Slashdot Mirror
Beware the Garden of Steven
theodp writes "With its forthcoming Lion Mac OS and new Apple-curated Mac Apps Store, Apple will be locking down top tier applications on the Mac similar to the way apps are locked down on the iPad and iPhone. Only by submitting their apps to Apple's store and giving up 30% of their receipts will developers get to take advantage of two new OS features. The first is Apple's new 'Launchpad,' a tool for easily opening application; the second is the ability to update apps to new versions with one click. It will be a lot easier to use apps bought from the Mac App Store than ones downloaded in the wild. It didn't have to be that way, says Valleywag's Ryan Tate: 'Apple could have enabled its Launchpad and auto-update features for all applications, sold through the Apple Store or not. For example, an open system for updating applications has been in use for years on Ubuntu... Ubuntu's 'Apt' (Advanced Packaging Tool) lets users install, update, and remove software of their choosing with a single command. There's a central list of apps curated by Ubuntu's maintainers, but users are free to add and install from other lists... But Apple seems to have made a very clear choice not to take the open route.' Longtime Apple developer Dave Winer was also concerned, tweeting during Apple's presentation 'Is this the end of the Mac as an open platform?' The news also prompted developer Anil Dash to call for an open alternative to the Mac App Store."
Guys. I've been an Amiga/PC/Red Hat person for years and got my first Mac Book Pro four months ago. The platform is "the most innovative and best platform" I have EVER USED. I have a new high end Windows 7-64 bit box sitting here collecting dust. The MAC is innovative right down to the power connector that is attached magnetically so it doesn't crack the solder joints in the motherboard when I trip over the laptop cord.
Based on what I have seen and the value and productivity increase I get from using the Mac, I am willing to let them be the gatekeeper. The Apple product is solid, stable, and (secure???) and by providing a gatekeeper to the store and features it limits the damage to the platform and (I hope) upholds standards.
There is a place for Open-ness and a place for megalomania, but I can get nearly any open source package for the Mac and any hooks to the "offlimit" API's will be worked around to make all the interface features available. I say let Apple keep growing and providing value and innovative products. If Apple fumbles the ball, we can revolt, but right now it's a very good platform on which to work extremely efficiently.
Other than that, everything is perfect.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I hope you don't still routinely compile your own kernels, I thought that was a thing of the 90s, or maybe it's because I moved on from Slackware 3.x to FreeBSD and OS X that I no longer see the need to constantly recompile my kernel (oh the horrors of downloading the 2.0.x and 2.2.x source using a v.90 modem only to have the download get interrupted by someone trying to use the phone)...
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
Word, Snigger.
Shhhh its more fun to bash Apple with 1/2 truths then reality.
However, as a Apple fan from the beginning, i do hope they don't take the next step. The locked down AppStore for the iphone has been a rather successful business model for them, so it isn't all that far fetched to say they aren't at least considering it for the 'computer' side of the business too.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Apple is providing a service. Follow their very restrictive rules and you can use the service. Choose not to use the service, or chose not to follow their rules, and you have either provide your own service or use a different one that most users won't know about let alone use .
Fixed that for you.
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
> But Apple can't be blamed for that. You want your programs to ...except you don't have to put up with a litany of bullshit rules.
> use their repository features you submit it to their repository.
> Just like if you want you programs to be included in a Linux
> repository you submit it to the repository maintainer.
HELL, you don't even have to "submit" anything to the "repository maintainer".
You can just create your own.
This is what real open tools allow you to do. Everyone can participate. End users are empowered.
People aren't just told "my way or the highway".
RMS was sooo right about Apple.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
> Updating most software on Mac is already one click per app (start the program,
> and it checks for a new version). Smart devs already use Sparkle.
I prefer one click period.
It's much less work.
This is the problem with total n00bs. They think that something that is shiny but requires a METRIC TON of busy work is somehow a good interface.
That's just stupid and annoying.
Automation is where it's at, not shininess.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
> Yes you can add additional repositories but any software will have to be placed within those repositories by someone.
Yes. That someone could work at Microsoft or Adobe or it could quite literally be YOU PERSONALLY.
Of course you don't get this. You are one of the Apple faithful. The idea that you would do anything for yourself or that one of your fellow users might do something for you is completely alien.
That's why you don't get a real open packaging system like apt-get.
Any tom, dick, harry or Adobe can package stuff up and have a server on the internet that acts as a repository.
Ubuntu even specifically encourages power users to have their own repositories to cover corner cases.
Apples Steve-approved-only single repository app store is nothing like what Linux has.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.