Slashdot Mirror
Dvorak Avocates Open Sourcing OS X
xzvf writes "Dvorak claims OS X and Apple in trouble. He suggests open sourcing OS X for an epic battle with Linux. In many ways, this is just insane rambling, but it's certainly entertaining on some levels." From the article: "That would make the battle between OS X and Linux the most interesting one on the computer scene. With all attention turned in that direction, there would be nothing Microsoft could do to stem a reversal of its fortunes. Let's start at the beginning. There's been a lot of fuss over Apple's rollout of the unsupported Boot Camp product, which lets Mac users run Microsoft Windows easily on an Intel-based Macintosh. I got into various levels of trouble when I suggested that Apple was going to gravitate towards Windows since it would be easy to do and there was some evidence that the company might want to do it."
'nuff said.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Let me share with you friends, the deep, dark, scary secret that Starbucks is keeping. A secret so shocking that when it is released on the world, it will literally change things forever! I've only recently figured this out myself, so pay attention as I walk you through the sordid details.
Like many super-intelligent-people-in-the-computer-industry
But then I got to thinking. What does Starbucks need with drive through windows? I mean, they're in the coffee business, not the fast food industry. People come into Starbucks to enjoy the environment, not grab their cup and run! Then it hit me! Starbucks needs drive-up windows because they are planning to bring that same environment to your vehicle! That's right, Starbucks wants to give you that same coffee-saturated, easy listening, comfortable seating feeling you get in their stores, but in your car. But how will they do it? Will they allow you to place your Venti cup in a cup holder and allow the smell to drift across your Caddilac? No!
There can be only one explanation: Starbucks is going to make cars. Nothing else makes sense! So two years from now when you're driving your Starbucks-mobile, remember this. You heard it here first. --John C. Dvorak
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Dvorak should buy Ubuntu. Or maybe Novell.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
How would open sourcing OS X make an epic battle with Linux? If anything, asuming the license was favourable, it would only benefit Linux and projects like KDE and Gnome, wouldn't it?
I advocate that banks open their vaults to anyone who wants money. I advocate that car dealers leave their keys in the cars for anyone to take them. I advocate that restaurants make their food free. All of these things might kill the businesses involved, but it certainly would be nice for me and for other people who'd rather not pay for things.
David
I often enjoy reading Dvorak, but this is just nonsense. Apple's usability comes from their software. Nobody buys Mac because of the hardware no matter what they say. They buy it because of the OS. Apple charges a premium for their hardware, but people are willing to pay this premium because of the software. Apple comes closer to "it just works" because of OS X, not because of the nifty design of the boxes or because they supposedly use "high quality" parts.
Switching to Windows would mean two things: 1) The differentiation factor for Apple decreases, meaning that they would have to compete more on price, and 2) Their support costs would go up because of the number of calls they'd get from users with Windows problems. Hello, spyware anyone? Not a problem for Apple now, but would change instantly with a Windows conversion.
I still think that Apple is slowly making the move to put OS X on generic PC boxes (and eventually more OEMs). Only they're doing it slowly and quietly, so as not to awaken the sleeping giant with the massive war chest. Apple could make a move for just desktop share, as they haven't shown any interest in becoming a large-volume server OS company. Let MS and other *nixes fight over the servers, Apple would be happy with selling boxes to just the end users and software licenses to OEMs and third parties.
They did. They called it "Darwin". It had everything that Linux has and had; it runs GNU software like everything else and is capable of GNOME or KDE. It hasn't performed very well.
Dvorak claims OS X and Apple in trouble. He suggests open sourcing OS X for an epic battle with Linux. In many ways, this is just insane rambling, but it's certainly entertaining on some levels.
How about we Open Source Dvorak's articles and let some other insane ramblings ensue, in fact, I have a few of my own.
First, I want a epic battle between humans and robots complete with protests, picketing, egg-throwing, and flaming.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Dvorak is trolling again.
The reason Apple is 'so great' is because they control the whole experience. What you are buying is the hardware + apps +OS.
If you sell the OS on any old PC hardware (as many have asked for) then suddenly Apple loses one of the legs or their product.
If you open the OS then you lose another leg.
The reason everyone wants apple to do these things is because the quality they can get when they control all those things. (no they dont control all the apps, obviously, but they provide the basic user with everything they would need in an easy to use package)
I am so tired of people saying: I love apple OS, but i will never pay for it until they sell it for my shitty dell hardware! Well, then it wouldn't be the Apple that is able to be so high quality, and you wouldn't want it anyway!
So, back to my original point: Dvorak is a tired hack, and he is trolling for pagehits. Please stop putting his crap up here and helping him out!
No there wasn't.
Getting OS X onto PCs might be even more doable today, since researchers are reporting that as many as half of the business-owned PCs in operation now may not be capable of running Microsoft Vista.
And any random crap hardware that can't run Vista should have no trouble running Mac OS X! Piece of cake.
The Boot Camp product is pure test marketing. It's so obviously test marketing that it's hard to believe that people are foolish enough to get worked up about it.
Yes, Apple announced that this functionality will be built into the next version of Mac OS X, because they want to wait and see how people react before they decide whether it's a good idea. Because if they had already decided it was a good idea, they would have done something differently.
Does Windows works well on Mac hardware, or not? The idea here is to put it into the wild and see what happens in a support-free environment where Apple has no responsibility to help make it work.
Does Windows work well on PC hardware, or not? That's debatable, but obviously Apple thinks they can make it work just as well on Mac hardware. Does it yet? No. That's why Boot Camp is in beta. There are bugs they need to work out. Some of them are documented.
Apple needs to analyze the reaction to Windows on a Mac. This includes seeing whether there is massive rejection of the idea--protests, picketing, egg-throwing, and flaming. In other words, can the community at large live with the idea of Windows running on a Mac? That cannot be known or assumed without this test.
Nope, it can't be known. Absolutely no way to even guess. It's not like you could ask people. You know, take a survey. And I mean a real one, not PC Magazine's equivalent of a Slashdot poll.
Much of the positive reaction, though, seems to stem from the mistaken supposition that having Windows on a Mac will make OS X look better by comparison, so people will flock to OS X.
Really? That's not the reaction I've been hearing. The two reactions I've been hearing are:
I didn't bother continuing to the next page.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
In the words of Peter Griffin: "This plan is brilliant it's retarded!"
What's crazy to me is this might be a brilliant marketing strategy to divert some attention away from Microsoft. It's so crazy it just might work...
Developers: We can use your help.
Great, so Apple can give away either its best product (or it's number one hardware advertisement, depending on if you think Apple is a hardware company, or a software company), into a hardware environment it can't control, thereby eroding its famous stability.
Great business plan. Apple would be insane to turn OSX into an open source product. The market has repeatedly shown what happens to high end wintel box manufacturers.
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem
How can I get a job where all I have to do is write an article with no backup or substantiation beyond my own knowledge and speculation about an idea that I shat out this morning on the toliet? Not only that, how can I get a job where I get to keep it after doing this every week for years?
All of these ideas have the following in common with Dvorak's "advocating" opensourcing all of OS X:
Crow T. Trollbot
Dvorak != Dvorak keyboard layout
I did my part by not actually clicking on the link and giving it one more page hit.
Stay tuned for new sig...
This notion is unmitigated nonsense.
Apple is not looking to unseat Windows as the OS king or are they trying to become ubiquitous. Apple is cultivating a boutique culture with their products and they are being very successful. Starbucks charges an unreasoble amout for coffee but people pay because they like to be associated with the Starbuck images. Apple is similar but not the same. They actually produce superior products (OS X, iPod) but they want to maitain the hip and cool vibe that is associated with them. The company is doing very well at the moment. I don't understand the "death knell" attitudes of some comentators. Why on earth would they alter OS X? They are making a fortune with it.
I think Boot Camp was introduced to shut people up. To end the Will-Windows-Run-on-Macs speculation. I firly believe that virtualization is in the card in the near future. Boot Camp is a temporary release to bridge the gap.
If you set up the site, I will happily contribute idiocy worthy of The Man Himself.
Here are the titles of some of my brilliant future submissions:
"Microsoft Should Buy IBM"
"Apple Should Buy Apple"
"SCO Should Buy Enron"
"IBM Should Buy All Copies Of Mariah Carey's 'Glitter'"
"The Dvorak Keyboard Layout Should Buy Me"
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
Anyone else get the feeling that Dvorak's articles are written by manatee's in a large tank filled with idea balls...?
Apple + Open source + War
"Oh, the makings of another great Dvorak article, I can see it now..."
Be better in bed. Wikiafterdark!
I don't think Jobs wants to dominate.
Apple has very carefully created a boutique quality to their products. This was a calculated move. To strive for dominance would bring much of the hip-and-cool aspects of Mac culture to an end.
Dvorak just likes to make inane random predictions that never, and I mean never, come true. His column inches are dedicated to shots in the dark which don't deserve the time of day. He's a troll with a website who claims to be an expert, and loves making wilder and crazier predictions with a distinct Apple fetish
Apple has the best sales they've ever had, they have no reason to open source it, and it's just... nonsense to anyone.
Looking at Slashdot posts he thinks
* Apple is going to move to Windows
* Microsoft should buy Opera
* Apple are promoted by news people more than they are used
* the Creative Commons license is worth trashing
* That Apple's move to Intel will harm Linux
* Google is planning a web browser
* Apple should discontinue the Mac
* TiVo is a way of stealing programming
Make your own opinions. Mine is that he's a poor troll. Okay, so he correctly predicted that Apple would move to Intel. But if you fire enough shots and make enough random predictions, you're eventually going to get one on the bullseye.
He's been wishing for/predicting Apple will die for about 18 years now.
When the Mac was first introduced, he was the guy who stated that the graphical user interface was "stupid" and "toy like".
Every article he writes is basically a suggestion for Apple to commit suicide. He actually wrote an article saying that if you used an iBook you were gay.
Here's my suggestion to Dvorak. If you want to be more competitive as a writer, start taking cyanide pills immediately.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Ok, so my reaction to Dvorak was "yeah, but no, but".
Apple's real gambit in regards to Windows is almost too transparent. Boot Camp is the second step towards a true virtualization layer for OSX that will blend Windows and OSX. The move to Intel was the first.
Given that virtualization is becoming so cruicial in so many areas with VM Ware, Solaris zones, and whatever HP call it, Apple's Boot Camp only makes sense. Multi-core processors make virtualization even more attractive to those craving processore density. With the Intel-Mac's lack of BIOS, Boot Camp provides the bridge between OS X and Windows for now, requiring reboots to toggle between operating system.
The abstraction of the BIOS is a key idea to take away from Boot Camp. The abstraction at least proves that Windows will run at that layer. The next step is likely to be a greater abstraction that will allow a Windows "session" to run inside of OSX without requiring a reboot, possibly similar to Virtual PC but with better performance. At this point, users would be able to access all features of both operating systems, albeit with some difficulty.
Eventually, the logical move would be to a complete virtualization layer in which multiple operating systems can simultaneously share the system and interact with one another. I wouldn't be surprised to see a virtualization system that allows easy "drag and drop" from OS X into Windows and vice versa.
This is probably a more realistic view than Dvorak, as it gets people onto OS X without the worry of not being able to use Windows. Could we see some kind of "WinOS/2"-like bundling in the future? Probably not to that extent, but with similar functionality.
Here is OSX, need to run Windows? Insert CD and click here, now your windows appas run inside what appear to be OSX windows.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
So according to Dvorak, Apple's business plan is:
1. Build Windows PCs
2. Open source OS X
3. ???
4. Profit!
Can't wait until he-with-much-wisdom fills us in on Step 3. I bet it has something to do with switching the iTunes Music Store to WMA and free iPods.
Certainly the recent rise of OS X on the back of the iPod has hurt desktop Linux, but these two desktop OS's appeal to completely different market segments so they are natural allies, not adversaries.
Linux attack MS from the low-end and is particularly strong in corporate, third world, and limited use, environments. It is flexible and is appealling technically and politically, but is quite rough and not ready for the average consumer.
OS X is the opposite. It is high margin, high sytle, and slick. It is perfect for the brand-concious, reasonably wealthy, consumer who wants everything to work together easily.
I'm not suggesting that Apple would intentionally help Linux, anymore than MS would, but Apple and Linux are not exactly on a collision course!
Jobs doesn't want to dominate. He's a kooky hippie who managed to strike it rich, not an aspiring Bill Gates or Larry Ellison.
He wants his *vision* to dominate.
By that metric, he's already won.
- Windows (the OS which most people use) looks a hell of a lot more like the Mac OS than the OS which was dominating the market (MS-DOS) when the Lisa was first introduced.
- Almost everybody has moved to object-based development, just like he was saying they would back when he founded NeXT.
- CGI dominates the entire animation industry, just like he knew it would when he acquired Pixar from LucasArts for a tiny fraction of what it would ultimately be worth.
- Companies all over are pouring huge resources into finding ways to make computers more appliance-like.
- You can buy one song you like off an album you otherwise don't want.
The guy gets off on advancing Big Ideas and seeing them catch on. He doesn't seem to care how much he personally benefits when it happens, so long as it happens the way he thinks it should.
He may not be after the kind of economic power which Gates enjoys, but he's clearly all about power. How often do most people get to change the whole goddamn world?
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
... of HW and SW that really makes it. I get an iBook for $800 that just works. No parts to stick out and snap, stock ports to support 90% of the work I'll need, a lid and sleep controls that actually listen to each other, instant wake from sleep, foolproof wireless HW and SW... in short, clean and effective HW, clean and effective SW. The two together are bliss.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Is this guy just throwing darts at a board with theoretical possibilities to come up with this stuff?
It's actually a Mad Lib.
SOME of OS X is open source. The things that make OSX OSX (things like Aqua, core[audio,image,data], Quartz, Cocoa, Carbon, DisplayPDF) are not.
No you see, while you spent your time posting as an AC on Slashdot, Steve Jobs actually went out and did it.
Then I get to re-experience the same reason why I just recently left Linux for OS X.
Stuck inside their bubble, open source zealots think it's ok to have thousands of branches of THE SAME OS, COMPETING, INCOMPATIBLE WINDOWING LIBRARIES that aren't even standardized as part of the OS, and ten thousand window managers to make absolutely certain that your OS has no recognizable "look" or "personality" whatsoever. When they add new features, they add them in the "cleanest possible" manner (ie, make everyone patch and recompile EVERYTHING), rather than the "most usable" manner (add compatibility layers). When they change features, they don't do so gracefully, they break old code and expect everyone to recompile.
Here's just one example of how open source just gets it wrong: a few years ago, I was looking to play some emulators on my Linux box. I figured it would be as easy as emulation on Windows, but boy was I wrong.
See, I wanted to use the same USB gamepad I'd been using for the last few years on Windows. Only problem was, when Linux added support for *USB* gamepads, they used a different interface. Thus, emulators designed for *ANALOG* gamepads could not use my USB gamepad. Unfortunately, most of these emulators had been abandoned, and nobody had bothered to add USB gamepad support, so I was up shit creek unless I wanted to hack it in myself (sound familiar?). This is an example of adding a new feature CLEANLY, but in a manner that is completely UNUSABLE without extensive reworking.
I'm sick of it. It's little things like this that made using my Linux box for anything besides web browsing and basic office tasks a pain.
WINDOWS, by contrast, has supported USB gamepads since Windows 98, and has taken all the guesswork out of the issue. Regardless of whether you use an analog or USB gamepad, an application can use the same hooks to communicate with the pad regardless, and the user can use the same setup widget to configure ALL pads. Now, that's not going to be very CLEAN code, but it is a damn sight more USABLE. I can't speak for OS X on this issue, simply because I've only been using it a few weeks.
This is just one example of why I don't need yet another open-source operating system. Open source applications are just fine - the ones that are mismanaged or get caught up in their own self-image eventually get replaced by better development projects. But operating systems have momentum, and don't just disappear. Open source zealots could do a lot of damage to the USABLILITY of OS X, and it would still take a long tome for it to fade away.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
Jobs doesn't want to dominate. He's a kooky hippie who managed to strike it rich, not an aspiring Bill Gates or Larry Ellison.
True, and this is the key reason why Dvorak is clueless. He says Apple is doomed because they will never dominate the desktop or monopolize like Microsoft. If Apple not overtaking Microsoft is considered failure, then sure they're doomed, and something crazy like open-sourcing OSX may become necessary. But back in the real world, Apple is sitting pretty with the small marketshare they have, and I see their star rising with the path they're currently taking, not falling as Dvorak confusingly suggests.
-- Never hit a man with glasses. Hit him with a baseball bat.