparency, etc.). Also, it takes the wind out of the sails of people who like to complain about client/server window systems: Apple and X11 both are client/server. Even Windows XP is, although the server is now in the kernel because Microsoft couldn't figure out how to take an old direct drawing API and convert it into an efficient client/server protocol.
With Darwin you can add X11 at any time, and even run both concurrently, but the imaging system defaults to the PostScript-derived PDF display model.
You can "add X11" to just about any window system any time--X11 is a fairly simple protocol (WeirdX is a whole 200k large). But X11 on the Mac works by drawing unaccelerated into off-screen bitmaps and then blitting them into screen memory. That was the easiest way of taking an existing X11 server and adapting it to the Mac, and it was the only way the developers could easily guarantee accurate rendering. And, somewhat ironically, X11 graphics applications in that mode often seem to run faster than native Mac applications (at least on my G4 Mac) despite all the blitting, and they consume less memory, too.
I'd say that Quartz is a decent graphics system, if a bit resource intensive. I'd also say that Apple would have been better off in the long run using X11 directly as a back-end for their desktop--the programming model, look, and feel would have been indistinguishable, and things would have run faster and required less memory. But it would also have been a lot of work--NeXTStep was based on Postscript, and converting that to PDF was probably the path of least resistance. However, necessity isn't really a virtue: Display PDF is not something the rest of the UNIX/Linux world should or will emulate.
However, the elegant look and ease-of-use of many of the of the Mac desktop applications and utilities is something Linux can and should emulate.
Technically, I think the most important technical difference (as opposed to available applications, which, of course, differ greatly) to users between OSX and Linux is the kernel: the OSX kernel really does seem to allow kernel extensions to be distributed and installed with much less headaches than Linux.
It is only free if you want Darwin alone, not free if you want the GUI and all the other stuff.
The old Mac users won't ever be buying or installing anything else besides Aqua or the Apple app$.
So in a sense it'll never be free for them. Ever.
You can't have it both ways. If I sell you car and give you free air for the tires, that doesn't make
the car "free", now does it?
Why would he go for a different IM when it' unlikely it would ever integrate as well as Apple's one?
I'll stick with Fire for IMs. It is AIM, Yahoo, and Jabber compatible and it supports logging. Not to mention, iChat looks like it takes up too much space with those speech balloons.
People use the software that works for them.
t'nera semordnilap
Heh. It's fairly obvious you've never even touched OS X.. You are right, I do feel UNIX is great as a programming environment. And OS X offers that. But at its core, it's still a Mac, which is what makes the combination great. Want an extremely easy, friendly, consistant, no-customization-or-installation-required kind of computer? Use OS X. Want a robust, fully customizable, full-fledged programming environment (great shell program, gcc3 now, emacs, vi, native development with Carbon/Cocoa/Java)? Use OS X. It isn't some half assed attempt to put a friendly face on UNIX. It's 100% Mac. And 100% UNIX. You can have whichever of it makes you happier. Or both. I could go on, but we both know you're wrong at this point.
slashdot!=valid HTML
>> Except for the huge price tag.
What on earth are you talking about? You obviously haven't bothered to read the article, here are the figures for 1 CPU / 256 MB RAM / 60GB Disk:
Apple Xserve (unlimited clients) $2999;
Dell 1650 Red Hat $2953;
Dell 1650 Win 2000 (25 clients) $6079.
Just don't run 10.0 on a Pismo. Sleep mode supposedly didn't put everything to sleep, and I could see the difference between X and 9 on the battery indicator after a couple of hours of sleep. In fact, I'm quite certain that's why my original battery took only 12 months to die.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
MacOS(9-x) has the nasty habit of ruining the fat32 filesystems, especially on large drives >10GB with lots of files. All those mac-specific files and folders overite files already existing on the drive.
Every day I connect removable drives to PCs and Macs. Th have disabled PC exchange on Macs and use HFS+ formatted drives + Mac Drive driver for Win
My iBook literally arrived in the Fedex box today.
I haven't touched a Mac since 1994, and that was
a toaster. Found the terminal, ssh, tcsh. Now
this is getting fun!
I am pretty psyched about this. iTunes, airport, orange glowing power plug...I will be dorking with this book for the whole weekend. Bye!
Fuck you shitsack motherfucker.
Give me the Penis Mightier for $500
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Point? Don't get too caught up in what we can do - the computer industry supplies computers and associated "things": It's big business that will make the difference, go out there and sell it to the CTO's and CFO's...
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will! - Antonio Gramsci.
All good points, but answer a question for me.
If Apple really does have a good thing that promotes *nix at some level and provides a bulwark against a known untrustworthy actor, what steps could Jobs take (supplementing making part of the system open source) that would: advance the art, allow Apple to make a decent profit (profit is not a bad thing), give you an solid alternative that you could stomach and gain market share against a bully?
Is there no path - or is the OS balkanization too powerful? Anyone?
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
In Jag 106 there is a 'save to pdf' option in every printbox.
Go get some of the supplies from your basement left over from Y2K and wait by the computer for a couple of years, put the latest OSXI disk in and ta da!
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
Didn't our 1984 girl take care of you guys with her big freaking hammer?
I saw you in the commercial - your big face was preachin' to the masses while your eyes were really watching the rhythmic bounce bounce of our beautiful blonde hammer packin' heroine. Till at least you saw that big Thor Hammer headin' toward your oversized head.
How've you been? She really smacked ya!
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
Microsoft said on Thursday it would boost spending on research and development by 20 percent to $5.3 billion in the current fiscal year and add nearly 10 percent more people to its work force of 50,500.
See? Apple has created jobs for people by introducing an OS that makes windows look old and proprietary. Some of those jobs'll go to people who frequent
I've summed it all up in a little poem:
{ahem} {cough!}
There once was a rich man named Bill,
whose OS was over the hill,
With X on the mark,
and him 'Jumping The Shark',
Bill had to raise R&D spending still!
So take a Mac User to lunch!
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
There once was a rich man named Bill,
whose OS was over the hill,
With X on the mark,
and him 'Jumping The Shark',
Bill had to increase his spending for skill!
sleep kills your net connection, that is why your ssh died.
Generally, People don't run their removable hard drives/firewire externals like they run tape. A proper backup set of media is 33 units, 20 units to do incremental or differential backups over 4 weeks and one unit every cycle for off site backup. People buy 33 tapes to back up a unit, no problem. Do they buy 33 hard drives? No, and that's why HDs don't make good backup devices, nobody uses them properly.
I still don't understand why people assume that Macs only support a one button mouse... drivers people, drivers. There are many 3 button mice available for Macs.
Go buy one and install the driver, they are even programmable... and application/context programmable to boot.
How else would I be able to use Maya?
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Other than that, I agree with you that RMS has a reality distortion field. Interestingly, seeing him give a presentation in person weakens the field considerably. This is perhaps the oposite of Steve Jobs.
Finally, whose idea was it to use a GPL'ed library to begin with? I doubt that the lawyers are the ones who said, "Hey, this library does what we want!" The coders at a commercial software company should be the LAST ones to expect to be able to use code freely, regardless of how it is named.
Lasers Controlled Games!