Slashdot Mirror


Jobs Offers Free Mac OS X For $100 Laptops

bonch writes "Steve Jobs offered Mac OS X free of charge to the $100 laptop effort by the One Laptop Per Child project. However, his offer was declined because the project was looking for a 100% open source solution. The laptops will now be running on Red Hat Linux on AMD chips."

8 of 1,053 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Silly? by wlan0 · · Score: 4, Informative

    "We declined because it's not open source," says Dr. Papert, noting the designers want an operating system that can be tinkered with. An Apple spokesman declined to comment.

  2. Re:Silly? by Reaperducer · · Score: 4, Informative

    As I said in another post though this is a low powered low resource computer (a third of the power of the Mac Mini) designed to be powered by a hand generator, and OS-X isn't exactly renouned for being great for extremely low powered computers.

    Actually OSX works great on computers with a third of the power of a Mac Mini. Tiger is more than fine on my wife's 500Mhz iBook with just 300 megs of RAM. And I saw a guy in the Apple Store today with a Wall Street edition Powerbook (read: under 300 MHz) and the tech was stunned to see how responsive and usable Tiger is on it.

    So, aside from making assumptions and being misinformed, what was your point again?

    --
    -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
  3. Ignore the research, it's only research by dpbsmith · · Score: 5, Informative

    Apple may have used intuition or good taste when they put a single menu bar at the top of the screen initially, but later on they did research which backed it up.

    The edges of the screen are prime real estate and are easy targets to hit because the mouse pointer is constrained by the screen; effectively the menu bar is infinite in height. In order to hit a menu bar at the top of a window, you need to decelerate and hit a target that is fairly small. You need to do precision control in two dimensions instead of only one.

    I think one of the reason Windows users are always complaining that using the mouse is slower than the keyboard is because putting the menu at the top of the window makes the mouse slower to use than if it were at the top of the screen.

    Bruce Tognazinni devotes an entire chapter--27--of "Tog on Interface," (1992, Addison-Wesley) to this very topic. He cites four or five pieces of research.

    But, never mind. It's only research. Tognazinni wrote--in 1990!--"People for years have been explaining to me that in this era of giant screen monitors, we just have to do something about those menu bars way up there at the top of the screen; that menu bars should be attached to windows, or pop up beneath the cursor or something. Anything, just so they aren't up at the top of the screen any more." And I am sure people will be doing it fifteen years from now, too.

  4. Re:Red Hat wasn't always bad. by Trogre · · Score: 4, Informative

    A minor correction:

    Apt is not and never has been an alternative to Rpm.

    Apt is a sophisticated front end for the packaging system, be it Rpm or Deb. The basic front ends are /bin/rpm and /usr/bin/dpkg for RedHat and Debian respectively.

    Yum is another front end. The Fedora Project went with Yum, after spending some time with Apt as an option.

    RedHat still prefers up2date, but you can still install apt or yum at your option.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  5. Re:Silly? by humina · · Score: 5, Informative
    "What?!

    In what ways can you tinker with Linux that you cannot tinker with OS X? In fact, OS X gives you far more to tinker with because not only do you have the keys to the kernel and the BSD layer and X11, but also to everything that Apple provides. That answer makes no sense whatsoever."

    Well I can't tinker with:
    quartz, iwork, iphoto, itunes, airport extreme, spotlight, quicktime, isync, ical,imovie, apple's mail, safari (but you can tinker with safari's rendering engine), ichatAV, garage band, idvd, all the pro applications, and much much more.

    Of course by tinker I mean:
    -look at the source code
    -make modifications to the source code
    -distribute the code along with my changes without the possibility of getting sued.

    Apple will not allow any of this.

    --
    check out the best blog ever:
    http://oehlberg.com
  6. Re:Meh, depends on how you look at things. by Space+cowboy · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'll feed the troll...

    I'm not sure who's trolling here. I do know you're wrong on a fair few points...

    1) I've never modified kernel code myself. But if I wanted to, or had to, I could. With an open-source kernel, you're free to change things on a whim. With a proprietary kernel, even if you have the technical ability, you're screwed.

    Your point being ... what, exactly ? You *are* aware that the kernel in OS X is open-source, aren't you ? That all the source code is there, available for anyone to hack on ?

    2) I don't browse through random source code for fun (though sometimes for profit), but open-source software gives me that warm-and-fuzzy feeling because I prefer the whole community attitude (for the most part) over some monolithic corporation that's more interested in getting me to fork over $100 for their latest app. Others might take a strictly moralistic stance.

    Ah, I see, you're *not* aware that it's an open source kernel (google for 'Darwin OS X') at the heart of the mac ? I guess that makes this point moot too...

    3) I suppose they could install anything they like. Choice is good.

    I can't see how that's an argument in favour/against either. With either solution they can reformat the drive and install whatever they want ...

    4) Sure, Cocoa is nice. GCC is also nice. wxWidgets is even nicer, and easily portable across both OSes. Preferences vary from person to person, and YMMV.

    *cough*, *choke*, *gurgling death rattle*. You *have* to be kidding. I've used WxWindows for cross-platform apps, and Cocoa blows it away! I've been coding for the last 25 years, and the Mac (and I only started using them a year ago!) is by far the best platform I've ever coded on.

    • Key-Value observing and coding - the ability to treat any class just like a dictionary, instance variables as keys within the dictionary,
    • bindings - KVO/KVC with transforms and automatic linkage from the UI designer ... I saw a demonstrator build an entire web-browser without typing any code!
    • core-graphics, core-image - have you *seen* quartz composer (C-G, C-I) ?
    • Core-data, with the fully-integrated UML-like GUI data-model definer ?
    • The UI tools (Interface builder) are truly excellent on the mac, and Xcode is developing into something really useful.
    • The debugging tools are excellent (gdb, shark, bigtop, CHUD, objectalloc, etc.)
    • Finally, the language - objective C is simply gorgeous - all the power of object-orientated coding with precisely 1 syntax addition and ~10 keywords. Stunning in its simplicity and way more powerful than is first apparent because of the runtime binding.

    You are also aware the standard compiler is gcc on the mac, right ? I only ask because you didn't seem to know that Darwin was OSS...

    5) Silly me, I didn't realize that modern *nix distros were strictly coding environments. And here I've been mixing audio, putting together home movies, editing photos, and doing my daily email/document/browsing/desktop-yada-yada on Linux. Must be a bug.

    Er, I don't think there's anything to compare to the iLife suite on Linux. You're aware that people really make entire movies using Macs, right ? Really. The creative tools are second-to-none. And of course, it runs all the stuff that Linux runs because that's all OSS...

    6) You misspelled "Mac" as "right".

    Well, that's a matter of opinion. I think the Mac way works, but I'd not go so far as to label it the 'right' way. I think it's *a* right way.

    Last I checked, if someone gives you $2M and an operating system with no costs attached to it, you aren't paying them anything -- ergo "free". If the source i

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
  7. The parent is missing the point. by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 4, Informative
    They want an operating system "that can be tinkered with,"

    That THEY can tinker with.You are assuming that these laptops will be just like any other personal computer you or I know. What they will probably be is a "virtual book" which has an easy way to write documents, surf the web, and use built in educational programs:

    He said the child could use the laptop like a text book.

    As in an appliance, not a full laptop. So that means that Jobs probably offered to have OSX at the core of this appliance and the project people said "its easy for us to make a limited purpose box with Linux because WE can tinker with it." As in the development libraries for the visual stuff is open. Plus they are not going to ship the laptops in single pieces, so there will be extreme nerdiness involved to get them to work:

    The device will probably be exported as a kit of parts to be assembled locally to keep costs down.

    So its not like the project leaders turned down $100 iBooks for the kids.

    But hey, don't let my making sense get in the way of your Linux bashing party.

  8. Re: apple has wanted to do this since 1979 by johnrpenner · · Score: 4, Informative


    just to set the record straight -- donating computers to kids and schools
    has long been part of steve jobs' mission -- he personally offered to donate
    a hundred thousand computers to every school in america back in 1979...

    http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/comphist /sj1.html

    (exerpt from Smithsonian Interview with Steve Jobs)

    SJ: There were two kinds of customers. There were the educational aspects of Apple and then there were sort of the non-educational. On the non-educational side, Apple was two things. One, it was the first "lifestyle" computer and, secondly, it's hard to remember how bad it was in the early 1980's. With IBM taking over the world with the PC, with DOS out there; it was far worse than the Apple II. They tried to copy the Apple II and they had done a pretty bad job. You needed to know a lot. Things were kind of slipping backwards. You saw the 1984 commercial. Macintosh was basically this relatively small company in Cupertino, California, taking on the goliath, IBM, and saying "Wait a minute, your way is wrong. This is not the way we want computers to go. This is not the legacy we want to leave. This is not what we want our kids to be learning. This is wrong and we are going to show you the right way to do it and here it is. It's called Macintosh and it is so much better. It's going to beat you and you're going to do it."

    And that's what Apple stood for. That was one of the things. The other thing was a little bit further back in time. One of the things that built Apple II's was schools buying Apple II's; but even so there was about only 10% of the schools that even had one computer in them in 1979 I think it was. When I grew up I was lucky because I was in Silicon Valley. When I was ten or eleven I saw my first computer. It was down at NASA Ames (Research Center). I didn't see the computer, I saw a terminal and it was theoretically a computer on the other end of the wire. I fell in love with it. I saw my first desktop computer at Hewlett-Packard which was called the 9100A. It was the first desktop in the world. It ran BASIC and APL I think. I fell in love with it. And I thought, looking at these statistics in 1979, I thought if there was just one computer in every school, some of the kids would find it. It will change their life.

    We saw the rate at which this was happening and the rate at which the school bureaucracies were deciding to buy a computer for the school and it was real slow. We realized that a whole generation of kids was going to go through the school before they even got their first computer so we thought the kids can't wait. We wanted to donate a computer to every school in America. It turns out that there are about a hundred thousand schools in America, about ten thousand high schools, about ninety thousand K through 8. We couldn't afford that as a company. But we studied the law and it turned out that there was a law already on the books, a national law that said that if you donated a piece of scientific instrumentation or computer to a university for educational and research purposes you can take an extra tax deduction. That basically means you don't make any money, you loose some but you don't loose too much. You loose about ten percent. We thought that if we could apply that law, enhance it a little bit to extend it down to Kthrough 8 and remove the research requirements so it was just educational, then we could give a hundred thousand computers away, one to each school in America and it would cost our company ten million dollars which was a lot of money to us at that time but it was less than a hundred million dollars if we didn't have that. We decided that we were willing to do that.

    It was one of the most incredible things I've ever done. We found our local representative, Pete Stark over in East Bay and Pete and a few of us sat down an we wrote a bill. We literally drafted a bill to make these changes. We said "If this law changes