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)
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...
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
From an engineering and business perspective this is important for whacking Apple upside the head with a cluestick when they need it.
Case in point, Steve Jobs doesn't think tape drivers are important. Enough Darwin contributors disagree that there's going to end up being a generalized tape driver for OS X.
In Classic Mac OS land, this never would have happened.
Goddammit, I'm getting VERY tired of the way every criticism is immediately labeled "FUD." FUD is a very specific meaning: fear, uncertainty, and doubt. There was no fear, uncertainty, or doubt in my post. Just criticism of what I consider a disturbingly misguided philosophy. If I were spouting FUD, I'd say something like, "Are you really sure you want to base your business on the work of a bunch of anti-business, anti-capitalist zealots who oppose property rights on principle and who would love nothing more than to establish a world in which nobody could own anything, and therefore everything (except the people, of course) could be 'free?'"
That would be FUD. My comments aren't FUD. They're just an opinion that differs (strongly) from yours.
Rather, he beleives quite strongly that software should be free.
And I believe, quite strongly, that software is an inanimate object, and as such, cannot be "free" in the sense that RMS uses the word. The very use of the word "free" (in the sense of "having liberty of self-determination") to apply to a thing or idea is deliberately misleading and wrong.
But RMS has defined what he considers free quite explicit.
I could define my butt as something that monkeys fly out of, too, but that wouldn't make it so. Basically what Stallman has done is to take a big word, rich in positive connotation-- freedom-- and twist its meaning to apply it to his particular brand of "you can and can't do this" philosophy. And that's WRONG of him. That's using a word incorrectly. It's not a matter of definitions; it's a matter of correct and incorrect.
If you have a difference of opinion, then you could of course email Stallman himself.
But why would I do that? Stallman is the source of the problem. He's made up his mind. He is lost, gone, as far as I'm concerned. The important people are the impressionable young Slashdot readers who might run across a "software should be free" rant and get the idea that piracy is okay, that copyright and other intellectual property rights are injust, and that it's okay to take software and music and movies without paying for them. Those are the people that I'm concerned with.
Now, let me explain specifically why RMS's ideas are (1) wrong, and (2) bad.
First, know that I make my living by writing and selling software. That is, I write it, and my company sells it. We don't sell support, or training, or services. We sell software, plain and simple. This should tell you something about my point of view.
Now, on to the argument. The following are points on which RMS and I do not see eye-to-eye.
I believe that personal gain is a perfectly legitimate motivation. Just like anything else, too much of it is a bad thing. But to the extent that one's actions don't violate any laws, social norms, or moral or ethical guidelines, acting in one's own best interest is entirely appropriate.
I believe that the creators of computer programs own their creations. This is no different than any other type of creation. If I weave a basket, I own that basket. If I bake some bread, I own that bread. If my friend and I build a house together, we own that house jointly, unless we agree to some other arrangement. And if I write a computer program, I own that program's source code.
I believe that the owner of a computer program has the right to sell it. Specifically, the owner has the right to require everybody who uses the program to give the owner some money in return. In that situation, the owner of the program is entitled to receive that amount of money from every person who uses the program.
I believe that, in the above situation, if a person uses the program without paying the owner, the user is stealing the use of that program from the owner. I believe that this is theft, plain and simple.
I believe that all of the aforementioned things are true in an absolute sense, despite any possible harmful effects that may be attributed to them. The doctrine of personal property naturally implies scarcity and inequity. That doesn't make it any less so. Any discussion of a world in which the doctrine of property does not govern men's affairs moves out of the applied and into the abstract, and so is outside the scope of my interest. In other words, there's a time and place for talking about how things should or could be, but in discussing matters of policy or normative guidelines of behavior, it's far more important to talk about how they are.
And finally, I believe that freedom (speaking of freedom for people, here, not freedom for inanimate objects or ideas) includes, as the Founders said, the rights of "life, liberty, and property." I can't accept any philosophy that opposes property rights but advocates freedom. That just doesn't make sense.
So it should be clear by now that RMS and I couldn't disagree much more than we do. If that were the extent of it, then everything would be fine, and I would simply try to ignore RMS as much as possible.
But that's not the extent of it. The more I read RMS's writings, the more I find that they have moved out of the realm of pure philosophy and into the arena of hard-core propaganda. Consider the first two paragraphs of "Why Software Should Not Have Owners."
Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it easier to copy and modify information. Computers promise to make this easier for all of us. Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives software programs ``owners'', most of whom aim to withhold software's potential benefit from the rest of the public. They would like to be the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we use.
Notice the use of language here. RMS carefully and deliberately establishes, at the very beginning of his essay, an "us-verus-them" situation. He describes owners-- notice his use of quotation marks, a subtle trick to discredit the term-- as being people who "aim to withhold software's potential benefit from the rest of the public." This kind of statement is wildly inaccurate and incomplete. It's also one tiny mustache away from being a great example of Godwin's Law. This is propaganda, plain and simple.
The rest of it carries on in the same vein-- ownership and property rights are inherently evil-- for page after page. Here's a particularly telling example from the same document:
All four practices [of the Software Publisher's Association] resemble those used in the former Soviet Union, where every copying machine had a guard to prevent forbidden copying, and where individuals had to copy information secretly and pass it from hand to hand as ``samizdat''.
RMS is quick to associate the Software Publisher's Association with totalitarianism and oppression. He uses this rhetorical technique time and time again in his writings to cast aspersions on his opponents by associating them with well-known evils. Here he associates the assertion of ownership rights with blasphemy:
The term ``creator'' as applied to authors implicitly compares them to a deity (``the creator''). The term is used by publishers to elevate the authors' moral stature above that of ordinary people, to justify increased copyright power that the publishers can exercise in the name of the authors.
This kind of rhetorical misdirection is found throughout RMS's published writings. When I see an author trying to persuade me emotionally rather than through reason or logic, it makes me suspicious.
So first, I disagree with RMS's ideas. Then, I am personally concerned by the tone and technique of his writings. But the last straw, for me, is what I consider to be the deliberate and calculated misapplication of the words "free" and "freedom."
RMS's definition of the term "free software" is so counter-intuitive and complex that it requires its own web page to define. It basically boils down like this: "free software," under RMS's definition, is quite thoroughly restricted in its use and distribution.
This is especially true of software like GNU Readline. Readline is a library; programmers are supposed to link the Readline library to their programs and call Readline functions from within their code. Readline is licensed under the GPL, and as such, any software that is linked to it must also be licensed under the GPL. (Note that this is distinctly different from the LGPL, although that license has serious restrictions as well.)
I have personal experience with this. Two years ago I was assigned the task of rewriting a large portion of one of my company's products to remove dependencies on Readline. The details of the GPL had not been sufficiently understood by our company's legal department, and approval had been given to use Readline in our program. Naturally we had no intention of releasing our software under the GPL, so we had no choice but to remove Readline from our program completely. This cost us a deadline, and several weeks of work.
These restrictions are carefully hidden under the banner "free software." Orwell could have taken lessons from RMS's use of newspeak here. "This license seriously restricts what you can and can't do with this program. We will therefore call it 'free.'"
The GPL is a software license, nothing more. And like all licenses, it gives the user of the software certain rights, and spells out certain restrictions. That's all it does. In the case of the GPL, the rights include things like, (in paraphrase) "You have the right to compile and run this software. You have the right to redistribute this software without changing it. You have the right to change this software without redistributing it." And so on. The restrictions are simpler: "You may not redistribute this software under another license."
How software licensed under the GPL is more "free" than other software is lost on me. I get more rights with GPL'd software than I do with some other software, but I get fewer rights than I would with BSD-licensed software. So how is it free?
That's where the doublethink comes in. See, the GPL restricts the rights of the user in order to preserve the "right" of the software itself to be "free."
In order to make that sentence work, you have to twist your definition of the words "right" and "free" so far that they're in danger of breaking. That's not right, and it's my biggest problem with RMS and his group.
This has gone on far too long, so I'll just stop here and sum up.
1. RMS and I do not agree on the basic assumptions of his philosophy.
2. RMS's writings are laced with rhetorical propaganda techniques that simply could not have crept in there by accident. This leads me to wonder why he chooses to resort to these techniques if he truly believes himself to be in the right, and to suspect that we might not know everything about his true agenda.
3. RMS's use of the word "free" to describe GPL-licensed software is deceptive. This blatant use of the word "free" in a misleading way really makes me angry.
All of these things, plus a few I didn't take the time to mention, have led me to hate RMS's beliefs, the GNU organization, and the Free Software Foundation, and to vocally oppose them.
(Now I sit back and watch my karma evaporate.)