Slashdot Mirror


Apple and Linux Beneficial to Each Other?

viewstyle writes "There is an interesting commentary on eWEEK discussing the 'synergies' between Apple and Linux after visiting LinuxWorld. It makes a good point that advancement of Linux is good for Mac OS X and vice versa, because of the ease of porting across the platforms (soon to get easier with the X11 on Mac OS X)." Next thing you know, most of the Slashdot editors and programmers will be using Macs ...

670 comments

  1. But they are! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    >Next thing you know, most of the Slashdot editors and programmers will be using Macs ...

    But this is already happening. Cmdr Taco and Hemos both have Mac laptops, and from what I read online on their pages/blogs, they are their main machines these days!

    I am thinking of buying a 12" Powerbook for myself. I have many PCs over here (8+) and an old G4 machine. But I need a new laptop, and that 12" powerbook does look good. :)

    1. Re:But they are! by mAIsE · · Score: 0

      It is definitely a winner for the "at least it isn't m$" crowd.

      But what other platform can you do this on ?

      ps auxww |grep -i microsoft |xargs kill Ð9

    2. Re:But they are! by alfredo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      BTW, KDE 3 runs great on the Mac. So does Gnome.

      --
      photosMy Photostream
    3. Re:But they are! by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 3, Interesting

      :shudder: You say that like it's a good thing. Given that Macs are generally slower than PC's, and generally more expensive, the only reason to own one-- and I own three-- is to run Mac OS X, Finder and all. If you want to run KDE or Gnome, buy a PC instead.

      --

      I write in my journal
    4. Re:But they are! by MrLint · · Score: 1

      I went to look at the 12" PB the other day iand it smaller than the old PB duos.. nice thing.. Howver the screen is high res for its size... but its also a small screen. at some point we are gonn a have ultra tiny hi res screens we cant read:)

    5. Re:But they are! by motorsabbath · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have one OSX box (867 MHz) and a bunch of Slackware and FreebSD boxes. If you want to run KDE, do it on inexpensive x86 (hopefully AMD :) equipment. If you're gonna spend the loot on a Mac, use Aqua. It's a great interface, I love it. My next purchase will definately be a Powerbook (my Thinkpad is beginning to show its age).

      Cheers - JB

      --
      The heat from below can burn your eyes out
    6. Re:But they are! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The screen is just as high res as the 12" iBook displays have been for the past year and a half..

    7. Re:But they are! by stor · · Score: 2, Funny

      Using Macs? It's official then! The ./ editors are gay!

      Hey hey settle I'm just kidding eeeiiiii?

      Cheers
      Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
    8. Re:But they are! by fault0 · · Score: 1

      > If you want to run KDE or Gnome, buy a PC instead.

      Or run Linux on it?

    9. Re:But they are! by Gortbusters.org · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Don't forget how the apple section of Slashdot also appeared around the time they got the laptops too.

      --
      --------
      Free your mind.
    10. Re:But they are! by York+the+Mysterious · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you want to run KDE on a DESKTOP then get a PC. Desktops are desktops (at least while Apple has a plain old boring design on the PowerMacs). Now laptops are a whole different story. Apple does a great job of making interesting and neat hardware to use. This is very important in laptops. I've used a lot of PC laptops and while they might be faster than Apple laptops they just aren't very functional. Big bulky with poor design. It's all about the little things and I think that Apple understands that.

      -Tim

      --

      Tim Smith - Ramblings from Nerd Land
    11. Re:But they are! by MrLint · · Score: 1

      i dont own one of those either

    12. Re:But they are! by RevAaron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      pudge is a Mac user himself. And being a Slashdot editor, I bet he even knew about Taco and Hemos. So, you see, it was supposed to be funny. Maybe not yuk-it-up funny, but all the same.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    13. Re:But they are! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a lifetime mac user, I have to say that I never really cared about open source or linux or anything of that nature before OS X.

      I have to say that Linux would be the only way to go for me if Apple somehow moved in a direction I was unwilling to go, heaven forbid this happens.

      Open source has given so much more to me than any commercial outfit, other than Apple, in terms of computing options and knowledge. It has comfortably eased me into the Unix/Linux environment. I now feel welcomed by a Linux box rather than intimidated. Fink has also expanded the amount of programs I have available to me. It makes many popular open source programs available to me that I would have never even tried to use if I was stuck on Windows or the classic Mac OS.

      Thank you opensource, and thank you Apple for opening the doors.
    14. Re:But they are! by Fuzzle · · Score: 1

      I own a 12in iBook. Trust me...the screen res is only 1024*768 and you wouldnt want it smaller. Aqua is unusable at 8*6. Buy the PBook. It looks sweet, but it will blister your crotch with its heat.

    15. Re:But they are! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I didn't mean to gloat really. I want to express how much I thank the opensource community for their tireless efforts to make computers truly functional machines.

      Going beyond processor wars, or OS rivalries (leave that to the companies who make the products), We all know that there are 3 classes of computer users:
      1. People who don't care about the computers, they just want them to work.
      2. Ignorant people that act like they are in category three, but know nothing beyond group one, yet constantly attack the other platforms.
      3. People who truely know what they are doing, they know the advantages/disadvantages of each platform. They, when attainable, don't confine themselves to one platform or idea. They scower for information wherever possible, and never stop learning.

      I know there are 10,000 different levels and mixtures of these traits, but this can fit in a thread.

      Macs are expensive, given, but I have to say that it is my prefered platform, and somthing that I am going to be spending so much time using, I won't use somthing that I don't prefer. It really is as simple as that. I look up to people that can "tame" Linux and make it do just what they want, when they want, and how they want. They make the same sacrifices that we mac users do, in a not as simple-to-manipulate environment. We are in the same boat, always have been, just now we are stomping on common ground.
      We don't believe we should use inferior products just cause everybody else does, we work around the roadblocks to use our preferred system. We all "think different" (not trying to be cheesy, though I know it sounds that way).

    16. Re:But they are! by MrLint · · Score: 1

      i hear that brother.. i put jagon my old g3 desktop butwith an old 640x480 monitor.. its.. umm... hard to use... to put it mildly.

    17. Re:But they are! by baryon351 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Macs are expensive, given, but I have to say that it is my prefered platform, and somthing that I am going to be spending so much time using, I won't use somthing that I don't prefer. It really is as simple as that

      I find it rather interesting to see techs whose main criticism of a mac is its price, quoting the difference between a top G4 and a top PC they've built themselves, with price differences in the low few thousands...

      ...And then see them driving a $30,000 car they spend less than an hour in each day.

      It's priorities. Occasionally I spend upwards of 10-14 hours a day in front of my mac. It gets -used-, it affects me, and I want to be comfortable with it.

    18. Re:But they are! by Penguin+Follower · · Score: 1

      if you want blistering heat... try Pentium 4 laptop...

    19. Re:But they are! by axxackall · · Score: 1
      I confirm: My Macs run both Gnome and KDE without problems.

      More genererally, there is no any significant problems of running Gentoo Linux PPC on Macs :)

      --

      Less is more !
    20. Re:But they are! by erat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Perhaps... But when I plunked down a couple grand for my brand spankin' new iMac, I did so because I wanted to get away from that stuff. If I wanted a fast computer that ran KDE or GNOME, I would have stuck with my dual 1GHz PIII system with Linux on it.

      Quite frankly, KDE, GNOME, and even Linux bore the hell out of me now (I started with Linux back in '91. It was fun back then. It's not fun anymore). I'm having a better time with this goofy iMac than I've had with any computer or OS in years. Why ruin it?

      Just my $0.02...

    21. Re:But they are! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People keep their cars for 10-20 years. People keep their computers for 1-2 years. Also, you see many more people driving a $25k Honda Accord than a $35k Lexus. Do the math it's the same thing, you can simply get more for your money if you buy a PC. People aren't stupid and there's a reason why the Mac market is so small.

    22. Re:But they are! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You're talking potentials. Yes, you could use a 20 year old car to do the same as a 6 month old one, unlike a 20 year old computer. However, you're conveniently ignoring a little thing called reality that often brings 'theoretical' arguments undone.

      Most people trade up their cars in under 5 years.

      Most mac users use their macs around 5 years.

      Fairly similar time periods - do the math.

    23. Re:But they are! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking retarded slashdot posters, always willing to argue on minutae and ignore the whole point of a message. Good, people only drive $25k cars, the point still stands. if you're a geek and working at a machine for 10 hours a day like the OP said, it's worth putting just a few thousand dollars into the machinery you're sitting in front of. Read the post again, he stated complaints about techs whose main complaint was price.

      If thats your only issue, a few thousand for something as pervasive as a computer is chickenfeed.

    24. Re:But they are! by pudge · · Score: 1

      No, they got their laptops months later.

    25. Re:But they are! by pudge · · Score: 1

      Yeah ... basically, there are only two fulltime Slashdot editors/programmers who don't use Macs. And soon there will be only one ...

    26. Re:But they are! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah there is - it LOOKS GOOD as well (people still look at you and wonder what it is, with the cool glowing apple logo etc)!

    27. Re:But they are! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yeah ... basically, there are only two fulltime Slashdot editors/programmers who don't use Macs. And soon there will be only one ...

      Breaking news! Slashdot editor/programmer to be fired!

      What a way to end a Friday.

    28. Re:But they are! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most PC Users *I KNOW* are stupid, they don't know anything about computers and still spend alot more money than I do, only to find out that 'out of the box' they can't do what I can on my iMac G4 'out of the box'!

    29. Re:But they are! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen to that!

      Granted, I could have gotten an PC laptop for at least $300 less than my 2001 Ibook-but the usuability was worth the extra buckage. Another issue (at least for Ibooks) is the durability. My Ibook has survived several headers off the table (2 while running) thanks to the kids, but is still ticking along.

      Mike

    30. Re:But they are! by colinleroy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can see some: why a mac:
      a) as another pointed out, macs look good
      b) if you avoid revision A machines they have a much longer life length than any PC
      c) Apple did not integrate TCPA and DRM-related shit, until yet at least
      d) most people don't care about the speed of their computer once they don't have to wait for it (ie 1GHz G4 or 5GHz P4, i can't see the difference)
      e) big endian ;-))

      why linux:
      f) most of the X11 desktop managers are much faster than this bloated Aqua thing
      g) gnu/linux is free
      h) much more software choice with linux than macos.

      --
      blah
    31. Re:But they are! by Peer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hey, wait a minute.

      Why can't I be a Slashdot editor/programmer? I allready have a Mac, and my speling sucks!

      EDIT: Oops sorry, it's a dupe

    32. Re:But they are! by mr_nba · · Score: 1

      It's official then! The ./ editors are gay!

      Oh I get i - ./ the gay /. :)

    33. Re:But they are! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if your computer crashes you won't die...but you might if your car does!

      Plus your car won't depreciate 50% in 6 months.

      And a Dell is a babe magnet...not!

    34. Re:But they are! by nettdata · · Score: 1

      I find it rather interesting to see techs whose main criticism of a mac is its price, quoting the difference between a top G4 and a top PC they've built themselves, with price differences in the low few thousands... ...And then see them driving a $30,000 car they spend less than an hour in each day.

      It's priorities. Occasionally I spend upwards of 10-14 hours a day in front of my mac. It gets -used-, it affects me, and I want to be comfortable with it.


      I _SOOO_ agree. I have a software development company with about 12 employees, and we ALL work from home about 90% of the time. Friends and relatives look at me strange when they see the coin I spend on my work environment at home. $3k for a custom desk that has everything I need, where I want it. $1k for a chair (Herman Miller Aeron). $4k for a 22" mac Cinema Display for my top-end powerBook. The list goes on and on.

      A lot of them have comments like "wow, you like all the toys, don't you". Guess what? They're NOT toys!

      A couple of developers came over to my place the other day and one of them used my system for about half an hour. His comment was "Wow... I could work ALL DAY here without a problem! That's a sweet setup!" As a result, he's started to invest some of his own cash into a more pleasant work environment himself.

      There ya go... I _DO_ spend LOTS of time at that setup... more than I spend with my fiance, in my car, wherever. No only is it my job, it's also one of my hobbies. And I'll tell you straight up that it's much more effective and efficient time spent because of the "toys".

      --



      $0.02 (CDN)
    35. Re:But they are! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would beg to differ on the slowness of a Mac laptop! I use both Mac and PC flavors at our university to do video editing and I can tell you that the PC is not up to the task by any means (Desktops included). My original 400 MHz Titanium easily outpaces most of the ewest PC laptops in many areas. Actually, I would say that Mac OS X makes my old laptop excel and makes newer mobile PC offerings an embaresment (are you listening Michael Dell?!) - pathetic really :)

    36. Re:But they are! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I spend two hours a day in my car and it naturally costs more than a computer, it moves objects at high velocities on a road. There are no excuses for a thousand dollar chair, try working out and maybe you won't need so much comfort for your butt.

    37. Re:But they are! by siskbc · · Score: 1
      First off, I tend to agree - mainly on the aspect of owning an expensive car is retarded. My wife and I share an 8 yr old Ford Contour, so that should give away my position on the matter...

      To me, the most compelling reason to own a mac is "I just like it." If the thing gives you an extra $1000 (or whatever) of enjoyment over the ~3 years you own it, go for it. Hell, compared to a windows machine, there's a good chance that you'd save $1000 in medical bills from your lowered blood pressure, not having to deal with windows.

      However, I will defend, to an extent, people who knock macs. It's not necessarily the absolute price - I would almost bet that any sysadmin with a $30k car isn't running a 400MHz eMachine - it's more likely a really fast P4, probably with a chip under a year old. So, at that point, they're basically saying that they get less computer for their $2000, which I believe - it didn't used to be true, but the arguments of getting less done per clock cycle are harder to maintain with the current disparity. However, I suspect that there are other reasons for their rejecting macs - namely that they *like* building things themselves, which is hard with the lack of hardware diversity for the mac platform. And cost isn't necessarily the issue for everyone - but it is for a lot of us.

      Note that I'm not saying I hate macs or whatever - I used to, but I'm starting to love them with OS X. I've basically turned ours at work into a unix box, and it rocks. Given a couple more years of unix integration and I might even get one for my next computer. Especially if they get more games for it.

      --

      -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

    38. Re:But they are! by Pacratt · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the newer powerbooks are nice. One of the things I find difficult about Macs is the cost of replacement parts.... I just bought an all-in-one MB for my new server for $150 and iMac Mother board is double that plus.

      Gotta say I really like OS 10.2 Jaguar though, I am typing on a Mac running it right now. :)

    39. Re:But they are! by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      If you want to run KDE or Gnome, buy a PC instead.

      One thing I've discovered: I only want one box, and one laptop. More than that is too much trouble to deal with. And they're both going to be Macs. So if I want to run software that's only available in Gnome (and there's some), I'm glad that I can run it on the Mac.

    40. Re:But they are! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet my NForce mobo with a 1.8 Athlon, and two channels for memory access will blow away your little iMac, and I built the whole system for 1400$

    41. Re:But they are! by alfredo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is about flexibility and choice. I do not see KDE and Aqua as an either or choice.

      --
      photosMy Photostream
    42. Re:But they are! by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

      ....try working out and maybe you won't need so much comfort for your butt.

      Exercise is not the cure for bad ergonomics. Would you buy a car with an metal bar and a piece of plywood behind the wheel (instead of a contoured seat)? No amount of jogging makes sitting on a bad seat more comfortable.

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

    43. Re:But they are! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      b) if you avoid revision A machines they have a much longer life length than any PC

      I always love this fallacy. There is nothing more than anecdotal evidence to support this. IT is even more absurb since the most likely to fail piece of equipment on a computer is the hard drive and there is not difference between a PC hard drive and a Mac hard drive.

      I wonder if the addicts enjoy competing with Microsoft to see who can spread more FUD and bullshit.

    44. Re:But they are! by Ponty · · Score: 1

      Don't joke! It happens!

    45. Re:But they are! by Marc2k · · Score: 1

      Plus your car won't depreciate 50% in 6 months.

      Never bought a Neon, didja?

      --
      --- What
    46. Re:But they are! by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      Apple has a plain old boring design on the PowerMacs

      The handles are great for carrying the box around when you need to. The entire right surface of the box opens down for easy access to the entire motherboard. The IDE drives are mounted so that the ribbon cables are only an inch long. The fans are quiet.

      Looking at the case, I get the feeling that somebody thought hard about how to make things easier for me. This is of course not the case with most or all PC cases (yes, I know they cost you however much less).

    47. Re:But they are! by mixmasta · · Score: 1

      So increase the font size, idiot!! ....Sorry, I've heard this stupid complaint about increased resolution so many times it makes me angry now. Better resolution is your friend!!!

      --
      #6495ED - cornflower blue
    48. Re:But they are! by athos-mn · · Score: 1

      That is the first time I've heard ANYONE call the PowerMac case boring. Long in the tooth yes, but still better looking (and MUCH better designed) than other large-scale retailers (yes, custom cases can be cooler, but I don't see any in mass production).

    49. Re:But they are! by Read+Icculus · · Score: 1

      Wow, way to go genius! Thank you for pointing out what was amazingly obvious to those of us who read the front page of slashdot every now and then.

      --
      Anti-social? My code is just platform-specific.
    50. Re:But they are! by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      What is evidence other than gathered anecdotes though? The fact that there is no comprehansive study done on this is probalby because it would take to long to complete in a world where we want more and we want it yesterday.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    51. Re:But they are! by elchuppa · · Score: 1

      I think his point was that you can sit infront of a much nicer PC for 3K than a Mac. At least that's the way I feel.

    52. Re:But they are! by Nordique · · Score: 1

      I disagree with that thought. In my ventures into the linux world, I met so many good folks, that I should want for them to find the Mac interesting, and desirable. It would be a very good thing for linux devotees to try out Macs, and to adopt them. It would be good for the Mac world, as there are many capable folks who are drawn to linux. I like the spirit of independence and resistance from the Penguinistas. The Linux Journal is a great magazine. Having said that, I think on the merits, that BSD is more mature, and gets far too little attention.

    53. Re:But they are! by valmont · · Score: 1

      WHOA my user id is older than pudge's. I feel So Elite now :) thanks Pudge :)

    54. Re:But they are! by valmont · · Score: 1

      let's see here: How about a PowerPC 7500/100 bought in early 1996. So that's uhh 6 years? I used it for two years while in college as a video digitizing platform, web authoring tool, web server (running webstar, and later lass with filemaker pro), a TV (i didn't have TV but i did have a VCR so i ran the dorm's cable to my VCR's tuner then sent the video and sound outputs from the VCR to my mac's video and sound inputs). Then after college i did some web authoring consulting as well as web hosting. I had a good co-location deal at a local ISP where i placed my mac to serve hundreds of web sites, some of them were database-driven using filemaker pro -> lasso -> webstar, i even had a mail server and a dns server running on the thing. So my mac was a dedicated server for a couple of years. After that i bought my own house with a basic residential DSL connection. I stopped the whole consulting and co-location thing, and brought it back at my home where it serves a few hobby domains of mine.

      Ever since i bought the mac, it has been ON every single day of its life, minus maybe a few days here and there when i was moving or tweaking it or upgrading its processor, its hard drives, added level 3 cache, added more RAM, PCI cards for Ultra2 SCSI support.

      6 years.

      every single day.

      It's still running. in fact i'm ssh'ed into it rite now from work. Well yeah i couldn't resist installing LinuxPPCQ42000 back in 2000. heh.

      It's still using the same power supply. same mobo.

      shit i could spend a couple hundred bucks right now and upgrade it to a G4 and run OS X server if i wanted.

      yeah. if that's not hard evidence of shelf-life and i don't fucking know what is.

      heh.

    55. Re:But they are! by pudge · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but I had this user ID before I was elite! ;-)

    56. Re:But they are! by valmont · · Score: 1

      *scratching head*. *raising eyebrow*. OH OKEE COOL :) hehe

    57. Re:But they are! by York+the+Mysterious · · Score: 1

      I'm typing this on a mirror drive G4, but the fact remains that they are still a very outdated design. They have completely redone the interior design with the introduction of the mirror drive PM and they have tweaked the design of the exterior a bit, but it's still as old as the blue and white G3s. -Tim

      --

      Tim Smith - Ramblings from Nerd Land
  2. X11... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    pronounced "10-11" by Steve Jobs!

    1. Re:X11... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha ha, really?

    2. Re:X11... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sequel to IX11?

    3. Re:X11... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Porting X11 to OSX is like fixing a flat tire by deflating the other 3.

      Mod me down, but you know it's true.

    4. Re:X11... by Nutrimentia · · Score: 1

      No it isn't true at all.

      Don't ask me why I bothered replying to this troll though.

    5. Re:X11... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the point that the illustrious Anonymous Coward was trying to make is that one is introducing an inferior GUI layer on top of a state-of-the-art one in order to run legacy applications. One of the reasons Quartz was designed around display postscript was to enable possible "remote desktop" type applications for Mac; otherwise, they would have just stuck to the usual bitmap based methods. What Quartz is is everything X11 dreams of being, ergo the "community" would be better off porting applications FROM X11 TO Quartz rather than stapling this pile of crap onto Apple's masterpiece. Also, have you ever even LOOKED into the X11 source? Some real shitty stuff, man.

    6. Re:X11... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pine... just waiting for the day they port Aqua to linux!

    7. Re:X11... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have YOU ever even LOOKED into the Quartz source?

    8. Re:X11... by stocke2 · · Score: 1

      although I might agree with much of what you say, I must point out one flaw. NeXTStep was based on display postscript...OS X is based on display PDF.

      --
      A Smith & Wesson beats four aces -- Murphy's Law of Poker
    9. Re:X11... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He mistakes the ones for "I"s. He pronounces it "twelve"

    10. Re:X11... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, PDF is a superset of postscript.

    11. Re:X11... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I found this extra funny because there is a "feature" in OS X that if you use the text to speech on "OS X" it says "OS Ten". I tried it on X11 and it says "X eleven" so even if SJ pronounces it wrong, the mac doesn't. :)

      Daniel

    12. Re:X11... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would we want to port our apps to a proprietary interface that could potentially be gone in 5 years? Because X is OSS it will never go away. It may be replaced, but only by something that is fairly compatible.

      As for Quartz, it's slow and doesn't allow themeability beyond blue or gray. This has always been one my big complaints w/Macs. They talk about the user being in control but if I'm in control, let me change the fscking color scheme! I can't stand all this blue. Windows blue. Macintosh blue, ugh!

    13. Re:X11... by _typo · · Score: 1
      The "X11 sucks!" partyline is old. Get a new one.


      Let me break down your arguments.


      one is introducing an inferior GUI layer on top of a state-of-the-art one in order to run legacy applications


      X11 is not a GUI, it's a device-independent, network-transparent way to draw stuff on screens.


      One of the reasons Quartz was designed around display postscript was to enable possible "remote desktop" type applications for Mac; otherwise, they would have just stuck to the usual bitmap based methods.


      One common misconception about X11 is that it's tied to the rendering model. It's not. The designers of X11 knew that the wire protocol could survive time, but that the rendering method couldn't. They designed the protocol acordingly. It so happens that the original rendering method was good enough for a long time. Nowadays it's getting outdated, but there are efforts to create new ones. See Keith Packard's work.


      Also, have you ever even LOOKED into the X11 source? Some real shitty stuff, man.


      There's no such thing as the X11 source. X11 is a protocol, like HTTP or FTP. Xfree86 (which I assume you meant) is one of it's implementations, but not the only one. I haven't looked at the code for Xfree86 yet but it used to suck a hole lot more in the 3.x days.


      To wrap this up and to awnser all your inflated comments on how MacOSX stuff is so much better and X11 a pile of crap, I'd like to say that X11 has survived the test of time, Quartz hasn't. Considering that Next's similar technology didn't take over X11 I'd say X11 is here to stay.

      --

      Pedro Côrte-Real.

    14. Re:X11... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10-11? Talking to Rapidly?

  3. Common Office platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If they can work towards an open file format system to replace MS office, they could chip away @ the MS desktop market.

    1. Re:Common Office platform by thryllkill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think that one of the reason's OS X is having such success as a desktop Unix is that it has a native MS Office to work with. Say what you will about Windows, but I have never had a problem working with their Office products. Pay for windows? Nah brah. But I have no problem paying for something that works well.

      --

      Note to self: No more arguing with the faithful.

    2. Re:Common Office platform by Xzzy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      it's not at issue, from what little I pay attention to the anti-office crusade I see it's mostly an issue of open standards.

      linux zealots wouldn't give two bits about Office, either microsoft's or sun's, if the file formats had been open and documented. Because competitive full featured suites would have popped into existence 5 years ago.

      think where open source could be today if the community was able to boast a complete clone (for lack of a better word) of microsoft office. Not just claim it now.. but years ago.

    3. Re:Common Office platform by neuroticia · · Score: 2

      You say that like people CARE about "open". In fact, a lot of people (non-techs, and even some MS-head techs) think that "Open Source" means two things. 1- Free (thus cheap and flawed) and 2- BAD because it's a "security risk" and so on and so forth.

      They'd have to change the way people THINK in order to get them to adopt a new "standard", and that's QUITE hard. A lot of people still don't know that "Mac" is a different type of computer, and that it's not made by Microsoft, and that it's not a "Microsoft Mac". (I knew someone who called computers Microsoft-IBMs and Microsoft-Macs because they ran office, and because he didn't know what the hell he was talking about.) There are a LOT of people like this. In fact, MOST people are like this. Why do you think MS stuff is so popular? Because a lot of people STILL don't know anything else exists.

      -Sara

    4. Re:Common Office platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yay" for the embracing of the obvious. I would mod you up if I could, crime fighter.

    5. Re:Common Office platform by Wiwi+Jumbo · · Score: 1

      Um.. Couldn't this be interpreted as a strike against the GPL and open standards?

      If we take your statements as fact then MS wouldn't nearly be in the posistion that it is now.

      Isn't this just more of a reason why companies should keep their info to themselves?

      (Not that I agree with that statment)

      I sometimes feel that getting a good Office Suite shouldn't be dependend on a .doc reader/writer but should be based on interface. If there was a better program out there .doc compatability wouldn't be as important...

      --
      Wiwi
      "I trust in my abilities,
      but I want more then they offer"
    6. Re:Common Office platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the "nah brah" thing is a running joke between friend of mine, didn't mean to let it run over into my post, sorry...

    7. Re:Common Office platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It all depends upon the business model and what business a company is actually in. GPL makes GREAT sense to companies who sell support, software integration and hardware based around open standards. They can contribute where needed to accomplish their goals while not having to worry about the contributions being horfed up by the competition and remarketed with subtle incompatabilities.

      Hi IBM.

    8. Re:Common Office platform by umofomia · · Score: 3, Insightful
      it's not at issue, from what little I pay attention to the anti-office crusade I see it's mostly an issue of open standards.

      linux zealots wouldn't give two bits about Office,...

      But Linux zealots aren't the ones making Macs successful. The ones who buy Macs the most are regular users that like the Mac interface while still being able to use their familiar MS Office programs. I think that is what thryllkill intended to say in his post.
    9. Re:Common Office platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, fuck that first guy for dissing the kine lingo brah... (English spelling "braugh")

      seriously, type whatever you want, don't mind the trolls, crush them with your fingers. I'm crushing, crushing them with my fingers.

    10. Re:Common Office platform by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      A good office suite, at this point in time, depends on how compatible it is with Microsoft's .doc format. Unfortunately we live in a world where technically inferior but commonly accepted software and hardware owns the market.

      You're talking about competing on a level playing field. Everyone knows by now that Microsoft can't play ball without creating a hill for them to pitch from. That's why the .doc format is locked down and changes with each new version of Office and Word. Same goes for NTFS..I'm starting to think the file system changes so often not to add features but to create a moving target that's hard to interoperate with (read: kernel modules).

    11. Re:Common Office platform by zangdesign · · Score: 1

      They've got one - it's called RTF. It's pretty much embedded in the system. If that's not good enough, there's also the option to encode documents as PDF. Additionally, you have XML.

      Admittedly, these won't cover every application under the sun, but they can certainly handle the most common of office application requirements.

      The way the programming environment is set up, you don't really need Open Office for OS X, since the native classes can build a word processor or a spreadsheet with very little effort.

      Take a look at Mellel. If you can ignore the hype about all the new, innovative features (which is pretty much marketing hyperbole), something like that can be cooked up in a weekend or two without much coding at all. And it will be able to save in a format that's readily interpreted by some other application on just about every platform.

      --
      To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
    12. Re:Common Office platform by shellbeach · · Score: 3, Informative
      FWIW, MSOffice - or at least, MSWord - does have an open file format that is almost 100% compatible with native .doc - it's called RTF, is extensively documented on Microsoft's Web Site, is an open standard and has been around for years.

      In fact you can (and I have done so) write a RTF document with nothing but a text editor (although it's not the most pleasant of things ... but that's not the point :). It supports just about everything .doc does - including footnotes, endnotes, margin spacing, layout, etc.

      So the "open file format" issue can't be all that's behind the lack of good open-sourced office suites!

    13. Re:Common Office platform by Ace+Rimmer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hmm... you probably never got a .doc e-mail attachment (with something important). If you tried to convince them to send it in .rtf instead of .doc you'd get a) why do you need it? b) i see, i don't know how to do it c) did you said it was possible in MS Office d) they'd be pissed of your "amateur" approach...

      --

      :wq

    14. Re:Common Office platform by sheriff_p · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps where you work. Working in the anti-virus field, it's often policy that no .doc files go through the mail server - guidelines state that if someone sends you a .doc file, you should write back and ask for .rtf.

      The turning point is normally pointing out to the sender that:

      a) If they send a macro virus, they could be liable
      b) They may be sending a lot more information that they wish to by using .doc

      --
      Score:-1, Funny
    15. Re:Common Office platform by Skater · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The good news, though, is that younger people do know about Linux and other options. Two employees that started within the last year (fresh out of college) both know and use Linux, and we don't work in the IT industry. Before they started, I don't think anyone that works around me knew about it (other than hearing me mention it).

      --RJ

    16. Re:Common Office platform by Pig+Bodine · · Score: 1

      But I have no problem paying for something that works well.

      There are plenty of people with specialized needs for whom it doesn't work well. Last time I used the Word equation editor it crashed on me, in addition to being a not-very-convenient interface. Everything I have to do with Word is mercifully short, but I still hear people complaining about what a mess it is for large documents. But since it's a closed format and a de facto standard, we're forced to use it anyway (in my case only occasionally). That sucks.

    17. Re:Common Office platform by dalamcd · · Score: 1
      They may be sending a lot more information that they wish to by using .doc

      Some friends of mine have sent me .doc files. Since I don't have Office and the files have always been just text files with a little formatting, I generally just open them in BBEdit and pick through all the extraneous stuff. I've found things like the full names of other users on the computer, paths to the file itself and other stuff, etc. And these are just files that were written, saved, and sent in the space of a couple of minutes... dunno what I'd find in a file that used a lot of the options in Office.

      dalamcd

      --
      moer liek CELtroid prime!!@1!
    18. Re:Common Office platform by legojenn · · Score: 1
      This is really getting off-topic, but I like a good me-too on a Friday morning

      b) They may be sending a lot more information that they wish to by using .doc

      I work in a law office, and we used to send out our legal opinions in .doc format. We went out and spend a hella-lot of money on Acrobat 5. (We could have just installed a post-script printer driver and ghostscript, but that is another rant.) Our lawyers and our clients are not very savvy when it comes to using computers so the security concerns with using Office and the .doc format were largely ignored until one our clients looked at the changes. He didn't like the advice we gave him, but noticed the opinion was originally going the way he wanted, but the counsel changed her mind. This led to challenges, accusations of un-professionalism and a negative working environment.

      So we dropped one proprietary format for another. I can't wait for the trouble we get into with Acrobat. I really hated giving money to Adobe.

      --
      I make a reasonable middle-class wage by going to work and not spamming blogs with scams.
    19. Re:Common Office platform by hcdejong · · Score: 1

      MS Office 11 will use an XML-based file format, which could mean that it becomes a lot easier for office suites to interoperate with MSO.

    20. Re:Common Office platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, the PDF format is an open specification. Anyone can write a PDF encoder or interpreter.

    21. Re:Common Office platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      stupid yuppie larvae faggot.

      In the coming class war you will die!
      Cl@ss w@r!

    22. Re:Common Office platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey Sarah. Can I put my cock in your ass?

    23. Re:Common Office platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember though that WordPerfect was numero uno for years and years. It was not supplanted by Word because of Word's compatibility. Word had poor compatibility and fewer features. The only difference was that WPCorp didn't release a Windows version until too late.

      So in a sense, Word won because it had a better interface (WYSIWYG) than WordPerfect (text-mode).

      I love their 5.x series for Windows, though. It was a piece of art. It ran fast even on low-end machines and had features that WordXP still doesn't have. I've tried to find it on abandonware sites to run on my Linux box but haven't found anyone that has a free download.

    24. Re:Common Office platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are many features which do not exist in RTF. It may work for your simple documents but it doesn't cut the mustard for more complex stuff.

      Use OpenOffice.org for Windows. The Linux version sucks since it has no quick start and is less stable.

    25. Re:Common Office platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the compression will still be proprietary.

    26. Re:Common Office platform by shellbeach · · Score: 1
      Agreed. But I was simply pointing out that there was an open file format common to MSOffice for years, not commenting on whether anyone uses it or not :)

      In any case ... it occurs to me that if every competitive suite hadn't been falling over themselves backwards to provide .doc support, but had focussed on provided extremely good .rtf support, then attachments might be arriving as .rtfs today, not .docs? Well, probably not :) But it's a thought ...

    27. Re:Common Office platform by BerntB · · Score: 1
      This is so long after that noone will ever read this, but...

      Years and years ago I did some code that generated rtf (documents from database that should be formatted in Pagemaker). I read the standards and looked at what Word 4 generated -- my code generated rtf that was NOT compatible with Word 5... :-(

      --
      Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    28. Re:Common Office platform by shellbeach · · Score: 1
      This is so long after that noone will ever read this, but...

      Not quite :)

      Years and years ago I did some code that generated rtf (documents from database that should be formatted in Pagemaker). I read the standards and looked at what Word 4 generated -- my code generated rtf that was NOT compatible with Word 5... :-(

      I must say that as a "standard", rtf is @#!!$% awful ... while I did manage to write rtf in vim, and also wrote a perl script that sort-of worked in order to change e-text books from Project Gutenberg into formatted rtf, trudging through MS's documentation I found pretty awful. And depressing - you couldn't help thinking how much better the whole standard could have been organised.

      And there seemed to be a certain sequence for an rtf document to be read correctly in Word - I couldn't find any reason for this reading the documentation, but Word wanted you to include certain tags that shouldn't really have been required. In the end I gave up trying to understand it and just added in the crap from a blank MS-Word rtf document onto the beginning of the file. At least that worked :)

    29. Re:Common Office platform by BerntB · · Score: 1
      Our experiences are not unique and this is an "open" standard from Microsoft -- the company really is evil.

      The existence of the concept "evil" is not easy for a hard line atheist like myself to accept.

      --
      Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
  4. Hemos at linux.conf.au by MrDelSarto · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I attended Jeff Bates's talk at linux.conf.au where he gave his presentation using OS X. The only presenter all week who dared to use a non-Linux platform.

    1. Re:Hemos at linux.conf.au by MrDelSarto · · Score: 2, Interesting

      oh, sorry to reply to myself but i might add there were plenty of apple laptops there running linux, mine included. The other notable Apple laptop user was Rusty Russell, writer of IP tables and more recently the new kernel module architecture.

    2. Re:Hemos at linux.conf.au by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how it would go over if someone at the next Macworld giving a presentation wasn't using OSX? Or, heaven forbid, used WindowsXP?

      I can't believe Hemos and the others don't "eat their own dog food", so to speak. What an insult to the Linux community. What a slap in the face. Sure, Macs have a great GUI and all that, but Jeez! That's the whole point - Linux is the underdog right now, the up-and-comer; we're supposed to support it and help bring it to the level where it equals the commercial offerings, not bail because you can't live without iTunes and can't wait for a Linux version. I love Macs as much as the next guy (NeXT guy?), but I would have walked out of his speech. When you present in front of Bill Gates, you have the decency to run your presentation on his software and OS. When you present in front of Steve Jobs, you change your "Crapple Sucks" desktop background. When you present as a Linux guru, don't show them that MSN is your homepage. Very unprofessional of Hemos, and an ugly vote of non-confidence. I think Hemos is probably just a journalist who sometimes covers the free software movement because it's "hot" right now and he has no real attachment to the ideals of the free software movement.

      The problem with Apple is that there's an open door of communication between Linux and Mac, but it's largely a one-way door. I think - no, i KNOW - Apple's commitment to open-source is shallow. Steve Jobs doesn't want to change and become a full member of the open-source community, or become an open-source company - he just sees us as "unnoficial R&D", the same way Microsoft sees Apple. Steve Jobs doesn't understand the ethical or technical benefits of open-source or free software, or else he'd be opening his source code when he's not legally bound to, or trying to popularize a new protocol (rendezvous). He'd FULLY open-source OSX, INCLUDING HIS PRIZED GUI. I thought they would, years ago, because they're a hardware company first and foremost. If their hardware is good enough, they can compete strictly on the merits of their hardware and their OSX integration (which would only be improved by open-sourcing it). But Steve sadly realized their hardware can't compete on its own merits without special proprietary software to draw people in. So he needs to keep some aces in the hole at the expense of the users.

      And in the end, Steve, being a good (cutthroat) businessman, wants to assimilate all the Linux and Unix users into using Macs and OSX. He NEEDS the developers working on Mac software, he NEEDS the influx of cash and users. To badly mangle a famous quote, "Those who would give up a bit of freedom to have a bit of GUI deserve neither freedom nor GUI."

      Apple is feeding off the open source community, which is fine and legal, but besides some general bug fixes, and giving out source code *which can only be run on OSX*, I can't see this helping open-source at all. Especially with them wooing a lot of good programmers into writing *proprietary software*. The war isn't Apple versus Microsoft versus Linux, it's closed versus open. Apple is stepping on our heads to get to Microsoft. And when they get there, if they win (with our help), THEY WILL *BE* THE NEW MICROSOFT. Free software is the only guaranteed protection against a total Big Brother world. And I do mean FREE software, not just OPEN. Apple supports DRM, they used the DMCA, they have their users under their thumb. They ARE as bad as Microsoft, but they make cool hardware and software, so we forgive them. But they aren't good for Linux. Trust me, when Linux becomes a threat, Apple will fight hard to kill Linux and keep it down. That's the nature of corporate America. That's the nature of Apple.

    3. Re:Hemos at linux.conf.au by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > not bail because you can't live without
      > iTunes and can't wait for a Linux

      bad news, dude. nobody said he was running OS X on his Apple. plenty of people buy Apple hardware and wipe the hd and put something else on it.

      additionally:

      > Linux is the underdog right now, the up-and-
      > comer; we're supposed to support it and help
      > bring it to the level where it equals the
      > commercial offerings

      that's a nice mentality to have, but i think at the end of the day people are just going to use what they like. dogma is bad, whether it's OSS, OS X, or WinTel. don't cheer for the underdog, cheer for the company that makes what you like.

    4. Re:Hemos at linux.conf.au by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      bad news, dude. nobody said he was running OS X on his Apple. plenty of people buy Apple hardware and wipe the hd and put something else on it.

      He IS running OSX on it. Ask him. Ask ANY of the Slashdot editors. I wonder if Steve Jobs is still running Windows, like he was when he was first rehired by Apple? How would that look for Apple? How does THIS look?

      that's a nice mentality to have, but i think at the end of the day people are just going to use what they like. dogma is bad, whether it's OSS, OS X, or WinTel. don't cheer for the underdog, cheer for the company that makes what you like.

      Fine. I like Adolph Hitler and the KKK, then. Are you SURE ethics shouldn't affect your judgement? If I like the packaging on Saddam-Brand oil better than American Oil, what is Saddam gonna buy with the money I hand him when I choose to buy from him because you told me good and evil don't really exist?

      I'll see you in 10 years when Apple has displaced the Microsoft monopoly and you're locked down tighter than you could ever imagine... We can watch them buckle to the feds (as they will) and put DRM in every piece of closed-source software they make, with a backdoor sending your browsing and online shopping habits directly to George Dubya, nameless strangers in the CIA, and your mother. And if you try to hack a patch to get around that, the NSA will be at your door in 30 minutes, and you'll be spending forever in Camp XRay with me and the other scumbag hippie communists who believe in that Constitution crap.

      What I said was, Linux needs people to help it improve. The sky's the limit with open source. But a lot of people are giving up hastily and taking the easy road (buying a Mac), rather than adding the same functionality to Linux. With Linux, we don't end up with a monopoly ramming crap down our throats, we don't end up with file format lock-in, we don't end up with backdoors in our software, we don't end up with DRM, we don't end up getting threatened by the BSA for piracy.

      There are A LOT of advantages that only Linux has - even the BSD's don't have all the same advantages because of their different licensing. If we put effort into Linux, it will be the greatest system in the world, the fairest system in the world, the most open system in the world, and the first ever truly level playing field for application developers to compete on. It is the answer to solve all the problems and inequality the tech sector is suffering from right now. Apple's not the anwer - not because their stuff doesn't rock, because it does - but just because they're using the same traditional business model that leads to and aids in the creation of inequality and unfair barriers to competition for developers. If Linux takes over, Apple will surely still sell a load of cool hardware, and even more cool iApps, and Gnome GUI patches galore, but there won't be any backdoors or DRM, and they'll have to compete fairly, based on their merits, like everyone else, even Microsoft (who will sell a load of MSOffice and Halo).

  5. obligatory comment by sirsampson · · Score: 0, Redundant

    if they weren't so expensive I'd have one already

    1. Re:obligatory comment by hatrisc · · Score: 1, Insightful

      they are just as expensive as new pcs these days. if you look at the price of a new non mac notebook, say a ibm thinkpad, you'll pay no less than $1600. on the other hand you can buy the lowest end 12" powerbook for $999

      --
      I write code.
    2. Re:obligatory comment by Basehart · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same thing then checked out the $ situation of desktop G4 systems at the apple store and....wow. the base system - 1GHz proc - is only around $1500 - not bad if you ask me.

    3. Re:obligatory comment by dheeraj · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, good point. Because we all know IT geeks, sysadmins, software engineers, etc. -- you know, your average Slashdot reader -- are dirt poor.

      --
      --- Why yes, I am the webmaster of Microsuck.com
    4. Re:obligatory comment by sirsampson · · Score: 1

      rofl, yes yes, good point. I'd even go so far as to guess that most if *us* are scrounging university dial up accts and making the most of the very limited free dial ups still left. Taking whatever hand me down box we can get our hands on.

    5. Re:obligatory comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In response.

      If it didn't hurt my eyes to use their gui I would replace my windows installs with Linux. We can go tit for tat.

    6. Re:obligatory comment by NeuroKoan · · Score: 1

      you can buy the lowest end 12" powerbook for $999

      of course you mean that the 12" iBook is $999. The 12" PowerBook start at $1799. :)

      --

      "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation."
    7. Re:obligatory comment by Exiler · · Score: 1

      Geee... uuuu... aaiiee? Oooh, those old thigngs. You pick and skin them yourself, doogan.

      --
      Banaaaana!
    8. Re:obligatory comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If BMWs weren't so expensive, I'd have one. If Rolex watches weren't so expensive, I'd have two. You pay for good hardware.

    9. Re:obligatory comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OHHHH, so you mean all I have to do to get a user interface that doesn't look like dog shit is spend my precious time making it myself? Thanks for the tip you stupid shitbox fuckbrain niggersauce, I think I'll spend $199 and get a great GUI out of the box, as well as support for every software package that's worth a wet fart.

    10. Re:obligatory comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Touched a nerve, didn't it.

      So, what's the $199 about? KDE selling a boxed edition now?

    11. Re:obligatory comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HA! Funny.

      Wrong, but funny...

  6. Sure, why not? by CoolVibe · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Aplle takes the KHTML engine, improves it, makes a lightweight browser, gives the sourcesn abck to the KDE project.

    Not only Linux wins, but all platforms capable of running KDE win. Huzzah.

    1. Re:Sure, why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Gives the source back', They'd have to give the code out if they wanted to distribute anything, KHTML is GPL.

      This is different from the changes apple made to BSD, which is BSD so they can suck as much fat as they want.

    2. Re:Sure, why not? by pudge · · Score: 1

      No, KHTML is LGPL. Apple just releases the changes it makes to KHTML itself, not the browser source.

  7. first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    check out http://www.apple.com/macosx/x11

  8. they already do! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nt

  9. Linux should be careful by amigaluvr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think care needs to be taken around Apple.

    While they are producing some good stuff now (lets not talk about the past will we) they are a commercial company. That much won't change any time soon

    As such their "priorities" so to speak are different and opposed to those of open source, linux, and software.

    We could end up just feeding apple a lot in the way of open source projects, all up and dancing in a hoohaa of joy.

    What happens when apple change their mind? Suddenly they're not so supportive of OSS. The commercial climate is fickle, and it WILL change

    1. Re:Linux should be careful by sirsampson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      True enough...

      However, them being a commercial company is part of the appeal.

      Things like supported dvd playback, good media support, cohesive destop experience.

      And all other things being equal, a computer purchace (thankfully) isn't forever.

    2. Re:Linux should be careful by jeboyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What happens when apple change their mind?

      That's the great thing about open source: It doesn't matter.

      Once something's been released to the community under an Open Source license, there's nothing Apple (or anyone else, for that matter) can do to prevent it being distributed or used by anybody.

    3. Re:Linux should be careful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good. we feed apple OSS projects, if it's under the GPL they feed us back. If they're commercially succesful with those packages, they get market and mindshare, more improvements to keep them viable and the OSS community benefits.

      If, in the most dramatic case, apple spontaneously reject OSS completely then we still have all their changes. Where's the problem?

    4. Re:Linux should be careful by Garin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, but who cares? In the mean time, Apple cleans up KHTML, gives some credibility to Unix-on-the-desktop, and makes a bunch of pretty notebooks.

      What's the worst that could happen?

      Imagine Jobs has a change of heart tomorrow and decides that open source sucks. So what then? They stop using KHTML. KDE will continue on without them, I guarantee it -- and they'll always have the work that Apple contributed. The xBSD crowd will probably be a little disappointed if Apple stops developing BSD stuff, but it's not going to shut them down or hurt them in any way. Maybe they won't get the benefit of some of Apple's work, if Apple chooses to keep it to themselves, but there's no real subtraction there. BSD software abounds in closed-source applications, yet BSD is still doing just fine (despite what the trolls will have you believe :)

      See, that's the beauty of open source. Companies can -help- by improving the software, but they can't -hurt- by wrecking it for everyone. About the dirtiest trick they could pull would be to try a Microsoftian embrace-and-extend. We've dealt with those before, and they're not that big of a deal in the long run.

      I dunno, I say we encourage Apple to do as much as they can with open source software. They're already discovering just how they CAN make money on OSS, and it's not even in the quasi-traditional "support" line of business that people seem fixated on. They take the best of what's out there, improve it, use it in their products, and contribute back to the community at large. It's win-win, as far as I can see.

      --
      In any field, find the strangest thing and then explore it. -John Archibald Wheeler
    5. Re:Linux should be careful by Osty · · Score: 1

      (emphasis added by me)

      While they are producing some good stuff now (lets not talk about the past will we) they are a commercial company.

      Isn't "commercial company" a little redundant? Companies (in the economic sense) exist to conduct business. "Business" is synonymous with "commerce", the base of "commercial". Or in otherwords, a non-commercial company would not conduct business, and thus cannot be a company (it would be an organization instead).

    6. Re:Linux should be careful by baryon351 · · Score: 1

      They're already discovering just how they CAN make money on OSS, and it's not even in the quasi-traditional "support" line of business that people seem fixated on.

      Oh mark this up as insightful!. Apple are leading in pop-kind-of-way the demonstration of "we're commercial, we also use open source". IBM have been doing the same with their support of linux, but for some reason it doesn't have the mass appeal of "Apple's using OSS and it's smooth! polished! slick!".

      There's 2 things apple are giving the OSS community. Changes to OSS software projects themselves, and marketing! marketing! marketing! :)

    7. Re:Linux should be careful by broody · · Score: 1

      Yeah all corporations are commercial except for "non-stock corporations". This category includes corporations not organized to produce a profit and that do not distribute income to members, board, or directors. The acceptable legal forms, include but are not limited to, corporation, individual enterprise, unincorporated association, partnership, foundation, and some condominiums. They fall under the big old umbrella people call "non-profit corporations".

      --
      ~~ What's stopping you?
    8. Re:Linux should be careful by Garin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, IBM is using Linux. However, we all know that IBM can't market it's way out of a wet paper bag. Apple, though.. Those guys *definitely* know a thing or two about making their products sexy. You're right, Apple contributes marketing. But I don't think they're going to seriously affect the way that the public thinks about OSS. That would be nice, and I hope I'm wrong, but I just don't think Apple cares. While IBM is using the popularity of Linux to boost itself, Apple isn't using the popularity of OSS and KHTML to boost itself. Yeah, they mention it I suppose, but it's more in passing than anything else.

      They don't really care so much about OSS in principle, I'd say, as much as they care about having a robust product working very quickly. It happens to be a fact that OSS very often displays those features. It also happens to be a fact that a lot of OSS lacks polish and flair, "sexiness" -- to Joe Public. Very few people question the fact that Apple is very good at making things friendly, useable, and just all around sexy.

      It's a perfect match, I'd say. Apple gets the robust code, and the value they add (and charge for) is the interface that they put on the front. The OSS community gets a few patches and bugfixes, and a bit of publicity. Everyone gets something out of it.

      --
      In any field, find the strangest thing and then explore it. -John Archibald Wheeler
    9. Re:Linux should be careful by bluFox · · Score: 1

      four legs good two legs baaaddd!!!!

      do you think it will hurt the open source movement one bit if the apple suddenly decides to - get up and go - ??
      apple being a commercial company does not impact on their contribution in any significant way.

      it is a cumulative process we have , cumulative on all parties.. ,
      so long as we stay together , it benifits every body. the moment one decides to leave, he looses the share of developement that accumulates with other players in the ring.
      But what ever he has put in , remains with both him and community.

      --
      ~561
    10. Re:Linux should be careful by tupps · · Score: 1

      You make it sound as though open source is a single entity. It is not, it is a concept. You can write a letter to the open source team and tell them that they shouldn't work for Apple. The simple fact that a number of open source developers now have a home at Apple working on the code that they have developed can only be a good thing. What I think you will see more and more is people taking things from the open source code base (like KHTML) and integrating them into extremely well polished apps. If this polish is fed back into the linux all the better!

      --
      Go out and get sailing!
    11. Re:Linux should be careful by Osty · · Score: 1

      I've always heard those referred to as "non-profit organizations", especially since it's odd for an unincorporated entity to be referred to as a corporation. I realize that there are non-profit organizations out there, but I've never heard one of them referred to as a "company". Companies conduct business with the ultimate goal of creating profits (whether they're publicly or privately held doesn't matter, that just determines how the profits are distributed if there are any). Non-profit organizations don't.


    12. Re:Linux should be careful by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      Read about this at this fine overview page. Yes, non-profit corporations do exist.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    13. Re:Linux should be careful by ruiner13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Apple is, and always has been, a company who's primary objective is to sell their hardware. OSX, iPod, Safari, iLife.. all that crap just makes people want to buy thir hardware. Unless this changes sometime in the near future, I don't see why they would turn against OSS, there would be no profit in it. It sure wouldn't help them sell hardware, in reality it would hurt them as they would most likely scorn a whole new following of Apple fans (not addicts... yet).

      --

      today is spelling optional day.

    14. Re:Linux should be careful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We could end up just feeding apple a lot in the way of open source projects, all up and dancing in a hoohaa of joy."

      Funny the last time I checked it was bsd that they were building off of.

      You know, the real open source.

    15. Re:Linux should be careful by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Well, if we're going to be anal about it, the primary definition of the word "company" is: "A group of persons". So a non-commercial company is not an oxymoron.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    16. Re:Linux should be careful by b17bmbr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      repeat after me: "apple is a hardware company". say over and over until you get it. apple is truly an innovative, technology company. apple makes it dollars selling its technology, its innovation. that is why it frequently upgrade their hardware. not like a 2.4GHZ to a golly gee, 2.6GHZ P4, but real upgrades. look at the new TiBooks. hell, they could've installed a MacLinux on every new mac if it's sold more boxen. they just don't make enough on software. in fact, they use their web site to market third party software, so you can see all that the mac can do. so you'll buy their hardware. open source has just been another avenue for them to sell hardware. they understand that all the OSS in the world doesn't cut into their bottom line. not one bit.

      no, apple isn't approaching OSS from a philosophical standpoint, like many of us do, but rather from a practical standpoint. and if OSS makes good commercial sense, then it is good for OSS. pissing off the F/OSS community is a bad move on their part. apple knows it. even though office X is nice, m$ is the long run enemy of apple. m$ represents a different direction, different hardware. apple can't sell its os to run on intel. it needs to sell hardware. OSS is just one way to do that. they keep trying to prove they're good citizens, let's just give them the benefit of the doubt.

      (writing this on my ibook, running mozilla, while i edit my php/perl files on gvim, and test on apache/mysql, and create graphics on GIMP)

      --
      My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
    17. Re:Linux should be careful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where in the OSD is this said?

    18. Re:Linux should be careful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What did Apple give to BSD?

    19. Re:Linux should be careful by Scarblac · · Score: 1

      That's the great thing about open source: It doesn't matter.

      Once something's been released to the community under an Open Source license, there's nothing Apple (or anyone else, for that matter) can do to prevent it being distributed or used by anybody.

      That's simply not true. That's the whole difference between the FSF's GNU Public License and the "Open Source" movement.

      If something is under the GPL, then it is as you say, if a new version is distributed it has to also be under the GPL.

      But if something is under, say, the BSD license, it's Open Source, but anyone can just take it and use it in their proprietary software. Some people think this is more Free than what the GPL offers. That's just a matter of taste, imo.

      What you claim isn't true, it's only true of programs under the GPL (and similar licenses).

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
    20. Re:Linux should be careful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happens if IBM changes their mind? You don't hear anyone asking that now do you?

    21. Re:Linux should be careful by usfGPM · · Score: 1

      On a not so related note, a group of ferrets is called a "business of ferrets." Seriously. And most ferrets I know are non-commercial, too.

    22. Re:Linux should be careful by slantyyz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      YES, Apple is a hardware company, but I would also not ignore the fact that software is an important part of their business as well.

      They're a solid company that is an "early adopter" when it comes to inclusion into their systems. To suggest that they could not be just as innovative in creating x86 boxen is selling Apple's capabilities short.

      I'm one of those nutbars who thinks that Apple could actually kick some MS butt by moving towards x86. How many people wouldn't die to have an x86 based powerbook? There is a cachet to Apple hardware, and it is well earned.

      If Apple moved over to x86, how many Linux users would switch? I think there would be some significant numbers there. How many Windows users would switch? I think the numbers would be surprisingly large here.

      I'm a Windows user, and I'd gladly pay $100 for OSX, and an additional $100 for those wonderful iApps. The only reason why I don't switch to Mac is because I like the commodity hardware platform.

      Having said that, I would (and many people I know) would have no qualms about spending a few extra bucks to buy Apple x86 hardware. Apple has one of the strongest brands out there.

      Think of it this way, when you spend $100 on a Burberry scarf, are you any warmer than you would be with a $15 scarf? Probably not. Just like a Burberry scarf, the "warm and fuzzies" you can get with Apple hardware would in my mind would give Apple hardware sales the same if not better revenues than with their current fare.

      I think Apple could _easily_ eat away at some of Linux's market share... if they moved onto the x86 platform.

    23. Re:Linux should be careful by tijnbraun · · Score: 1

      But so is red-hat, ximian, mandrake (well maybe not much longer) etc.... I mean, being commercial is not the issue. Maybe their corporate history is different and therefore you should be more careful?

    24. Re:Linux should be careful by axxackall · · Score: 1
      We could end up just feeding apple a lot in the way of open source projects, all up and dancing in a hoohaa of joy.

      Feed them with GPLized software (ONLY!) and enjoy GPLized MacOSX soon :)

      Unfortunately, that's not gonna happen: Apple doesn't take GPL software and many OS developers (not smart for them) still license their software under BSDL.

      It's so naive to think that Apple will contribute back when the license encourages the opposite!

      --

      Less is more !
    25. Re:Linux should be careful by axxackall · · Score: 1
      Once something's been released to the community under an Open Source license

      There is no such think as Open Source license.

      There is BSDL encouraging hijacking of open source code (and thus the slow death of it) and there is GPL encouraging to open source all modifications (and thus the long live for OSS).

      --

      Less is more !
    26. Re:Linux should be careful by Jeff+Kelly · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Apple doesn't take GPL software and many OS developers (not smart for them) still license their software under BSDL. It's so naive to think that Apple will contribute back when the license encourages the opposite!
      Without getting too philosophical about open source licenses in general i think you misunderstand why the BSD license was created in the first place.

      At the time that the BSD License was created universities and other government funded institutions were not allowed to profit from projects which were payed with tax money. (With the intent that publicly funded science has to stay in the public domain) This has changed in the last twenty years but the intent of the BSD License was and always will be to encourage the widespread use of ceratin technology.

      Everybody may use BSD Licensed technology in the way they seem fit. The GPL is far more restricted in that matter (every change has to be made publicly available again) One might argue that the GPL might be the better license for the purpose stated above but it's not. The main reason being the restriction to publish the source code even if your software just uses a tiny fraction of GPLd code.

      But many large software projects will not publish sourcecode, not because it might hurt their business but because licensing patented technology may restrict the ability to publish sourcecode.

      So even if they wanted to use GPL licensed software legal mumbo jumbo might keep them from doing so.

      To make a long story short. the GPL and The BSDL realize different philosophies:

      The GPL forces the publication of sourcecode so that the original developer may profit the most (by making the changes publicly available even if contributing to the original project might not be the intent of the other party) This might discourage derivative works because every enhancement automatically benefits the original author and might make competing products less attractive.

      The BSDL wants to encourage the adoption of technologies by not restricting the way people use it. So the BSDL wants to propagate technology and not the changes to it. It was never the intent of the BSDL to benefit the original Inventor of the code but everyone else so if a company doesnt want to contribute it is their right to do so and anybody who uses the BSDL must live with these consequences.

      So if i want that everybody and their friends use my super duper new software (even if it is this mean old software company from redmond) i would go with the BSDL knowing exactly that the result might benefit others more than me.

      If i want to enact more control over my software and the way it is used i would use the GPL knowing that every improvement will benefit my own project but might hinder adoption of my technology by other parties.

      So both licenses have their strengths and weaknesses it all depends on what my personal goals are when choosing one over the other.

      Regards Jeff

    27. Re:Linux should be careful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just not true..

      In Safari...Help Menu...Licence...

      Ooh look, GPL.

    28. Re:Linux should be careful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooh look a bit closer, cause it's not, it's LGPL, and there's a world of difference (ask Stallman for further details).

    29. Re:Linux should be careful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wordnet definitions of "company"

      n 1: an institution created to conduct business; "he only invests
      in large well-established companies"; "he started the
      company in his garage"
      2: organization of performers and associated personnel
      (especially theatrical); "the traveling company all stayed
      at the same hotel" [syn: troupe]
      3: the state of being with someone; "he missed their company";
      "he enjoyed the society of his friends" [syn: companionship,
      fellowship, society]
      4: small military unit; usually two or three platoons
      5: a band of people associated temporarily in some activity;
      "they organized a party to search for food"; "the company
      of cooks walked into the kitchen" [syn: party]
      6: a social gathering of guests or companions; "the house was
      filled with company when I arrived"
      7: a social or business visitor; "the room was a mess because
      he hadn't expected company" [syn: caller]
      8: a unit of firefighters including their equipment: "a
      hook-and-ladder company"
      9: crew of a ship including the officers; the whole force or
      personnel of a ship [syn: ship's company]
      v : be a companion to somebody [syn: companion, accompany, keep
      company]

    30. Re:Linux should be careful by niagaracyber · · Score: 1

      YES, Apple is a hardware company, but I would also not ignore the fact that software is an important part of their business as well.

      Indeed. If Apple were just a hardware company, it would have moved over to Windows long ago and advertised its well-designed hardware in those tschotschke catalogs for wealthy midlife-crisis males. No, MacOS is just as central to Apple as its hardware. The big issue I see discussed here, and I'm glad to see it discussed, is whether MacOS and the ideas behind it could be or should be a larger part of Apple's identity than its commitment to Moto/IBM-based lifeforms.

      -d

    31. Re:Linux should be careful by hcdejong · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I doubt it. PC making is a commodity market, driven almost solely by price. Nice design and high quality doesn't sell.

      If Apple were to move to x86, they'd have to compete with Joe Clonebaker and the Crappy Componentbuilders. And at the same time, Apple would have to make sure OS X worked with all the bazillion motherboards, PCI cards, etc. available for PCI processors.

      They would lose much of the "there is no step three" user experience (hassle-free installation, etc.) they can offer now.

    32. Re:Linux should be careful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's so naive to think that Apple will contribute back when the license encourages the opposite!

      *yawn* another slashdotter speaking theory without considering reality

      It's certainly possible that apple could do this with say, Darwin. The license there allows them to grab the code, use it, distribute binaries only, change the code for the better and to not contribute back.

      Just like you suggested

      However reality is jumping in here and kicking you in the head. Apple do contribute back, and they do so on quite a few OSS projects. That's just fact, they've done it with the code they've used under GPL, BSD and whichever other licenses they've used.

      Reality folks - it's what's actually happening - the real world y'know...

    33. Re:Linux should be careful by Mr+Bubble · · Score: 1

      Everyone who charges for anything is involved in a commercial transaction - root word being commerce.

      I think Apple realizes that you can be pro-commerce and not anti-open source. And, if you were honest, I think you would have to agree that they are following the letter and the spirit of the licenses they are utilizing.

      You see Apple, unlike Microsoft, doesn't feel that this is a zero-sum game. We can share code, play to our strengths, have open architectures, make some money, and change the world.

      Why isn't everyone all over IBM for it's adoption of Linux like they are over Apple?

      --
      "The world is a construct of forceful imagination. Those who don't know walk around in the reailties of those who do"
    34. Re:Linux should be careful by slantyyz · · Score: 1

      Nice design and high quality doesn't sell.

      I'm sorry, but that's a load of crap. If you were right, EVERYONE would own an unbranded whitebox. Sony would have already been driven out of the PC market by their losses.

      The fact that Dell, Gateway, HP/Compaq and IBM can still hawk a few PCs at prices above your average white box. Admittedly, I don't have a PC put together by an integrator like Dell, but I've always bought only name brand components from manufacturers I trust (i.e., Asus, 3COM, ATI, nVidia, Creative, etc.). You won't find some $5 noname network card or sound card in my PC. And I'm sure there are plenty of people in the same boat as me.

      I don't know where you've been, but there are tons of people who are paying $100+ for spanky Lian Li aluminum cases.

      Apple could easily limit their compatibility to a few brands of motherboards and offer a certification program. Don't you remember when there was something called the Windows 95 Hardware Certification program?

      Besides, isn't Apple already competing with Joe Clonebaker and the Crappy Componentbuilders? If they weren't there would be no purpose to their Switch campaign.

    35. Re:Linux should be careful by UnixRevolution · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware that the iPod was software...

      thanks for clearing that up.

      --
      You like your new Mac more than you like me, don't you, Dave? Dave? I asked...She said Yes.
    36. Re:Linux should be careful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, Apple is a commercial company using (partially) proprietary software.

      But, I think you should give Apple credit. They want to succeed in the market by creating excellence and elegance in hardware and software design.

      M/$, on the other hand, wants to continue to succeed (i.e. monopoly maintenance) through power and control. Excellence in design and user satisfaction are a distant third and fourth criteria for them, regardless of what they "say".

  10. Apple OS X and Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm waiting for Apple to get a version of Quicktime for Linux.

    1. Re:Apple OS X and Linux by eluusive · · Score: 2, Informative

      You mean you want the Sorensen video codec on linux, not the crappy Quicktime player.

    2. Re:Apple OS X and Linux by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, I assumed he meant the QuickTime libraries themselves, represented by QuickTime.framework under OS X. (They're available for Windows, too, but I have no idea how they're packaged for Windows.) Having QuickTime for Linux would mean Linux software could take advantage of the QuickTime API's for dealing with file formats and media playback. That would be very handy for things like homegrown processing farms. Lucas Digital uses that sort of thing a lot, as do many other media-type companies.

      Of course, Apple's (understandable, and mostly correct) position is that anything you can do with Linux you can do better with OS X, so it's easy to see why they haven't bothered porting QuickTime.framework.

      --

      I write in my journal
    3. Re:Apple OS X and Linux by fliplap · · Score: 1

      mplayer can play sorenson v3 now, thats the format most often used for quicktime (including the trailers on apple.com)

    4. Re:Apple OS X and Linux by rampant+mac · · Score: 1
      I'm waiting for Apple to get a version of Quicktime for Linux.

      You're turning blue, take a breath please.

      --
      I like big butts and I cannot lie.
    5. Re:Apple OS X and Linux by fault0 · · Score: 1

      There is no longer much need of Quicktime decoders of any sort on Linux--- they are handled pretty much easily through mplayer (which is a LOT better media player than quicktime player). However, what is needed is the quicktime decoders. Of course, I doubt Apple will port it to Linux anytime soon, but in the long run, it will just be reverse engineered.

    6. Re:Apple OS X and Linux by ickyfreak · · Score: 0

      would the problem be that apple has one file called macosxinstall and one called windowsinstall.exe (dunno exact file name) but if it were to develop for linux it would need mandrakeinstall, redhatinstall, suseinstall, debianinstall.deb, etc etc etc???

      fifteen different glibc's, gnome's, kde's, etc to support?

      tis a question!!! not bagging linux or anything (--- disclaimer for cranky linux zealots hehe)

      seriously.... quicktime for linux would be good.

      even if they did a deal with qt so they could write once to distribute on win/mac/lin would be cool! :)

      my 2c

      --

      ---------------
      100% Australian

    7. Re:Apple OS X and Linux by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1

      QuickTime is a media framework. It's not a codec. It's not a player. It's an entire software library for dealing with all kinds of digital media, from audio to images to movie files.

      There is no longer much need of Quicktime decoders of any sort on Linux... However, what is needed is the quicktime decoders.

      Do what now?

      --

      I write in my journal
    8. Re:Apple OS X and Linux by GlassHeart · · Score: 2
      What good will it do Apple?

      Think about it. Contributing code back to KHTML and X11 helps Apple, because it makes it easier to borrow code again in the future (reduces incompatible changes, and avoids tying up "upstream" developers on work Apple already did). Contributing to Rendezvous helps increase the mind- and market share of a young technology that Apple is backing. Contributing to Darwin gets them, in the best case, free bug fixes in an area they do not feel competitive to start with. At worst, it buys goodwill.

      What will QT for Linux do for Apple? I'm not saying it does nothing, but no reason I can think of is as compelling as the examples I gave above. For the same reason, Apple is not going to help Linux by giving it iTunes or iPod software, or in general improve Linux as a desktop OS for nothing.

    9. Re:Apple OS X and Linux by snero3 · · Score: 1

      It is not Apple's fault that there is no quick time for Linux. Sorenson Media control the codec that QT uses and they(sorenson) control how the codec is released IE not open sourced. I would image that if Apple was to release the codec open source it would cost them a fortune. Add to that everytime an apple user or windows user downloads QT player apple has to pay Sorenson, I personally think that is good enough from apple. If you really want to watch *.mov files in linux get wine (or any other windows emulator) going and download QT for windows.

      --
      It said "windows 98 or better" so I installed Linux
    10. Re:Apple OS X and Linux by fault0 · · Score: 1

      > QuickTime is a media framework.

      Yep.. I meant, codecs supported by QuickTime.

    11. Re:Apple OS X and Linux by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 1

      Having the QuickTIme APIs for Linux means that more multimedia kits can use the same calls on both systems. Less rewriting of the source code. More developers using Linux and Mac OS, and weaning themselves from Microsoft. That is what I see as Apple's goal: making Mac OS X close enough to Linux as possible to minimise code rewrites, but still different enough to attract buyers.

      It really ought to be a no-brainer, seeing as how Apple is promoting its UNIX roots. The more developers and desktops moving away from Microsoft, the more Apple can compete on its merits. And since Apple is setting itself up as the better UNIX, they compete less with Microsoft (or Red Hat), but with Dell, HP and Sony.

    12. Re:Apple OS X and Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why?
      I thought apple can already play Quicktime?
      And if your using Linux on a x86 or something else.
      Then simply get Mplayer:
      http://www.mplayerhq.hu/homepage/dload.h tml

    13. Re:Apple OS X and Linux by wowbagger · · Score: 1
      It is not Apple's fault that there is no quick time for Linux. Sorenson Media control the codec...


      Not quite true. Everytime Sorenson has been approached to release their codec for Linux, Sorenson's response has been "Sorry, but our contract with Apple states they have an exclusive right to the codec. You will have to get Apple to agree to a change before we could release it."

      Then when you approach Apple, the response is "But it isn't our codec, it is Sorenson's. You will have to talk to them."

      In other words, it is a fine game of "Go ask your mother" - each party says that the other party is the one you must ask.

      Furthurmore, were Apple to release a binary only Quicktime player, they could work around the whole mess. They have not done so.

      While Apple is quite happy to use Free Software where it benefits Apple, they are quite UNWILLING to do anything that does not benefit Apple. Currently, if you want to reliably play Quicktime formatted videos, you must run either Windows or MacOS. Removing that barrier to Linux would create another competitor for the ABM (anything but Microsoft) crowd, which Apple currently has a lock on.
    14. Re:Apple OS X and Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you really want to watch *.mov files in linux get wine (or any other windows emulator) going and download QT for windows.

      Unfortunately this isn't an option for someone running Linux on PPC. WINE doesn't run on PPC because it would require converting the x86 instructions to PPC -- not an easy task.

      Similar issues for MPlayer. :(

    15. Re:Apple OS X and Linux by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      That is what I see as Apple's goal: making Mac OS X close enough to Linux as possible to minimise code rewrites, but still different enough to attract buyers.

      I think a more likely Apple goal is to make it very easy to port from Linux from OS X, but as hard as possible the other way around. Apple is clearly not competing with Linux the kernel, because they "give away" Darwin. However, I'm sure they are wary of Linux the desktop OS.

      Put another way, Apple software is a big part of its added value that justifies the additional cost everybody likes to talk about. Helping Linux become "OS X on the x86" is going to force Apple to compete on hardware alone, which is probably a fight they will lose horribly.

    16. Re:Apple OS X and Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.openquicktime.org/

    17. Re:Apple OS X and Linux by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 1

      That could be a long-term goal, but in between you need to get the Intel/AMD machines away from Microsoft.

      If Apple can convince big players like Adobe and Macromedia to make Linux versions, since it shares so many underpinnings with Mac OS X, then we might see more defections. Apple will still keep Aqua and the other technologies that make OS X so polished in their stable, so that they can still play the "seamless integration" card.

      And I'm not so sure Apple would lose badly in a hardware-driven market. Their laptops are pretty popular right now, and the processor market can change overnight. IBM might just deliver the goods, Motorola might pull its head out of its ass, a lot can happen.

  11. Yeah.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of the slashdot editors will be using macs... Instead of windows of course, which is their prefered os.

  12. Macs Rulez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Specially OS 9!

    Fuck Ya!

  13. But isnt this a bit one sided? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I'm sure Apple gets a lot of aid from the community (not just Linux), but what do we see in return? Sure we got darwin (But it's horribly outdated) and where is the updates for freebsd?!

    Also we give them X11 support but would they ever give us Aqua support? I dont think so. Apple is in it for money, as long as they get money they'd be happy, they wont share it with us ... as microsoft wont share it with us.

    Tell me in what ways Apple has been beneficial to the opensource movement (not just Linux).

    1. Re:But isnt this a bit one sided? by Morgahastu · · Score: 1

      Improvements on KHTML for one.

    2. Re:But isnt this a bit one sided? by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 2, Informative

      Tell me in what ways Apple has been beneficial to the opensource movement (not just Linux).

      KHTML and Rendezvous are two biggies that come to mind, but that is not the point. I don't get the people who always whine, "Apple has taken foo and hasn't given anything back." Nowhere in the BSD license does it require Apple to do anything opensource, and in the GPL they are only required to released the code they used to augment GPL'd programs. Apple has done exactly what they are entitled to do with the code. You can't give something to someone and then cry even though they followed the terms you set forth.

    3. Re:But isnt this a bit one sided? by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Sure we got darwin (But it's horribly outdated)

      I have no idea what that means. Apple does a fairly good job of keeping their public CVS server in sync with OS X.

      and where is the updates for freebsd?!

      As far as I know, Apple hasn't made any. They just take a good chunk of the FreeBSD userland and ship it with OS X, without modification.

      Also we give them X11 support but would they ever give us Aqua support?

      :sigh: I've about had it with all the "Aqua"-related ignorance out there. Guys, Aqua is an appearance. It's a collection of graphical elements, okay? That's all. It's not software, in any meaningful sense of the phrase. When you say "Aqua," what you're really talking about is the combination of Quartz, which is the OS X display system, and WindowServer/SystemUIServer, which is the OS X equivalent of the X server, the window manager, and the desktop in your operating environment of choice.

      Is Apple going to release the source for WindowServer/SystemUIServer? No. Get over it.

      Tell me in what ways Apple has been beneficial to the opensource movement

      Well, for starters Apple has done more to increase positive public awareness of open source than anybody else. A hundred thousand non-hacker Apple fans saw Steve Jobs stand up at the last Macworld keynote and declare that he thinks open source is great. There has been no better act of PR for the open source community.

      Oh, that and the whole thing with Rendezvous and WebCore and Darwin Streaming Server and CDSA and OpenPlay and Open Directory and whatnot. Can't forget those.

      --

      I write in my journal
    4. Re:But isnt this a bit one sided? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please, why don't YOU tell us how calling someplace the "Open Source Developlent Lab" and not support BSD there?

    5. Re:But isnt this a bit one sided? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually apple has give free bsd a great suit of utils to test the lastest and greates UFS filesystem in fbsd5.0 apple did fix up parts of gcc and khtml... and many other apps. Hey the did give you opengl support in x11. your short sideness will lead you into a wall or a well.

    6. Re:But isnt this a bit one sided? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quicktime Streaming Server

      http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/strea mi ng/

    7. Re:But isnt this a bit one sided? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DarwinPorts works on FreeBSD too...

    8. Re:But isnt this a bit one sided? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Also we give them X11 support but would they ever give us Aqua support? I dont think so. Apple is in it for money, as long as they get money they'd be happy, they wont share it with us ... as microsoft wont share it with us.

      If you mean Aqua API support, check out GNUStep - a completely GPL'd API for X11 build on the same OpenStep spec that the Aqua (actually you probably mean Cocoa - Aqua is a look and feel) API is, and mostly source compatible.

      Any project for GNUStep should compile fine on OS X. Some problems may arise if you start on Cocoa and then backport to GNUStep. GNUStep also doesn't have half as good a suite of Developer Tools as Cocoa.

    9. Re:But isnt this a bit one sided? by entrylevel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Any project for GNUStep should compile fine on OS X.

      This is not true. Many objects present in the current versions of the GNUStep libraries (base, backend, and gui) have no equivalent in Cocoa. Mainly, the Display Postscript code, but there are lots of others. For example, any class that starts wiht GS instead of NS, GNUStep handles Unicode totally different, there are al kinds of macros in GNUStep that don't exists in Cocoa because they are redundant. Supposedly there are scripts that come with OpenStep that convert lots of this stuff over, but GNUStep has made lots of additions to OpenStep, and besides, I don't have OpenStep.

      Case in point: I tried to "port" the GNUStep Terminal.app to OS X (don't ask why, I have no good reason), and wound up having to basically #ifdef half the source code. I'm about 75% done with TerminalView, since it uses DPS for everything, however most of it is easily converted to Cocoa. I realize #ifdef'ing everything was the wrong way to go, but I'm learning about all the differences, and my whole point behind this was to port it to OS X while being able to submit patches back to the original developer. I'm sure that I will wind up starting over again and creating a DPS compatibility layer, otherwise the resulting code would be totally unreadable.

      In conclusion, yes, some parts of Cocoa don't have any equivalent in GNUStep, but that really goes both ways. If you code for portability, it will be portable, if you code now, think later, it will probably only run on your computer, and probably only at the current screen resolution.

      --
      Karma: Incomprehensible (Mostly affected by posting at +5, reading at -1, and metamoderating everything unfair.)
  14. Uh, soon to get easier? by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 4, Informative

    X has been available on OS X for about a year. With XDarwin and OroborOSX it's about as perfectly integrated as it can get. Most X programs will compile just fine (and the ones that don't more often than not the problem is with the configure scripts.. rewrite the makefile and it works) I use gvim as my text editor and other X programs with relative frequency. OS X really is the best of both worlds IMO.

    1. Re:Uh, soon to get easier? by gnuadam · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, if you use fink, you've noticed that the shared libraries in Apple's X11 distro are named in a non-standard way. I've spent days recompiling things that I'd compiled before I noticed there was a problem.

      That said, the opengl support makes pymol nicer.

      --
      You say :wq, I say ZZ. Why can't we all just get along?
    2. Re:Uh, soon to get easier? by Uart · · Score: 1

      tell me about it... and all I wanted was the GIMP...

      --

      Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
    3. Re:Uh, soon to get easier? by RevAaron · · Score: 2, Informative

      X11 has been available for OS X for a helluva lot longer than a year. The one-app, double-clickable OroborOSX maybe a year, but XFree86 has been around for OS X and OS X Server for two and a half years, perhaps even a bit more. It was only a few months after OS X 10.0 was released that Carmack was working on a port of XFree to OS X and Darwin in general.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    4. Re:Uh, soon to get easier? by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 1

      This is what I actually meant. :) IIRC X11 was working on Darwin around the time commercial OS X 10.0 was released. Soon thereafter, the rootless server came out, and soon after that, OroborOSX (which is, IMO, the killer app for X11 on OS X.) The only problem is that X11 on OS X is painfully slow (though I am running it on a G3.) Needless to say, the point remains the same: X11 on OS X is very real, very practical, and very usable.

    5. Re:Uh, soon to get easier? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1
      Most X programs will compile just fine

      That's the sticking point really isn't it.

      It's a funny kind of "synergy" where apps written for Linux will work pretty well on MacOS, but it's actually utterly impossible to do the reverse with a Wine style/scale reverse engineering project.

      Sorry, but this is not "co-operation" by any stretch of the imagination. Linux apps will work on Windows too, sure it's not integrated, but so what? It's still a one way flow.

      Nonetheless, all I expect to see in this thread are posts praising Apple for oooh bundling an X11 server.

      Actually, if anything Linux is the biggest threat to Apple. Dennis E Powell, not one to mince his words when it comes to desktop Linux, recently claimed that the from the preview he'd seen of Ximian Desktop 2, it was the slickest, most polished desktop he'd ever used - including MacOS. Exagguration? Maybe so. Nonetheless, the moment Desktop Linux gets better than what Apple can produce (and it will), they'll find themselves struggling to keep their customer base.

      After all, I always thought they were supposed to be selling machines to grannies and non-technical arty folks: not the kind of people who need an integrated X server, no? So clearly the unix-head market is quite a large segment of their customer base, if not the majority.

    6. Re:Uh, soon to get easier? by pudge · · Score: 1

      It's a funny kind of "synergy" where apps written for Linux will work pretty well on MacOS, but it's actually utterly impossible to do the reverse with a Wine style/scale reverse engineering project.

      Right. Except ... no.

      First, you don't mean "apps written for Linux," you mean "apps written for POSIX." (You also don't mean "MacOS", which doesn't exist, nor "Mac OS", but "Mac OS X"). An app written for POSIX works on Mac OS X, because Mac OS X has POSIX built-in. And if you write an app "for Mac OS X" that is also written for POSIX, then it will work just fine on Linux, as well as the opposite does. Big deal.

      You're complaining that PART of Mac OS X is proprietary. Ever hear of the Serenity Prayer?

    7. Re:Uh, soon to get easier? by tbmaddux · · Score: 1
      X has been available on OS X for about a year. With XDarwin and OroborOSX it's about as perfectly integrated as it can get.
      Yes, it has been available for about a year, but I find that the X11 recently released by Apple (called Apple X11) is much faster and crashes less than the XDarwin / OroborOSX combo that I had on my system for the prior 6 months.
      --
      Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?
    8. Re:Uh, soon to get easier? by hobbit · · Score: 1

      (You also don't mean "MacOS", which doesn't exist, nor "Mac OS", but "Mac OS X")

      Blah blah blah.

      You don't mean Linux. At the very least you mean GNU/Linux, but I suspect you actually mean Red Hat Linux, Debian GNU/Linux, Linux Mandrake or whatever. Say what you mean! Above all, never refer to any operating system as "Windows". You probably mean something like "Microsoft Windows 2000" or "Microsoft Windows XP".

      Don't even get me started on pronunciation. OS X's speech synthesiser says "Mac Oh Ess Ten Ten Point Two Point 3". How would you pronounce Mac OS X 11.6? I would say "Oss Ecks Eleven Point Six", just as I say "Oss Ecks" or (if I need to be more specific) "Oss Ecks Ten Point Two Point Three".

      --
      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
    9. Re:Uh, soon to get easier? by pudge · · Score: 1

      I'd overlook "MacOS" if it were not for the fact that Mac OS and Mac OS X are almost completely different operating systems, and in the context of this discussion, are not the same thing. And on the flipside, all the Linuxes are the same in the context of this discussion. Narf!

    10. Re:Uh, soon to get easier? by hobbit · · Score: 1

      Actually I intended that comment in the context of your rant on pudge.net. But in the context of this discussion, the Linuxes are not the same: can you run KDE apps on your default installation of Debian (free)?

      To distinguish between OS X and OS 9 in the context of a Mac discussion I say OS X and OS 9 (or 8, or 7...). Outside of the context, I would say Mac OS 9 and OS X. As for confusion: can you imagine what Apple's lawyers would do if anyone came out with an operating system called 'Hobbit OS X'?

      Just out of interest, how do you pronounce it, in full?

      --
      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
    11. Re:Uh, soon to get easier? by pudge · · Score: 1

      To distinguish between OS X and OS 9 in the context of a Mac discussion I say OS X and OS 9 (or 8, or 7...). Outside of the context, I would say Mac OS 9 and OS X.

      I use their actual names. Mac OS, and Mac OS X.

      Just out of interest, how do you pronounce it, in full?

      How Apple says it actually is pronounced (text-to-speech notwithstanding :-).

    12. Re:Uh, soon to get easier? by hobbit · · Score: 1

      So, do you always say Microsoft Windows 2000? Red Hat Linux? Do you ever abbreviate, what about 'phone', 'bus', etc.? Alexander Graham Bell would be turning in his grave ;)

      If Apple want me to pronounce OS X 'correctly' they'll have to start writing it Mac OS X.2.3. People with an OS 9 background are accustomed to taking things as gospel 'because Steve says so', but Apple now have a whole host of new customers who actually think their shit stinks.

      --
      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
    13. Re:Uh, soon to get easier? by pudge · · Score: 1

      So, do you always say Microsoft Windows 2000? Red Hat Linux?

      Red Hat Linux is Linux. Mac OS X is not Mac OS. It is an entirely different OS.

      I don't call any specific Windows version anything, if I can help it.

      If Apple want me to pronounce OS X 'correctly'

      Those quotes are misplaced. There is a correct way to pronounce the name. You don't have to like it, but it does exist. The correctness of it is not a matter for opionion or debate. Apple owns it, Apple gave it a name, and a pronouncation, and that name and pronounciation are correct. Fine, be a rebel without a cause and call it what you want, but don't pretend that there isn't a correct way to do it.

      I could pronounce "Hobbit" as "dorkwad". I won't try to pretend it is correct.

    14. Re:Uh, soon to get easier? by bnenning · · Score: 2, Informative
      apps written for Linux will work pretty well on MacOS, but it's actually utterly impossible to do the reverse with a Wine style/scale reverse engineering project


      Like GNUstep?

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    15. Re:Uh, soon to get easier? by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      X11 under OS X on my G3/500 iBook is pretty fast. It was actually quite a bit faster than X11 under Debian Linux 3 on the same machine. This is both under Darwin straight up, rootless X11, as well as rooted X11 side-by-side with Quartz/Aqua. I wouldn't be surprised if some tweaking would've sped it up on Debian though- I imagine CoreGraphics in Darwin/OS X runs at a higher priority than X does on Linux.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    16. Re:Uh, soon to get easier? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1
      Right. Except ... no.

      Except.... yes

      First, you don't mean "apps written for Linux," you mean "apps written for POSIX."

      No, I do mean apps written for Linux. Gabber can be run on MacOS X just fine, you just need to fink the gnome libs (or this was true at one point). So even though Gabber uses non-POSIX tech, it still works.

      (You also don't mean "MacOS", which doesn't exist, nor "Mac OS", but "Mac OS X").

      That's pretty pedantic. I say Windows, Linux, MacOS because that's what they are. Context is used in the English language for a reason.

      And if you write an app "for Mac OS X" that is also written for POSIX

      No, an app written for MacOS X uses way more APIs than what are defined in POSIX. That's fine. Unfortunately those APIs are proprietary, almost completely so. That means apps that are actually written for MacOS, as opposed to unix apps that happen to run on it, aren't portable, unless you can point me to portable versions of CoreAudio, IOKit, Cocoa, Carbon etc.

      You're complaining that PART of Mac OS X is proprietary.

      Yeah I am, because it's the parts that all the apps use.

    17. Re:Uh, soon to get easier? by pudge · · Score: 1

      I say Windows, Linux, MacOS because that's what they are.

      Mac OS X is not Mac OS, in any way, shape, or form. That's like saying BSD is Linux because it shares some of the Linux's API. It is a completely different OS. It is not mere pedantry, it is simple correctness.

      As to what you're saying about various APIs ... the point is that the app was not written for Linux, it was written for a specific API (most of which is POSIX and X11 at its root, with other libs on top of those). And you completely missed this point when I said "an app 'for Mac OS X' that is also written for POSIX" when you responded that it uses "way more APIs than what are defined in POSIX." No. In my hyopthetical, it is written *for POSIX*. You can write an app for Mac OS X that uses the POSIX API primarily, or exclusively. The point is that it is all about the APIs, not about the OS.

      You're complaining that PART of Mac OS X is proprietary.

      Yeah I am, because it's the parts that all the apps use.

      Since I wrote such an app last week -- an app for Mac OS X that doesn't use any proprietary libraries -- I guess I'll have to disagree. Even if you were correct that all Mac OS X apps use the Cocoa or Carbon libraries -- which you aren't -- there is an open source port of much of the Cocoa API.

    18. Re:Uh, soon to get easier? by hobbit · · Score: 1

      Red Hat Linux is Linux

      Nonsense. Red Hat Linux is a Linux distribution. Linux is a kernel.

      I don't call any specific Windows version anything, if I can help it.

      What you mean is, you call it Windows, and you know I'm right, but you won't admit it.

      The correctness of it is not a matter for opionion or debate.

      Ha ha. Never heard of language being the one true democracy? I'm not the first to call it 'Oss Ecks', and I won't be the last. There is a correct way to pronounce the thing that Alexander Graeme Bell invented, but you gloss over that.

      --
      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
    19. Re:Uh, soon to get easier? by pudge · · Score: 2, Funny

      The correctness of it is not a matter for opionion or debate.

      Ha ha. Never heard of language being the one true democracy?

      Not when it comes to proper nouns, of course not. That's nonsense.

    20. Re:Uh, soon to get easier? by hobbit · · Score: 1


      Oh, really? So, you pronounce Paris with a long 'i' and a silent 's'?

      Thought not.

      --
      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
    21. Re:Uh, soon to get easier? by Graff · · Score: 1
      If Apple want me to pronounce OS X 'correctly' they'll have to start writing it Mac OS X.2.3.

      Shouldn't that be Mac OS X.II.III? :)
    22. Re:Uh, soon to get easier? by sfgoth · · Score: 1


      If Apple want me to pronounce OS X 'correctly' they'll have to start writing it Mac OS X.2.3.


      Apple doesn't care how you pronounce it. Apple named it the way they did so that they could have a trademark on the name "Mac OS X", use that as the name of the "product" where applicable, and append version numbers as needed to indicate changes.

      Only the USPTO cares about these sorts of details. But they can be incredibly important if you want to keep competitors from using your product name in an unfair way (by selling something different under a deceptively similar name, for example.)

    23. Re:Uh, soon to get easier? by hobbit · · Score: 1

      Are you seriously trying to tell me that if I brought out a product 'Hobbit OS X' (pronounced 'Oss Ecks'), I wouldn't get a call from Apple's lawyers?

      --
      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
    24. Re:Uh, soon to get easier? by sfgoth · · Score: 1

      Are you seriously trying to tell me that if I brought out a product 'Hobbit OS X' (pronounced 'Oss Ecks'), I wouldn't get a call from Apple's lawyers?

      I won't speak for what Apple's lawyers will or won't actually do, but as long as your hypothetical product isn't a software product, they shouldn't care.

      Even if it is a software product, as long as "Hobbit OS X" isn't deceptively similar to a Macintosh Operating System, you shouldn't have any problems.

      IANAL, YMMV, HAND.

  15. Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Penguins like apples. They grow quite well in Antarctica.

  16. ...because Apple bought Slashdot, that's why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course Slash editors will be programming on Macs; Apple has them in their pocket. Any Slashdot editors willing to come on the record and deny that there isn't some formal or informal business agreement between the two?

    Why the shiny interface for Mac-related stories?

    Why do Mac stories invariably have an editorial gloss over them, even when dealing with Apple's bad behavior?

    Seems clear enough to me. If Slashdot is honest, it'll affrim what everyone already knows anyway.

    1. Re:...because Apple bought Slashdot, that's why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope not. Apple would ride them hard and put them away wet. A news site is valuable to the corps for their credibility. A corporation has no credibility in claiming their products are superior because the obvious bias. Advertisers are biased as well. To make a real statement they need to speak through sources that have credibility. And they do. Buy out journalists, magazines, and so on.

      But an information source only has so much credibility to offer. Every biased story reduces
      credibility until all that's left is the husk, which has no value anymore. The husk is then discarded.

    2. Re:...because Apple bought Slashdot, that's why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The word you are looking for is probably not "bought" but "bribed". Apple gave top of the line Apple laptops to all the Slashdot editors. Well, yes, I guess you could say Slashdot editors were bought, but it was also an obvious bribe. It illustrates how far behind web journalism in matters of ethics. Most legitimate print journals would fire and editor who accepted such expensive gifts.

  17. Of Course they're beneficial to each other.. by TheRIAAMustDie · · Score: 1

    So much is the same between them!

    Personal Web Sharing is Apache. Windows File Sharing is Samba. Printer Sharing is cups. The firewall is a default deny ipfw setup. OS X is OS X's killer app.

    Hope we keep up the good relations, too. Should be a bright future if it's full of Linux and Mac boxen.

    --

    Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. it's the only thing that ever has.
  18. funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's funny, I've used Macs since I was a young'n in 1984, and I've used Linux since kernel 0.99. I've never used anything else, except for a couple years in college using Windows and Sun on and off.

    Linux has power and flexibility, and the Mac always "just worked". Sometimes I was annoyed that Macs were so closed, and sometimes I was annoyed at the lack of polish on Linux. Between the two I could do anything.

    It's amazing, almost *surreal*, that Unix and Mac merged together in Mac OS X. It's truly the best of both worlds.

    Of course, I'm still wary of "depending" on Mac software, because of the proprietary lock-in and other evil stuff that companies do. But Apple's continual underdog status has been keeping them in check.

    I look forward to more cool stuff from Apple...just getting ready to invest in a 12" powerbook (Mac #8 in my life) and a new Linux-based mini-itx PC to build a home gateway (Linux box #4).

    Life is good (well, computer-wise ;-).

    1. Re:funny by MacAndrew · · Score: 1

      just getting ready to invest in a 12" powerbook (Mac #8 in my life)

      Eighth Mac -- all at once? I think you get a short hop in Jobs' jet if you have that many.

      We have 3, plus various legacy machines in the basement. And an Apple ][+. I kinda wish I'd kept the Macintosh SE, though being sentimental about a computer is ridiculous (I sold the thing long ago for $1000; you can get one now on eBay for $5). Mac users seems particularly prone to this weird sentimentality.

      The iBook is a lovely thing ... I'm typing on a radioactive green "clunker."

    2. Re:funny by pudge · · Score: 1

      Eighth Mac -- all at once? I think you get a short hop in Jobs' jet if you have that many.

      He said "in his life", not "all at once." I am on my sixth Mac at one time ... an iMac, two PowerBook G3s, old iBook, new iBook, and PowerBook G4 (to you filthy, stinking, trolls: none of them given by Apple). I've had about six others, and a new PowerBook G4 is on the way (to replace the other one ... that one is "given" by Apple, to replace the previous one, which was defective and after a month and three attempts of trying, couldn't be repaired ...).

    3. Re:funny by Gropo · · Score: 1

      I was visiting at the G/F's parents' 2 weekends ago, and finally decided to boot up the SE sitting in her dad's office...

      I got the "insert floppy" blinken-icon, so I went downstairs, fished through his electrical-engineer cabinet and produced a star-head driver which wasn't quite long enough for the handle-screws. A longer square-head did the trick on those.

      Fond thoughts of the G3/G4 tower design quelled my frustration as I fumbled with the motherboard for a half hour, only to discover that you need to fish your hand inside the tight spaghetti of SCSI ribbons and power cables to unplug the power lead to the MoBo before you can slide the entire panel off the bottom.

      A "quick" re-assembly later, having checked the internal hard drive for integrity issues, I connected the little old doggy to 'the grid' only to be slapped in the face with the memory of a system that boots from dead in under 10 seconds... And the bootdrive was loaded with MacOS 7.3!

      Next project for Mac SE: Linux 68k and find a CAT-5 adaptor for the Serial Port.

      Moral: sentimentality can bring interesting perspectives, and original-all-in-one's don't take up much room ;)

      --
      I hate Grammar Nazi's
  19. Keynote!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's next...
    I can just see it Jobs to giving the keynote at LinuxWorld...

    NAH!!!!

  20. we'd be good to go.... by smd4985 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    if someone plugged the OS X interface on top of Linux. man oh man that interface is snappy.

    1) the stability of linux
    2) the price-point of linux
    3) the beauty of the Aqua interface

    there'd be no reason to ever own a windows machine again.

    --
    smd4985
    1. Re:we'd be good to go.... by StarTux · · Score: 2

      KDE 3.1 was a good step in this direction imho.

      Personnally I don't want OS X Aqua on Linux, I'd rather have a more unique experience.

      I can see KDE and Apple both dropping good things that each other offers if it doesn't quite fit into what they aim for.

      StarTux

    2. Re:we'd be good to go.... by RestiffBard · · Score: 1

      there's no reason to own a windows machine now :)

      --
      - /* dead coders leave no comments */
    3. Re:we'd be good to go.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Ah, I can see this is well thought out. To expand:

      Business Plan of Aqua on Linux for Apple:

      1) The stability of linux
      2) The price-point of linux
      3) ...
      4) Profit!

    4. Re:we'd be good to go.... by zilly · · Score: 1

      I'm no expert, but isn't BSD (Mac OS X) reputed to be more stable than Linux? (Not a troll, just curious.)

    5. Re:we'd be good to go.... by singularity · · Score: 1

      How is that any different than the OS X interface on top of a *BSD?

      On my OS X machine I get uptimes in the 20+ days range, with the only reason for downtimes are upgrades.

      I have had three kernel panics in the 10 months I have had it. I trashed the application that was causing them and have not had one in seven months.

      So stability is definitely there in OS X as it is.

      The price point of Linux? Suppose someone came out with a truly great GUI for Linux, one that allowed you to run MS Office and Photoshop on it natively. Suppose they also made sure that DRM was not an issue. Would you pay $130 for that GUI, even if it was closed source?

      I would say that with OS X as it is now there is no reason for buying Microsoft ever again.

      And, as a disclaimer, I run Fink on my OS X box with X11 and Gnome. In addition, I have had LinuxPPC installed on some of my older boxes, and I am getting a FreeBSD/x86 machine up and running soon.

      --
      - (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
    6. Re:we'd be good to go.... by RevAaron · · Score: 0, Troll

      I already have a reason to never own a windows machine again. I call it "Mr. iBook." Hell- this "Mr. iBook" of which I speak has also given me a reason to never waste my time with Linux again. Imagine that! Two birds with one beautiful white stone!

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    7. Re:we'd be good to go.... by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      I don't know if I'd say that. I've had the same amount of absolute crashes on Linux that I've had with OS X: one. In OS X, I was running the public beta, and on Linux, I was running a very beta X11 server.

      If you look at "stability" as a function of total time spent recovering from the effects of some OS or application glitch divided by total productivity, I'd say OS X wins. I'd chalk this up largely to the more mature APIs in OS X rather than BSD vs Linux, however.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    8. Re:we'd be good to go.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would OSX be better if it used the Linux kernel?

    9. Re:we'd be good to go.... by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      Com'mon, how is that a troll? Because I'm not praising Linux? Man, what a sad comment on Slashdot users. I guess it's unfair to generalize from a handful or zealouts, but it happens a lot. Half of the posts I make that may critisize Linux in some fashion get marked as trolls. The above post I made was in all truth, and relevant considering the parent to it.

      You may not agree, but it doesn't make the post a troll. Since it's very plainly not a troll, why not be an adult and reply intelligently?

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    10. Re:we'd be good to go.... by UnixRevolution · · Score: 1

      Dude, have you seen KDE 3.1? if not, check it out. it's quite possibly the only interface that gives aqua a run for its money.

      --
      You like your new Mac more than you like me, don't you, Dave? Dave? I asked...She said Yes.
  21. well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a vote for apple is a vote for linux

  22. Right on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " Next thing you know, most of the Slashdot editors and programmers will be using Macs ..."

    One could only hope...

    1. Re:Right on! by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

      if they use Safari, they could even get spell checking for free thanks to cocoa.. Now if only there were support for 'duplicate story' checking..

    2. Re:Right on! by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1

      Don't fall into the trap of thinking too small. An hour with Project Builder and even a moderately experienced programmer could whip up a native Cocoa UI that would plug right into Slashdot's MySQL back-end, using libmysqlclient. Spell-checking for free, sure. Duplicate story checking would be a small matter of SQL programming. It wouldn't be perfect, but you could get pretty close.

      --

      I write in my journal
  23. Would you like fries ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with your MacPenguin, sir?

  24. Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    MS Office would just incorporate the new format. Cash registers still would ring.

  25. Are you sure? by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 0

    "Next thing you know, most of the Slashdot editors and programmers will be using Macs ... "

    I hope that was a light-hearted comment. The reason Mac's not popular with Linux users today is because PC has, by far, the broadest selection of hardware available. Perhaps if Mac clones were available...?

    1. Re:Are you sure? by randito · · Score: 1

      Macs are not popular with the linux crowd? I admit that before OS X I wasn't that impressed with apple's offerings, but when jaguar came out this summer, I paid a visit to the local mac dealership. I tested out the command line for hours at the store; Everything that I would come to expect from any UNIX is there. I felt at home immediatly. Then I thought: photoshop, dreamweaver, flash on a UNIX machine? And its so pretty. I had to have one. So I bought a little iBook ...and six months later, I can say that I am not looking back.

    2. Re:Are you sure? by NeuroKoan · · Score: 1

      Me too.

      I also think its great when I can't figure out a problem "Mac-style" and I am able to jump to the terminal to solve my problem "Unix-style"

      --

      "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation."
    3. Re:Are you sure? by feldsteins · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So few people understand this - if there were Mac clones there would, in short order, be nothing left of interest in the platform. The key to Apple's role in the industry is that they are the last vertically integrated, "make-the-whole-widget," software-plus-OS company around selling desktop machines. That enables them to do things and be things that give them the unique place in the marketplace. Without that unique place there'd be nothing left of them.

      Of course, the vertical integration is at once the best thing and the worst thing about Apple. But clearly without it they'd be entirely forgettable and irrelevant.

      --
      You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
    4. Re:Are you sure? by cbowland · · Score: 1
      Works great the other way too, i.e. when someone can't figure out the unix way and just does it the mac way.

      Example: spouse has os x server at work, needs to archive a directory (Stuffit not there for some reason). I tried to explain tar, but she got lost with the final parameter "path to the folder she wants to archive."

      Solution: type tar cvf myfile.tar in the terminal and then drop the folder to be archived on the terminal app. Presto! It instantly fills in the full path. She presses the enter key and it just works. Throw in some gzip and she looks like magic to the rest of the office.

      --

      Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
      Teach him to eat and he will fish forever.

    5. Re:Are you sure? by ibis · · Score: 1

      Then Apple has recently blown it. I was about to buy a PowerMac fully decked out with SCSI adapters and disks, but before I could buy it, Apple changed their line-up. SCSI is no longer an option.

      Note to Apple: the only reason I was willing to pay the price premium for a Mac was that Apple provided and supported the SCSI option. I want a single point of contact, and Apple supplied SCSI supported by an AppleCare contract filled the bill.

      But having to buy SCSI from a third party w/o AppleCare support just don't cut it.

      Sorry, you lost a customer with that decision.

    6. Re:Are you sure? by feldsteins · · Score: 1

      Look a little more carefully. $49 gets you a SCSI card with your Powermac. Happy computing and congratulations on your shiny new mac.

      --
      You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
  26. Apple Hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Apple's hardware has always been a step or more ahead of everyone else, and linux could benefit a great deal if it could take full advantage of it. When the G4s came out, they slammed all the x86s against the wall. Of course, there's always the problem with explaining clock speed vs. flops, so Apple needs to do some marketing about that to educate people.

    1. Re:Apple Hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm feeling pedantic today.

      "Apple's hardware has always been a step or more ahead of everyone else"

      That it is not true. Maybe if you wanted to add "in the base package" I might agree with you. However I still see a decided lack of usb 2, despite its support being standard on all retail motherboards I've seen. (This is an example, not a n argument of USB vs firewire/IEEE1394)

      If you look hard enough you will find that technology is released on both sides of the fence at about the same time. (Remember many production houses now use windows workstations, that would benefit from say Firewire 2). It's just not included as a base feature, but that's not exactly surprising, as they won't be included in the base spec until there is demand for them.

      Apple has the luxury of selling well designed technology at high (relative) prices, this means that their target audience (which has a background in multimedia production) are willing to buy these extra features.

      I have not yet seen a product for firewire 2 (800Mbps) aside from networking. So I am not surprised to see a lack of PC sellers rushing to include support.

      Basically they are two different market segments.

      PC: lower cost hardware driven by market demands. Driven by value for money.

      Apple: higher price hardware, with the manufacture able to dictate higher base specs.
      Driven by quality and features.

    2. Re:Apple Hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. Apples are faster then x86 machines at the same Mhz rating. But that's not the reason why I won't buy a Mac. Right now, I have a kickass AMD 2200+ (1800 Mhz, so I don't really care about the fancy numbers that much), Asus A7V333, GeForce4 Ti4200, and a half gig of ram. I built it myself, and visited 3 different shops getting the parts I wanted at the price I wanted. All within town. Try that with a Mac without spending an arm and a leg, or having to actually hunt down hard-to-find proprietary parts. On the other hand, if and when Apple decides to drop the proprietary hardware scheme and use x86 chips, I want to try out OS X.

  27. So whats by r_arr · · Score: 1

    The equivalent of tux racer for the mac. apple sleder.

    1. Re:So whats by nemostultae · · Score: 0

      well, tux racer is already available for the mac...

      --
      Measure once, cut twice
    2. Re:So whats by absurdhero · · Score: 1

      Tux Racer for MacOS X is the Tux Racer for mac :)
      It runs great along with all the other Tux games. (Tux Kart, TQFTH, etc)

    3. Re:So whats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tux racer is available for OS X......

    4. Re:So whats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's a good one, nearly knocked me out of my chair!

  28. It DOES matter by mgkimsal2 · · Score: 1

    I've seen all of you saying 'it doesn't matter', but it does.

    From a purely technical standpoint, it might not matter. From a 'how things look to the outside world', it matters a lot. If a company as large as Apple was to have a change of heart, it would be as detrmental to the *idea* of open source to the same extent that Apple support open source has been a positive factor. You can't have it both ways.

  29. I am confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought Apple used BSD...

    Linux uses GPL...

    Different licenses for different things. Right?

    1. Re:I am confused by Luke-Jr · · Score: 1

      1. I believe you can add GPL on top of BSD license.
      2. Apple used the BSD operating system , not the BSD license (or did they use both?).

      --
      Luke-Jr
    2. Re:I am confused by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 2, Informative

      1. I believe you can add GPL on top of BSD license.

      You can add whatever you want on top of code that has been BSD-licensed.

      2. Apple used the BSD operating system , not the BSD license (or did they use both?).

      Apple used the Mach microkernel and the FreeBSD userland with a little bit of NetBSD to make Darwin (the kernel for OS X). Darwin is considered a member of the BSD family. Much of the code they used to make Darwin was BSD licensed, but there were also some GNU tools like gcc. The Darwin kernel is released under the Apple Public Source License.

    3. Re:I am confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The Darwin kernel is released under the Apple Public Source License.


      Pretty much the rest is closed. Should be noted for the record.

  30. w00t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yup. apple++

  31. sounds like a simcity4 newsbite by boog3r · · Score: 1



    i just hit the refresh button after playing simcity 4 for about 8 hours (making sure to walk around the room every hour to prevent clotting) and BAM! i see a headline similar to the hilarious headlines generated by simcity 4.

    i immediately rubbed my eyes and decided that it may be time to do something else for a while...

    --
    signatures are for fools with hands
    1. Re:sounds like a simcity4 newsbite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The above comment brought to you courtesy of EA. Paying for slashvertisements since 2003.

  32. Slashdot has editors?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I figured you guys had monkey that would randomly press a red button to move submissions to the front page.

  33. What's a Debian... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is nothing but good for both communities...

  34. Its not about Linux.. Its about linux apps by acomj · · Score: 1

    If you want to write an application for osX and you used X11, porting to linux would be much much easier.. So more applications will hopefully make there way from macos x to linux. I don't think many mac programs are X11, but if you wanted to program cross platfrom developers should start thinking about using it.

    Linux /GNU has helped make OSX much better with fink (OSX version of debian app-get) which gives mac osX users easy access to install a lot of gnu software. I got perl/ ImageMagik and xemacs running on my osX box. Its a great thing.

    The fact that gcc is the standard OSX compiler doesn't hurt either.

    1. Re:Its not about Linux.. Its about linux apps by randito · · Score: 2

      Not really. OS X applications use Aqua. If you are a Mac user and you have a choice between an Aqua program and an X11 platform, you will choose Aqua every time. Most Mac users won't bother to download X11. (I didn't, and I am a linux user of many years). Aqua is just too dambed nice.

      If you were developing on the mac, you have some cross-platform options that allow you to leverage Aqua and still work on other platforms. Java and Qt are two. ( I have a strong preference for the first ).

    2. Re:Its not about Linux.. Its about linux apps by TotallyUseless · · Score: 1

      or you could write a wrapper for all of the display and UI code, and it would depend much less on any one windowing architecture

      --

      Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
    3. Re:Its not about Linux.. Its about linux apps by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but that would depend on doing a bit of thinking before working on your app, rather than taking the write-code-now-think-later attitude, assuming that anyone who is worthy of running your crappy app would go to all the trouble of installing X11 in OS X just for this app.

      Sure, some people will do this for some apps that are either very important, or that they're foaming at the mouth over. Most of those "some people" being ex-Linux users who find xchat 1337er than any of the irc clients available for OS X (including X-Chat Aqua!). But it seems you already know this, so why the hell am I ranting about it? :P

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    4. Re:Its not about Linux.. Its about linux apps by TotallyUseless · · Score: 1

      in this theoretical case though, using a wrapper... the app would use whatever the native windowing system was for the system. On, OS X, it would hook up to the aqua API, on linux, it would use xwindows, etc. Best case scenrario, there would be nothing to download, for any platform the app runs on.

      --

      Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
    5. Re:Its not about Linux.. Its about linux apps by RevAaron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's why there exists wxWindows, which provides such a wrapper. You still have to download different binaries for each system, but you can't get much better without having applications written in cross-platform, bytecode-based languages like Smalltalk or Python.

      Some projects do use wxWindows. Other people take the approach of seperating model and view well, and simply redoing the GUI for each environment on which they want the app to run. Depending on the nature of the project, this can be very easy or very hard.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    6. Re:Its not about Linux.. Its about linux apps by bnenning · · Score: 2, Informative
      I don't think many mac programs are X11, but if you wanted to program cross platfrom developers should start thinking about using it.


      Alternatively, you could write your Mac app in Cocoa and port to Linux with GNUstep.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
  35. Apple is dangerous by rxed · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Apple has proprietary hardware AND software. They've been taking from OSS community. Apple even used the OSS name/reputation to sell OS X!

  36. Works for me by djupedal · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've been running both OS X & Linux boxes at home for the last 10 months. I can and do use both hardware and software as common elements, from drives & PCI cards to mail, music, browser and office apps, etc.

    For me, these boxes are extensions of each other, not competitors, and I've come to think of them as one environment.

    MySQL on one...MP3s and image db's on the other. Apache and PHP on both...DVD's play on both... TV on one...DVD authoring on the other. It continues to delight me that I can expand and build as they both mature. This effort started out as an experiment. Now, I wouldn't consider just running one box or one system.

    The beat goes on.

    1. Re:Works for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You use MySQL. Your opinion is not important to us. You surely also use slackware and liked that greek marriage movie.

    2. Re:Works for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, that is a setup that I really envy!

    3. Re:Works for me by leandrod · · Score: 1
      > MySQL on one...

      What you define as working for you? With MySQL you have to do all kinds of thing by hand that SQL DBMSs can do automatically and declaratively, like taking care of data integrity thru transactions and constraints.

      --
      Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
      DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
      GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
  37. Re:Apple by hatrisc · · Score: 1, Informative

    though, not all penquins live in there. though it's true that there are penquins on the cold continent, there are also warm weather penquins in south america, and south africa. natively however, no penquins make their homes in north america (unless i misread my source)

    --
    I write code.
  38. OS X means more open source developers == good. by mactari · · Score: 4, Interesting

    First off, just to clear this up...
    soon to get easier with the X11 on Max OS X

    X has been on X for quite some time. You could fink it if you wanted, or, if you want something even easier, you could XonX it or xdarwin it.

    What's new, of course, is Apple's X11. That Apple would Aquafy X11 is really a great step forward, and hopefully means that -- and this is key -- Apple will start shipping Macs with X11 preinstalled.

    Just as OS X's built in Java Virtual Machine makes OS X a first-rate Java deployment platform as Java apps look and act native without a single end user consideration about VMs, soon OS X could be a first-rate, well-integrated client-side deployment platform for open source software. Most importantly, this will continue to add new developers to open source movements, and that can't be bad. Even if Apple doesn't share everything they do, the fact that you'll have people used to making client-side apps increasingly contributing to open source projects is a great thing.

    Not to mention that I've been impressed with what Apple's give back to the oss community, even though they technically often have no reason at all to do so. They've made Darwin open source, and have worked with the BSDs to share code that they have no pressing legal reason making them do so. Safari's updates to KHTML continue to be checked back in to the Konquerer source code by this paid Apple employee, which is another great move.

    The only way I see Apple's new love of oss possibly being a bad thing is that Apple tends to hire the best away from open source projects and slap them onto Apple-first ones. Though this is great in that these people feel connected to the oss community, it has to shift their attention away from Linux and other F/free *NIXes a bit.

    But more developers, especially good client-app developers, is a good thing, and having Apple return their contributions to the community is icing on the cake.

    --

    It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
    1. Re:OS X means more open source developers == good. by Chainsaw · · Score: 1
      That Apple would Aquafy X11 is really a great step forward

      Isn't that an impossible task? First of all, no X11 apps use the menubar on top of my screen - they draw their own. Altering that behaviour for *all* applications, making them use standard Aqua controls and not self-drawn crap by Qt/GTK+/Athena/Motif and forcing default behaviour from shortcut keys...

      If all of those things could be done - THEN I would call X11 Aquafied. I would also call it a miracle.

      --
      War is one of the most horrible things a human can be exposed to. And one of the worlds largest industries.
    2. Re:OS X means more open source developers == good. by Ian+Bicking · · Score: 1

      I might expect to see X11 preinstalled on Macs when they can make X11 disappear -- i.e., when X11 applications don't interact with the system differently then Aqua applications. Obviously they are going to look different (though maybe we'll see them port and preinstall GTK/Gnome and/or Qt/KDE with Aqua themes), but right now you have one X11 application with subapplications, and that won't do. Well, it won't do for mass consumption, it's not that big a deal otherwise.

    3. Re:OS X means more open source developers == good. by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1
      Most importantly, this will continue to add new developers to open source movements, and that can't be bad.

      Unfortunately, those open source developers will almost certainly end up writing Cocoa IRC clients or something - ie software that can only be used on a proprietary platform. This whole story is here because most free software is portable, it's based entirely on open standards and free APIs. MacOS apps don't, so it's no different from people writing open source Windows software - nice, but not all that useful to people outside that platform.

      Not to mention that I've been impressed with what Apple's give back to the oss community, even though they technically often have no reason at all to do so.

      You're easily impressed then. Darwin was mostly already open source, and has such poor hardware support it's nearly useless outside of the Mac. They were legally obligated to give back the KHTML improvements - yet Safari itself is not open source, despite it being a merely average web browser in terms of features and standards support. It's MacOS only anyway, so it's not like they'd have lost anything. Their contributions to FreeBSD have been in the order of a few trivial patches and some test suites according to Jordan Hubbard who seems to consider the positive marketing as their biggest contribution.

      Meanwhile, companies like Redhat, Ximian and the rest GPL everything and still make money and grow. Yes yes, I'm not "expecting" or "demanding" Apple to open source anything, I'm pointing out that their contributions are nothing special.

      Though this is great in that these people feel connected to the oss community, it has to shift their attention away from Linux and other F/free *NIXes a bit.

      So far I don't know of any Linux developers that have been hired by them. There were some FreeBSD developers (at least one of whom had to ask for an interview), and a Mozilla hacker (which is cross platform). In fact, I heard (dunno if it's true) that Jobs originally asked Linus to work on OS X, and he told them to piss off. Urban myth perhaps.

      But more developers, especially good client-app developers, is a good thing, and having Apple return their contributions to the community is icing on the cake.

      What, pray tell, have they returned that they developed themselves outside of Darwin, which as I've already pointed out, is a nice gesture but ultimately useless. Chess.app?

    4. Re:OS X means more open source developers == good. by Matthias+Wiesmann · · Score: 4, Informative
      Unfortunately, those open source developers will almost certainly end up writing Cocoa IRC clients or something - ie software that can only be used on a proprietary platform.
      You are probably right, people will prefer coding in cocoa, because it is a very nice programming API, you are wrong in assuming that those programs will only work on OS X. Cocoa code can be recompiled for GNUStep, which is fully open-source.
      This whole story is here because most free software is portable, it's based entirely on open standards and free APIs.
      I think you are mixing up two different things, the fact that software is open source, and the fact that the coding is done for a given API. There are many open source project that are targeted for the Win32 API.

      Technically, cocoa is an implementation of an open standard: open-step.

      You're easily impressed then. Darwin was mostly already open source, and has such poor hardware support it's nearly useless outside of the Mac.
      Darwin is heavily modified version of the Mach system, it includes elements that do not exist in Mach, like the driver system, IOKit.

      The fact that darwin does not run on your hardware is irrelevant. The fact that can't or don't want to use the code that is open sourced does not change its value.

      They were legally obligated to give back the KHTML improvements - yet Safari itself is not open source, despite it being a merely average web browser in terms of features and standards support.
      If safari is such a poor browser, why would like the source code? Or do you mean that because the browser is of low quality it should be open sourced?
      Their contributions to FreeBSD have been in the order of a few trivial patches and some test suites according to Jordan Hubbard who seems to consider the positive marketing as their biggest contribution.
      You are right, and the reason is simple, the BSD component of darwin is not recent at all. Basically Apple is still catching up, so they hardly have any improvement to give back and can only find a few lingering bugs. If when apple will be using current BSD code and won't give back its improving, then complaining will be justified.
      What, pray tell, have they returned that they developed themselves outside of Darwin, which as I've already pointed out, is a nice gesture but ultimately useless. Chess.app?
      Ok, here we go again:
      • Gcc (altivec and objective-c related code)
      • Quicktime streaming server.
      • CDSA.
      • Open Play.
      • Netsprockets.
      • Rendez-vous.
      • Header doc.
      While they were required to give back the changes for gcc because of the license, for all the others projects, they did not have to. The element that will probably be used first by Linux systems is rendez-vous. Whenever the other technologies will be adopted is an open question.
    5. Re:OS X means more open source developers == good. by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1
      Cocoa code can be recompiled for GNUStep [gnustep.org], which is fully open-source.

      Cocoa contains many, many proprietary extensions to OpenSTEP. I guess the GNUStep people could constantly play catchup a la Wine, doesn't mean it's easy.

      I think you are mixing up two different things, the fact that software is open source, and the fact that the coding is done for a given API. There are many open source project that are targeted for the Win32 API.

      Sure. I'm just pointing out that to actually target the full community, it'd make sense to use portable APIs. Just a minor niggle.

      The fact that darwin does not run on your hardware is irrelevant. The fact that can't or don't want to use the code that is open sourced does not change its value.

      Well, I'd say the value of some code is determined by how useful it is. If I gave you an old Lada as a gift, maybe you'd be pleased with the act of generosity, but you probably wouldn't drive it. I'm not saying Darwin is an old Lada, just pointing out that gifts are generally appreciated more if they're actually useful.

      If safari is such a poor browser, why would like the source code? Or do you mean that because the browser is of low quality it should be open sourced?

      No, maybe I didn't make myself clear. I said it doesn't contain any totally radical features that mean Apple would lose significant IP by open sourcing it, and also that because it's tied to MacOS anyway, open sourcing it wouldn't lose them any customers or anything. Safari isn't enough of a reason to actually buy a Mac, so what did they have to lose? They'd have gained manpower if anything. But they didn't *shrug*

      If when apple will be using current BSD code and won't give back its improving, then complaining will be justified.

      Good point I guess. I haven't followed it closely.

      The element that will probably be used first by Linux systems is rendez-vous. Whenever the other technologies will be adopted is an open question.

      Yeah, I'd forgotten about Rendezvous. As for the others, well NetSprockets/OpenPlay is abandoned you realise? Not sure what CDSA is. QuickTime I'm not sure about, some say it's open, some say it's closed. It's certainly owned and controlled by Apple, and despite the fact that it can use open codecs, none of Apples content actually does. So I'm split on that one.

    6. Re:OS X means more open source developers == good. by root+66 · · Score: 1

      What you say is very true.

      Before OS X the Mac was primarily a shareware platform, but today most tools by private/hobby developers are released under some open source license.

      I guess a lot of the cocoa applications could be easily ported to GNUstep, thus be available on about every UNIX flavour (that GNUstep runs on).

      --
      -- I love the smell of Blue Screens in the morning.
    7. Re:OS X means more open source developers == good. by root+66 · · Score: 1

      The thing that would help GNUstep most may be the inclusion of Apple's ObjC++ into the main GCC branch.

      The Apple developers are really keen on doing that but some gcc people seem to be scared that the ObjC++ stuff might break the current code :-)

      However, I hope they solve the problems. Would make Chimera easily portable to GNUstep...

      --
      -- I love the smell of Blue Screens in the morning.
    8. Re:OS X means more open source developers == good. by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1

      Cocoa contains many, many proprietary extensions to OpenSTEP.No. There are some Mac OS X extensions (meaning, new classes and methods) but these are being *actively* tracked and implemented by the GNUstep project. With the addition of the Renaissance framework to GNUstep, porting graphical applications is going to be *far* easier.

    9. Re:OS X means more open source developers == good. by Halo1 · · Score: 1

      NetSprockets is indeed deprecated/abandoned, but OpenPlay is not (it's the successor). CDSA is Intel's (yes, that Intel) security specification of which Apple made an implementation (which is much better than the reference implementation that Intel provides, from what I've heard) and then open sourced it.

      --
      Donate free food here
  39. Interesting synergy : User Mode Linux under OSX by Jim+Buzbee · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As I posted in another Mac article,

    Here's what I'd like to see :

    User Mode Linux under OSX That would be interesting. Running a complete Linux distribution as a user process under OSX.

    Based on the comments from the linked exchange above, Jeff Dike (UML developer) thinks it can be done.

    1. Re:Interesting synergy : User Mode Linux under OSX by Mirus+Nex · · Score: 1

      You can install Linux under Virtual PC on OS X right now. VPC 6.0 is quite fast on newer hardware (dual 1+ GHz). This should be extremely quick on the IBM 970 whenever that day comes...

    2. Re:Interesting synergy : User Mode Linux under OSX by Jim+Buzbee · · Score: 1

      You can install Linux under Virtual PC on OS X right now.

      As I understand it, UML runs at much closer to native speed than it would under a virtual PC. There are slowdowns in system calls and other areas, but the standard process code runs natively.

  40. Expensive. by Universal+Indicator · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I agree. And in fact, the only thing that keeps me away from the Mac platform is the price of the hardware. I just don't see spending $2000 for a PowerMac when I could build an x86 box with the same power for 1/4 of the price.

    1. Re:Expensive. by repetty · · Score: 1

      You are obviously a hacker. As long as Linux is the only OS you load on it, go for it, but please don't post the "Mac hardware is expensive" bullshit again. It's been done before and it's tedious for the rest of us.

    2. Re:Expensive. by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 5, Informative

      I could build an x86 box with the same power for 1/4 of the price.

      Dual processors? DDR RAM? ATI Radeon 9000 (or GeForce 4 Ti) graphics? Audio I/O? Gigabit Ethernet? FireWire 800 and FireWire 400? DVD-RW burner? Built-in 802.11g and Bluetooth?

      Maybe you could build a machine like that for $500. But it wouldn't be easy, no sir.

      --

      I write in my journal
    3. Re:Expensive. by rampant+mac · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I could build an x86 box with the same power for 1/4 of the price.

      From another thread...

      Bet you it won't run OS X.

      --
      I like big butts and I cannot lie.
    4. Re:Expensive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, umm, what are you trying to say?
      That if you factor, say, Windows and Office into the equation, Mac hardware is not more expensive than PC hardware + some variety of Windows software?

      On another note, if they made something like an iMac or eMac without a monitor, and priced the system accordingly, I'd find a Mac system reasonably affordable. I mean, already have a perfectly fine monitor.

    5. Re:Expensive. by afantee · · Score: 1

      You can buy a 12" iBook for $999 which has everything I want as a programmer, plus 4+ hours battery, instant sleep and wake up, dozens of first class, multimedia, Unix, Java, C/C++, Objective C/C++, Perl, Ruby, GUI programming tools. Can you build one for me? No, I don't trust you for that.

  41. fink by theKiyote · · Score: 2, Informative

    one of the best *nix apps sights out there:

    http://fink.sourceforge.net

    I'm currently running windows maker on top of aqua

    kiyote

  42. Yea, thats completely bizzare since well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there's an APPLE section.

    What would be even more bizzare, is if the Slashdot editors actually read their own site or used spell checkers. Why the hell don't doesnt CmdrBurrito implement some dupe checker. It doesn't have to check for exact dupes but just possible dupes and notifies the editor that this story could be a dupe and here are the list of articles it could be a dupe with.

  43. Comapring Apples to Oranges .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only benefit any mac users will see is a 3 button mouse, with a scroll wheel.

  44. Uhh, who cares? by cscx · · Score: 0

    Many things that come out of Apple are very polished pieces of software and kick ass in general. Mass appeal and polish are some things that Linux software lacks in 100% of cases. I say, for OSS folks, who do most of this stuff in their spare time, should take all they can get and reap of the benefits regardless.

  45. X11 is handy, but not a huge incentive in itself.. by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

    ... While you _can_ run X11 rootless, it's only a little bit better interface-wise than Classic. Apple really should provide a wrapper to Quartz/Aqua which'd include several widget sets as well as straight X.. I'd still use X, if only so I can execute stuff like 'metatool' on my laptop, but as far as porting apps goes it's not going to be terribly convincing.. Of course, if Apple integrated X11 to the point where you didn't run all X apps in the same memory/app space, it might be close enough for art..

    Granted, Qt is available now fully-supported and there's work on gtk, but there's plenty of other widgetsets and frameworks (particularly Motif) that'd be great to have ported..

  46. The Onion predicted this one!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
  47. This must be saying... by EvilSmile · · Score: 1

    Enemy of Enemy = good friend :]

  48. Wishful thinking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure we can co-exist; but where's Quicktime
    for Linux? the one thing we could have used.
    Apple can pirate anything they want from the
    Unix world (like BSD and X), but Apple has given
    very little in return. Apple markets itself
    as hip and cool but acts like it's just the
    alternate platform for running Microsoft software.
    It's sad to say, but we'd be better of with
    Apple in chapter 11 and Linux absorbing their
    market share. With 10% of the desktop market,
    we'd start getting more commercial software support. Apple's exclusive deals with software
    suppliers and closed architecure has damaged
    coherent opposition to Microsoft.

  49. Vice versa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If slashdot editors are gonna use Macs, are Mac users gonna use linux?

  50. "Dogs Who Love Cats"! by leviramsey · · Score: 1
    from the cats-and-dogs-living-together dept.

    And twins?

    And I love you too.

    Here's to love songs!

  51. OS X also proprietary by Luke-Jr · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Key parts of OS X are still proprietary. Until they are free (or at least open), I still consider Apple an enemy. However, since we have a common stronger enemy, Microsoft, I'm willing to work together for now.

    --
    Luke-Jr
    1. Re:OS X also proprietary by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Key parts of OS X are still proprietary. Until they are free (or at least open), I still consider Apple an enemy.

      Ugh. Enough with the communist ideology, okay? Apple spends a fortune developing wonderful things. If they were to simply give those things away for free, they would be unable to stay in business. I, for one, like what Apple produces, and I like the way they influence the rest of the computer industry-- indeed, the entire consumer products industry. I don't want Apple to go away, so I don't want Apple to make any of their core products "free" or "open." I want them to stay as proprietary as possible, forever.

      And so do you. You just may not realize it yet.

      --

      I write in my journal
    2. Re:OS X also proprietary by Thomas+M+Hughes · · Score: 2, Insightful
      And so do you. You just may not realize it yet.
      Really? I somehow gain something out of a private corporation taking something that is cheap to reproduce, and instead, keeping it away from the masses?

      Certainly they have their reasons for wanting stuff to be proprietary, but why on earth should I want them to keep stuff away from me, forever, with no gain to me, ever, unless I pay them large amounts of money? That doesn't mean I feel I have a right to their product, which is a different argument. But I would most certainly prefer a society where everything possible were free. In fact, I _want_ a utopian society where everything is free. Why on earth would I want things to remain costly, forever?

      That was perhaps the most arrogant comment I've ever seen.
    3. Re:OS X also proprietary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take a look at some other Mists comments. This one isn't even in the running.

    4. Re:OS X also proprietary by presearch · · Score: 1

      ...But I would most certainly prefer a society where everything possible were free....

      Can you come over and wash my car, paint my house
      make me dinner, give me a new tv, put my kids through
      college, and clean out my basement?

      Thanks.
      I _want_ a utopian society where everything is free.

    5. Re:OS X also proprietary by Thomas+M+Hughes · · Score: 1
      Can you come over and wash my car, paint my house make me dinner, give me a new tv, put my kids through college, and clean out my basement?
      You missed my point entirely. I never claimed I had a right to get everything free, but my complaint was the previous statement that I should want Apple to keep their system proprietary, and that I just don't know what's good for me.

      The reality is, Apple having proprietary systems does absolutely nothing to benefit me. Thus, I do not want Apple to keep things proprietary, nor should I. I should want them to give everything away for free, whenever possible. However, I never, ever, claimed that I had an expectation (or a right) to that. Apple wants what is good for Apple, and I can respect that. However, I don't want what's good for Apple, I want what's good for me. Telling me I should want otherwise is outright silly.
    6. Re:OS X also proprietary by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No it isn't silly.

      It's about seeing enough of the big picture too see a *relationship* between you and Apple. A big enough picture where you can see that what is good for Apple is good for you, and *ultimately* that Apple reciprocates and sees what is good for you is good for them.

      If that doesn't exist, then Apple never can see any benefit to helping you at all, because they just want to help themselves right? Wrong, of course. By helping you they increase sales and usage and commitment (or something like that). That helps them.

      So likewise, you want whats good for Apple because (hopefully) there exists a relationship in which you benefit from Apple getting some benefits.

      Past examples include:
      Quicktime, which Microsoft and others eventually used as the template for a media framework (Quicktime was just first)
      Mac OS, which pioneered things like color desktops and UIs in a world of CLI and low res low fidelty desktops. This became mass market with the introduction of Win 95
      USB, if only because iMacs could only use USB peripherals, giving USB developers a market
      Firewire, if only because Macs use it for their high speed interface for iPods and DV cameras, as well as hard drives and stuff. How does this help you? Well, if you need a high speed serial interface, of course.

      Then there's 802.11b, Rendevous, widespread adoption of LCDs, DVD-R, Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio, iMovie, etc.

      The point? Apple makes a profit making tools and functionality available that was inaccessable, expensive, or nonexistant before. That *is* benefit to you, if you want a $1800 DVD or movie studio, or a $3800 pro quality DVD, audio, or movie studio. Sure, you have to pay for it, but that's what keeps Apple alive and gives you your product.

      So yes, you want whats good for Apple because there's a symbiotic (or for some, parasitic) relationhip. If Apple dies, than you (we) need someone else to come along to do this, even if it's Microsoft or your next door neighbor. Until, of course, it becomes a commodity.

      Dunno if this is clear. Apple produces A, B, and C. You only care about B, but that is enough because the existence of B gives you a benefit. So already Apple cares about you, because by providing B they have your reliance upon them. Perhaps B+ is what you really need, so you want what is good for Apple so that B+ comes out. And at the end, both sides win.

      Life, and certainly this marketplace, is *not* a zero sum game. Both sides can win.

    7. Re:OS X also proprietary by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1

      But I would most certainly prefer a society where everything possible were free. In fact, I _want_ a utopian society where everything is free.

      No, you wouldn't, and no, you don't. See, there's this idea called the profit motive. Maybe you've heard of it. It's what drives people to create new things. A world in which everything were free would be a world in which hardly anybody would bother creating anything new. That would be bad. You don't want that.

      --

      I write in my journal
    8. Re:OS X also proprietary by tbien · · Score: 1

      Come on... That's bullshit you writing here. I know tons of people creating exciting, innovative new things in their spare time without any hint of what you call a "profit motive".

    9. Re:OS X also proprietary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ugh. Enough with the Twirlip already. You want "free market" ideology only, okay, you ignorant twit, here it is. Luke Jr. said "free (or at least open)." That signifies an acknowledgement and accomodation of Open Source ideas, which are essentially grounded in a kind of libertarian free market capitialism. You have read "The Cathedral and the Bazaar," haven't you? When disagreeing with the Open Source philosophy, it is rhetorically abonimable to muddy the discussion with slurs like "communist," because it just doesn't apply, and only the ignorant will be persuaded.

      Apple. Here's the deal. Apple wants to break into the server market because that's where the money is, and they see it is as key to their longterm growth and indeed viability. After 18mos. of courting *nixers, they're still getting whupped by the likes of IBM, Dell and HPQ even. People--companies, institutions with masses of US$$$ to spend in the marketplace,--people who spend beaucoup bucks on servers have realized the value of Free (or Open Source) software. Apple isn't quite there. You, Mac zealot or paid astroturfer or whatever, you, macbuddy, you want Apple to open its code. For real. You may not realize it, but you do.

    10. Re:OS X also proprietary by pudge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Twirlip was far too absolute in the statement, but you must recognize there is a lot of truth to it. The whole reason copyright and patent exist in the US is because the people who wrote the Constitution recognized that one of the best (not the only) ways to encourage innovation was to grant temporary monopolies to the innovators.

      That is, unless you believe the Supreme Court of the United States ... Free Mickey!

    11. Re:OS X also proprietary by Luke-Jr · · Score: 1

      Just to clarify things, I was referring to free as in freedom (such as BSD or GPL licensed) not as in price. And even if Apple was convinced free software was impossible to sell, I would at least hope they would make it open source so people can see the source, possibly modify it, and not redistribute either the source or the binaries.

      --
      Luke-Jr
    12. Re:OS X also proprietary by tholomyes · · Score: 1

      Really? I somehow gain something out of a private corporation taking something that is cheap to reproduce, and instead, keeping it away from the masses?

      Cheap to reproduce != cheap to produce, develop, distribute and support.

      Besides, I would rather a company try to make its money off of cool tech than "tech support" (an increasingly popular and disturbing trend).

      --
      When did the future switch from being a promise to a threat? -C. Palahniuk
    13. Re:OS X also proprietary by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 1
      Key parts of OS X are still proprietary. Until they are free (or at least open), I still consider Apple an enemy.

      VADER: The Source is strong with this one....

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
    14. Re:OS X also proprietary by Cyno · · Score: 1

      No, but if you had a different attitude I might help you wash your car, cook dinner, grab some beers, teach your kids UNIX, networking and programming, and physics if they're interested, and maybe help you sort through the trash in your basement. But it sounds to me like you are just too lazy to do these things yourself.

      I'm willing to _work_ for free for that utopian society (btw someone thinks I'm worth a lot in a capitalist society... so much in fact I'm not willing to do my job for less than 6 figures). But I won't work for you or your money. I don't even like you.

    15. Re:OS X also proprietary by Cyno · · Score: 1

      They were wrong. Hell, they weren't even computer literate.

    16. Re:OS X also proprietary by presearch · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean for you to actually do that.
      A propensity for lashing out probably wouldn't work as
      the connerstone of a utopian society. See, it's already
      falling apart.

      If everyone was willing to give away everything for free,
      then nobody would go wanting.

      I don't think that would work. There's not enough excess
      material/energy/desire/selflessness to make that happen
      on any large scale, except maybe with some specifically
      targeted drugs.

      It might work at first, but then someone would read something
      they disagree with and tell that person they don't like
      them. The target of the dislike probably wouldn't
      give a shit, and then what would you have?

      (slashdot!)

    17. Re:OS X also proprietary by presearch · · Score: 1

      connerstone?
      I can never post anything without mistyping something.
      Seee?

    18. Re:OS X also proprietary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod this up again and again. Good good post.

    19. Re:OS X also proprietary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If Apple's hardware was competitive, they could compete without having to force hardware upgrades to run Jaguar, or force us to buy a Mac to get iTunes. If they were confident that their hardware was the best, they'd sell iTunes to everybody, Mac, PC, and Linux. And they'd make their money because iTunes would be FREELY CHOSEN because it stands alone on its merits, and PPC Macs would be FREELY CHOSEN because they stand alone on its merits over PCs.

      Right now, I *accept* a slower Mac in order to get iTunes. I *settle* for hardware that is inferior and has a higher markup because they are bundling in a way Microsoft can only dream of. And if Apple had won the desktop war, the world would be a LOT less free than it is now. And would Apple still innovate if it could sit on its ass and force you to upgrade 33 Mhz at a time because they ruled both hardware AND software?

      You're playing for the wrong team, boy. And about your "communist" remark, since when has FREEDOM been COMMUNIST? You don't understand PoliSci in the least and are throwing insults to win a battle you can't win with logic. If you'd open your brainwashed eyes, you'd realize that Apple, like all corporations, has both good and bad points. Hiding source code from paying customers is a bad point. Do you remember when many users Mac OS X systems started dialing out to littlebuddy.apple.com without permission from the user? What was that? Even if Apple gave you an explanation, that's all you have - Apple's version of the story. You can't PROVE IT by checking the source code. If it can do that, it can have backdoors in it, and the only thing you have is your blind faith and trust in Apple's good nature to defend you. And in a post-911 Big Brother world, you're a fool to trust Apple not to support NSA requests for access to YOUR computer.

      So, in short,

      Not making Quicktime for Linux is communist, because real capitalists want to sell each individual product to everybody in the world. Microsoft sells YOU MSOffice, don't they? And there's rumors of a Linux version on the way. Where's the Quicktime port to Linux? The Linux community is the fastest growing in the world, and is close to the same size as the Mac community.

      File format lock-in (like Quicktime) is communist, because it's a barrier to competition. If they thought they could win, they'd open their stuff up to open competition and say "I welcome all challengers to my throne, but I will win because my product is better."

      Bundling is communist, because it prevents true and open competition - it is a restriction placed on the customer to force him to buy something he doesn't specifically want to get something he does want.

      Taking from BSD and giving nothing (or nearly nothing) back is communist, because real capitalists instinctively repay those who have helped them equal to what they received. Thus, Linux is forced capitalism, not communism. The GPL requires you to repay them in code for what they've done for you. Apple takes but does not repay, except to further their own cause.

      You should read some more MacCommunist if you don't think Apple is communist. And that site is from a guy who thinks communism is good, and brags about Apple's communist leanings.

      You mistake corporatism for capitalism, a common mistake, furthered by George W. Bush's misinterpretation of capitalism in order to benefit his personal interests and further his own wealth and the wealth of his billionaire friends. But what's good for the company isn't always the capitalist ideal. Sorry.

    20. Re:OS X also proprietary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Apple hadn't beaten HP, Dell, or whoever, by 6 months in these "innovations" (upgrades to me), they would have happened anyway. I can't believe that only Apple is interested in improving their products. In fact, I know for a fact they're not. I know Sony is interested in creating a symbiotic relationship between their computers and video cameras, they would have pushed for USB if Apple hadn't gotten there first with Firewire. MicronPC offers computers with biometric fingerprint scan security in them (pretty inexpensive, too), and Alienware has a new chameleon multicoloring effect going on (which reminds me of a recent Apple patent for coloring effects they don't even sell yet) and most PCs beat Apple's performance hands down (It's just not physically possible for PPC chips to overcome the lack of fast busspeed and RAM in Macs with their slight RISC over CISC advantage). There's a LOT of cool stuff happening in the PC world, it's just not hyped nearly as well as Apple's stuff. I mean, Apple upgrades their PowerMacs by 100 Mhz, and it gets a Slashdot story. I get Dell magazines monthly at work, and every single month there's upgrades which haven't ever made a front page story on Slashdot. Hell, Dell and the other PC manufacturers don't even HAVE a Slashdot topic - and Microsoft only has one so we can flame them into oblivion with each story. Apple's nearly as corrupt and evil as Microsoft, just look at their history. But still, we see them as the "good guys". If there's any good guys in the tech world, it's the FSF, and look how they're treated on Slashdot.

      Apples DO have the cool widescreen, true, but there's probably PC makers with them as well. I don't know, I haven't checked. My point is, they're not "the greatest computer company in the world", and they're not the only one innovating - but if they are, I feel justified in blaming this whole tech slump squarely on them.

      They're a cool little company, but I know Apple too well to assume that they're not going to try to wipe out free software (an impossibly tough competitor) when they don't need them anymore. And then the world will be MUCH worse off.

    21. Re:OS X also proprietary by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1

      If they were confident that their hardware was the best, they'd sell iTunes to everybody, Mac, PC, and Linux.

      Man, you just don't understand, do you? Apple wants people to buy Macs. They are not interested in people who don't buy Macs. So spending money to port iTunes to another OS, like Windows or Linux or whatever else, makes NO sense whatsoever. None.

      And if Apple had won the desktop war, the world would be a LOT less free than it is now.

      Congratulations. You win the award for most meaningless comment on Slashdot. What the hell is "less free" supposed to mean, anyway?

      And would Apple still innovate if it could sit on its ass and force you to upgrade 33 Mhz at a time because they ruled both hardware AND software?

      Seeing as how that was the case just a few short years ago, and how Apple innovated like hell in the time since then, I would say that the answer to this question is "yes."

      And about your "communist" remark, since when has FREEDOM been COMMUNIST?

      "Apple is the enemy because they dare to keep secrets." That's communist. Saying that Apple is bad because they maintain an advantage over their competition is communist. What you call "freedom" I call oppression.

      Hiding source code from paying customers is a bad point.

      Wrong. What else can I say? Wrong. It's not your source code; it's Apple's. So the fact that they're not giving it to you does not mean that they're "hiding" it. It simply means that you're not entitled to it.

      Do you remember when many users Mac OS X systems started dialing out to littlebuddy.apple.com without permission from the user? What was that?

      It was a one-time registration connection that happens during an installation of Mac OS 9. If the connection fails-- if your computer is not connected to the Internet when Mac OS 9 is being installed, or if you're behind a firewall-- then the connection attempt is retried until it succeeds. You would know this if you stopped to read anything at all about what you're talking about. As it is, you're just spreading communist, collectivist anti-Mac rhetoric, and that's not cool.

      Not making Quicktime for Linux is communist, because real capitalists want to sell each individual product to everybody in the world.

      Wrong. Apple sells Macs. That's basically all they sell. Their business plan is based entirely around selling Macs. So Apple will do whatever they feel necessary to get you to buy a Mac. And that includes not releasing QuickTime for Linux. What's communist is when people climb on message boards like this one and demand QuickTime for Linux, and accuse Apple of being evil because they don't (1) port their software to other platforms, or (2) release their source code.

      File format lock-in (like Quicktime) is communist, because it's a barrier to competition.

      God, you just don't understand communism or QuickTime, do you? The QuickTime file format is completely documented. Anybody who wants to can download the documentation from Apple's developer site and write their own software for reading and writing QuickTime movie files. Like the OS 9 thing above, this is just another sign of your ignorance.

      Bundling is communist, because it prevents true and open competition

      Again, you don't get it. Apple wants you to buy Macs. They don't care how many people use iTunes, or whatever else. They just want you to buy Macs. So they'll do whatever they feel is necessary and appropriate to make people want to buy a Mac, including bundling iLife applications and whatnot.

      Taking from BSD and giving nothing (or nearly nothing) back is communist, because real capitalists instinctively repay those who have helped them equal to what they received.

      What the fuck are you talking about? First, Apple has given tons back to the BSD community; I'm not even going to bother debating this with you, because it's already a dead horse. But whether or not this is the case, the BSD license lays out the terms under which people are allowed to use the software. Apple has followed those terms to the letter. And finally, I don't know where you get this whacked-out idea about "paying back." That's just nuts.

      Thus, Linux is forced capitalism, not communism.

      Yes, and work shall set you free. Keep the insane doublethink coming, Sparky.

      Apple takes but does not repay, except to further their own cause.

      Except for all the stuff they've released as open source. Conveniently forgetting that, are we?

      You mistake corporatism for capitalism, a common mistake, furthered by George W. Bush's misinterpretation of capitalism in order to benefit his personal interests and further his own wealth and the wealth of his billionaire friends.

      Ah, now we're getting to the truth of this matter. You are (a) ignorant, as demonstrated by your statements above. You are also (b) confused, as demonstrated by your statement about "forced capitalism," above. And finally you are (c) anti-American.

      In short, friend, you are an idiot. If I hadn't already taken the time to write this reply, I wouldn't even bother with it. You're just not worth it.

      --

      I write in my journal
    22. Re:OS X also proprietary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      First, I'd like to mention that your posting history shows you to be a paid shill of Apple. It's sad that Apple has stooped to the level of Microsoft hiring trolls to promote their interests above those of the consumers. I used to love those guys, but now they want to be a little MS.

      Man, you just don't understand, do you? Apple wants people to buy Macs. They are not interested in people who don't buy Macs. So spending money to port iTunes to another OS, like Windows or Linux or whatever else, makes NO sense whatsoever. None.

      Don't they sell software as well? Moron, if you'd look at the iPod for Windows, and the fact that Apple themselves report on their financial statements to making more profit off the iPod for Windows than the iPod for Mac, you'd understand that the amount of money they could make if they ported their software to other operating systems could set them up for life, rather than being a "continually beleaguered" company. I just want my shares to be worth something again.

      And if Apple had won the desktop war, the world would be a LOT less free than it is now.

      Congratulations. You win the award for most meaningless comment on Slashdot. What the hell is "less free" supposed to mean, anyway?

      If you're on Slashdot and you don't understand the concept of software freedom yet, you've been spending too much time trolling with your head up Steve Jobs' royal posterior.

      And would Apple still innovate if it could sit on its ass and force you to upgrade 33 Mhz at a time because they ruled both hardware AND software?

      Seeing as how that was the case just a few short years ago, and how Apple innovated like hell in the time since then, I would say that the answer to this question is "yes."

      What innovation? Putting a widescreen on their computers? Barely increasing their megahertz? Increasing the speed of Firewire? .Mac? Jeez, gimme a break. These are all logical improvements to existing technologies. The iMac design was innovative, but I thought of all the rest of that myself before Apple released it. Hell, I SUGGESTED some of it to Apple. It's not innovation, it's progress. You have no clue what's happening on the PC front, do you? All the same stuff, just not as well publicized. Apple bumps their PowerMacs 50Mhz and makes the front page of Slashdot. Micron releases laptops with fingerprint biometric scanners built into them and nobody knows.

      And about your "communist" remark, since when has FREEDOM been COMMUNIST?

      "Apple is the enemy because they dare to keep secrets." That's communist. Saying that Apple is bad because they maintain an advantage over their competition is communist. What you call "freedom" I call oppression.

      Loser, keeping secrets is fine. I'm on as an AC, if you haven't noticed. Privacy for the individual is paramount in a capitalistic society. What I said was, "Since when has FREEDOM been COMMUNIST?" You're the one on the attack here, shmuck. You're the one saying the GPL is communist because it promotes freedom. And as for your moronic second point, maintaining WHAT advantage over their competition? They're at between 2 and 5% marketshare? If they want to survive, they better change something. If they're a hardware company, open their software to get people in. If they're a software company, port their stuff to other oses and start raking in the cash like they did with iPod for Windows and Quicktime Pro. I'd rather them be alive than dead. You'd rather they believe they're invulnerable and don't have to adapt. Thanks.

      Hiding source code from paying customers is a bad point.

      Wrong. What else can I say? Wrong. It's not your source code; it's Apple's. So the fact that they're not giving it to you does not mean that they're "hiding" it. It simply means that you're not entitled to it.

      Retard, it's bad for Apple, because many large corporations won't run software they can't see the FULL source code on, to make sure there are no backdoors in it. Same with countries, like China developing its own Linux because they claim they found a NSA Backdoor in Windows. I don't trust Apple Corporate nearly as much as I trust a product that I can see the source code for. It's bad for the customer for the same reasons, because their security is potentially comprimised and they can't stop it. And of course, Apple can manipulate their OS to create a nasty vendor lock-in. Which they do.

      You're arguing on Apple's behalf, not as an Apple user. If they gave you the option of seeing the source code or not, wouldn't you take it? No, because no matter what Apple's done in the past, you stupidly still trust them 100%. I don't. And I won't even get into the argument about what my rights should be as a customer over the product I buy.

      Do you remember when many users Mac OS X systems started dialing out to littlebuddy.apple.com without permission from the user? What was that?

      It was a one-time registration connection that happens during an installation of Mac OS 9. If the connection fails-- if your computer is not connected to the Internet when Mac OS 9 is being installed, or if you're behind a firewall-- then the connection attempt is retried until it succeeds. You would know this if you stopped to read anything at all about what you're talking about. As it is, you're just spreading communist, collectivist anti-Mac rhetoric, and that's not cool.

      I'm not a communist. And I'm not Anti-Mac. I'm pro-truth and pro-fairness. If a Windows system started dialing out to Microsoft.com and they didn't give any explanation, every reader on Slashdot would be pissed. You shills forgave Apple, because they've got pretty graphics and glowy keyboards. Nice hypocrisy. Nice double standard, Mac boy. Nice forgiving the DMCA usage, the .Mac charges after PROMISING "free forever", etc. I could go on forever, but it doesn't matter. You have already decided to worship Apple (to their detriment and yours), and you won't let the facts influence your decision. You hurt them as much as yourself by insisting they don't have to be accountable for their actions. How do you think Microsoft got on top? They didn't, they just didn't stop Apple from sliding into the gutters of weakness and stupidity. And by the way, that's not all littlebuddy was. But I guess you get your info off MacOSRumors.

      Not making Quicktime for Linux is communist, because real capitalists want to sell each individual product to everybody in the world.

      Wrong. Apple sells Macs. That's basically all they sell. Their business plan is based entirely around selling Macs. So Apple will do whatever they feel necessary to get you to buy a Mac. And that includes not releasing QuickTime for Linux. What's communist is when people climb on message boards like this one and demand QuickTime for Linux, and accuse Apple of being evil because they don't (1) port their software to other platforms, or (2) release their source code.

      So your point is that Apple's corporate strategy is BAIT AND SWITCH? Their whole reason for being is to subsidize their weak-ass hardware with software offerings in order to create a vendor lock-in? You are truly a world-class dink. Defend Apple as you may, the point was that Apple is not following true capitalistic ideals, a la Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, or Milton Friedman. You haven't proven it, you're an idiot and a shill. Grow some balance when you finish growing testicles. And thanks for explaining that "Apple sells Macs". I had no frickin idea.

      File format lock-in (like Quicktime) is communist, because it's a barrier to competition.

      God, you just don't understand communism or QuickTime, do you? The QuickTime file format is completely documented. Anybody who wants to can download the documentation from Apple's developer site and write their own software for reading and writing QuickTime movie files. Like the OS 9 thing above, this is just another sign of your ignorance.

      Funny there's none out there then, eh? Funny Windows Media Player can't crack it, Realplayer can't play it, and the world-class open-source programmers haven't been able to whip up a player then, eh? You are unbalanced, a troll, and blowing smoke out your ass.

      Bundling is communist, because it prevents true and open competition

      Again, you don't get it. Apple wants you to buy Macs. They don't care how many people use iTunes, or whatever else. They just want you to buy Macs. So they'll do whatever they feel is necessary and appropriate to make people want to buy a Mac, including bundling iLife applications and whatnot.

      Then if I buy a Mac, will I get the complete human-readable source code for iLife? That's all it'll take to get me back in. And it's funny you should say they'll "do whatever they feel is necessary and appropriate", Hitler said the same thing. His necessary and appropriate didn't turn out so well, I think.

      Taking from BSD and giving nothing (or nearly nothing) back is communist, because real capitalists instinctively repay those who have helped them equal to what they received.

      What the fuck are you talking about? First, Apple has given tons back to the BSD community; I'm not even going to bother debating this with you, because it's already a dead horse. But whether or not this is the case, the BSD license lays out the terms under which people are allowed to use the software. Apple has followed those terms to the letter. And finally, I don't know where you get this whacked-out idea about "paying back." That's just nuts.

      Didn't you see the word "equal" in my sentence? Apple followed the letter of the law. Capitalists, however, pay what they feel is equal compensation for what they've received. YOU don't understand, this whole post was about Apple's lack of capitalist tendencies; DID they give an entire functional OS worth of code back, or just a few bug fixes and code THAT ONLY WORKS IF YOU'RE PROGRAMMING IN COCOA? Retard. Nice work with the bolding, btw. Really effective.

      Thus, Linux is forced capitalism, not communism.

      Yes, and work shall set you free. Keep the insane doublethink coming, Sparky.

      You must not speak English as a first language. And I notice you're lazy, too. Interesting. I regularly work a 70-80 hour workweek and STILL find time to insult trolls like you on Slashdot on breaks.

      Apple takes but does not repay, except to further their own cause.

      Except for all the stuff they've released as open source. Conveniently forgetting that, are we?

      How stupid ARE you? As noted above, Mister MonkeyTwit, Apple releases code that will further OSX and PPC. The bug fixes they've given back to gcc improve gcc under OSX and on PPC ONLY, the release of Rendezvous as open is only to speed its' acceptance, and the bug fixes to KHTML are only to ensure it can stay alive against Mozilla, so that Apple can borrow from them in the future. They're protecting their investment. I see nothing wrong with this; I see YOU as being moronic for touting them as saviors of open-source when they do NOTHING to help anyone but projects they plan to profit from. The problem is YOU claim their motives are pure. You're clearly unbalanced and not living in reality. You obviously don't know them as well as I do.

      You mistake corporatism for capitalism, a common mistake, furthered by George W. Bush's misinterpretation of capitalism in order to benefit his personal interests and further his own wealth and the wealth of his billionaire friends.

      Ah, now we're getting to the truth of this matter. You are (a) ignorant, as demonstrated by your statements above. You are also (b) confused, as demonstrated by your statement about "forced capitalism," above. And finally you are (c) anti-American.

      In short, friend, you are an idiot. If I hadn't already taken the time to write this reply, I wouldn't even bother with it. You're just not worth it.

      Very poetic. However, you, drooling trollio, are a) a repeat offending Maczealot troll who denies reality because it doesn't fit your personal messianic vision of Apple; b)ignorant of modern-day politics, as evidenced by Bush's call to the DoJ to let MS off the hook, his friendship with Kenneth Lay, his relationships with Carlyle and Halliburton, and the whole Texas Oilman Oil War with Iraq; c) confused about the nature of true capitalism and how Apple doesn't quite fit in, or the nature of communism and how Linux is anything but; d) anti-American, because if it came down to choosing to die for your country or die for Apple, I know who you'd choose. They're just a corporation, dude, like Nike, MacDonalds, Microsoft, or Exxon. A Company. Not Mecca. Get your head on straight, if you can.

      P.S. I know Apple Corporation because I used to work there. I hope you trust me, maybe you're running my code right now. So eat me. Of course, the code I've contributed to various Linux projects has been verified to be valid by more than a moronic supervisor who basically takes my word for it. It's open to everyone who wants to check up on me anywhere in the world... It's really nice being on the good guys side for once. Refreshing to do the right thing for the right reasons.

      Well, you certainly are a troll. Nice posting history, loser. Stupid stupid stupid. Wake up and smell your objectivity and stock options burning.

    23. Re:OS X also proprietary by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1

      First, I'd like to mention that your posting history shows you to be a paid shill of Apple.

      I wish! I could use the extra money. Anybody who reads this who wants to hire me to be their paid shill, contact twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com immediately.

      If you hadn't screwed up your </i> tag and made the rest of your post impossible to read, we might have had a conversation. As it is, I see little point in expending the effort necessary to decipher your post and construct a reply. Thanks for playing, though.

      --

      I write in my journal
    24. Re:OS X also proprietary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Italics look fine on Mozilla. Which browser and OS are you using?

    25. Re:OS X also proprietary by Halo1 · · Score: 1
      I'm just going to correct a few factual mistakes in your communist-capitalist ramblings (it seems to me that you're simply very scared to be found out as someone who possibly might stand behind some communist ideals, even though I agree the parent was overdoing it):
      If Apple's hardware was competitive, they could compete without having to force hardware upgrades to run Jaguar
      Jaguar is actually faster and leaner than all previous Mac OS X versions and runs on all hardware configurations supported by Mac OS X 10.1 and earlier. If you're thinking of Quartz Extreme (which requires an AGP Radeon+/Geforce2MX+ with 16+MB of VRAM to work):
      • Jaguar runs fine without it (and is still faster than Mac OS X 10.1.5 graphics-wise)
      • the reason it's not supported on lower-end graphics cards is because they don't have the hardware necessary to support its implementation (they have to support textures with a size tht's not a power of 2)
      Complaining about Quartz Extreme is the same as complaining about Altivec optimizations (since they don't help for G3's). It's just an extra fgeature that takes advantage of the extra hardware you have and which is otherwise just sitting idle.
      Not making Quicktime for Linux is communist
      Not making Quicktime for Linux is having not enough resources to put into such an enormous undertaking. What enormous undertaking you ask? Well, Quicktime for Windows is not just a couple of audio and video codecs and some glue code, but a port of half the Mac OS toolbox to win32 (so they could keep the Quicktime source more or less the same for both platforms).

      I've read a couple of times in the past on the mac-games-dev list hosted at Apple, that developers considering to port their (small-scale) game from Mac to Windows were encouraged by other developers to simply require QTfW, since then they wouldn't have to change their code that much (nor really learn the win32 API in-depth).

      So you see, porting Quicktime to Linux would mean porting that age-old toolbox stuff over to Linux. And no, they haven't already don't a *nix port for Mac OS X, since there they use Carbon (which is based on the old toolbox API). Given that the ROI would be quite small (who's gonna upgrade to Quicktime Pro for $29,95? What Linux pro-video app creators for Linux will go into a Quicktime-pro bundling deal with Apple?), I think they don't do it simply because it doesn't make any business sense.

      File format lock-in (like Quicktime) is communist, because it's a barrier to competition.
      As must have been mentioned already thousands of times on slashdot, the Quicktime fileformat is completely open. It's the codecs that are proprietary and whose unavailability causes so much grief (although the latest versions of vlc and mplayer can play pretty much everything you can throw at them, making this less of an issue)
      Taking from BSD and giving nothing (or nearly nothing) back is communist
      They indeed (afaik at least) haven't given much back too Free/Open/NetBSD, but used a whole bunch of apps and libraries supported by those distributions. But why would that be? Maybe because they also didn't change anything to those apps and libraries? The changes that they did do, have been submitted back and those that were rejected are still available via Darwin cvs.

      I mean, what should they do according to you? Give all BSD distro's a penny per line of source code that they used? Do you think that's what those distro's want? I doubt it. In general, what an open source project wants is that its stuff gets used, improved/bug fixed if necessary and that they get recognition for it. I don't see where Apple failed.

      Apart from that, there's of course the obligatory mention of Apple's work on gcc (which is used by pretty much every open source OS out there, including the BSD's), resulting in (on average) 30% faster code generation for the PowerPC in version 3.x, altivec intrinsics and obj-c++ support. Yes, they were required to make their changes to gcc public since it's GPL, but

      • they were never forced to use gcc (they could've also take MrC, which still generates much better code than gcc)
      • they were also never forced to actively submit patches to the FSF, rework them when they're rejected and submit them again etc
      There's of course also all the open source projects that they started and maintain themselves, such as the Darwin Streaming server (which not only streams Quicktime files, but also mp3 and mp4's), OpenPlay, Rendezvous, ... and improvements to/support for other open frameworks such as cups and khtml.

      It's of course obvious that Apple doesn't do all those things simply because it loves open source and wants to support us hackers. It does those things because it makes sense for them (in case of choosing gcc instead of MrC, that's because MrC's C++ support was quite mediocre; with the submitting of patches it's because otherwise they have to remerge all their patches with every new release, while now the FSF maintainers make sure that the accepted patches are maintained).

      All the ranting about Apple being communist, capitalist and/or corporatist aside, I think it's clear that Apple currently tries to do as much things as possible in such a way that it's both good for itself and the open source community. Yes, when there are big trade-offs, it's the open source camp that "loses" (but that's logical, Apple is still a company and if it doesn't make such decisions, there will simply be no Apple anymore in a couple of years).

      Well, that's enough ranting in an old thread for today <g>

      --
      Donate free food here
    26. Re:OS X also proprietary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, logical, objective, rational reply. Thanks!

    27. Re:OS X also proprietary by Cyno · · Score: 1

      Yeah, very true. But personally I think it is extremely important for each and every one of us to express our opinions and for those opinions to be heard by all. Without communication even our current economy has problems sustaining itself. First we must build a dialog, then we can begin to work through the details, if (and its a big if) we are willing to cooperate and work together. I don't foresee any of this type of stuff happening anywhere near the US anytime soon. I feel like we're just too independant to work together on issues of this importance.

      I don't know. Capitalism got us this far..

  52. Switch to Macs? Why waste you money by MarkCarson · · Score: 1

    If Linux is so good and stable and free, why do Slashdot Editors want to run it on overpriced of hardware like a Mac when you can run it on an equivalent featured/powered PC for hundreds (or thousands) less? Don't confuse distain of MS-Windows with a lack of appreciation for cost effective hardware. Remember, once Windows is gone, its just hardware waiting to run an O/S.

    --
    I'm scared of world leaders who think locally and act globally.
    1. Re:Switch to Macs? Why waste you money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Apple hardware is just better.

      I'm on a 1ghz PB4, 15". It has gigE built in, 5 hour battery, built in DVD-RW, CDRW, DVD, CD ... built in wireless, a gig of RAM and a 60gig drive.

      These things are just slick. They could do with a MHZ injection, but fast enough for me.

    2. Re:Switch to Macs? Why waste you money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey that's funny, I have a compaq laptop with the same specs- bought a year and half ago for $2000. Wow for you! But I guess I don't have a cool glow-in-the-dark Apple logo though.

    3. Re:Switch to Macs? Why waste you money by bkontr · · Score: 1

      Why?? Because Macs play nice with other operating systems like Linux, Solaris, BSD ect.....unlike some unfriendly Redmond WA based OSes that think the world should revolve around them. As if that wasn't enoough you get better software (and more of it), more stability, and a highly compatible hardware/software marriage, and better security...like their ads say "it just works". The question is why do people waste thier money supporting Microsoft's monopoly and get less compatability, security, and stability for thier money??

      --


      "You helped our nation celebrate its bicentennial in 17 -- 1976." --George W. Bush, to Queen Elizabeth, Wash
    4. Re:Switch to Macs? Why waste you money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because despite how high intel can pump Mhz, most PC hardware is still trash from a design/usability perspective.

    5. Re:Switch to Macs? Why waste you money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I have been comparing hardware prices for some time, as I'm looking for a good cheap laptop. At least in the laptop market, PC prices a ridicously high, and the iBook series is actually much cheaper than a comparable intel Laptop.

    6. Re:Switch to Macs? Why waste you money by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      I repaired a Windows-based laptop for a friend yesterday and it was the biggest pile of junk I have ever seen.

      Tacky plastic that creaks, not a sign of any dort of metal frame or bracing - the entire thing drew strength from two thin, crappy pieces of ABS plastic.

      The reason for repair was that the DVD drive had come unseated from it's connector and hence wasn't working. I'm sure if the chassis had been more sturdy this wouldn't have happened.

      He paid £1,300 for this laptop (1.3Ghz, 256Mb, 30Gb, DVD, 14", Windoze XtremePants).

      In comparison, I paid £1,100 for a 600Mhz G3 iBook. While you might balk at the apparent speed loss compared to that POS windoze box, it can encode Mpeg4 in real time, capture DV at full frame, and export back to the camera with no loss of quality and is more than powerful enough for me in most applications.

      As a plus, and this is really where the iBook wins hands down, it is a solid piece of hardware.

      It's constructed of magnesium alloy and polycarbonate and is well put together, resulting in a very rugged little machine that feels more like a solid object than a chassis with delicate computer parts inside. There are no external catched, switches or doors that can break off, and it's only an inch and a half thick, and weighs about as much as a bag of sugar. About 5 lbs I think - so maybe 2 bags.

      The battery lasts for 5 hours, give or take a bit (obviously less if you're watching a DVD or burning CDs - oh yeah, the iBook has a combo drive in it).

      I doesn't burn my crown jewels when it's sitting on my lap, although I imagine I'd be a bit more careful if I had a G4 inside it.

      For less than my friend paid for his pile of plastic and junk I got a 12" laptop with equivalent HD space, a DVD/CD-RW drive, half the memory (but for $50 I put another 256 in the same day it arrived) and a user experience that just
      can't be matched on a windows machine.

      As with everything in life, you get what you pay for. And in my opinion (and it is just that, an opinion), the Apple platform in all its forms provides that.

      I could have bought a windows laptop with an equivalent processor and screen size for less money, but it wouldn't have been a patch on the fantastic piece of computing hardware sitting on my lap right now.

  53. or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next thing you know, linux will be running photoshop :)

  54. Linux/Apple combo trouble for marriages by bluesangria · · Score: 5, Funny
    The proof is self-evident.


    I brought home my Ti OS X PowerBook from work one day. My Solaris/Linux loving spouse immediately downloaded OroborX (sp?), turned on the wireless networking, fired up iTunes and accessed remote Xterm apps for his job. I have asked him to stop greeting me at the door with "Hi Honey! Did you bring your PowerBook?", as it makes me feel he loves me only for my laptop.


    Negotiations are currently underway for his own PowerBook, so that I might eventually recover mine.

    bluesangria

    1. Re:Linux/Apple combo trouble for marriages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading between the lines I thought he was, but I must ask why do you care enough to ask him?

    2. Re:Linux/Apple combo trouble for marriages by larien · · Score: 2, Funny
      I can just see the conversation:

      Tell me, do you like me just for my laptop?
      No honey, of course not, I love you for the sex as well!
      That's OK then...

    3. Re:Linux/Apple combo trouble for marriages by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      Negotiations are currently underway for his own PowerBook, so that I might eventually recover mine.

      Then you must be losing the negotiations. Better negotiations would have you getting a 17" powerbook and giving him yours as a hand-me-down.

    4. Re:Linux/Apple combo trouble for marriages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he's got a mac, dude.

  55. expedite! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so try out apple's beta for X11 to speed things up..
    http://www.apple.com/macosx/x11/

  56. Sounds like a plan by Alcimedes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If together the two groups and help eachother out, that seems wonderful to me. Not every business in the same market has to be working to destroy all others. Often times a symbiotic relationship will be more beneficial than a destructive one.

    At this point they have 90% of the market to shoot for. There's plenty of room for both to grow together while taking most of their customers away from MS.

    More marketshare means more apps. It also means that technologies like OpenGL just might survive and keey DirectX from taking over the gaming world.

    Just think, standards that are standard. Programs designed to run on multiple platforms. Sharing ideas rather than secreting them away.

    Sounds good to me.

  57. or apple users will be running gimp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  58. And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    apples are good for YOU!

  59. this article doesn't say much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it lacks a point...
    the real question is, as OSS windowmanagers get better, where goes apple's software advantage?

    mind you, if the IBM Power chip comes to the mac,
    maybe i386 will finally have competition

  60. Hrm... by Bullseye_blam · · Score: 1

    Next thing you know, most of the Slashdot editors and programmers will be using Macs.

    +1, Funny.

  61. I can see why by kelceylehrich · · Score: 1

    With them both having their roots in *nix it would be quite obivous, theyre practically cousins.

  62. Legacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    X11 is the worlds largest strap on. Its pure bloat and legacy.

    Apple have done a nice job on the UI, unix and the linux community are jokes with theyre little infighting and squabbling and cant agree on anything. Unix always was fragmented and always will be while it is plagued with elitist mentalities.

    Dump X, use something better. Linux will not succeed on the desktop while X is around. OS X is the only thing good to happen to unix on the desktop. If they can hide X far enough away they win. Until X is either dumped or hidden forever beyond sight, unix and linux will never succeed on the desktop.

  63. Of course they benefit each other. by StarTux · · Score: 1

    Despite what the average Troll on either side says, both do complement each other well. And when you mention Open Source to an Apple developer they light up, they truly do seem very pleased about having Linux/Open Source thriving.

    But I am disappointed that Quicktime hasn't been released to Linux as a native app and iTunes still doesn't encode in Ogg yet.

    StarTux

  64. absolutly by chadruva · · Score: 1

    Since OSX , Mac OS has ben based on BSD. Thus porting between both is (should be) somewhat easy. Now with the XServer over OSX it will be even easyer!

    But the interesting thing here is if MacOSX apps could be ported to linux?

    Yay!, first post...

    --
    C-x C-c
  65. Preferences by KoolDude · · Score: 1


    I always knew that penguins prefer to eat small and soft fishes than Apples ;)

    --
    getSexySig(); /* returns sexy signature */
  66. buggy as swamp in july by urbazewski · · Score: 3, Insightful
    With XDarwin and OroborOSX it's about as perfectly integrated as it can get

    If this is as good at it gets I'm in deep trouble. One of the synergies between Mac OS X and Linux is that Matlab is available for the Mac again, after Mathworks had previously announced that would no longer release on the Mac platfrom. Very good news for me, however, Matlab for Mac OS X uses XDarwin and OroborOSX, and it's incredibly buggy. (I am using Simulink, which relies heavily on OroborOSX.)

    What kinds of bugs you ask? I can't always navigate through the fields in parameter boxes (one button mac mouse and the key combos just don't do it). I can't use the letters 'f' or 'd' in comments when OroborOSX isn't in the mood (well, there are 24 other letters in the alphabet). Matlab crashes reliably if I choose "cancel" instead of "save" with the "save as" command (in a Simulink model).

    And sometimes when Matlab crashes, XDarwin doesn't shut down completely which prevents me from being able to reboot from the system on my internal hard drive -- I have to reboot from an external hard drive and then restart. It happened (again) yesterday while I was working at a coffeeshop.

    I'm not sure who's to blame here, and I'm really pleased that Matlab is available, but the integration of these various programs still has a long way to go.

    blog-O-rama (more raving & ranting about my experiences with OS X, etc. etc.)

    --
    foldplay your photos won't know what hit them.
    1. Re:buggy as swamp in july by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 2, Informative

      Force quitting XDarwin doesn't work? You should be able to kill -9 the processes accessing it and it'll die gracefully (if not, force quit it.) True, it's not terribly graceful, but it can only get better.

    2. Re:buggy as swamp in july by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then perhaps it could just be that using a Mac is not in your case a good idea.

      Frankly if you do the kind of stuff which requires Matlab, simulink and their ilk, I assume engineering, then the way to go is linux. Probably on a x86 platform.

      BTW have you tried Octave, which I have found, though not quite as complete as matlab, more resilient ?

    3. Re:buggy as swamp in july by Man+of+E · · Score: 2, Informative
      Mac OS X uses XDarwin and OroborOSX, and it's incredibly buggy

      I had similar problems with Matlab and OroborOSX. The worst was that OroborOSX wouldn't start up reliably, so that starting up Matlab would often be a half-hour ordeal. In addition it tended to crash semi-randomly, which meant I had to go through the ordeal almost every day.

      In the end, I found a way to use Matlab with Apple's X11 beta here at this site. This solved all my problems. Matlab starts reliably and faster, doesn't crash, opening and closing windows works fine, and it's still well-integrated with OSX. All it takes is installing Apple's X11 and making a few small changes to .xinitrc.

      You should try it out. Hope this helps.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une sig
    4. Re:buggy as swamp in july by tbmaddux · · Score: 4, Informative
      Matlab for Mac OS X uses XDarwin and OroborOSX...
      You can switch to the Apple X11 (after installing it, of course) by editing /Applications/MATLAB6p5/bin/LaunchMATLAB.app/Conte nts/launch_matlab.sh (watch out for spaces inserted by SlashCode in that path) to read as follows:
      #!/bin/sh
      # $Revision: 1.1 $
      # Copyright 1997-2002 The MathWorks, Inc.

      if [ "`ps xc | grep X11`" ]; then
      # Bounce less if Apple X11 is already started
      sleeptime=10
      else
      sleeptime=15
      fi

      # osascript -e 'tell application "OroborOSX" to activate'
      # osascript Contents/launch_oroborosx

      open -a /Applications/X11.app

      cd ../..

      bin/mac/setsid bin/matlab -desktop -display :0.0 &

      # Bounce to let user know MATLAB is starting up.
      /bin/sleep $sleeptime

      The changes are a reduction of "sleeptime" since Apple X11 is faster, a change to what we "grep" for, and of course the "open" call to X11.app. Apple X11 is a lot faster and stabler for me than XDarwin/OroborOSX. If you prefer not to switch to Apple X11, at the very least you should update OroborOSX since the version distributed with MATLAB 6.5 is several releases old.

      --
      Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?
    5. Re:buggy as swamp in july by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      blog-O-rama [annmariabell.com] (more raving & ranting about my experiences with OS X, etc. etc.)

      Just FYI- I went to your blog page, because I was genuinely interested in what you had to say about OS X. I gave up without reading anything because I found the purple text on a blue background to be a bit hard to read.

    6. Re:buggy as swamp in july by Kashif+Shaikh · · Score: 1

      Call me stupid, but why does slashcode put spaces in long directory or hyperlinks?

    7. Re:buggy as swamp in july by LordNimon · · Score: 1

      To allow the text to word-wrap.

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
  67. Gnome-on-Linux -- poor and/or free man's Mac OS X by Anonymous+Bullard · · Score: 1

    You'll still need decent hardware (128MB, >300Mhz) to fully appreciate Nautilus, but the same can be said about running Mac OS X.

    Gnome is the closest living relative to NeXT/OpenStep or OS/2 Warp which both were truly wonderful environments but steamrolled into obscurity by the MS monopoly. Gnome and Linux are GPL'd so they can't be steamrolled off the market!

    Gnome's the choice for a poor man since it runs on the commodity-priced x86 platform. Mac OS X is good value on Apple's reasonably-priced 'Books though.

    Gnome's the choice for a free man since it allows the user to decide when to upgrade (and do it for free if desired) and on which iron to run it. Mac OS X, while nice, leaves the user at the mercy of Apple's whims. I talk from experience; Mac OS X won't run on my (back then) expensive PowerMac despite Apple's promises at the time.

    Under Gnome-on-Linux users can run practically any type of apps, including classic Mac apps under Mac-on-Linux or Windows apps under WINE (only recommended as last resort IMO, won't work under PowerPC yet). Some KDE apps are truly great and they also run natively (it's all about the LIBS, not the windowmanager...). X, Java, console, emulators... it's all available.

    PS. I'd buy one of those new 20" Apple displays if they came with a standard interface (namely DVI) instead of the proprietary ADC. I still want to see them around *innovating*, but not on their terms and at my expense...

    --

    Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?

  68. {Streaming video, Apple, Linux} by MacAndrew · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I laughed when I saw this story because just now I was trying to understand Apple's relationship with Linux regarding Quicktime. I complained earlier today to the U.S. Mint because of this page, which is a sublte advertisement for the Microsoft Media Player. WMP has significant proprietary features, and just linking to Microsoft as the sole standard implies something.

    The immediate licensing problem in WMP may simply be a side effect of DRM, but of course Microsoft intends to use WMP as a wedge to push its own standards into what is now fairly generic commerce -- as it did with MSIE. I told the rep at the U.S. Mint (who knows if anyone will care) that it was unseemly for the government to tacitly endorse a private company by offering just one format, even providing a link to the company's site to get the player, especially where across town the government just recently busted Microsoft for monopoly abuse.

    Anyway, Apple doesn't make a QT player for Linux (right?) but appears supportive of it (right?), and there are options to access QT content from *nix. Meanwhile, Microsoft's antagonism towards GPL is very well known, and may appear over WMP. Of course, generic MPEG does streaming, which QT plugins will play. (Also, there's Real, yech.) Maybe this is most another Windows versus Macintosh struggle, but I'd hate to see the government take sides, and I don't trust MS.

    On standards and compatibility ... I've written several emails to other government sites that sport the infernal "best viewed with Internet Explorer" links. I doubt I can take credit, but my state of Virginia dropped the MSIE tags. (They originally wrote back explaining, "Frontpage told us to say that." :)

    BTW ... why was I hanging out at the U.S. Mint site? My 6 y.o. thinks the state quarter program is very cool, and the Mint even has a whole kids' site built around the damn things. I'm getting tired of state factoids, but am impressed by the savvy of the Mint. We've already calculated how much the Mint would make if everyone in the U.S. took a complete set of commemorative quarters out of circulation.

  69. Linux on every Desktop, a Mac in every backpack. by Angerson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The article makes a lot of good points, especially the fact that a lot of Linux users are picking up Apple portables. As a longtime Mac user I noticed this trend early last year on all the Mac boards I frequent. More and more Linux users were popping up talking not about how they "switched" but how they picked up an iBook to compliment their Linux desktop. The most common reasons for doing so seemed to be a combination of the stylish design of Apple's portable line, the slick GUI mixed with the familiar CLI and of course the long battery life.

    On the contrary, the adoption of OS X on the desktop by Linux users seems quite a bit lower in my experience. Perhaps this is a testament to the fact that Apple is losing the edge in price/performance in the desktop market (even among its own users) and that it's just so much geekier to build your own box. :)

    Either way I agree that both systems compliment one another quite nicely. Then again, as a web developer I produce my sites on OS X, test them on XP and host them on Linux boxes so in my opinion all the OSes have something good to offer.

  70. Editors on macs by Blue+Bat+Poo · · Score: 1

    the day the editors all move to macs will be the day the editors fix the slashcode to remove dupes being posted! Vote CoyboyNeal for president.

  71. Re:X11 is handy, but not a huge incentive in itsel by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

    Of course, if Apple integrated X11 to the point where you didn't run all X apps in the same memory/app space, it might be close enough for art..

    what the...

    In classic, the apps run as a single process (TruBlueEnv). If one app in classic misbehaves, it could bring down all of classic.. With X11.app, Xquartz is a separate process. xterm is a seperate process. xemacs is a seperate process.

  72. Let the Jolly Roger fly! by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 1

    Back in the day they used to fly a Jolly Roger (skull and crossbones) flag over corporate headquarters.

    They basically ripped off Xerox Parc's windowing system and mouse interface ideas.

    Don't turn your back on these guys for a second. This goes for 85% of the large businesses, for that matter. I have seen alot of business people's mouths moving and making sounds like "we want what is best for the community", while their actions say "profits at all cost - community be damned". The other 15% are somewhere in the middle; catch them on a good day...

    While I may end up in a MAC (due to certain sadistic game makers failing to support open standards like OpenGL on Linux) - I will always have a Lintel box around for that warm fuzzy I get from compiling source code that I have lovingly massaged.

    --

    Lodragan Draoidh
    The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
    1. Re:Let the Jolly Roger fly! by presearch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They basically ripped off Xerox Parc's windowing system and mouse interface ideas.
      Endless Apple myths:
      Ripped off Xerox
      Can't use multi button mouse
      Uses non-standard hardware
      Is a monopoly
      Put SoundJam out of business
      Owned by Microsoft, a major shareholder
      Costs too much
      OS X is slow
      Lawsuits for no reason
      Rips off Linux
      any more?

    2. Re:Let the Jolly Roger fly! by Hawthorne01 · · Score: 1
      Endless Apple myths:
      Ripped off Xerox
      Can't use multi button mouse
      Uses non-standard hardware
      Is a monopoly
      Put SoundJam out of business
      Owned by Microsoft, a major shareholder
      Costs too much
      OS X is slow
      Lawsuits for no reason
      Rips off Linux
      any more?

      You forgot "Is going out of business next quarter" and
      "Will be bought out by Sun/Disney/AOL/etc....."

      --
      "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
    3. Re:Let the Jolly Roger fly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't rip off parc, they were friends and were practically given it since xerox didn't know what the hell to do with it, since "they were a copying company NOT a computer company" (said the div head at the time.
      Get yer facts straight troll.

    4. Re:Let the Jolly Roger fly! by orcrist · · Score: 1

      Endless Apple myths: ...
      Can't use multi button mouse ...


      Oh cool, is it possible to replace the built-in touchpad with a 2 (or 3) button version? That's the only reason I won't consider a powerbook. Yes, I know I can use an external mouse, but I don't always want to attach that (like on the commuter train).

      -chris

      --
      San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
    5. Re:Let the Jolly Roger fly! by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 1

      So, you would consider it ethical to accept a Ming vase from your neighbor who does not know its real value - without informing him of the real value of the item? What happen to morality - the golden rule?

      Sounds like profiteering and a ripoff to me, all things synonymous with pirates.

      Since 85% of the businesses out there (and probably more) engage in such unsavory activity, that most people in their private lives would not find acceptable, I think it is a fair statement, not a troll as you claim.

      --

      Lodragan Draoidh
      The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
    6. Re:Let the Jolly Roger fly! by presearch · · Score: 1

      Gotta reach way over for that control key.
      Whew, that's tough.

    7. Re:Let the Jolly Roger fly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple did not rip off the GUI from Xerox PARC.

      They told Xerox PARC they wanted to use it and offered cash and stock options for it.

      Xerox PARC was just not prescient enough to appreciate the future value of the GUI.

    8. Re:Let the Jolly Roger fly! by BeeShoo · · Score: 1

      At the time, that Ming vase (PARC's GUI) had no real value. The market for it simply didn't exist yet.
      Bad analogy (as if there were anoy other kind).

    9. Re:Let the Jolly Roger fly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't seem to be able to understand the English language!

      Anyway, if the only reason you won't consider a Powerbook is because the trackpad only has one button, there's something you should know: You can hold down control and command for right-click and middle-click. Your hands are at the keyboard anyway because you're using a trackpad on a laptop.

    10. Re:Let the Jolly Roger fly! by macaddict · · Score: 1
      Endless Apple myths:
      Ripped off Xerox
      Can't use multi button mouse
      Uses non-standard hardware
      Is a monopoly
      Put SoundJam out of business
      Owned by Microsoft, a major shareholder
      Costs too much
      OS X is slow
      Lawsuits for no reason
      Rips off Linux
      any more?


      Steve Jobs is using his Reality Distortion Field to take over the world.


      Oh, wait. That one's actually real...

      ;-)

    11. Re:Let the Jolly Roger fly! by orcrist · · Score: 1

      Gotta reach way over for that control key.
      Whew, that's tough.


      No, I don't "gotta" since I don't have an Apple laptop. But are you claiming the control key on the powerbooks magically installs a second mouse button? Or is this a workaround? I could also mimic the rest of the mouse functionality on the keyboard, but I don't WANT to. Remember, I'm responding to the "myths", my point being Apple has standardized on a less capable mouse paradigm, namely one-button.

      --
      San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
    12. Re:Let the Jolly Roger fly! by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 1

      Obviously it had value for Apple - as all reports indicate they eagerly grabbed up the technology - knowing its potential.

      Making Apple Computers look pure as the driven snow is just as irresponsible as not being honest when you have the chance. Be honest with yourself, if nothing else: most corporate decisions are not weighed to consider the moral implications. Money and lawyers drive most decisions - and if something is immoral, yet legal - you can bet it will get implemented if it benefits the business.

      I work in a large company. I see it every day. Don't try to feed me manure and call it a Tbone steak.

      --

      Lodragan Draoidh
      The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
    13. Re:Let the Jolly Roger fly! by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      Remember, I'm responding to the "myths", my point being Apple has standardized on a less capable mouse paradigm, namely one-button.

      So then the fact that copying from one folder to another on the same volume in Windows with the mouse requires you to hold down the control key, and moving from a folder on one volume to a folder on another volume requires you to hold down the shift key, that's a failure in the capability of the three button mouse, eh?

      When I need three button, I hook my MacAlly mouse in, a three button scroll mouse. Presto-chango: three button mouse and scroll wheel functionality.

      Now, if I want one-button mouse functionality on a Windows machine, what do I have to do? (I can imagine some disabilities might make a one button mouse more desirable than a three button one, and others make a 3 button mouse more desirable than a one button mouse).

    14. Re:Let the Jolly Roger fly! by orcrist · · Score: 1

      Who said I use Windows?

      --
      San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
    15. Re:Let the Jolly Roger fly! by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      Who said I use Windows?

      You did, by complaining about the number of mouse buttons. Linux users are used to learning different key bindings for different apps anyway; learning to command-click wouldn't phase them.

    16. Re:Let the Jolly Roger fly! by orcrist · · Score: 1

      You did, by complaining about the number of mouse buttons. Linux users are used to learning different key bindings for different apps anyway; learning to command-click wouldn't phase them.

      Well so much for generalizations. I boot into Windows for games but I spend 90% of my computing time in Linux. If you knew Linux/Unix then you must know that paste can be performed by the middle button which can be simulated with 2 buttons without going back to the keyboard. I prefer this. Is that really so hard to understand? Just because I don't want to do something (use the keyboard to simulate a 2nd button) doesn't mean I'm not capable of learning it. Another example is Nedit, my favorite text-editor: A lot of the things you can do to manipulate the text involves combinations of all 3 mouse-buttons and the keyboard; I'd need to be a yoga master to simulate the 2nd and 3rd button on the keyboard at the same time as press those additional keys while moving the pointer with the touchpad ;-)

      Anyways, its clear you're happy with that arrangement, so that's cool. Just understand that some people have reasons for wanting at least a 2-button mouse/touchpad to be standard.

      -chris

      --
      San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
    17. Re:Let the Jolly Roger fly! by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      I don't recall the name of it off hand, but IIRC there was a program floating about that turned the physical button on the trackpad into a second button while retainign the regular click function of the trakpad.

      And if I'm just halucinating, why don't you write such a program?

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    18. Re:Let the Jolly Roger fly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Xerox PARC was a research center, they DIDN'T develop products (in the commercial sense) for Xerox.

      2. GUIs were not new. In fact, Jef Raskin's thesis at the University about GUIs predates PARC.

      3. What Jobs saw at Xerox was a prototype Smalltalk development system. Xerox Alto and Star were developed later.

      4. Ever look an Alto? There were overlapping windows, but there was no direct manipulation of those windows. To move the window you selected you had to enter the new size or location of the window into a dialog, using numerical coordinates. Icons were not associated with files. They were using icons as verbs. Apple made them into nouns, objects that can be manipulated.

      5. Jobs negotiated a deal with Xerox, which consisted in a million dollars of stock in Apple in exchange. Xerox sold the stock for more than a million, so it was a win-win situation for both parts.

  73. It'll never happen by nels_tomlinson · · Score: 1
    we'd be good to go....if someone plugged the OS X interface on top of Linux.
    [snip]
    1) the stability of linux
    2) the price-point of linux
    3) the beauty of the Aqua interface
    there'd be no reason to ever own a windows machine again.

    You're right, and Apple knows it. It'll never happen, because Apple also knows that there'd be no reason to ever own an Apple machine again[1].

    This would be like OSX on ix86: it could be the death of Apple. You might think that there's a way for them to do it safely, but I doubt that the big cheeses at Apple agree strongly enough to gamble their company on it.

    [1] Yes, many Apple loyalists would still buy Apple for the nifty hardware and low-hassle experience. They certainly wouldn't get any NEW customers this way; people who were interested in a do-it-yourself solution would put this on non -Apple hardware. It wouldn't be cheap, but neither is an Apple.

  74. Enlightenment by SirCrashALot · · Score: 1

    Get and Aqua theme for enlightenment. I don't know what feautres you want, but you get the pretty stoplight buttons and clean interface.

    1. Re:Enlightenment by RevAaron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is a great example of the kind of attitude a lot of Linux users have. You want a machine that works as well as a Mac OS X machine? Install a GTK+ and E theme!

      No matter how much lipstick you put on your grandma, her plumbing still doesn't work like it used to. Likewise, even with a shitty Aqua theme on a windowing system that can't even handle alpha without employing one of many hacks may give you those "pretty stoplight buttons," it sure as hell doesn't give you a clean or consistent interface. It's the same one you had before, exempting a different pixmap in your window decorations.

      An interface is a lot more than the color your buttons are. It goes a lot deeper, into the way you interact with the computer.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    2. Re:Enlightenment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the Linux user interfaces are GOOD (some of them at least), it is the ugly graphics that people are complaining about.

      So, we don't want to loose the interface but we want fance graphics. How? Easy, just put an Aqua-skin on your favorite window manager.

      If we wanted everything MacOSX, we would move to OSX. But that's not what we (some of us) want, we want to keep that perfectly working user interface, for me it is FVWM2.

    3. Re:Enlightenment by Querty · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Yeah, and that's one of the attitudes that keeps me far away from Macs.

      <rant style="frustration-level: deep">

      Macs have been torture to use, more so that any other platform I've ever worked on:

      • "An error of type 1 has occured" no memory protection until OSX. What were they thinking? Losing your work is very user friendly
      • To eject/umount a disk, drag it to the trash! I've seen Human Computer Interaction "experts" trying to defend this as good design. Talk about tortured logic...
      • Have you ever tried using that hockey puck iMac mouse? RSI within a week, I promise!
      • Good interface design goes deep, I agree. Somebody go out and shoot the Quicktime player designers. In fact, any of those "brushed metal" interfaces are monsters!
      • Two words: "Apple keyboards". I celebrate the birthday of my IBM M-Series keyboard, thanking the higher powers I don't have to kill my hands on a Mac keyboard.
      • Floppy disks. Somtimes the Mac will spit it out, sometimes it will fail to recognise the floppy at all (hello paperclip), sometimes it will not recognise the format any more. No wonder they abandoned floppies; they couldn't make them work.
      I could go on and on, but you get the picture... I'm not claiming Gnome (2.2) and KDE (3.1) are perfect, but the ****** arrogance of Mac users is soooooo annoying (and largely unfounded).

      The Mac has made me throw my hands up in disgust and disbelief more times than I care to remember. How many times I've heard Mac users say "Of course it crashes, you're trying to do way too many things at once...", when all I'm doing is having a few browser windows open, a text editor and an MP3 player.

      </rant>

      In the end, I'll not use a Mac because I'm not using a non-free (as in speech) OS. For this I have my own motivations. The snobbish arrogance of Mac users, however, just keeps on surprising me each time.

    4. Re:Enlightenment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is it possible that someone who is up to date enough to presumably use KDE 3.1 be sooooo far behind in what Apple technology is? You are ranting against apple on account of not recognizing a floppy disk -- Get into this decade.

      Maybe your frustation level is deep because you can't deal with the general passage of time.

    5. Re:Enlightenment by ColdGrits · · Score: 1

      "# "An error of type 1 has occured" no memory protection until OSX. What were they thinking? Losing your work is very user friendly"

      Which is why MacOSX is memory protected and doesn't report errors in that way either.

      Get with it, dude, you are 2+ years out of date with that rant.

      "# To eject/umount a disk, drag it to the trash! "

      No you don't.

      You drag it over the "Eject" icon.

      Even you can understand that, surely?

      "# Floppy disks."

      What are these antiquated things of which you speak?

      Macs don't use floppies these days - haven't for years.

      Look, if you are going to rant, at least try and rant about something current, as opposed to stuff that was fixed years ago.

      Unless you woudl like me to rant about the problems in the Linux kernel 0.0.1, perhaps?

      --
      People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
    6. Re:Enlightenment by hobbit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Firstly I'd better say that until OS X, I hated Macs too. Now I never use anything else.

      "An error of type 1 has occured" no memory protection until OSX. What were they thinking? Losing your work is very user friendly

      Sorted.

      To eject/umount a disk, drag it to the trash! I've seen Human Computer Interaction "experts" trying to defend this as good design. Talk about tortured logic...

      How telling that you should say 'umount' instead of 'unmount'. Try defending that classing naming decision! On OS X, when you hold down the mouse on a mounted volume's icon, the wastepaper basket (which is in the dock) changes into an 'eject' symbol (since you can't delete volumes, this is good screen-estate reuse).

      Have you ever tried using that hockey puck iMac mouse? RSI within a week, I promise!

      Yes, the hockey puck was a mistake. But personally I think that trackballs are terrible, but you can still buy those for use with Linux systems!

      Good interface design goes deep, I agree. Somebody go out and shoot the Quicktime player designers. In fact, any of those "brushed metal" interfaces are monsters!

      I take it that your beef with Quicktime Player is its brushed metal appearance, then (because other than that, it's basically just play, pause etc). Many of the other brushed metal apps (the ones written in Cocoa) you can change the appearance back to default Aqua.

      Two words: "Apple keyboards". I celebrate the birthday of my IBM M-Series keyboard, thanking the higher powers I don't have to kill my hands on a Mac keyboard.

      One word: adapter.

      Floppy disks. Somtimes the Mac will spit it out, sometimes it will fail to recognise the floppy at all (hello paperclip), sometimes it will not recognise the format any more. No wonder they abandoned floppies; they couldn't make them work.

      So, are you telling me that 'mount' can just deal with unreadable volumes? Under OS X, if 'mount' can deal with it, then it'll happen in the GUI, cause the GUI is just a frontend for 'mount'. Anyway, get with the programme, floppy disks are hardly even nineties, let alone noughties.

      It sounds like you need to give OS X a try. Would you judge Windows by version 3.1? Would you judge Linux by version 1.2? They were the first versions of those operating systems I tried out, but I've got over it.

      --
      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
    7. Re:Enlightenment by Tengoo · · Score: 1
      No matter how much lipstick you put on your grandma, her plumbing still doesn't work like it used to.
      Ok...I'm not really sure what this one means but it really made me cringe for a second.
    8. Re:Enlightenment by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      My problem with Linux user interfaces is that they're usually BAD, not with the way they look. The UIs which have made the most sense to me can be found in NeXTSTEP and Newton OS, two decidedly not very pretty GUI appearances. I wouldn't care if the Mac OS Classic or X looked like Motif (*shudder*), if it presents a more consistent front to me, I would like it.

      Most Linux users are used to thinking of shitty UIs as OK or GOOD. But they're used to that. I was once that way as well. My hodge-podge Linux system was mostly usable, but at the time I didn't know how my computer could help me work, rather than making me help it work at all.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    9. Re:Enlightenment by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      It sounds like you need to give OS X a try. Would you judge Windows by version 3.1? Would you judge Linux by version 1.2? They were the first versions of those operating systems I tried out, but I've got over it.

      You can't expect someone like this to do try something to rational. At least not most of them at that state of mental development. I think a lot of this is fueled by the same kind of fear Windows users have in relation to Linux. These Linux users are (rightly so) attached to Linux, emotionally. They see OS X as a threat to Linux and what it provides. They have friends dumping their scatter-brained Linux machines and getting Macs.

      I know this because I too was like this when I was a kid. Not to the point where I tried to hard to spread FUD, fortunately. I was lucky enough to mature to the point where I wanted a computer for what it could do for me, how it could make the work I do easier, rather than having a 1337 machine against which I had to fight against.

      This post was a bit harsh, for that I apologize. I guess I'm a bit fed up with Leenucks h4ck3rz who are so full of bullshit that they haven't been able to notice that the puck mouse is history, and that a Mac with a floppy drive can format a disk. WOWZA!

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    10. Re:Enlightenment by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      Blaming the son for the sins of the father eh?

      "An error of type 1 has occured" no memory protection until OSX. What were they thinking? Losing your work is very user friendly

      Yeah memory protection was something they fuxored on, but it's been fixed, and even in the old days it wasn't that common. And, as of system 7 was imansely easy to get arround (usualy) if you knew about the interupt switch (command - power) and the right sequence of code (G F, or G Finder, or if neither of those worked, SM O A9F4 >enterTo eject/umount a disk, drag it to the trash! I've seen Human Computer Interaction "experts" trying to defend this as good design. Talk about tortured logic..

      I always used the key command anyways, but what other graphical method would you recomend for removing a disk from the computer?

      Have you ever tried using that hockey puck iMac mouse? RSI within a week, I promise!

      I have actualy, and once you get over the fact that the puck mouse was meant to be guided and not gripped, it was actualy a very useable mouse, ideal for small spaces. Users however were too ingrained in their old ways, and it was killing Apple to try and change them, bye bye puck.

      Good interface design goes deep, I agree. Somebody go out and shoot the Quicktime player designers. In fact, any of those "brushed metal" interfaces are monsters!

      God are people still ranting over the POS design that was QT 4? Alright so they used a jog wheel as a volume control, yes that sucked, I've seen it done before, it sucked then too. Apple has since fixed this, again, get over it.

      Two words: "Apple keyboards". I celebrate the birthday of my IBM M-Series keyboard, thanking the higher powers I don't have to kill my hands on a Mac keyboard.

      The desktop keyboards do suck, I grant that, but after using nothing but a laptop keyboard for nearly 2 years now, I hate all desktop keyboards. Buy a new one, $5.

      Floppy disks. Somtimes the Mac will spit it out, sometimes it will fail to recognise the floppy at all (hello paperclip), sometimes it will not recognise the format any more. No wonder they abandoned floppies; they couldn't make them work.

      Floppy disks were spit out on only two ocassions, a power down, or a failed format. Under all other conditions, unless you specify for an eject, they didn't eject. I've seen lots of computers fail to recognize floppies, even the great RedHat. Nothing new. I have never seen a mac not recognize the format though if it wasn't a corrupt disk. As for abondoning them, they abondonned them because they were old and outdated. Email and CDs and cheaper large capacity storage is more efficient.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  75. Non sequitur alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot "editor" is a very loose term, you know...

  76. I wouldn't be so sure... by TWX_the_Linux_Zealot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... that IBM can't market anything. Where I work, we have this big black computer sitting in the middle of the computer room, that cost several thousand dollars, and has a support contract that probably costs several thousand more annually. It has IBM stamped on the side.

    And have you used any of their modern laptops? The best description that I have for when I got to play with an IBM Thinkpad 240 for a week is 'precision'. The hardware felt like a precision piece of equipment. Everything had tight tolerances, the tactile feel of the unit was superb, and the machine just felt sexy. The sleek black case was both soft and firm at the same time, a cool trick of ABS plastic, yet didn't feel too weak or brittle to take on the road.

    If IBM still made a laptop in that small of a form factor (its footprint was smaller than a piece of letter paper), I'd have one. The American market doesn't seem to want small machines right now, though.

    Oh, one more thing, there was driver support for this machine (and many of the other brand new thinkpads) for as far back as Windows 95 and OS/2 Warp, and as far forward as Windows XP. Drivers that work properly, not half-assed drivers like Compaq and other large companies provide for products they're no longer making money on.

    You can also still downloadd support files for machines as old as the original 8088.

    If I need some really expensive piece of equipment, IBM is definitely on the list for a vendor.

    --

    IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
    And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
    1. Re:I wouldn't be so sure... by Garin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, perhaps IBM has improved in the last few years, as far as their marketing goes. Don't get me wrong -- there's nothing wrong with the _hardware_! Indeed, the thinkpads are pretty rock solid notebooks, and except for the rubber nipple mouse (which is admittedly a taste thing and not a quality thing) I can't say enough good about them. And their big iron is... well... Big. and Iron. Heh. Yes, I've used both extensively, as well as a lot of IBM-built NT servers, and I've always been happy with IBM equipment (even servers running AIX, believe it or not).

      There's a difference between good -products- and good -marketing-. IBM has good products. Their marketing, IMHO, sucks (at least to consumers anyhow). They're getting as much play as they possibly can out of the Linux thing, in order to try to get out of their dinosaur-era mainframe stuffy-shirt perception. They still have that image though, and they've done little to shake it in my books. Perhaps that's not such a bad thing though...

      They're playing to very different markets, of course. IBM sells mainly to stuffy shirts, Apple doesn't. IBM doesn't -have- to be sexy and cool to make a zillion bucks.

      I guess my point was just to differentiate the approaches that Apple and IBM take wrt OSS. I think I can strip it down to this: Apple doesn't necessarily have to care about OSS as a philosophy, they're just using some robust, free software to build their products.

      As per licensing requirements (and to foster some developer good will), they contribute back to the community. And why not? What they've discovered is that it doesn't matter. People aren't going to -not- buy a Mac just become KDE or (say) MySQL has become a bit better. Well, maybe a couple will, but I'd be willing to be that the prospect of a super-fast, slick, fun set of applications (iLife, Safari, etc) will win more customers over than they'll lose -- their applications get better right along side the free stuff. Apple is selling hardware, and all these cool applications working seamlessly together. The fact that you can get the source code really doesn't matter. Is this not one of the reasons we have free software? So we can all have good quality software and we can all benefit without someone taking it away from us?

      IBM, on the other hand, is cashing in on the openness of Linux/OSS and its popularity in the tech world. And good for them! There's nothing wrong with this. It's not appealing to consumers though, not really. You and I are an exception. Buuut as I've already said, IBM doesn't deal so much with consumers, they're much bigger in the big business. Fine, that works for me. Ultimately, I think IBM has more invested in the "success" of free software in the long term -- if the entire Linux development process was suddenly to collapse under its own weight, then it might affect IBM. I'm about as afraid of this happening as I am of getting hit by a comet.

      --
      In any field, find the strangest thing and then explore it. -John Archibald Wheeler
  77. Re:Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have seen penguins in Australia, where apples grow quite well. In fact, it was an Australian fairy penguin that bit Linus one day, leading him to select the little bugger as a mascot.

  78. Re:mmmmmmmmm first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could have said "I'm a fucking loser!". Because you weren't even close.

  79. no problems with M$ Office, here either. by twitter · · Score: 2, Flamebait
    Say what you will about Windows, but I have never had a problem working with their Office products.

    Yeah, it's been a long time since the horrid M$ office interface has bothered me. Auto-indent, auto -listing, auto-spelling, and all those other nasty auto-make your work take forever and look horrible stuff are fading from memory. That's because it has been about 8 months since I learned how to wade through the forrest of tabs required to turn those "features" off, and four months since I've been forced to use Office. I don't even want to think about what a terrible bug ridden easy to crash, no transaction "database" access was. Excell was OK, but the data format, like all M$ junk, kept changing and it's very dificult to get your work back out. It's good to be free of that.

    Please, please, please keep that junk away from me and do not design interfaces like that. Ah the beauty of not seeing red and green squigly underlines beneath the repeated please above. When I need to spell check, I will. When I need a typesetter, I'll get one. When I want to hurt someone, I'll give them Word. There are so many superior free alternative, you have to wonder why people use Office.

    What do the Apple people use these days, I wonder. I remember filemaker Pro was a very nice database. I can only imagine they had reasonable word processors and what not. M$ did not poison them too much when they bought so much of them in the deapest darkest days of Pepsi style Apple ruid, did they?

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:no problems with M$ Office, here either. by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 1

      The Jet engine supports transactions, nested transactions, and distributed transactions.

    2. Re:no problems with M$ Office, here either. by PetWolverine · · Score: 1

      Maybe you wouldn't have had so many problems if you'd been using Office for Mac. I have no trouble turning off the auto-features.

      Once in a while MS makes a Mac version that's better than the Windoze version.

      --
      I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
    3. Re:no problems with M$ Office, here either. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      way to go karma whore. perfect post.

    4. Re:no problems with M$ Office, here either. by g_bit · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      That's because it has been about 8 months since I learned how to wade through the forrest of tabs required to turn those "features" off, and four months since I've been forced to use Office

      Well, if it took you 8 months to figure out some trivial settings then you shouldn't be aloud near a computer...well I guess you can use a Mac then.

    5. Re:no problems with M$ Office, here either. by shellbeach · · Score: 1
      There are so many superior free alternative, you have to wonder why people use Office

      Please, please, don't make a unsubstantiated sweeping statement like that - list them!! I personally use LyX for wordprocessing, but I can't imagine that that would appeal to the masses.

      What else is there? OpenOffice would be OK, but it still lacks the depth of features of MSOffice (eg - a half-decent chart utility for spreadsheets) and yet is twice the size. Gnumeric I've still found lacking, AbiWord doesn't do footnotes (AFAIK) and KOffice is barely any better.

      Much as I hate Microsoft in general, I'm believe that MSOffice is one of the few products they've really done well at. Mind you, they've had more than 12 years (which is when my first use of Office was) to develop it, so you could argue that it should be a good product by now!

    6. Re:no problems with M$ Office, here either. by cygnusx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Excell was OK, but the data format, like all M$ junk,
      > kept changing and it's very dificult to get your work back out.

      Excel (on the PC) has been backward (and forward) compatible with older versions from Excel 97 on. Older versions are readable by newer versions, i.e., backward compatibility is maintained. IIRC Excel uses the same data format on the Mac and the PC, so why exactly would you have a problem with "the data format... kept changing"?

    7. Re:no problems with M$ Office, here either. by binner1 · · Score: 1

      Corel Office Suite 10 (11?)...Corel always had a nice way of letting you get your work done without getting in your way.

      I know that most of the world has long since forgotten this little Canadian competitor, but much of the legal industry still uses it to prepare documents.

      I personally haven't used any versions since 8, and that's mostly because just like MS Office 97, they haven't added anything new and useful for me.

      As a side note, even though the grandparent to this post could be somewhat on fire, I do agree with the auto* formatting points. I've had to use MS Word a fair amount recently, and I've found that it's idea of the formatting that needs to be applied to my documents is generally 180 degrees from what I think. They're also right that the options to disable these features are buried too deeply.

      While I'm at it, anyone know who's responsible for 'personalized menus'? This might be the _worst_ feature added to a UI in a long time. Try teaching a lab full of students about the features of Word. 'Click Format -> foo. Oh, you don't see foo, try clicking the little down arrows...' Argh! (and yes, I know it can be turned off, but the machines I use get re-imaged every boot...)

      -Ben

    8. Re:no problems with M$ Office, here either. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You haven't been keeping up with KOffice lately. It's moving along nicely. KWord used to be behind Abiword but now it is several degrees better. I don't like Gnumeric or KSpread (what a retarded name, it sounds like a margarine or something).

      I do agree with the older sibling post which recommended Corel. They've recently lowered prices as well. Plus, you get automatic PDF generation w/o having to shell out cash for Acrobat.

  80. Re:Gnome-on-Linux -- poor and/or free man's Mac OS by rampant+mac · · Score: 1
    PS. I'd buy one of those new 20" Apple displays if they came with a standard interface (namely DVI) instead of the proprietary ADC. I still want to see them around *innovating*, but not on their terms and at my expense...

    For 39 bucks from the Apple store you can buy an ADC to DVI adpater. If you're going to spend 2k on a display, you would think you'd do a little research first, eh?

    --
    I like big butts and I cannot lie.
  81. Re:w00t first post by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 1

    An AC wrote:

    > w00t first post

    Only for values of "w00t first" >= 100.

    > Who uses apple and linux :-)

    Apple has about 25 million users (and growing). In its first two months, OS X actually outsold Windows 2000.

    As for Linux, whole governments are either using or investigating using it. IBM sells Linux mainframes to banks and big corporations. Linux has a sizable market-share on the server side, a market that Microsoft does not have a monopoly in.

    > This is Bill's world. Get used to it.

    At the rate he is driving his users away (Licensing 6, the evil feature formerly known as Palladium, etc.), it won't be Bill's world for much longer.

    "Your way of thinking is completely different from mine!"
    Mac user Shinoda to PC user Katagiri, "Godzilla 2000 Millennium" (Japanese version)
    (From the world's biggest switch commercial, starring Apple's biggest fan: Godzilla!)

  82. Thank Unix by Kethinov · · Score: 1

    Since Mac (OSX) runs Unix based now, the incompatabilities have been reduced greatly. While Mac still relies on proprietary hardware, some would argue that's a strength, not a weakness. Personally I like being able to customize what parts go in my machine, but on a Mac, you never have to worry about driver problems.

    Microsoft Windows is the only operating system that isn't Unix based, and it will be their undoing. While technically Mac competes with Linux (from an economical standpoint), they're actually working together to pick away at Microsoft. If MS wants to stay in business, they had better go Unix-based too. I forsee the combined strength of the Unix-based operating systems eventually crushing MS.

    But then again, that's just my 2 cents. (and a paperclip.)

    --
    You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
  83. Editors... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    most of the Slashdot editors and programmers will be using Macs

    Macs? Shoudn't be Emacs???

  84. OK Let's see a show of hands here, editors: by ubiquitin · · Score: 1

    Rob Malda (cmdrtaco), Jeff Bates(Hemos), and Chris Nandor(pudge) are all using Mac laptops at least part of the time these days. Who else among the slashdot crowd is sporting either a PowerBook and/or an iBook?

    --
    http://tinyurl.com/4ny52
  85. Huh? by twitter · · Score: 1
    Apple is comercial, and they still have a unilateral license denial don't they? Well, just treat it that way and know who to develop for.

    In the mean time, why not use the machine? It's got X11, right? Can't you just ssh into the beast and export all the apps you want? DVD burning and all that singing and dancing, why not have it? Apple is getting better, who knows, one day they may be free.

    Everything looks nice in window maker.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  86. Re:Gnome-on-Linux -- poor and/or free man's Mac OS by RevAaron · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Gnome is the closest living relative to NeXT/OpenStep or OS/2 Warp...

    Can't say I follow this. OS X is the closest living relative to OpenStep. OS/2 Warp... Perhaps eCommStation? But that's barely alive, admittedly. Either way, I wouldn't liken GNOME to either of them. GNOME is a pretty close relative to Windows, as far as how the UI works.

    That's not a troll or a dis. It's not my style (I prefer NeXTSTEP and the Newton OS as models of good UI), but a lot of people have grown up with Windows 9x/NT, so it's no surprise that the majority of the users who like GNOME share this background with the majority of GNOME developers. Having actually used OS/2, NeXTSTEP, OpenStep, Rhapsody, OS X 10.x, Windows and Linux+{GNOME, KDE} extensively, I think it's safe to say that GNOME works the most like Windows. I could go on and on why, but that probably be over kill.

    That said, I must say I'm pretty impressed with GNOME in RedHat 8. A lot of people hate RH for it, but I think it's quite brilliant. As a person who switched from Linux to OpenStep four years ago and then to OS X in the last few years, I became pampered with the ease of use, and most importantly, the consistency provided in OpenStep and OS X. Not to mention the great feature that things usually "just work." I left Linux because it was so bloody consistent, from a GUI user's point of view.

    I've had my fill of other modern distros as well. RH8 is far from perfect, but at the very least, it provides a taste of what potential GNOME and KDE holds, a pointer to the kind of consistency that distros, GNOME, and KDE should be working towards. I fear it won't get much better, considering that all too many Linux developers seems to think that appearance is what is worth copying from OS X, while the way things work- how they feel, seems to come from Windows or CDE. Bah.

    --

    Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
  87. my iBook's OK, but I prefer my Linux systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the article has a good point (an obvious good point), which is that OS X gives UNIX a huge shot in the arm. Linux is one of the boats that this particular rising tide lifts :) It's much more likely that apps written for OS X are going to be portable to other UNIX derivatives than it is that the average software written for Windows would be, and as buzzwords go, the fact that Apple has been hollering about the "industrial strength" of UNIX is good for every *nix operating system. Apple has some respectable coattails :)

    I've got an iBook, and Sure, would happily accept it if someone would like to throw me their 17" TiBook :) but in my current room stocked with too many computers, don't find that OS X on a 12" screen wins over a 21" monitor attached to an Athlon system running Red Hat. Granted, that's not a fair comparison: when I'm *traveling*, I like the iBook for its weight, decent battery life, and built-in DVD player (which I do not have on a Linux laptop at the moment).

    OS aside, I'm glad Apple's making hardware worth buying again; 20" LCD for $1200 is something I hope will exert pressure on the price of smaller size LCDs :)

    timothy

  88. BSD 5.0 and Apple? by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 1
    Since I'm too lazy to use Google right now, and there are lots of good brains to pick on /. does anyone have news or info about when OSX will incorperate BSD 5.0?

    Or does my question not make sence? Darwin, Mach 3, BSD 4.4? What's the breakdown of Max OSX in regards to its technologies?

    1. Re:BSD 5.0 and Apple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no BSD 5.0 (as it stopped at 4.4), and never will be. You're thinking of FreeBSD 5.0 :B

    2. Re:BSD 5.0 and Apple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jordan Hubbard posted on MacSlash that he wanted to wait and try to sync to 5.1 for stability reasons.

  89. Re:Gnome-on-Linux -- poor and/or free man's Mac OS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ADC uses the same signalling as DVI. Just pop over to Apple and buy a DVI-ADC converter... all you need do then is plug it into your DVI output, a power point, and your USB ports, and you're set.

    ADC is rather nice, overall -- and the fact that it's signal compatible with DVI is even nicer.

  90. iLife for linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ..good for both. Apple gets experience in selling a software suite in the x86 market while not making windows more compelling. Linux gets cutting edge multimedia capabilities that help legitimize itself as a desktop OS(taking away marketshare from Microsoft).

    -

  91. Apple is the Microsoft of Hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's funny that everyone's jumping on the Apple bandwagon, when in the end they're just as monopolistic and money-driven as Microsoft (albeit a tad less successful).

    Remember, Macs use a closed architecture. Apple lawyers rapidly pursue anyone who tries to produce and profit from a clone.

    Hey, that's just great. That's really sharing technology for the benefit of others.

    The only reason Apple is contributing/using open source is because a., they need the alignment and strength of the community to make inroads in the desktop market, thereby selling more hardware, and b., the community is opening its arms wide like a bunch of slack jawed yokels (doh!) lured by the seductive Unix-like qualities of Apple's *proprietary* OS.

    I suspect in the end, the truth will make itself very evident. For now, I can only watch this virus propogate and hang my head in shame...

  92. Because of Unix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unix is good. That's why.

    -Former VMS User

    Anonymous Hero

  93. Never learn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trust a corporation, get burned. QED.

  94. Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? by ruiner13 · · Score: 1
    Didja miss the line at the bottom of the page that stated:

    "You can download the source code for WebCore (1 MB) and JavaScriptCore (321 KB)."

    I took that to mean, quite literally, they release the source code for the rendering engine. Could be all that crack i'm smoking though.

    --

    today is spelling optional day.

  95. Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? by corebreech · · Score: 1

    WebCore and JavaScriptCore are the glue code I am referring to. Read the descriptions on the page.

    Unless Apple open sources Cocoa, I can't see how this is giving back to anybody but Apple.

  96. You sound like a petulant child by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We GAVE them X11? Who is we? Nobody owns X11 to give. That's the point. it's free as in freedom for apple to to do what they please - like you do. Not just a little fanatical, are we?

  97. Heh-heh-heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    That's the sound of LONGtime Macintosh fan gloating ... in a nice way. :)

    1. Re:Heh-heh-heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't switch to MacOS, Apple switched MacOS to UNIX. Keep laughing . . . I've been using this system for over a decade.

  98. "Before you know... slashdotters will use Macs" by CmdrWass · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    You won't see me own a mac until the day comes that they open the hardware standards and there is good competition for hardware. In other words, until I can build a mac from spare parts, you won't see me owning one.

  99. Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? by ruiner13 · · Score: 1

    Without the rendering engine it is just a window that displays bytecode. I think the part they released is the most important part. The interface, which is all that's really left in a browser after you remove the rendering engine, is pretty much an afterthought, and is pretty standard from browser to browser (save a few gimmcky knick-knacks like a google search bar in the buttonbar... which can save you maybe 3 clicks over any other browser). The back, forward, stop, reload, etc. buttons are fairly standard.

    --

    today is spelling optional day.

  100. Re:Gnome-on-Linux -- poor and/or free man's Mac OS by borgheron · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apparently you've not heard of GNUstep. GNUstep is an implementation of the OpenStep API and includes most of Mac OS X's extensions.

    The GUI builder is almost done (I am the pricipal developer of it).

    Take a look at http://www.gnustep.org. :)

    GJC

    --
    Gregory Casamento
    ## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
  101. Let's hope so... by Patik · · Score: 4, Funny
    Next thing you know, most of the Slashdot editors and programmers will be using Macs ...
    This could be a good thing -- I hear OSX comes with a spell-checker...
    1. Re:Let's hope so... by PinkX · · Score: 0, Redundant

      But does it have a dupe-story-checker? ;-)

    2. Re:Let's hope so... by sean23007 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the only browser to use it is Omniweb: not even Safari uses the builtin spellchecker. :(

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    3. Re:Let's hope so... by entrylevel · · Score: 0

      Safari uses the built-in spell-checker, it is just off by default.

      --
      Karma: Incomprehensible (Mostly affected by posting at +5, reading at -1, and metamoderating everything unfair.)
    4. Re:Let's hope so... by sean23007 · · Score: 0

      And there is no setting to turn it on...

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    5. Re:Let's hope so... by entrylevel · · Score: 1

      *groan*

      Edit -> Spelling -> Check Spelling As You Type

      Remember, it's a beta.

      --
      Karma: Incomprehensible (Mostly affected by posting at +5, reading at -1, and metamoderating everything unfair.)
    6. Re:Let's hope so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux does, too. I guess some people are just too lazy to type "echo mispeldwerd | spell"

  102. Re:Apple by Cyno01 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Very true, penguins are native to everywhere in the southern hemisphere.

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  103. Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? by corebreech · · Score: 1

    The part they released is worthless, unless you are going to use KHTML under Cocoa.

    Read the web page. It actually is very clear on this point.

  104. Re:Gnome-on-Linux -- poor and/or free man's Mac OS by Anonymous+Bullard · · Score: 1

    Hell, the display I was talking about was just announced a couple of days ago so I demand some slack! :^)

    Umm, the ADC (Apple-only) -> DVI (generic) adapter is only good for relatively recent Macheads who want to use commodity flatpanels.

    Anyways, after having another look I found Apple selling a DVI -> ADC adapter for US$99.

    All things considered that's not too much extra to pay for an added inconvenience - althought it also encourages Apple to keep to its proprietary ways - but now I (the potential outside-Apple-market customer, my Macs are pre-ADC) must somehow ensure that this extraneous adapter doesn't cause any added complications under X-windows. Not that I'd expect any from a straight digital conversion but I've learned to be cautious over the years.

    PS. The new 20" Apple flatpanels are actually just $1299 instead of the 2k you're talking about... Is that an acceptable excuse for my lack of research? :^)

    --

    Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?

  105. Troll Tech/QPL bad but Apple/Aqua/Carbon good? by linux11 · · Score: 1

    I find it interesting how much Slashdot has love/hate relationships over different things. Take for example the war of words that went on with Slashdot about KDE. People where talking about how KDE programs broke from the true faith. There was flaimbaits about Troll Tech. And bashing of the QPL. Then discussion on "Project Harmony" to bring the community back together. And finally Troll Tech going GPL with Qt.

    But now we have Apple with Aqua API and Carbon API. Apple has put their legal dogs on the Free Software and Open Source community time and time again. You would have thought that the legal "look-and-feel" wars would have ended when the courts got done with Lotus vs. Borland, but Apple is ready to show it can bully every little guy over look-and-feel all over again. In the past, we have worked towards compatiblity and portablity by cloning the API and look-and-feel. With OSI's Motif, we produced Lesstif that follows the same API and look-and-feel. When the license of Qt was in question, the Harmony project cloned the API and look-and-feel. Winelib makes porting Win32 apps easier because it clones the API and the look-and-feel. But, Apple has made it clear by drawing a line in the sand when it comes to both the API and the look-and-feel of Aqua and Carbon. Porting Aqua applications to an OS that doesn't have Aqua is non-trival. Porting Carbon applications to an OS that doesn't have Carbon is non-trival. And if we ever so slightly cross that line that Apple has drawn to try to make it easier in the long run to port application back then they will bully us again. Regardless of what percentage of modern KHTML is Apple contribution, I still see Apple as a bully and a leech. They do not play fair and it is by being a bully they hope to ensure that the MacOS X desktop becomes a superset of any other *nix desktop. Just like in a certain company's commerical about 1984, we are being told with lawyers that Aqua and Carbon can only be done one way from one company. If we continue the route that Apple being "friends" will lead us then we will see why 2004 will be like Orwell's 1984. We are now facing a much bigger threat than "QPL."

    1. Re:Troll Tech/QPL bad but Apple/Aqua/Carbon good? by tbien · · Score: 1

      There is no "Aqua" API. Besides Carbon there is Cocoa which is based on OpenStep which btw. has an opensource implementation named GNUStep (http://www.gnustep.org)

  106. -1 Oblivious to Irony by thefinite · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yeah right. Next you'll be telling me that they use Linux!

    (Sorry, a bit harsh of me, I suppose. I guess I thought everyone knew that everyone knew about the editors and their Macs.)

    --
    Boom Shanka
  107. Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? by tupps · · Score: 3, Insightful
    While these packages are open source and only of use to those of us using Cocoa, Apples team who are currently working on Safari (which is beta) are feeding there changes back to the KHTML team. They sent an open letter to the KHTML team the day the browser was released.

    This means that when you run Konqueuer on KDE you will be enjoying the beta testing that thousands of MacOSX users have performed on Safari. This is what open source is about and this is what makes it powerful.

    --
    Go out and get sailing!
  108. Re:Gnome-on-Linux -- poor and/or free man's Mac OS by Anonymous+Bullard · · Score: 1

    I said a living relative of Mac OS X... ;-)

    Sorry for the unfunny joke; I actually kept up with GNUstep until a couple of years ago, always wishing the project well.

    I know they've made progress since Apple finally started pushing the faithful towards the *step/yellowbox/Cocoa apps and it'd be great to have those apps available under GNUstep/Linux as well.

    But I'd still prefer Gnome as the frontend for all this natural goodness.

    --

    Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?

  109. One iBook here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One iBook here

    Anonymous, for obvious reasons

  110. It's not that difficult to see why ... by vlad_petric · · Score: 2, Funny
    They're hardly in any competition for marketshare. Apple competes with Windoze and so does Linux, but from 2 opposite extremes. It's very much like Jerry and the dog allying against Tom :)

    Of course, that might change in the future

    --

    The Raven

  111. Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Friend, WebCore includes KHTML and KJS with tons of fixes and optimizations-- all of which have been submitted back to the project, as per the LGPL-- Kwq, the QT adapter library, and the Objective-C SPI. Apple improved the hell out of KHTML and KJS, sent their changes back to the project maintainers, and then released the whole shebang in an OS X-style package. What more do you want, exactly?

    --

    I write in my journal
  112. Re:Apple Laptop Keyboards Unsuitable for Unix User by presearch · · Score: 1

    Will you ever quit bitching and go away?
    YES! We get the point.
    You can only use one kind of keyboard.
    Pleeeeese stop.

  113. not all that useful for Linux by g4dget · · Score: 2, Informative
    I bought a couple of Macs about a year ago when OS X seemed ready for prime time. They look great, and they work reasonably well. It's nice to be able to port some UNIX/Linux software to it fairly easily, and it's nice that some system administration skills carry over.

    But Apple has made the system much more proprietary and non-standard than it needs to be. The system administration database is different from mainstream UNIX systems made integrating the Macs into my home and work networks much more work than a Linux machine. The window system is completely different from UNIX, hard to port to, and rather sluggish. Apple's software package management is worse than even that of Windows. And the commercial software situation on Macintosh is not all that great either. A big disappointment, too, was that Apple had promised "free .Mac service with every iMac" and then started charging less than a year later.

    Altogether, I think Apple has benefitted quite a bit from UNIX/Linux compatibility, by promising a no-hassles Linux-like environment and attracting some UNIX and Linux users. I don't think they really have delivered, and I will probably not be upgrading my Macs--I can get better functionality and more software for less money with Linux. On the other hand, Linux has not benefitted directly from OS X: there is little or no useful software that Apple has donated to the Linux community (Darwin is more of a distraction), and I don't think Apple's "switch" campaign has been all that effective.

    I think in the long run, Apple will be forced to become more and more Linux compatible, and then maybe there will be more benefit to the Linux community. Until then, every Windows user that moves to Macintosh is still of some benefit to the Linux community.

    1. Re:not all that useful for Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank the gods someone remembers!

      It amazes me how quickly people forget about
      the 'look and feel', etc, etc.

      Apple is nice because it is small and weak, I pray
      linux doesn't help it become uglier . . .

    2. Re:not all that useful for Linux by hayne · · Score: 1
      @m administration database is different from mainstream UNIX systems made integrating the Macs into my home and work networks much more work than a Linux machine.

      It is true that it is different by default but you can easily change it to use the flat files you are used to if you want: man lookupd

      Apple's software package management is worse than even that of Windows.

      Not sure what it is that you are complaining about but for applications you don't need any package management - just drag the app where you want it. For system-supplied libraries etc you don't need to worry about it - Software Update does everything. For ports of other UNIX software, fink (with apt-get) works very well.

      I can get better functionality and more software for less money with Linux.

      Less money for sure. But more functionality? There are many commercial apps on OS X that are far more functional than what is available on Linux. Of course I'm heavily weighting usability as an important part of "functional". And "more software" is not necessarily better - one excellent app is much more valuable than 10 good ones.

  114. Insert whatever here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This thread really makes me proud to be a Mac OS X user.

  115. Some of Apple's "Gifts" to the Linux Community by edward.virtually@pob · · Score: 1, Troll

    In no particular order:

    1. Harrassing Aqua-ish theme makers. As Apple should know, you can't patent "look and feel" -- as their failed case against MS demonstrated.

    2. Refusing to release a Sorenson codec enabled player or library for Linux, effectively locking Linux users out of an increasing majority of all Internet video content and thus making Linux unviable to end users. Don't bother me with 'it isn't Apple's' fault -- as was covered here months ago, IT IS! See http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/07/19/ 190248&mode=thread -- Apple SUED Macromedia to keep them from releasing a properly functional Linux player. Also don't bother me with 'but you can buy blah blah blah' or 'you can use unauthorized codec clone blah' -- I don't want nor should have to buy anything or break the law to watch what Mac and Windows users see legally for free.

    3. Undercutting development of established Open Source projects, like Mozilla and XFree86, by pushing less open alternatives and thus both cutting their mindshare and draining developer talent. And before someone replies 'but now it supports X11', the point is that they aren't the 'default' systems under MacOS -- which means "native" GUI MacOS X applications are useless to Linux, and pages coded for Safari will probably becoming increasing incompatible with Mozilla.

    Apple is a parasite sucking the blood of the Open Source movement, and is actively working to destroy Linux as a viable solution. The "open" solutions Apple endorses (Quicktime, Safari) do not work on Linux and serve only to spur sales of MacOS X.

    In short: Apple is not Linux's friend, and these articles that claim otherwise are stupid and tiresome. Jobs may be fooling the moronic majority, but that isn't everyone. FUCK YOU, JOBS.

    1. Re:Some of Apple's "Gifts" to the Linux Community by ealar+dlanvuli · · Score: 1

      Read point 3 with careful attention to grammar.

      Parent was a obvious troll, someone with mod points please fix.

      --
      I live in a giant bucket.
    2. Re:Some of Apple's "Gifts" to the Linux Community by Textbook+Error · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1. Harrassing Aqua-ish theme makers. As Apple should know, you can't patent "look and feel" -- as their failed case against MS demonstrated.

      The "harassment" was due to people copying and pasting widgets directly out of Mac OS X and passing them off as their own. And no, that's not what the failed "look and feel" case demonstrates - that case was lost due to the slack language Apple used in the contract they signed with MS. They gave MS more rights than they thought they had, and when they went to court this came out - hence they lost.

      You most certainly can sue over "look and feel", due to a concept known as "trade dress". If I set up a MacDonalds fast food chain with a couple of golden-Ms, you can be I'd have a suit slapped on me within minutes.

      Refusing to release a Sorenson codec enabled player or library for Linux, effectively locking Linux users out of an increasing majority of all Internet video content and thus making Linux unviable to end users

      Mod -1, Boo Fucking Hoo. Apple signed a contract with Sorenson. Sorenson signed a contract with Apple. Those two companies entered into a deal whereby you're not going to get Sorenson's code for free on your platform. Get over it.

      Instead of whining about it, why don't you get off your ass and write a better codec? What's that, it's hard? Well that's why people can and do build businesses around it...

      3. Undercutting development of established Open Source projects, like Mozilla and XFree86, by pushing less open alternatives and thus both cutting their mindshare and draining developer talent.

      Apple doesn't owe Mozilla anything - you've as much right to demand they use Mozilla as I've got to demand the Mozilla developers come over and paint my house. If an Open Source project can't stand on its own merits, why should it succeed?

      And before someone replies 'but now it supports X11', the point is that they aren't the 'default' systems under MacOS -- which means "native" GUI MacOS X applications are useless to Linux

      Yeah, and your average Gnome/KDE app won't run out of the box on a Mac either - your point is what? What Apple choses to make their default is their business - face it, X11 caters for a minority, and it's just not that useful to Apple's target market.

      It's definitely a prudent move for Apple to ensure it runs reasonably well, since they want to see if they can expand their target market into the Unix workstation market (or what's left of it), but it's by no means their main focus.

      In short: Apple is not Linux's friend, and these articles that claim otherwise are stupid and tiresome.

      Apple is absolutely Linux's "friend" (in so far as a large company can be friends with a bunch of source files). For god's sake, it's Unix. On The Desktop.

      --

      Nae bother
    3. Re:Some of Apple's "Gifts" to the Linux Community by bockman · · Score: 1

      Apple is absolutely Linux's "friend" (in so far as a large company can be friends with a bunch of source files).

      I'd say rather "business associate". Apple stays with Linux & open-source as much and as long it is convenient for them, no more. Which may be a moderately good thing, but IMO something to always remember (BTW, the above sentence is valid if you substitute Apple with almost any of the companies that use open-source software in some degree).


      For god's sake, it's Unix. On The Desktop.
      Ah, but Linux is not Unix. Neither is GNU.

      --
      Ciao

      ----

      FB

    4. Re:Some of Apple's "Gifts" to the Linux Community by demon · · Score: 1

      For god's sake, it's Unix. On The Desktop.

      OS X is no more Unix than Linux is. It's a Mach kernel with a BSD personality (not a BSD kernel), with userspace utilities scavenged from FreeBSD, NetBSD, and NeXTStep.

      Unless you consider Linux to be a Unix, then I'll accept that.

      --

      Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
      Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
    5. Re:Some of Apple's "Gifts" to the Linux Community by Textbook+Error · · Score: 1

      OS X is no more Unix than Linux is

      Of course. But if you want to be picky, you'll note that I said "Unix", not "UNIX". :-)

      --

      Nae bother
    6. Re:Some of Apple's "Gifts" to the Linux Community by edward.virtually@pob · · Score: 1

      Um, first off, you are not supposed to moderate threads you are commenting on -- lack of objectivity and all that. Someone should revoke your moderator privilege. The making of statements you don't agree with is not trolling. If bad language is grounds for being a troll, your "Boo Fucking Hoo" comment makes your response one as well (however "Insightful" your fellow Mac users think it is). Is it just me, or is the phrase "get over it" only used by jerks? I really look forward to MS deciding the DOJ case is over and revoking Office support for Mac. Then you can "get over" that.

      Secondly, none of your blather negates the fact that the listed behavior is Linux hostile and not the actions of a "friend". I didn't say Apple "owed" anyone anything. FWIW, Mozilla is a lot more functional than Safari is -- that is, it stands on its merits at least as well as Safari does. Likewise, your claim that "X11 caters for a minority" is asinine -- X11 is the standard GUI on ALL Unix platforms (except MacOS X) and OpenVMS, and is usable on Windows and MacOS (X and pre) as well. MacOS X's proprietary replacement, however, works nowhere else or ever will.

      Anyway, I stand by my statement: Apple is Not Linux's Friend and never will be.

    7. Re:Some of Apple's "Gifts" to the Linux Community by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which means "native" GUI MacOS X applications are useless to Linux, and pages coded for Safari will probably becoming increasing incompatible with Mozilla.

      Man, you are dummer than paint. Safari KDE W3C standards. Mozilla W3C standards. Opera W3C standards. So long as all four (Safari, KDE, Mozilla, and Opera) stick to W3C standards, they're fine. And Safari isn't likely to develop proprietary extensions with the 8000 pound gorilla, IE for Windows, out there: given a choice between writing for W3C, writing for IE, and writing for Safari, given the market shares, no web developer in his right mind would code for proprietary Safari extensions.

    8. Re:Some of Apple's "Gifts" to the Linux Community by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, first off, you are not supposed to moderate threads you are commenting on

      Um, first off, you can't moderate a thread if you've commented on it & if you have already made a moderation it is undone when you make a comment.

      what happened, did you inherit your low UID?
      your whine echos every other dipshit with an axe to grind, probably not a troll. just redundant.

    9. Re:Some of Apple's "Gifts" to the Linux Community by edward.virtually@pob · · Score: 1

      Um, so I found out -- got emailed notice of the later case. Pardon my ignorance, I must have missed that being automated when I read the moderation guidelines.

      No, I didn't inherit my low UID. I was surfing the Internet before the "web" existed. I'd have a lower ID, but I was content to remain an Anonymous Coward for awhile.

      My comments are on topic. I'm not going to "get over it" until the issues are addressed, and I will comment every time the "Apple is Linux's friend" hype is mentioned on Slashdot. If the grinding of this axe bothers you so much, don't read my posts.

  116. spare parts / hardware / files by timothy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    CmdrWass wrote: "You won't see me own a mac until the day comes that they open the hardware standards and there is good competition for hardware. In other words, until I can build a mac from spare parts, you won't see me owning one."

    Instinctively, I agree with that -- don't want to be stuck with something dependent on one company etc.

    However, a couple of things mitigate that fear:

    - there are enough standard-enough parts n' ports (ethernet, CD-ROMs, firewire and USB, IDE hard drives, etc ... can't count video cards, I guess) that Macs are less different from PCs than they used to be in the days when just exchanging floppies between Windows and Mac OS was a big pain. Now (for instance) I frequently transfer things between Mac and Linux machine with a little 65MB memory key that cost me $35 at a computer show :) (And next year, maybe 128MB will cost the same amount ...) I have an external CD burner that works under Linux and Mac OS X, scanner likewise. Enough components live *outside* the box that the computer itself isn't always as important as it seems ...

    - file formats: there are quite a few that are legitimately cross platform. Depending on what you do with a computer, they might not fill all your needs, but for many people, RTF / PFD / html / JPEG / mp3 / ogg and other very cross-platform file formats mean a lot more than the OS being used to open / use / manipulate / save them. Double-edged sword, though, since so many apps love to create difficult-to-share filetypes by default, so if that *is* a concern, it is probably a deal killer. [Ahem]

    - there are non-Apple OSes that run on Apple's hardware (a few varieties of Linux, and at least the three biggest *BSDs). Now I'll admit this is a roundabout argument, but ... even if no one else can produce Macs per se, Apple knows that they are not alone in the world, and the ability to switch hardware platforms without switching OS has got to affect their pricing. (Not that Apple laptops are badly priced, all things considered ... go price some non-Apple 17", super-thin, aluminum-clad notebooks;)) Even though it's not direct, it's definitely competition. And that's just for people willing / anxious to run Free software; even for Mac OS-only users, Windows laptops (which cannot run OS X) are obviously competition; people need computers, not necessarily Apple computers.

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
    1. Re:spare parts / hardware / files by CmdrWass · · Score: 0, Troll

      (ethernet, CD-ROMs, firewire and USB, IDE hard drives, etc ... can't count video cards, I guess)

      This is FAR from being good enough. And this is far from resolving my initial comment. I challenge you to BUILD a mac. I have owned, purchased, or otherwise consumed over 25 computers in the past 10 years. Of those, only 1 of those were a name brand PC (my very first one). Since then, I have built every single one of those from parts. I have found that by building my pc's I am able to build them cheaper (than purchasing a package deal or name brand pc) and more custom to my needs. This is the point I was trying to make about macs.

      when just exchanging floppies between Windows and Mac OS was a big pain

      I'm not sure where this came from. This is completely irrelevant to my point. My point is based solely on mac hardware. I was not even suggesting that the hardware had to be compatible with PC's let alon software/storage mediums. Again, I won't own a mac until they open their standards and create competition for hardware.

      Now sure Macs support usb and/or firewire, but who gives a crap. Quite frankly, I find USB's ONLY use to be for standard peripherals (mice, keyboards, etc) and for portable devices. Any other device (such as hard drives, cdrom drives, etc) I'd rather have internal devices as that crap tends to clutter up my already cluttered desktop(real). And considering how cheap mice and keyboards are... forget about it.

      there are non-Apple OSes that run on Apple's hardware (a few varieties of Linux, and at least the three biggest *BSDs). Now I'll admit this is a roundabout argument, but ... even if no one else can produce Macs per se, Apple knows that they are not alone in the world, and the ability to switch hardware platforms without switching OS has got to affect their pricing. (Not that Apple laptops are badly priced, all things considered ... go price some non-Apple 17", super-thin, aluminum-clad notebooks;)) Even though it's not direct, it's definitely competition. And that's just for people willing / anxious to run Free software; even for Mac OS-only users, Windows laptops (which cannot run OS X) are obviously competition; people need computers, not necessarily Apple computers

      I don't think you quite understand. Macs don't have any homogenius competetion. Macs are typically overpriced and underperforming. The latest macs use hardware that is outdated and several months closer to obsolecense than the latest PC's. And yet the top of the line macs can cost as much or more than top of the line PC's. And mac hardware is typically inferior to PC hardware... (unless you purchase shitty motherboards and such). And when your onboard Video card craps out, or your built-in display (crt or flatscreen) shoots poop, your only fix is to take it to an authorized service center and then wait 6 or more weeks while they fix it. Whereas if my monitor shoots its load, or my video card craps out, I'm back up and running in about 5 minutes.

      THESE are the issues that will prevent me from buying a mac. If you want to buy a mac, its your money... but unless you need a specialized pc for doing multimedia editing, you are a fool for wasting your money on this crap.

  117. Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? by dadragon · · Score: 3, Informative
    And I'm still waiting for Apple to release the source code to their GNU Chess port, dammit.

    chess.tgz on Apple's site. It's right there for the taking.

    --
    God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
  118. Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Webcore and JavaScripCore are the meat of the browser. The rendering engine and the javascript interpreter. Whats cocoa about what apple did is in the UI. They gave back thier improvements to the engine and in fact, if you look in the KDE devel mailing list someone is even trying to use thier code to make a Win32 version now. (Native UI, KHTML, KJS engine.)

    quitcherbitchin

  119. Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't know what you are talking about. The khtml renderer is open source. Apple has fixed some bugs, finished some stuff, etc. They changed the QT dependant code for their own graphical library.

    All the code is available, and being added to the kde project. kde 3.1 had a number of the bug fixes, but 3.2 will have most of the changes that apple made.

    One complaint is how they kept it all to themselves for a long while. It is non trivial to merge two branches that have diverged for so long. Hopefully the two teams will work together from now on.

    Derek

  120. 12' hype? by eggsovereasy · · Score: 1

    I just got rid of my old ass compaq laptop with a 12" screen (actually it died) and was more than happy to pick up one with a 14.1" screen and this bigger one weighs nearly 2lbs less. I hope I never have to use another notebook with a 12" screen :/

  121. Re:OK Let's see a show of hands here, editors: by timothy · · Score: 1

    I have an iBook.

    Good things: sharp screen; moderate weight; decent battery life; built-in DVD player; user interface in general and specifically OS X (which became usable enough with 10.2 that I have not booted into OS 9 since upgrading); decent included apps; above average case design (like the magnetic hinge with nothing to snag on); iMovie; iTunes (which now supports ogg); internal 802.11 (which can turn an equpped iBook into a wireless basestation).

    Mediocre things: speakers (lousy, even at close range); keyboard (awful; about average for laptops and better than many, but still awful ... my sister's iBook had a broken D key, and I snapped off my delete key when I installed the Airport card); trackpad (it'll never happen, but how I wish Apple instead of IBM had invented the eraserpoint); power cord (feels flimsy, slips out unbeknownst to the user ...); speed (though I'm spoiled by the speed of Blackbox and other Linux WMs).

    Depending on what you think about software, the fact that OS X is closed source may bother you, may not. I prefer Free software in general; so far though, I've been reluctant to risk disappointment / problems, and I have kept OS X on the iBook.

    However, when I'm at home, OS aside, I generally prefer a big monitor, a responsive keyboard, and a quicker-feeling machine, which is why I type this from a machine running Mandrake 9, and am installing Red Hat on another machine yea verily even as I type this.

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
  122. anon here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for obvious reasons...

    I love mac, they love me, steve is my best buddy.

    he is like god.

    I own this site and I use a mac..

  123. Apple ignoring the UNIX market? by Infonaut · · Score: 1
    Apple was catering to their historic Mac customers, and is purposely ignoring the Unix market. He also claimed that Apple would soon start paying more attention to the Unix market. I won't hold my breath. Apple has been ignoring Unix users for more than 12 years [google.com].

    1) Did you think Apple should cater first and foremost to the huge market of UNIX users clamoring for Mac hardware, or to their existing customers? Seems to me that by taking care of Mac users and getting them to switch to OS X is a pretty high priority.

    2) Even so, Apple seems to be doing a fair job of paying attention to the UNIX market. I mean, OS X is an implementation of UNIX, which makes Apple the largest volume distributor of UNIX boxes in the world. If that equates to ignoring the UNIX market, I'm not sure if our definitions of "the UNIX market" are the same.

    Macs don't have the keyboard layout you'd like, which is a shame. Hopefully Apple will soon fix the situation to your satisfaction. But I think it's something of an overstatement and a distortion to say that Apple is not paying attention to the UNIX market, simply because of these keyboard issues.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
  124. ummm.... by LittleBigLui · · Score: 1

    Say, apple releases the OneButton Mouse Driver (TM) 1.0 under BSD licence. they then go on to develop it and release 1.3 binary-only. there's still no way they could take 1.0 away from the community. i think that's what the parent of your post meant.

    --
    Free as in mason.
    1. Re:ummm.... by Scarblac · · Score: 1

      Say, apple releases the OneButton Mouse Driver (TM) 1.0 under BSD licence. they then go on to develop it and release 1.3 binary-only. there's still no way they could take 1.0 away from the community. i think that's what the parent of your post meant.

      Hmm. I think you're right. I'll go put a foot in my mouth then...

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
    2. Re:ummm.... by LittleBigLui · · Score: 1

      I'll go put a foot in my mouth then...

      do you want fries with that?

      --
      Free as in mason.
  125. True, True by espilce · · Score: 1

    This is exactly how I feel. I just purchased a new powerbook because I have been looking for a laptop to complement my linux desktop for a while, and now that apple sells 3 types of PB's (affordable, less affordable, and #!@#$%#@!!!!), and they are currentlty some of the best laptops in the world, in my opinion. However, I would NEVER fork out the dough for a Mac desktop. Their simply not worth the money. As for XP... I have gained an appreciation for it because of its driver support and general not-so-stupidness (as opposed to win98), but still I say fuck off to Microsoft, they offer nothing to me.

    --
    :q!
  126. heh by smash · · Score: 1
    BSD trolls... stick that in your pipe and smoke it :p

    The BSDs have linux emulation, and are much more closely related to OS/X from a userland perspective ... which is why they're not likely to "die" any time soon :)

    smash.

    --
    I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  127. Re:Apple Laptop Keyboards Unsuitable for Unix User by Maserati · · Score: 1
    Here is the sourcecode for a kernel extension that remaps keys just the way you like 'em. Grab the code, buy a PowerBook and get cracking buddy. Mmmmm.... backlit keyboard on the 17"... mmmmm.... Mmmmm.... it's GPL code.... mmmm.....

    Say, you do keep that comment in a file, or do you go back to your old comments and copy-and-paste ?

    --
    Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
  128. timing all wrong. by twitter · · Score: 2, Insightful
    That's because it has been about 8 months since I learned how to wade through the forrest of tabs required to turn those "features" off, and four months since I've been forced to use Office

    Well, if it took you 8 months to figure out some trivial settings then you shouldn't be aloud near a computer...well I guess you can use a Mac then.

    Hmmm, you are confused. Eight months ago, I took the time to figure out how to turn all that XP crap off. It took me a week or two because the damn "features" kept turning themselves on until you figured out the double secret key punch to kill them. About four months ago, I quit using office all together thanks to a job change. I would have been happy to be using anything else.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  129. Re:X11 is handy, but not a huge incentive in itsel by spitzak · · Score: 1

    The X apps are normal Unix processes, each has it's own memory space.

  130. Re:APPLE IS DYING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yup. apple is dying. they're gone. you've said it

    along with everyone else who said it last year
    and in 2001
    2000
    1999 ... ...
    1986
    1985
    1984 ... ...
    etc

  131. Oasis working on Common Office standard by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 5, Informative
    OASIS is working on a standard format for producivity packages. OpenOffice/StarOffice look to be the main beneficiaries, but since the standard will be open, you can write your own wordprocessors or spreadsheets to read/write/edit these files.

    As mentioned in other posts, if the file format had been open and documented there would not really be an issue. However, since legacy formats are starting to punish businesses with real costs, the issue can no longer be ignored, even by those that don't/can't plan ahead.

    DMCA and EUCD are two additional reasons for migrating from legacy formats. These two could legally prevent businesses (and agencies) from accessing their own documents if encoded in undocumented, proprietary formats and the tools to manage these formats are no longer licensed.

    If they can work towards an open file format system to replace MS office, they could chip away @ the MS desktop market.
    Chip, yes, but it MS-Office revenue will collapse like a sand castle when it goes -- but that's a separate thread. Since Microsoft has alrady taken a publicly stated position against the open file formats, the collapse will only reduce the overhead costs of businesses, agencies and citizens.
    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  132. and you shouldn't be let near a keyboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you shouldn't be let near a keyboard, you can't even spell "allowed."

  133. you guys have it all backwards by JW+Troll · · Score: 1
    Linux is good for Mac OS X and vice versa, because of the ease of porting across the platforms (soon to get easier with the X11 on Max OS X)
    This is bad, people.. the whole point of a Mac is that it makes a great desktop machine. Throwing Xfree onto it is the ass-backwards approach!
    If anybody here had their heads on straight, people would be trying to clone Aqua for Linux - NOT putting nasty Xfree86 on a perfectly good OS. Seriously, I hope somebody reads this and is in a position to actually fix the problem.
    --
    just like the humble blood clot... turboporsche@telus.net
    1. Re:you guys have it all backwards by demon · · Score: 1

      We can't, smart ass. Well, we _could_ in theory, but Apple and Adobe wouldn't be very happy about it, considering Aqua uses proprietary technology from both companies. Not to mention the reverse-engineering effort it'd take to do it. It's not like Aqua is an open standard, unlike, say, the X protocol is.

      --

      Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
      Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
    2. Re:you guys have it all backwards by JW+Troll · · Score: 1

      Proprietary technology?? You mean postscript display as implemented in Quartz? I don't see a problem there.. surely there are other ways to render fonts and vector graphics that would be adaptable.
      Sure Aqua isn't exactly an open standard, but it's obviously what people like. Xfree is useless on the desktop.

      --
      just like the humble blood clot... turboporsche@telus.net
    3. Re:you guys have it all backwards by demon · · Score: 1

      I think XFree is fine on the desktop - KDE3.1 does translucency effects like OS X does, and has anti-aliased fonts (yes, the old X glyph system sucks, that's why it's being replaced, and XLFDs are the devil). Phoenix has nicely anti-aliased fonts. I think it looks pretty decent - certainly nicer than Windows.

      Besides, most people neither know about, nore care about, the lowlevel APIs that their GUI uses. Looks are more important to them. (I'd rather have a usable system, which might have something to do with why I like Linux.)

      And Quartz doesn't use DPS, it uses PDF rendering technology, in cooperation with some stuff of their own.

      --

      Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
      Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
    4. Re:you guys have it all backwards by JW+Troll · · Score: 1

      Xfree might be nice for you but what about all those people with lower spec systems? My main machine is a P3-600 with 192MB RAM and the latency of Xfree makes KDE look like shit. Even Blackbox ain't so great..

      See, the whole problem I have with Xfree isn't anything to do with fonts or translucency - it's all about performance. Performance is what keeps me (and quite a few others I know) on Win2K. Apps? I'll make do with Mozilla and KOffice, but only if my GUI is responsive enough to justify it.
      "Looks" don't matter. Skins don't make a difference. Speed is what matters, and Xfree is the bottleneck. Toast Xfree, and an OSX-like GUI becomes possible. Imagine all those neat little effects and what-not running on top of Xfree's bloat!

      --
      just like the humble blood clot... turboporsche@telus.net
  134. Sexy? Macs are certified the 100% gay computer!! by gonadware · · Score: 0

    So, if you're a fag, I guess you'll be spooging all over it.

    --
    Check out my ghey articles and linux pseudo-contributions!!
  135. UML and UML by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems that User-Mode-Linux developers are not familiar with another UML which is Unified Modeling Language. I always suspected that linux developers are a bit ignorant.

  136. Re:Gnome-on-Linux -- poor and/or free man's Mac OS by splateagle · · Score: 1

    I talk from experience; Mac OS X won't run on my (back then) expensive PowerMac despite Apple's promises at the time

    Out of curiosity which PowerMac are you talking about and from back when? I run Jaguar (aka OS X v.10.2.x) on (among other things) a five year old Biege PowerMac G3, and I know of people running it (unsupported) on even older systems

    how many OSes are there out there that you can run the latest version of on Hardware that's half a decade out of date?

  137. Penguins & Apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great news for you.
    Penguins are to found as far north as the Galapagos Islands. That's a stone throw from the Equator. So I guess that Apples & Penguins will start bobbing up everywhere ! Cheers

  138. Hey, I said it years ago... by gmac63 · · Score: 1

    ...when Apple decided to go UNIX, I predicted that the popularity of UNIX will skyrocket, not only in users, but developers.

    I used to work in Graphics (prepress) and we had Photoshop and Illustrator on IRIX (SGI's UNIX implementation). It ran like a champ. I _KNOW_ there is a port for these programs and I suspected many more. Porting will be less of a problem from MacOS X to/from Linux than rewriting to XP or the next Windows OS.

    Baseline aregument: If its for one, It can be for all.

    --

    INSERT INTO comment VALUE('Doh!') WHERE user='you';
  139. QuickTime for Linux by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 1

    It would establish QuickTime as the premier portable media format.

    While Linux isn't a force on the desktop, it is pretty important among the technicians in the server rooms, and these guys often get to make technical decisions such as "which media format to use". As long as it is convenient to play on MS Windows, their bosses don't really care. Unless they have just been visited by a MS sales representive, they will leave the decision to the technicians.

    1. Re:QuickTime for Linux by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      It would establish QuickTime as the premier portable media format.

      Why does Apple need a portable media format? What Apple needs is a media format that most people (Windows) can use, but somehow shines brighter on Apple machines. IOW, supporting QT for Windows is a necessity, while supporting QT for Linux is giving another reason not to switch to a Mac.

      technicians in the server rooms [...] often get to make technical decisions such as "which media format to use". As long as it is convenient to play on MS Windows, their bosses don't really care.

      Exactly. I present to you the Darwin Streaming Server, an open source and free media server also available for Linux, Solaris, and Windows NT. What's there not to like on the server side?

      Oh, you want to watch the videos. Well, buy a Mac!

      Note that I'm not defending Apple or anything, just trying to explain its actions according to its interests.

  140. BSD by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    How much did Apple give back to the BSD peeps, that's the real test.

    Also, is Apple going to sue KDE for lookie likie themes

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re:BSD by pudge · · Score: 1

      Um, Apple gave a LOT back to BSD. That is, as much as BSD wants. The source of the BSD core of Mac OS X is fully available for download, as it has been for a long time now. It's called Darwin. Look it up.

    2. Re:BSD by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1

      Also, is Apple going to sue KDE for lookie likie themes

      I sure as hell hope so. One, stealing somebody else's look-and-feel is wrong. Two, UI themes, as a feature, suck, and anybody that opposes their creation and use in any way is okay in my book.

      --

      I write in my journal
  141. Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? by axxackall · · Score: 1
    From what I can tell, the only thing they are giving back is some glue code to make KHTML run on Cocoa.

    That's the problem of all non-GPL open-source software - it's just convinient to be hijacked.

    Try to do it (hijacking) with GNOME and see what's happened.

    It's time to remind again: GPL doesn't restrict the freedom. GPL restricts the people who wants to restrict the freedom. Got it?

    --

    Less is more !
  142. Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 1

    By releasing this, they also show developers how easiy it is to plug an app originally written for Linux into Cocoa. It's just as much "proof of concept" as it is "giving back".

    The way it benefits others is that they can look at how it's done, compare it to the original Linux tweaks and implement the same changes into their own software without an NDA. Apple gets more Cocoa apps, and developers who were originally planning to only use Cocoa can see how they can go to Linux as well.

  143. Re:OK Let's see a show of hands here, editors: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    +1 dual CPU desktop

  144. This is sesame street strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    three of these things belong together,
    three of these things are kinda the same,
    but one of these things is doin' it's own thing,
    now it's time to play our game...

  145. Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thousands?

    Safari has been downloaded over a million times according to Apple.

  146. Mac and Linux users are more intelligent by afantee · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As a longtime user of Mac, Unix and Windows, I respect the first 2 groups much more than the pure Windows users. Generally speaking, people chose Mac or Linux over Windoze for good reasons such as technical or design superiority, ease of use, style, productivity, TCO, security, bad experiences with Windoze, refusal to reward the convicted Redmond monoplist for its bad practice, etc, and they tend to be more articulate and intelligent than the Wintel PC crowd who either think Windows is the only thing in the computing universe or Linux is too complicated or Mac is too expensive and slow and has no software or second mouse button. Everytime a PC hothead lost his argument, there is always the last defense: why is everyone using Windows if Mac and Linux are so good?

    Personally, I think both Mac and Linux platforms badly need the critical mass to break the MS monoply, and the best way to achieve that goal is to help each other. I am not suggesting that MS should be elliminated altogether, but the economy and the computing industry are desperately in need of several viable alternatives and adequate ecological diversity to be heathy and prosperous, and MS is just too nasty to be trusted to control our destiny. Without the design flair and innovation of Apple and the spirit diversity of the Open Source community, the computing world would be such a boring place.

    1. Re:Mac and Linux users are more intelligent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't know design superiority, ease of use, style and productivity were constants of nature? Those are personal preferences instead of some hard facts.

      same goes for linux being complex and mac lacking second mouse botton.

  147. Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Safari has been downloaded over a million times according to Apple.

    Which, realistically, means less than a million users. Which is thousands of users (might be tens of thousands, probably be hundreds of thousands).

  148. Of course you can! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since you can run MacOS X as a user process on a PPC Linux box with MacOnLinux, there's no doubt left that the opposite could be achieved as well.

  149. Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? by the_real_tigga · · Score: 1

    "Try to do it (hijacking) with GNOME and see what's happened."

    Hmm, which rendering engine would they possibly want to hijack from GNOME?

    gtkhtml? Its so buggy its dead.

    and galeon uses the mozilla engine, which is not GPL. Also, it is already available for the mac.

    And I doubt somehow the apple people would expect to get anything useful from nautilus.

    --
    my .sig is better than yours.
  150. If pallidum takes over I will become a mac-hag by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1, Interesting

    In 95 when powerpc's and risc were the new buzzwords I wanted a mac so bad. I had WIndows 3.1 and a defective motherboard(didn't know it at the time). My system crashed ever 3 to 4 hours and even froze up in DOS. I hated it, the dos and WIndows3.1 memory limitations not to mention powerpc's at the time were twice as fast. Motorolla fucked apple bigtime recently while AMD/INTEL got into a speed race leaving apple in the dust. I wanted to be different and run a risc processor to impress my friends.

    Today I enjoy FreeBSD and Windows2k. Pallidium and drm scare the crap out of me. Mainly because palladium will require modifications to the cpu, memory, and every component into a trust relationship anti-tamper proof nightmare.

    Its my dam computer and if I can't use it then I don't own it. Drm is a blaspheme in the regards that it takes a public copyrighted work and turns the ownership to the creator. To make things even more extreme, they now want to own your possesions are you purchase them! First right of first sale need not implied. Legally the items are still yours but your own items will work agaisnt you and serve MS and Hollywood.

    Sure macs are slow, expensive, lack alot of games and other software products but dam its mine! I am wating for the powerpc 970 which will make things hell of alot faster and competitive again. I have a feeling if palladium turns into a situation where you can't turn it off then you can expect Linux to take a noise dive and leave IT along with opensource software altogher. WHy? Because if redhat can't stay in bussiness and all the new kernel hackers prefer macs, then Linux will become the next sco and IT managers are scared of being obsolence and leaving the heard.

    I personally believe this is Microsoft's plan.

    Its the same fud that killed borland and hurt unix when NT became popular 7 years ago. MacOSX may be the only free unix left that won't be shunned by IT. Yes Linux is hot now but after people can no longer run it under commidity hardware it will become a SCO.

  151. Apple hardware is sexy, Apple gets it! by defile · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Apple hardware. Very sexy, reliable, very intruiging, none of the crap of x86. Linux and Apple hardware seem a nice blend.

    In fact, I will buy a Powerbook right now. Fortunately Apple has seen the light, and I can buy one to run Linux without paying the MacOS X tax.

    What? The new Powerbooks have soft modems? No problem! Apple "gets it"! I'll just ask for the specs and write my own driver!

    Oh wait, I can't do either of these things. And more! Apple doesn't "get it" at all! I've been deceived by the people telling me that they Thunk Differently.

    Long live closed source and empty promises!

    1. Re:Apple hardware is sexy, Apple gets it! by demon · · Score: 1

      Well, at least there are modules available to support the software modems in the new iBooks. Could be worse...

      --

      Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
      Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
    2. Re:Apple hardware is sexy, Apple gets it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that it's Apple who doesn't get it.

  152. Where is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Where is the comment "Real man use Linux" !!!????
    What is happening to Slashdot!!!

  153. Office Chair by pjdoland · · Score: 1

    Don't mod me offtopic, but the same thing goes for office chairs.

    Some people think it's crazy to shell out $800 for an nice ergonomic office chair, but they will think nothing of spending an extra $1000 for leather in their cars.

    1.5 hours a day in the car.

    8-12 hours a day in the chair.

    --
    -- "The reward of suffering is experience." - Aeschylus
    1. Re:Office Chair by baryon351 · · Score: 1

      Agreed - my chair wasn't up around $800, but it wasn't the cheapest & nastiest I could find either - it's just comfortable and suits my butt/back/knees fine :)

    2. Re:Office Chair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I generally sit on the floor with all of my tools laid out around me. I do not need no stinkin' chair. I work far better sitting on the carpet. My arguments are god and true like the shining bright half monkey half man flesh eating android budddha-bot. It is bronze and shiny but not bronze and shiny like that obnoxious little silverhawk who cannot speak but only whistles like a f@g0t.

    3. Re:Office Chair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't believe I clicked on that... DOH!

    4. Re:Office Chair by Ponty · · Score: 1

      I was reading your message as the page loaded, so I knew to hit 'close.' I got a glimpse of it, but not too much.

      Readers: Don't go to the above link!

    5. Re:Office Chair by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      Readers: Don't go to the above link!

      Or at least if you do, don't try that at home.

  154. Turn of events... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As the battle raged on in to 2003, the Anti-Mac orcs having been robbed of almost all tangible ammunition, retreated behind the "Macintoshes are for homosexuals" blanket.

    It was evident at that point that they were sure to lose the greater battle, and eventually the great war...

  155. Re:APPLE IS DYING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, that's what the market is saying
    yahoo quote

    And just to be honest, when we were saying
    that in 1997 or there abouts, it was Bill Gates
    and Microsoft that saved them by buying
    up Apple stock. Apple did die that day.

  156. Have you tried octave? by elysian1 · · Score: 1

    I've been using octave as a replacement for Matlab with pretty good success. It's easy to install with fink on MacOSX. I'm running it with the Apple X11. Just do a 'fink install octave'.

  157. What about GNUstep? by nicestepauthor · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised that anyone could mention what Macs and Linux have in common without mentioning the GNUstep project. GNUstep is an implementation of OpenStep, which is the basis for the Cocoa API on the Mac. There are GNUstep apps today that can be compiled under Cocoa. GNUstep still has a ways to go before its finished, but anyone wanting to make Mac apps work on Linux and vice versa should check it out.

  158. iBook + networked Linux server == perfection by MarkWatson · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I used to drive myself nuts dual-booting a PC between Linux and Windows 2000, depending on what I was working on.

    I have never been happier with my home office setup: an iBook on my desk (with the improved Mac X server :-) networked to a dual-processor Linux box in a closet (so I don't hear it).

    I do a lot of AI work, and having the Linux box for long machine learning runs, etc. and for hosting experimental sematic web stuff is great - that leaves my iBook for most coding, running design tools, Microsoft Office, etc.

    Apple's recent release of a customized X server really helps a lot (still some work needs to be done on it though). Linux KDE applications look great (fonts!) using the iBook display.

    Anyway, I feel like I get both the fun and productivity of Linux with the great experience of OS X. Perfect!

    -Mark

  159. Re:Linux on every Desktop, a Mac in every backpack by hysterion · · Score: 1
    as a web developer I produce my sites on OS X, test them on XP and host them on Linux boxes so in my opinion all the OSes have something good to offer.
    Great plan, you just found XP's future niche: crash testing!
  160. Actually... by Shrac · · Score: 1

    The .doc format hasn't changed since Office 97. Though I agree with the general point about MS changing formats so no one can make an effective clone.

  161. I paid ten grand for my 1999 Firebird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems to me that your price of 25,000 dollars just goes to show how spoiled you make yourselves. I work for Dana and know a car is perfect for about 100,000 miles, so if I pay 6-10 grand for one with 45K then that is smart, oh and to the way above, What Mac user keeps his laptop for 5 years? and your only talking laptops, what about for people with desktops, a self built desktop can cost 2 grand less than a mac desktop. 200% overpriced is too much for me.

    1. Re:I paid ten grand for my 1999 Firebird by Strog · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that your price of 25,000 dollars just goes to show how spoiled you make yourselves

      I assuming by your comment that you either gave your remaining $15,000 to a charity or you couldn't make enough money and are jealous of those who could. I'm not advocating living beyond your means and having a lot of debt. Some people do work hard/smart enough to buy a nice car without going into debt to do it. Always seems like the whiners are people below that level. Would you be driving an '03 vette if you could have bought it outright? I probably owe as much right now for my '99 Jeep Cherokee as you do for your '99 Firebird. I've just been driving it for the last 3 years while you where either paying for another vehicle or walking.

      You say that 100,000 miles is good.

      10k for half of the life gone and no warranty.

      20k-25k for full life and full warranty.

      Seems like similar money for more hassle to me. I personally buy vehicles that are still on the lot after the next year's model comes out. You don't take the whole new car hit but you get full warranty and it really is still new.

      My PowerMac 8600/300 is still running fine and has always run better than the equivalent PC of similar age. Still using it with OS9 and Linux.

      a self built desktop can cost 2 grand less than a mac desktop. 200% overpriced is too much for me.

      PowerMacs start at $1500 and classic imacs at $800. Even ibooks start at $1000. Yes they more expensive, but why do need to try to inflate the truth?

      I have several PCs and Macs and an SGI O2. I'd pick up a nice Alpha and SPARC too if I find a deal I like. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

  162. How can you hate Microsoft and like Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Weren't you paying attention to how much of Microsoft Bill Gates owns. I got bad news for you

    After 18 months of dramatic losses and dwindling market share for Apple, Jobs said Microsoft will invest $150 million in Apple and continue writing software for its Macintosh computer.

    http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/1997/08/08/eco n/ econ.1.html

    Bill Gates is buying up Apple to save it's butt. So lay off Microsoft otherwise you wont' have your precious hippy computers.

    1. Re:How can you hate Microsoft and like Apple by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should be paying attention to which year it is. The stock was sold ages ago for a nice profit and Apple are doing quite well.

  163. Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 2, Informative


    And I'm still waiting for Apple to release the source code to their GNU Chess port, dammit.

    You're currently modded "flamebait" for this post. Maybe it's because you would rather rant than research? I found Apple's source for chess here. Hope that helps.

    --

    --
    $tar -xvf .sig.tar
  164. Re:Gnome-on-Linux -- poor and/or free man's Mac OS by firewort · · Score: 1
    From DVI to ADC, the cable adapter doesn't do any magic- the DVI and ADC signals are the same, but arranged in Apple's shell so that Apple can use a nifty squeeze-quick-release instead of the thumbscrews that DVI and VGA used.

    http://www.ramelectronics.net/html/DVI_monitor_cab les.html#adc

    Has a neat summary about DVI at the bottom of the page.

    ADC is pretty similar to DVI-I in that it carries USB, Digital, and Analog video signals.

    Here is a link http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/hardware/Devel oper_Notes/Macintosh_CPUs-G4/PowerMacG4Cube/trin-5 7.html all about ADC connector and the signals it carries.

    --

  165. Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? by corebreech · · Score: 1

    As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, this is simply wrong.

  166. Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? by corebreech · · Score: 1

    Alright then.

    The same query to Apple engineers two years back resulted in no reply whatsoever.

    And you get no results if you try searching on gnu chess in the Apple Developer forum.

    Excuse me for not knowing the secret password. It isn't supposed to be this way with GNU code. The instructions for how to obtain the source are supposed to be included with the binaries, are they not?

  167. Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? by corebreech · · Score: 1

    Every single time when I post about Apple, I got modded down.

    Almost every other time I post, I get modded up.

    Like I could give a shit either way.

  168. Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? by corebreech · · Score: 1

    Clearly it is you who do not know what you are talking about. The changes Apple has made are not open source. If they were, we would have access to them. We do not.

    That is what open source means, having access. You can't say, "one day we'll make the source available, really, honest, we promise" and then still get to call yourself open source. It doesn't work that way.

  169. The facts about the "myths" by sgtrock · · Score: 1

    I'm not a Mac geek, although I've used Macs in the past. My cousin, however, is a dyed in the wool Mac fan. Between his rants plus just staying up on technology in general I think I've got a pretty good handle on what's real and what isn't in the Mac world. As usual, there are grains of truth behind the myths. I'll answer the ones I know.

    "Ripped off Xerox"

    Back in the '80s Steve Jobs managed to wangle a tour or four at PARC for himself and some other Apple types to see the windowing system that Xerox researchers were working on. The researchers were ordered to show the Apple team members how things worked.

    At least one key member of the team objected strenuously to giving any information to Apple without any sort of benefit for Xerox. (no NDA, no financial compensation, no limits on the information that was being given away, etc.) She was ordered to comply anyway.

    Was Xerox 'ripped off'? Not really. Was the management team at Xerox incredibly incompetent not to take even the most basic steps to protect their research investment? Absolutely.

    "Can't use multi button mouse"

    Hasn't been true for a long time. However, it's still the hardware configuration on laptops. And before you ask, I have never liked the "ctrl+mousebutton" combination.

    "Uses non-standard hardware"

    Yup. What did you expect? Apple still sees itself as a hardware company. :)

    Seriously, though, if you're talking about peripherals that's not really accurate. PCI and AGP hardware and drivers are available that can be bought from a variety of vendors. I don't know if IDE controllers are there. I assume there are.

    "Is a monopoly"

    Of what? Their own hardware? Sorry, that's not how everyone else in the world sees the desktop/server market.

    "Owned by Microsoft, a major shareholder"

    This dates back to the huge influx of cash that Microsoft injected into Apple some years ago. At the time, I think it made Microsoft Apple's single largest shareholder behind Steve Jobs. I remember wondering what impact if any this might have on Apple. There was some speculation by conspiracy fans then that Microsoft might buy out Apple entirely and cut Intel out of the business.

    In fact, it's clear now that it was part of a defensive strategy on Microsoft's part to try to convince the US DOJ that it wasn't a monopoly by showing that there was competition in the market. In order for that strategy to work, there had to be at least one other viable desktop vendor out there. At that time, Apple was the only other player in the market that was worth a damn in terms of marketshare, but they were in deep trouble financially.

    Microsoft almost HAD to give Apple some money if their strategy was to pay off. Obviously, the strategy failed (witness the conviction).

    "Costs too much"

    Compared to what? For what it does, the Mac line is very reasonably priced now. However, IMO it was definitely overpriced for quite a while in the '90s.

    "OS X is slow"

    Well, if you're trying to run a modern OS on ancient hardware, yes it'll be slow. If you're running OS X on modern hardware and you've upgraded to the latest release it runs just fine.

    As an aside, one of the reasons I like both BSD and Linux is the ability to strip down the OS to run on some really lightweight platforms. OS X is not designed for that because, as I've already noted, Apple is a hardware company. It's not in their best interests to make it easy to run OS X on platforms like the old Mac Classic.

    I suppose you could probably get at least part of it to run on a Classic since OS X uses BSD in its core. No one but an obsessive geek with way too much time on his hands would even try. Oh, wait. :)

    "Lawsuits for no reason"

    The only example I can think of was the lawsuit against Microsoft for the use of the windows paradigm for a UI. A frivolous lawsuit on its face for a variety of reasons. I don't know of any in the same vein in the last 5 or 10 years. Does anyone more knowledgeable than I about Apple care to elaborate?

    "Rips off Linux"

    Umm, no. There are a number of GNU tools available as part of the OS X package, but as long as Apple follows all the rules in the GPL they're not ripping off Linux. And, since Apple uses a BSD kernel and not the Linux kernel, this is false on its face. Unless you've dug into the source for the BSD kernel Apple is running and can show that they're using GPL'ed code from the Linux source tree. No? Didn't think so.

    1. Re:The facts about the "myths" by overunderunderdone · · Score: 1

      Back in the '80s Steve Jobs managed to wangle a tour or four at PARC for himself and some other Apple types to see the windowing system that Xerox researchers were working on. The researchers were ordered to show the Apple team members how things worked.

      At least one key member of the team objected strenuously to giving any information to Apple without any sort of benefit for Xerox. (no NDA, no financial compensation, no limits on the information that was being given away, etc.) She was ordered to comply anyway.


      Actually this is the vastly oversimplified and "more interesting" version of the story as told in "Triumph of the Nerds". Jeff Raskin (the developer of the MacIntosh) has pointed out that many of the concepts supposedly stolen from PARC during Steve Jobs infamous 1979 visit had actually already been *implemented* on the Apple Lisa and MacIntosh (which was in development). These implementations which predated the visit to PARC were even arguably more advanced and are the ones we are familiar with now (for example click-and-drag as opposed to click-move-click). Some of the supposedly "stolen" ideas were in Raskins 1967 thesis which predate PARC's very existence. One could perhaps make a case that PARC "stole" the ideas from Raskin except for the fact that Raskin visited PARC as an academic and they freely discussed their GUI ideas with each other (Raskin and the PARC folks) - it is not suprising that people that shared a common vision (the GUI) and openly discussed their ideas in an academic research setting would at a later date develop those ideas into similar products.

  170. why? by elchuppa · · Score: 1

    This is a propietary platform isn't it? How come all of a sudden we love Mac's when we can't even build one? bah. humbug.

    1. Re:why? by pressman · · Score: 1

      This is a propietary platform isn't it? How come all of a sudden we love Mac's when we can't even build one? bah. humbug.

      Some of us love Mac's for exactly the reason you don't. We don't have to build them. We don't have to constantly recompile kernels from source code. We have great commercial applications that will probably never make their way to Linux. In essence, we can get our work done without having to even think about the computer.

      I reiterate my point from another post. If you don't care about the thread, don't post. Simple as that.

      Or better yet, go port the latest linux build to run on a toaster or something useful like that.

      --
      Pooty tweet
  171. Encoded documents are derived works by tmoertel · · Score: 1
    These two could legally prevent businesses (and agencies) from accessing their own documents if encoded in undocumented, proprietary formats and the tools to manage these formats are no longer licensed.
    I don't think so. If I create a document, I automatically become its copyright holder. If an office-software vendor encodes my document into some proprietary format, the result is a derived work based on my copyrighted material. The encoded property within is mine, not the vendor's, and hence the DMCA does not in any way prevent me from decoding the vendor's format in order to retrieve my copyright-protected material.

    Remember, the DMCA's (overly reaching) powers are granted to the copyright holder who tries to protect his own works by placing technological barriers around them. In your example, an office-software vendor tried to place technological barriers around works that they did not own. The DMCA does not apply.

  172. Step backward. by Inoshiro · · Score: 1

    "That Apple would Aquafy X11 is really a great step forward, and hopefully means that -- and this is key -- Apple will start shipping Macs with X11 preinstalled."

    For those who need a compatibility sandbox, this is good. For those who are people who just want to use their computer, they'll not want it. Instead they'll want the old X11 software properly ported to Aqua and following Apple's L&F standards. L&F standards only work if everyone follows them, and adding X11 in doesn't do that.

    --
    --
    Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
  173. Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? by kalidasa · · Score: 1

    Excuse me for not knowing the secret password.

    It's pretty simple to find: apple.com, click on OS X, click on Darwin. At the bottom of the page, click on Projects. At the bottom of that page is the link. So it's only three levels below the Apple home page.

    It isn't supposed to be this way with GNU code. The instructions for how to obtain the source are supposed to be included with the binaries, are they not?

    Are you sure they're not? Did you open the GNU Chess application folder and check (remember, the application icons in OS X are actually representative of folders, not of apps). I don't have my mac here today so I can't check myself, but it might be worth checking yourself.

  174. Re:APPLE IS DYING by wchin · · Score: 1

    Well... the Street has historically not be kind to Apple. The current stock price acknowledges the fact that Apple's CPU suppliers haven't been keeping up with Intel and AMD. Also, Apple themselves have stated that they are currently treading water under the current macro and micro economic conditions. If the economy was in much better shape, the emphasis on price and the resulting price war between AMD and Intel in the past couple of years would not have been nearly so ruthless - and Apple's (or any other UNIX hardware platform vendor) wouldn't look so expensive.

    As for 1997, Apple, the Microsoft stake was $150 million dollars for a company that had billions in the bank at the time. Apple, reportedly, had a convincing enough IP theft case against Microsoft to command a settlement where Apple got an endorsement in the future of the Mac OS and a commitment to Microsoft Office for Mac OS at at time when the future looked extremely risky (Mac OS X transition and all). So the stock purchase was a small part of the deal, and Apple would have soldiered on w/o the deal and probably would have won a lawsuit against Microsoft.

  175. Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1

    As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, this is simply wrong.

    Um... what? I'm sitting here looking at WebCore, and you're telling me that I'm wrong about what it includes? That takes some pretty serious balls, friend.

    --

    I write in my journal
  176. right, cause everyone on ./ uses linux..... by sweeze · · Score: 2, Funny

    Next thing you know, most of the Slashdot editors and programmers will be using Macs ...

    you mean as opposed to windows, right? :-P

  177. Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? by davebo · · Score: 2, Informative
    Clearly, you're a troll or an idiot, but I'll feed you anyway.


    You can check out the merges the KDE folks have made to CVS from code apple supplied with Safari here

  178. Re:Linux on every Desktop, a Mac in every backpack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The word you are looking for is "complement," not "compliment."

    -Your friendly neighborhood vocab-nazi

  179. Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? by corebreech · · Score: 1

    A few things...

    GNU Chess isn't a Darwin application. It's an OS X application, writting in Cocoa. So what's it doing in the Darwin section of the web site?

    And why isn't it available via the search engine?

    And why aren't instructions for how to obtain the source available with the application? Yes, they give you the standard GPL COPYING file within the application bundle, but that's it.

    They are supposed to make the source code easy to find, are they not? I went round-and-round with Apple on this when OS X first came out, and I got no satisfaction whatsoever. This, despite the fact that I paid the big bucks to be an attendee at their first OS X WWDC.

    That isn't the way it's supposed to be with GNU source.

    Now, it doesn't really matter much, but back when OS X was still beta, having access to the source code for a finished application would have been enormously useful. Apple does this shit all the time, even back in bad old days of System 7. They don't share the technology. They don't give you access.

    In this regard, they're actually worse than Microsoft.

  180. Yup, it's there by flimflam · · Score: 1

    in: Chess/Contents/Resources/COPYING

    GNU CHESS GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
    Copyright (C) 1986,1987 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

    Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license, but changing it is not allowed.

    The license agreements of most software companies keep you at the mercy of those companies. By contrast, our general public license is intended to give everyone the right to share GNU Chess. To make sure that you get the rights we want you to have, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. Hence this license agreement.

    etc.

    --
    -- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
    1. Re:Yup, it's there by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      But does it specify how to get the source (what URL)? That's the question corebreech is asking.

  181. Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? by corebreech · · Score: 1
    Yeah, you're wrong dude. The KHTML code you are looking at is the original code only, and the only modifications you have are those that make it work with Cocoa.

    The changes Apple made to KHTML itself for rendering and whatnot are not available.

    Read the fucking website:

    The current version of WebCore is based on the KHTML library from KDE 3.0.2. Changes that are specific to WebCore are marked with #if APPLE_CHANGES. Other changes to improve performance and web page compatibility are intended for integration into future versions of the KHTML library.


    And then consider you got modded up for BEING WRONG. Not the first time either as I recall.
  182. Quartz themability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there are plenty of awesome themes for Mac OS X.

    here are a fews:
    http://homepage.mac.com/max_08/index_themes .htm

    looks like more then blue or gray to me.

  183. Apple is stupid if they don't bond with linux by TweetZilla · · Score: 0, Troll

    Apple is dumb if they don't bond well with the linux community. But then again I never underestimate Apple's ability to shoot itself in the foot.

    1. Re:Apple is stupid if they don't bond with linux by pressman · · Score: 1

      Wow. This thread is rife with some of the most well articulated and thought provoking posts I've ever read. I mean, take this one for example. Concise, to-the-point and thoroughly insightful! It really gives us all a clearer understanding of how Mac OS X and Linux can cooperate and further enrich our computing experiences and ultimately stick it to Microsoft.

      Truly, I feel enlightened.

      --
      Pooty tweet
  184. um System 7.3? by Krioni · · Score: 1

    Little note, here: there was no System 7.3. There was System 7.0, 7.0.1, and 7.1 (which I think only had a 7.1.1 and 7.1.2), then System 7.5. There was, however, a System 7.5.3, but that wouldn't have booted that fast on the SE.

    --
    Lose essential liberties to get temporary safety = get only hassles and security theater.
    1. Re:um System 7.3? by Gropo · · Score: 1

      You're right... I think it was 7.0.1 on further recollection.

      --
      I hate Grammar Nazi's
  185. Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? by corebreech · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Fuck you retard. Everything I've said here is absolutely correct.

    When KDE merges the changes from Apple is not the point. It was never the point.

    Why didn't Apple just release the code? That's what is done with open source, yes? Just release the code.

    And of course, the larger point is that Apple makes prolific use of open source while taking liberties with the licenses they are released under, while open source efforts that make even tangential reference to Apple's work merits legal action.

    I think that sucks.

  186. Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? by kalidasa · · Score: 1

    GNU Chess isn't a Darwin application. It's an OS X application, writting in Cocoa. So what's it doing in the Darwin section of the web site?

    Apple calls the "open source" section of their website "Darwin," even though it contains links to more than just the source to Darwin. I don't know why.

    They don't share the technology. They don't give you access. In this regard, they're actually worse than Microsoft.

    Really? Could you point out one, just one URL to source code for a Microsoft app that's publicly available on a web site link, regardless of whether or not the search engine can find it? Look, however annoyed you might be that it took 2 years to get the source code for their version of GNU Chess, it's there now. I don't think you can say the same for MS. Another example: Visual Studio = $1K / Apple Developer Tools = free download; yeah, there are more bells and whistles in VS.NET, but there is NO equivalent for Windows that's free. The cheaper student versions of the Visual Studio apps do not create full distributable binaries, as I understand.

  187. Re:Linux on every Desktop, a Mac in every backpack by WatertonMan · · Score: 1
    I think you are right about the desktop. Pretty much everyone I know who is informed is waiting for the 970 to purchase a desktop machine. The current PowerMacs are simply too underpowered. Don't get me wrong, I love my dual 867 I got last September. But right now you are better off waiting six months.

    With laptops things are different. I think that there Apple is very competitive with x86 offerings, depending upon how you use them.

    Anyway, if the 970 ends up being on the same level as the high end P4 and the Athalon-64 I think you'll start to see a lot more desktop switchers.

  188. Re:First Post by Ponty · · Score: 1

    Above whistle and below flute. Don't pretend you don't know how to count.

  189. Twirlip: corebreech is full of it by davebo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Twirlip:

    Just so you know - even when pointed to the KDE cvs logs, where one can see the SAFARI_MERGE branch, this corebreech guy still claims the code isn't being released.

    You just can't reason with some people, I guess.

    1. Re:Twirlip: corebreech is full of it by corebreech · · Score: 1

      You just don't get it.

      I see here that your ignorance over this began some time ago. If what you stated here was correct, then I would have no issues at all with what Apple has done.

      That is, if Apple released to the community an MSHTML-like component that could be reused by any Cocoa developer and that featured the very same HTML functionality found in Safari, then that would be truly giving back to the community.

      This is not what they are doing however. What they've done is return only the original KHTML code wrapped up in a Cocoa API. The improvements they've made are not available to the Mac community, they get folded back into KHTML itself.

      So now, a Mac developer who would wish to utilize the new and improved KHTML in Cocoa will have to merge the the SAFARI_MERGE branch back into WebCore. Something that is sure to be a great big hairy hassle.

      Think about it. Why didn't Apple simply release the new and improved KHTML code in WebCore?

      Because they want to control the browsing experience on Mac OS X. It is the antithesis of what open source is about. They are afraid of independent developers offering browsers that are superior to their own, or perhaps that merely feature functionality they would rather not see us have, so they hobble us by denying us the benefit of their work on KHTML.

      They reap the advantages of open source, while denying us the same opportunity.

      Stop being a Mac zealot for a single instant in your life and actually think it through. If it is as you say, why didn't they just release their KHTML improvement in WebCore?

  190. Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1

    That's the problem of all non-GPL open-source software

    KJS and KHTML are licensed under the LGPL. In accordance, Apple has released their patches back to the maintainers.

    It's time to remind again: GPL doesn't restrict the freedom. GPL restricts the people who wants to restrict the freedom. Got it?

    Yes, I've got it. GPL restricts freedoms that you don't want people to have. Check.

    --

    I write in my journal
  191. What if you want Photoshop? by douglasq · · Score: 1

    Or what if you actually want to make a living and need Office to communicate with your clients?

    Having major commercial apps on a UNIX based platform is the best of both worlds to a growing number of users.

    --
    "Form should follow function...unless it's just plain ugly."
    1. Re:What if you want Photoshop? by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1

      You seem to be missing my point. There's no good reason to run KDE or Gnome on your Mac. KDE and Gnome are very, very poor imitations of the Mac OS X desktop (WindowServer, SystemUIServer, et cetera).

      If you want to run UNIX with real applications like Photoshop and Office, then by all means a Mac is the right tool for you. But don't screw it up by putting KDE or Gnome on it. That's just wrong.

      --

      I write in my journal
    2. Re:What if you want Photoshop? by Marc2k · · Score: 1

      Mm..don't take that as more of an Apple flame than it is. From your comment it seems that you're pro-OS X, as Office is available for it. However, the original poster was not saying anything about NOT buying an Apple, rather that for the money you're spending on one, you'd be better suited to run it's default windowing system (as Aqua is opitimized for the platform, not KDE).

      --
      --- What
    3. Re:What if you want Photoshop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to run UNIX with real applications like Photoshop and Office

      "real applications" bahahahahhaa

  192. Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1

    Why didn't Apple just release the code? That's what is done with open source, yes?

    That's what is done with open source, no. Apple is not trying to create a fork of KJS/KHTML. They're doing exactly what they're required to do by the LGPL: submitting their changes back to the maintainers of the project. See, there's no "KDE KHTML" and "Apple KHTML." There's just KHTML. So Apple sends their changes back to the project maintainers, instead of (well, in addition to, actually) just releasing them.

    And of course, the larger point is that Apple makes prolific use of open source while taking liberties with the licenses they are released under

    Apple has never taken liberties with any licenses. Ever.

    while open source efforts that make even tangential reference to Apple's work merits legal action.

    If by "make tangential reference" you mean desktop themes that use the Apple logo, or projects that use Apple's trademarked names, then yes. Apple protects the intellectual property they want to keep (their trademarks, their look-and-feel, and core technologies), and shares what they want to share (Rendezvous, XNU, and so on).

    Don't like it? Don't use Apple's products, ideas, or technologies. Nobody's forcing you to play.

    Oh, and please quit bitching now about Chess.app. The fact that you're too stupid to go to the web site and click the "Chess" link says more about you than it does about Apple, okay?

    --

    I write in my journal
  193. The readers are another story... by xagon7 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "Next thing you know, most of the Slashdot editors and programmers will be using Macs" ..and the readers would rater spend $200 on a box from Wal-Mart running Ark, Debian, or Red Hat then a WAY OVERPRICED, incompatable with most applications, and propretary format.

    I still cannot believe /. even carries a Mac section.

    1. Re:The readers are another story... by pressman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Next thing you know, most of the Slashdot editors and programmers will be using Macs" ..and the readers would rater spend $200 on a box from Wal-Mart running Ark, Debian, or Red Hat then a WAY OVERPRICED, incompatable with most applications, and propretary format.

      I still cannot believe /. even carries a Mac section.


      I can't believe Linux cheapskates like yourself keep posting the same thing over and over and over and over! "Too expensive! One button mouse! Proprietary architecture! Not Linux! No apps! It's ridiculous. You're not saying anything that someone smarter hasn't already said and spelled everything correctly.

      And I can't believe that these same people keep bothering to come into this section or post to threads that are clearly marked Apple.

      You know what? There are some technically savvy Mac users out there, myself included, who (when the threshold is turned up high enough!) actually enjoy and get a lot out of the discussions in this section.

      If you don't like the threads in the section.... stay out. You're not adding anything useful to the discussion and just increasing the noise to signal ratio.

      The bulk of the content on the site is geared to the OSS, Linux, *NIX crowd. Please join those discussions and let us have ours.

      --
      Pooty tweet
  194. Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? by corebreech · · Score: 1

    I wasn't trying to compare Microsoft to Apple overall, only with regards to making code available to understand their API's.

    And let's not be giving credit to Apple for their developer tools being free here, OK? The credit belongs to GNU. Let's at least get that straight. For that matter, when Apple was in the business of selling developer tools (MPW) it was more expensive than what Microsoft was offering at the time.

    I mean, c'mon, there was a time when you had to pay Apple $300 for access to the basic API's alone! I never recall having to pay Microsoft anywhere near that.

    And there is an equivalent to Visual Studio that's free... the very same GNU tools Apple is using.

    But none of that is what I'm talking about. Apple has a long history of hiding/not sharing example code, and of hiding/not sharing API's. I've yet to encounter an instance where I have seen a Microsoft program do something with Windows the available documentation didn't address. Whereas with Apple we were -- at least as of a year ago -- still laboring under closed APIs for things like control panels and those dealies in the menu bar, just to name a couple of examples.

    Apple's engineers have historically made a lot of loot by doing this. They keep the feature quiet, then they leave the company and release some new application that makes use of the as-yet-undocumented feature. The motivations are probably different today (after all we're talking about the only desktop OS available that still locks you into blue or gray as a theme color) but the effect is still the same.

    It's their way of maintaining a technical edge, through obscurity. Even their documentation reflects this, it's the worst in the industry by far.

    LOL, it's even reflected in their choosing to give us Cocoa API's in Objective-C and Java only! Why not join the rest of the human race and give us C++ API's? (and yes, it most certainly is possible, as I've had to explain here before.)

  195. OUT OF THE BOX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry, did you miss that? He didn't say self-built, he said store bought. He also made a pointed comment about PC users being retarded. You just proved his point.

  196. Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? by corebreech · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Twirling on many Fists,

    You're not addressing anything I've said here.

    Guess you couldn't respond to my last reply to you.

    Oh, that's right, because you were completely full of shit.

  197. OT: iLife in SoftwareUpdate! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Putting this here where it'll be near the top since the editors didn't see fit to post a story about it.

    sudo softwareupdate iMovie-3.0.1
    sudo softwareupdate iPhoto-2.0


    Weeee!!!!

  198. Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? by kalidasa · · Score: 1

    Reread the thread. You were talking about the source code to an app, not about example code. Yes, their documentation sucks.

    And let's not be giving credit to Apple for their developer tools being free here, OK? The credit belongs to GNU. Let's at least get that straight.

    Last I checked, InterfaceBuilder and ProjectBuilder are not GNU code. I'd be interested in seeing the licenses if they are. And yet they are included in the Developer Tools.

    One can use GCC in Windows; but almost noone does. And Windows certainly doesn't provide it, now, does it?

    If you want to use C++, use Carbon. No one is stopping you.

  199. WOW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have "issues."

  200. Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? by corebreech · · Score: 1

    If you want to use Mac OS X, use it. No one is stopping you.

    Just don't expect the rest of us to stay quiet when some idiot goes on about Apple and Linux helping each other, because it simply isn't so.

    And FYI, a lot of people use GCC on Windows, esp. people who do cross-platform work. Windows not providing it is irrelevant, because unlike Apple's interpretation of open source, we can get GCC anytime we want.

    As for InterfaceBuilder and ProjectBuilder, yeah, they're included. So what? Without GCC it's so much cheese, ProjectBuilder especially.

  201. Re:Linux on every Desktop, a Mac in every backpack by demon · · Score: 1

    I'm one those weirdos who still doesn't like OS X, for a variety of reasons. I like Apple's hardware, particularly the G3 Pismo, and I'd love to buy one on eBay if I had the money - but Linux would have to go on it. Maybe NetBSD too, just for the hell of it. But MacOS X would only run in MoL, if at all. I just hate not having full control over my computer. I don't get control on Windows, but I do on Linux. Why would I want to use another platform where I don't get the control I want?

    --

    Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
    Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
  202. That is what I have always figured. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    OS X, *BSD, Solaris, Linux, and all other *nixs are all work simular in a programming point of view. Sure there may be some differences in some areas but most applications port easaly from one OS to an Other. So if a lot of people start using OS X with X11 they will start writting applications that work in OS X with X11 knowing that they can easally port it to an other OS. Programmers if given the choice they would normally want to make their programs to run on as many systems as possible. So if they make a OS X app then the figure they can easly port it to other OSs. Unfortunatly windows is designed so differently then Unix that porting applications usually takes way to much effert.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  203. De gustibus non es disputandum :) by timothy · · Score: 1

    You're right, you can't build a Mac using non-Apple guts, at least when it comes to the motherboard. (The peripherals are pretty standard, though.) If that's the biggest factor to you, then I can't make you think otherwise, and wouldn't want to :) Though I like my iBook, and find that moving stuff between the iBook and my Linux systems is not the pain that it once was, for non-portables I currently prefer X86 machines for the same reasons you name.

    Likewise with the preference for internal vs. external storage etc; I like external devices for their portability and interchangeability -- for me, it's a lot simpler to move an external CD burner from machine to machine than actually install / uninstall / reinstall an internal one, and it means I don't have to buy a burner for each machine. Everyone will have different tradeoff points, and it sounds like ours are very different. Nothing wrong with that!

    File formats / data exchange are what matter more to me; one big reason I generally prefer open software (open source / Free) is that it encourages open file formats. I'd like to be relatively unconcerned with the actual hardware doing the work as I write, draw, search for a link on google, etc, as long as I can move stuff from one machine to another as necessary / appropropriate / useful / fun.

    My biggest objection to Macs (esp. the desktop ones) is aesthetic -- they're just too precious. I like computers to be less conspicuous than Apple does. Can't blame the designers, who want to make them distinctive and interesting, but I *can* disagree with their design choices :) My compact shuttle case is a bit precious, too, but to me it's at least somewhat more neutral and utilitarian looking. So long as it runs a nice OS with loads of software available, I don't care what the chip is; if Shuttle decided to get into the PPC market and sell little "almost Mac cubes" on which I could run, say, Yellow Dog linux, I'd be interested. Terrasoft is selling some big Antec-cased PPC systems, but I may have already purchased my last way-too-big computer. (And their little Bricks, though cool, seem like more money than I want to spend on a fairly limited machine ...)

    Cheers,

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
    1. Re:De gustibus non es disputandum :) by CmdrWass · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You're right, you can't build a Mac using non-Apple guts, at least when it comes to the motherboard

      By non-Apple guts, I hope you are referring to guts that are not manufactured by Apple but still mac compliant (which are nonexistant) versus pc-guts. Because my point has absolutely nothing to do with being able to use PC guts to build a Mac. In no way was I, nor am I suggesting that Apple should be building their machines with PC (intel/x86) hardware. My whole point from the beginning is that Mac hardware is a closed standard. There are not hundreds of companies making Apple compatible or Apple compliant hardware. This is because Apple refuses to open their standards. This results in three key things:

      1) Higher prices
      2) Lesser quality
      3) Proprietary Support (not just anyone can work on or fix deficient hardware... usually takes a service center to fix things).

      You see, heterogenius competition can only drive these points so far. Only homogenius competition would truly improve these.

      I like external devices for their portability and interchangeability

      I was attempting to mitigate this as a factor to my initial claim. And it holds. It is nice and dandy if you prefer external devices, but external devices only go so far. I haven't seen anyone build a computer completely out of external devices (which is kind of what you were saying). However, using your argument FOR external devices... by the time you remove those such devices from both a PC and a Mac and compare what's left, the comparison is even more lopsided. For instance... lets say you buy a Mac for $800 US, and all it has is a hard drive, keyboard, mouse, monitor, video, and standard connector ports. Let's say I build a PC that is exactly equal in features. Mine cost me $50 for a HD, $50 for a mobo, $100 for a processor, $30 for a case, $5 for a keyboard, $2 for a mouse, $50 for memory, $38 for a video card $75 for a monitor... Grand total: $400 US. Now if one of the parts of my machine fails, I can fix it in a matter of minutes, if something fails on your mac, you could be talking, hours, days, or even weeks of downtime. And mine cost me 50% of what yours cost you. And, my $400 estimate is being generous because I personally wouldn't need to purchase a monitor as I can re-use an old monitor (whereas all of the latest mac's I've seen have the monitor built-in in one way or another).

      OK OK, maybe my attack on Mac's isn't fair. Let me broaden my statement you are a fool for wasting your money on this crap. While I still believe this holds especially true for owners of Mac computers, let me rephrase it this way... you are a fool for wasting your money on ANY NAME BRAND computer. However, I must place an exception on this. Some people are fortunate enough, or aren't patient enough to know how to build their own machines. For these particular people, I exempt them from my claim... however these same people are NOT exempt from this claim as it pertains to Macintosh computers.

      IF Apple had the greatest market share of personal computers, they would be the Microsoft of computer hardware. And if this were the case, you could forget about Microsoft windows, you could forget about Linux, and I'd bet you could forget about Darwin (osX), as we'd all be using Mac OS 9 (or some derivitive) right now.

      Thanks for the debate... I've enjoyed it :) And if you wish to continue this debate... I welcome your comments and look forward to reading them.

    2. Re:De gustibus non es disputandum :) by timothy · · Score: 1

      you wrote: "Thanks for the debate... I've enjoyed it :) And if you wish to continue this debate... I welcome your comments and look forward to reading them."

      Well, I think we've both said more than enough. My opinion of Apple hardware (and maybe of their OSes as well) is more ambivalent than yours; oh well -- work and play with the stuff you prefer :)

      timothy

      --
      jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
  204. Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? by MoneyT · · Score: 1

    How can Apple and Linux not be helping each other?

    Apple provides Linux the commercial backing and support that it needs to make companies look at OSS and say, hey maybe we can actualy use this.

    In the mean time, Linux provides Apple with a fresh stream of ideas to work with and create as well as open their system well beyond anyting it has ever been before.

    And don't go into the bullshit about apple stealing code. If you don't want others to use your code, don't distribute it open source.

    --
    T Money
    World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  205. Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In this regard, they're actually worse than Microsoft.

    I totally agree. If MS used GPLed code in their stuff, they'd give back the modifications to source as required, no questions asked. Apple, however, consistently drags their feet, hides their code, and gives back the bare minimum legally required, unless it benefits them to release it promptly and openly. The bug fixes on LGPLed KHTML are only to ensure the survival of the project against Mozilla, which is sweeping the alternative browser market right now. Pretty much everything else they give back is useless to anyone who's not developing for Mac OSX and the PPC. I now see Apple not as "white knights" who want to promote free software, I see them as another Microsoft waiting to happen - the free software community is their unofficial R&D department, just like the Mac users say Microsoft uses THEM as R&D. And Apple is for open-source if it benefits them (apps), but not for operating systems - Linux doesn't require PPC to run, therefore, if Linux ever wins the desktop war, Apple will not be able to force sales of PPC hardware like they do now, to users who want OSX. And they keep upping their hardware requirements dramatically for newer upgrades (Jaguar obsoleted my 2 year old Mac). TWO YEARS OLD!!! I can run Windows 2000 on a P200 from the Nineties!

    posting AC because I've noticed any criticism of the mothership, no matter how well-argued or well-founded, costs me Karma.

  206. The tools work for me...LAMP by djupedal · · Score: 1

    I use MySQL (LAMP...Linux/Apache/MySQL/PHP) for rapid prototyping...that and running large music databases just for fun. I use PHPMyAdmin so that I don't have to hand roll. I use WebMin so that I can have a general front end. Both work remotely. I hate doing stuff by hand. The whole point is to put up db's quickly without being dragged down. There are many such tools, and I control my db's...they don't control me.

    1. Re:The tools work for me...LAMP by leandrod · · Score: 1
      > I use MySQL (LAMP...Linux/Apache/MySQL/PHP) for rapid prototyping...

      How can you prototype a proper database without a feature-complete DBMS? You will inevitably loose control of data integrity as you procedurally hand-code application logic to do what a proper DBMS could do declaratively.

      That is just bad programming practice. I would avoid an application prototyped like that. There is no point in even testing what has not been well thought of in the first place.

      --
      Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
      DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
      GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
  207. tilting at windmills...proper is as proper does by djupedal · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but this thread is pretty funny to me. I'm not faulting your procedures or practices. I'm simply listing what I do on my computer. And what I do leads to frameworks that are either forwarded or dropped. If they are accepted as proposed, then they are redone for all appropriate criteria. Sure, I've had hits and misses, but they've all shared the same beginnings. I'm sure you are proud of your process. My means help lead me to and end. Nothing wrong with that as I see it.

    When you begin to insist on structured protos, for stucture's sake, you move away from the initial consideration. Logic. The day we decline an idea based on a checklist is the day we stop improving. Does the phrase 'think out of the box' ring a bell? I could argue that it's possible to prototype a 'proper' database with twinkie wrappers, if the person doing the thinking has enough DB sense. Given proper credentials, I'd wager you'd take any proto from the right person. When I speak of prototypes, they are just that....a strawman application put up solely to test an overall hypothesis. No one is claiming anything beyond that, and again, I'm amused you find something...anything...to contest.

    I think if you backed off and took a friendly look at what I'm actually doing, you'd laugh along with me. Maybe your pants are too tight, or you're joking...I don't know....:)

    1. Re:tilting at windmills...proper is as proper does by leandrod · · Score: 1
      > they are redone for all appropriate criteria.

      No data integrity, no adequate criteria. Sorry.

      > prototypes, they are just that

      This shows you do not understand. Why make a prototype more complicated, and in a different platform? It does not add up.

      --
      Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
      DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
      GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
  208. My original link was correct. by davebo · · Score: 1

    The downloadable Webcore has updated KHTML code from 3.0.2. You can download stuff from KDE CVS and do the diff yourself if you doubt this. No need to re-integrate the SAFARI_BRANCH code.

    As for the embeddable HTML component - search for "Safari SDK" on the following link.

    Or read Dave Hyatt's blog (where he says the same thing) here.

    Or see what the folks at Omnigroup are saying
    here and here.

    1. Re:My original link was correct. by corebreech · · Score: 1

      The Dave Hyatt blog link is bad.

      The two OmniWeb links are irrelevant. They only talk about OmniWeb perhaps using WebCore in the future.

      The Apple link isn't particularly new here. It points to the page containing the link I posted here earlier. From that web page we have this:

      The current version of WebCore is based on the KHTML library from KDE 3.0.2. Changes that are specific to WebCore are marked with #if APPLE_CHANGES. Other changes to improve performance and web page compatibility are intended for integration into future versions of the KHTML library.

      From Apple's own mouth, OK? Apple -- not some funky blog or neer-do-well competitor -- is saying exactly what I've been saying since this whole thread began.

      Read Apple's words on this matter. Don't believe me, believe Apple.

      Your argument is with Apple. It isn't with me, because all I've ever said here is what Apple itself says.

      Do you get it yet?

      So no, your original link was wrong. Your posting here in this thread was wrong. You are wrong. You're not just contradicting me, you're contradicting Apple. /. could be an amazing experience if only we could get some of you people to actually read the content here.

  209. Re:persistant, but dumb by davebo · · Score: 1
    This is my last response. We're pointing you right at the facts but you keep screaming we're wrong.

    The Apple link I pointed to before has the following paragraph. You were apparently too damn lazy to do the search I mentioned, so I'll reprint it here.


    In addition to providing the best web browser for Mac users, one of the goals of Safari is to provide a fast and efficient HTML rendering engine for Mac application developers. Apple is actively preparing a Safari SDK that will be available later this year.


    Hey - look - an embeddable cocoa component. No, it's not ready yet. But Safari (and webcore) are still beta - the SDK comes out when webcore gets finalized.

    Fixed Dave Hyatt link (posting on January 17, 5:10 PM) here.
    Quoting again (following a quote from the above ADC link)
    In other words, all good things come to those who wait, so be patient! :)


    And as far as your delusional assertion that a) Apple's sticking with a branch of KHTML 3.0.2 which isn't being released or that they're not integrating things back from KHTML, further quotes from Hyatt's blog:



    I landed the new table code from the KHTML trunk in WebCore today. Meanwhile Lars is working on a new CSS parser on the KHTML trunk that we'll be taking back into Safari once it's baked a bit longer.


    Lars being Lars Knoll, KHTML developer.

    And finally, talk of a unified codebase here

  210. Understand by djupedal · · Score: 1

    Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.

  211. Re:persistant, but dumb by corebreech · · Score: 1

    You're calling me dumb?

    You've basically acknowledged that everything I've said is true in this message!

    That Apple might someday release an SDK has never been questioned. I do however expect it to be a subset of what is provided in Safari. This is clearly the case given the way they are handling WebCore *right now*. There is absolutely no reason for not releasing their improvements to KHTML right now other than using open source for their gain while limiting our gain from the same code.

    Remember the context of this thread. Does Linux help Apple and vice versa? This is an excellent example of why the latter is most certainly not the case.

  212. Re:They gave the source back for KHTML??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    but there is NO equivalent for Windows that's free.


    Well, the .NET SDK is free. C++, C# and VB compiler.