Slashdot Mirror


Torvalds: Free OS X Is No Threat To Linux

jfruh writes "Apple is now offering upgrades to the latest version of OS X for free. When Linux inventor Linus Torvalds was asked whether this threatened Linux (presumably by someone who had only a passing knowledge of all the things 'free' can mean when applied to software) it gave him an opportunity for a passionate defense of open source. Torvalds also says that he'll keep programming until it gets 'not interesting,' which hasn't happened yet." The newest version of OS X may be gratis for Apple hardware buyers, but it's notably far from the original, (literally) un-branded sense of "mavericks."

314 comments

  1. Linus Ducks Real Issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is a clever ruse on Linus' part. The real issue, which he completely ignores, is the genuine threat to Linux provided by Microsoft's release of a free Windows 8.1 upgrade.

    Even if he doesn't want to talk about it, at least publicly, I know he's scared shitless.

    1. Re:Linus Ducks Real Issue by SirGarlon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Please recalibrate your sarcasm detector. :-)

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    2. Re:Linus Ducks Real Issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oops

    3. Re:Linus Ducks Real Issue by binarylarry · · Score: 5, Funny

      He tried, it's stuck on Asshole.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    4. Re:Linus Ducks Real Issue by vux984 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The real issue, which he completely ignores, is the genuine threat to Linux provided by Microsoft's release of a free Windows 8.1 upgrade.

      ROFLMAO

      Only free to users of win 8, who got a raw deal having to use win8. :)

      8.1 may not yet be perfect, but its a huge improvement. Right clicking the new start button gives you direct access to control panels, device manager, event viewer, computer management, powershell, add/remove programs, shutdown/restart... I hadn't realized this until a couple days ago as everyone had said the new start button is just brings up the win8 start screen. Even on the 8.1 preview -- it hadn't occured to me to right click it.

      I now officially overall prefer the new start button/start screen more than windows 7 start menu, and think the start8/classic shell crowd are missing the boat.

      I'm still not a fan of metro, but that's optional to use. And I still like the win7 start menu search widget for typing based "quick launch" -- and would like to see a powertoy for that; or even just to see that autocomplete/search functionality added to win+r.

      Anyhow... as to Linus being afraid of a free 8.1 upgrade, or even OSX upgrades... it's absurd. OSX isn't free. Its a free upgrade for recent Macs. That's it.

    5. Re: Linus Ducks Real Issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I already get free upgrades to Windows and always have. I just buy a new computer and it has a free copy of Windows on it. Easy, innit?

    6. Re:Linus Ducks Real Issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Whoosh
      Please contact your local Clown Shop to have your humor/sarcasm detector serviced, as it is quite obviously broken. Or possibly was never installed.

    7. Re:Linus Ducks Real Issue by ruir · · Score: 1

      yeah, yeah, Windows is really a threat to Linux and Apple. What memo do you failed the ones using Linux and Mac are using it because they want a quality product, and the ones that want to keep cost down "pirate" it? I don't see a threat anywhere. Anyway, Microsoft can't have the luxury of giving free upgrades because they don't sell hardware. Only if it is free upgrades for the surface, but nobody on his right mind buys a surface to run linux...

    8. Re: Linus Ducks Real Issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real issue is that Linux is no threat to either Apple or Microsoft. It will always be marginalized on the desktop and has stalled on servers. Consumers may adopt the likes of Chrome OS but they won't accept Linux in its current state.

    9. Re: Linus Ducks Real Issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stalled on servers? Are you mad? Companies, non-profits, and schools the world over are flocking to Linux in droves on the server side. The immoral behaviour of draconian proprietary licensure has seen me not even considering anything but Linux or BSD since 1998. I refuse, on grounds of morality, freedom, and lastly, proce, to use proprietary software. I have done my level best over the years to convert as many places as possible to Libre/OSS. It works.

    10. Re:Linus Ducks Real Issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scared about the Windows 8.1 free upgrade?
      In the first place, what Windows 8.1 brings is part of what Windows 8 should have brought out of the box, second place, it still has many things user hates (metro) and last part, Windows 8 hardware requirements are near a 3D game which directly do not make sense.

      So having said this, how can anyone be scared of an failure update of a failure S.O.?

    11. Re:Linus Ducks Real Issue by ais523 · · Score: 1

      You can do that in Windows 8 too, right-click the very bottom-left corner of the screen. (The main problem with that is that it's basically impossible to discover until someone tells you about it.)

      --
      (1)DOCOMEFROM!2~.2'~#1WHILE:1<-"'?.1$.2'~'"':1/.1$.2'~#0"$#65535'"$"'"'&.1$.2'~'#0$#65535'"$#0'~#32767$#1"
    12. Re: Linus Ducks Real Issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, i buy a new car everytime the navigator maps get updated. E-e-e-zzz.

    13. Re:Linus Ducks Real Issue by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Heh, yep, did not know that, likely wouldn't have found it. On the upside, with 8.1 being free for 8, I figure within a year 8.0 is going to be rarer than Vista.

    14. Re:Linus Ducks Real Issue by camperdave · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Windows has always been free. It is preloaded on practically every (non-Apple) machine you can buy. You have to go significantly out of your way to get a PC without Windows, and even if you can find one, it won't cost any less than one with Windows pre-loaded.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    15. Re:Linus Ducks Real Issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "nobody on his right mind buys a surface to run linux..." - well I'd love to run Ubuntu's forthcoming touch-optimized 14.04 next spring myself. Maybe not on a newer Surface Pro 2 but say on the original Surface Pro.

    16. Re:Linus Ducks Real Issue by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      It has very little added anyway. A fake start button, different sizes for icons, and updated apps that no one uses. Meanwhile it has screwed up mouse usage for many games.

    17. Re:Linus Ducks Real Issue by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      You don't have to go out of your way to get something without the current Windows, often you just have to remember to ask for it, though granted you will not find this at your GenericBigBuyStore. You always will rarely get any sort of discount.

      It can actually be more expensive to leave the OS off because many manufacturers image the hard drive in order to have some test tools in place, so that it is extra work for them to use a blank drive or to erase the computer. Even if they could include no OS at no extra cost, it still costs the manufacturer nothing to include the OS anyway, plus it costs them money in support costs from customers who bought the cheapest PC they could find then discovered there was no OS.

      Generally you need to get an office class computer to get one without an OS rather than a home computer. This is nothing new either, even back before Windows there were many companies that were very hesitant to sell you an incomplete product even when you were there in person swearing on a stack of schematics that you didn't need the software to go with the hardware. You need to head to a supplier oriented towards professional users. (once someone refused to sell me a hard disk for my Amiga without also buying an IDE PC controller card for the disk because they told me that the hard disk can't work without a controller)

    18. Re:Linus Ducks Real Issue by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      Except nearly every computer comes with a version of windows installed. Sure you can look around for a model that comes bare, or go to the effort to buy online and untick that box for a $20 savings (if you are lucky and your model provides you with any os choice but you typical computer deals in big box stores, and your Dell/HP etc online stores) come with a flavor of windows. Often annoyingly not the one you want: by a mid range desktop and get home premium or whatever they call it now, want ultimate? There isn't a box for you to check so you have to upgrade on your own later.

      If both OS X and Windows goes the way of cell phones and keeps giving you free upgrades for the reasonable life of your computer (say 5 years) the fact that linux is free (in the sense that 99% + of people care, not the rare coders/IT guru that would actually tweak anything that requires greater effort than running an installer) just won't matter.

    19. Re:Linus Ducks Real Issue by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      It's a free upgrade to any Mac that can run the last three iterations of OS X, on Macs going back as far as 2007, but I guess it depends what you consider "recent".

    20. Re:Linus Ducks Real Issue by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      The fact that Linux is gratis largely doesn't matter anyways. People get a "free" copy of Windows with their PCs and are loathe to upgrade. People hold onto ancient XP machines because they seem to work well enough and people are afraid of change.

      Free upgrades might not even matter for Windows users. That fear of change and fear of tech in general will keep them away.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    21. Re:Linus Ducks Real Issue by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      To be fair: us technology dorks aren't really in a position to say whether or not a computer meets someones needs. My sister only cares if she can get email and Facebook if she has to carve into stone tablets for it that is fine. The issue becomes security but functionality wise there are a lot of people like her (including most business use cases).

    22. Re:Linus Ducks Real Issue by jalopezp · · Score: 1

      it won't cost any less than one with Windows pre-loaded.

      lol, only if you're getting it from curry's or dell. Besides, the markup on those machines is so high that it really doesn't matter what you want, what you're getting is ripped off. Buy your parts, it'll be half the cost and the savings from not installing windows on it are pretty evident. If you don't want to build it yourself, look online for one of those shops that assemble them for you for a small markup. It's the same fucking parts you'd get at dell, except for the shitty ass case. Do try to avoid paying £800 for a £500 desktop, even if it does mean going a little out of your way.

    23. Re:Linus Ducks Real Issue by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      And I still like the win7 start menu search widget for typing based "quick launch"

      Which exists in Win8, as part of the Start Screen - you just start typing ;)

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    24. Re: Linus Ducks Real Issue by Gen_Music · · Score: 1

      Considering that windows 8 works on Pentium 4/AMD Athlon systems from the era when Apple still used PPC, yeah that's new.

    25. Re: Linus Ducks Real Issue by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Considering that windows 8 works on Pentium 4/AMD Athlon systems from the era when Apple still used PPC, yeah that's new.

      So, an extra 2 years back then, added onto the 6 years we're already counting for how far back Mavericks goes.

      So, just to be clear, going back 6 years is "new" and going back 8 years is "old"?

    26. Re:Linus Ducks Real Issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically, Windows 8.1 is the same thing that Microsoft has done with every release of windows: A Service Pack. Microsoft always blunders when releasing an OS, and provides a fix a year or two down the road when their product is actually "ready". Unless this becomes a long term trend, such as EVERY version of windows being released for free, then I doubt it will be a problem for linux.

    27. Re:Linus Ducks Real Issue by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Which exists in Win8, as part of the Start Screen - you just start typing ;)

      Yes, and the start screen is actually pretty decent for search; as in when I actually need to look at the results, and try to find the one im interested in. Then the full screen UI makes a lot more sense than a small popup in the corner of my screen.

      But for quick launch? Its distracting to go full screen and back just to launch notep...enter or rege...enter etc.

      That's why I think search/autocomplete should be added to the Win+R dialog box. Its already got a history list... this would just be a minor augment to it.

    28. Re:Linus Ducks Real Issue by Meski · · Score: 1

      This is a clever ruse on Linus' part. The real issue, which he completely ignores, is the genuine threat to Linux provided by Microsoft's release of a free Windows 8.1 upgrade.

      Even if he doesn't want to talk about it, at least publicly, I know he's amused.

      Fixed.

  2. the second dose is free by themushroom · · Score: 1, Informative

    ...but Apple users had to pay a bundle for the OS that they're upgrading to Maverick from, remember.

    1. Re:the second dose is free by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Informative

      ...but Apple users had to pay a bundle for the OS that they're upgrading to Maverick from, remember.

      Minimum upgrade point is Snow Leopard, which still only costs $30.

      I guess "a bundle" has extremely varying values.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:the second dose is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I remember it was $20 US or thereabouts. I'd be interested to know how that can be classed as a 'bundle'?

    3. Re:the second dose is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $20?

    4. Re: the second dose is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You assume that the person upgrading has hardware that's less than six years old. Any older and Apple kicks you out of the boat.

    5. Re:the second dose is free by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Minimum upgrade point is Snow Leopard, which still only costs $30.

      You're forgetting the $600 minimum buy in from whatever Mac hardware allows you to run this OS.

      It's not free. It's bundled with expensive hardware.

      Some fanboy was really scraping the bottom of the barrel with this particular bit of propaganda. It makes it sound like they've run out of anything meaningful to say. It smacks of desperation.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    6. Re:the second dose is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Well, to the kind of people who settle for Linux, twenty bucks can be a month's worth of ramen noodles.

    7. Re:the second dose is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hah! "Settle" for Linux?

      I have a paid for copy of Windows 8 (which, BTW, I have not even booted into used for over 6 months). I have two Apple laptops (one from work, and an older one for home). Despite this, my primary home computer is a desktop running Debian. Guess which OS I prefer... yep, Linux. The user experience for me is far better than Windows (i.e., there is no contest there), and overall better than OSX (OSX does have some advantages, but overall I pick Debian).

      (And ramen is too unhealthy for me... Oatmeal is cheaper and tastes far better!)

    8. Re:the second dose is free by LMariachi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, the expensive hardware is bundled with it, not the other way around. You can go to the store and buy a copy with no hardware whatsoever, then install it on some used $200 Macbook from craigslist. I have one six or seven years old that runs it happily.

    9. Re:the second dose is free by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      There was a time when Apple users did not pay for upgrades and they still never got over 10% market share.

    10. Re:the second dose is free by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      The answer was fairly obvious. Plainly overpriced hardware, glued together parts (good luck decoupling the monitor on your desktop), plus Steve Jobs quirks like high res black and white screens over low res color screens, or his penchant for fanless computers even if it meant reduced lifetime or melting components, etc.

    11. Re:the second dose is free by jedidiah · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No you can't. The hardware requirements of the newer versions of MacOS won't allow for it.

      Every so often, those icky "specs" matter.

      Plus you are contradicting that common bit of fanboy propaganda regarding "resale value".

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    12. Re:the second dose is free by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1, Insightful

      > Minimum upgrade point is Snow Leopard, which still only costs $30.

      You're forgetting the $600 minimum buy in from whatever Mac hardware allows you to run this OS.

      It's not free. It's bundled with expensive hardware.

      The fact that it's a free upgrade kind of implies you already have the hardware.

      As for "expensive hardware," I have an '08 Macbook that meets the minimum specs for Mavericks (except that I never upgraded to Snow Leopard) - cost me about an hour of labor for a buddy who owns a pawn shop.

      Some fanboy was really scraping the bottom of the barrel with this particular bit of propaganda. It makes it sound like they've run out of anything meaningful to say. It smacks of desperation.

      All well and good, but of all the things I could be called, Apple Fanboy definitely isn't one of them.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    13. Re:the second dose is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my god. You clueless yob. It's bundled with decent hardware you dumbass; that's not free or cheap.

      Every time I go to build a linux box because I'm sick of OS X, I find myself $1500 into it for building something that will be fast and last a while.

      What the real question here is, why do we care what Torvalds thinks anymore than iWoz(someone)? It's like asking Ashton Kutcher what he thinks about the new batman movie? Who fucking cares?

    14. Re:the second dose is free by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting the $600 minimum buy in from whatever Mac hardware allows you to run this OS.

      If someone is upgrading to Snow Leopard from previous OS X, they already have the hardware. That being said, you can install OS X on a new PC if you have the right compatible hardware. Just don't expect it to be easy or trouble-free or supported.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    15. Re:the second dose is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You can go to the store and buy a copy with no hardware

      Not anymore. Snow Leopard was the last version which came on physical media. (You can get a "genius" to copy newer versions on to a USB stick, but they will want proof of ownership.)

      Intentionally or not, this prevents any Psystar-like companies from trying to sell Hackintoshes.

    16. Re:the second dose is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That being said, you can install OS X on a new PC if you have the right compatible hardware. Just don't expect it to be easy or trouble-free or supported.

      Or legal.

    17. Re:the second dose is free by lowen · · Score: 1

      Not anymore. Snow Leopard was the last version which came on physical media.

      Lion was available on a USB stick. Search for it on eBay; still some sellers selling it (607-9072; found three on eBay just now for $55.95).

    18. Re:the second dose is free by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Er what? The hardware requirements of Mavericks says that an iMac from 2007 is compatible. As far as MacBooks, late 2008 is the oldest. So six year old desktops and five year old laptops are compatible. It's not six or seven years but it's close. If you haven't noticed, hardware from 5 or 6 years ago has been good enough for most consumers on the PC side. That's one reason people have stopped buying new PCs.

      Second, how much does a 5 or 6 year old PC laptop go for? I can tell you it's often less than $200 considering new ones are not much more than that.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    19. Re:the second dose is free by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      It's not free. It's bundled with expensive hardware.

      No. It's free. It's bundled with expensive hardware. As it so happens, with expensive hardware that is worth the money.

    20. Re:the second dose is free by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's perfectly legal no matter what Apple says. Creating a business to redistribute like Psystar did isn't legal. A hobbyist should have full rights to create a hackintosh.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    21. Re:the second dose is free by atlasdropperofworlds · · Score: 1

      Actually it's more like $300 to $1300, depending on which hardware you bought to run it on.

    22. Re:the second dose is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple is the copyright holder. They'll give you permission to create copies on the hard drive and in the RAM of their hardware.
      But copies they don't give you permission to create infringe their copyright (unless provided for by the law).

    23. Re:the second dose is free by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      Copyright holders control modification and redistribution. They can't control modification alone. Fair use says otherwise. I can re-write Harry Potter's and the Sorcerer's Stone on my computer at home if I want. I simply can't republish it with JK Rowling's permission.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    24. Re:the second dose is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some fanboy was really scraping the bottom of the barrel with this particular bit of propaganda. It makes it sound like they've run out of anything meaningful to say. It smacks of desperation.

      Looks more like someone who likes to troll Apple related stories must be scraping the bottom of the barrel.

    25. Re:the second dose is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Fair use" is not what you think it is.

    26. Re:the second dose is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanx for the correction -- however that seems to have been a service part, not retail. Googling indicates it is linked to your Apple ID.

    27. Re:the second dose is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $1500 for a GNU/Linux box that will last a while? You're doing it WAAAAY wrong.

    28. Re:the second dose is free by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Please enlighten me with a law or statute that says differently.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    29. Re:the second dose is free by RobertJ1729 · · Score: 2

      Well, except for the RAM upgrade.

    30. Re:the second dose is free by jo_ham · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No you can't. The hardware requirements of the newer versions of MacOS won't allow for it.

      Every so often, those icky "specs" matter.

      Plus you are contradicting that common bit of fanboy propaganda regarding "resale value".

      So, in other words, your mind is set: it's impossible to present a valid argument where Apple isn't some evil thing.

      10.9 is free for any Mac that runs OS X from as far back as Snow Leopard, so that's most of the Intel ones, and the ones that it doesn't include are pushing 6 or more years old.

      There's no "expensive previous software requirement" as originally stated by the original commenter - at most, you're out $29 for Snow Leopard, or the same for Lion/ML (depending on whether you upgraded through all three).

      The resale argument is also hardly contradicted - show me an equivalent era PC that is worth as much as an equivalent era Mac. They hold their value; this is not "propaganda" - you can look at actual numbers on sites where these sorts of things are tracked (go and look at past ebay auctions, for example). This data isn't just made up.

    31. Re:the second dose is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wasn't aware that having a shiny apple on the side of something causes hardware to suddenly be worth anywhere from 20-100% more. This whole time I was under the weird impression that Apple's products were overpriced and their fanbase willingly ignorant to the cost so long as it makes them feel "cool" for owning that shiny trinket.

    32. Re:the second dose is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      17 USC 107.

      As to your claim that they "can't control modification alone", that's also plainly contrary to 17 USC 106(2), which provides that the owner of copyright has the exclusive authority to create derivative (modified) works. You cannot legally rewrite Harry Potter at home if you want. Realistically, no one would ever find out if you never shared it with anyone, but that is not the same thing as having the legal right to do it.

    33. Re:the second dose is free by rgbscan · · Score: 1

      Snow Leopard was free for a while last year. By download or by disk. As part of the MobileMe shutdown and transition to iCloud, they were giving away Snow Leopard for free to anyone that filled out the form and asked for it, just in case the lack of Snow Leopard was the reason you weren't migrated to iCloud yet. I managed to snag a couple DVDs of the OS direct from Apple. Of course if you missed it, you're SOL now :-)

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/adriankingsleyhughes/2012/04/19/upgrade-your-old-mac-to-snow-leopard-for-free/

    34. Re:the second dose is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please enlighten me with a law or statute that says differently.

      http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

      The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

      Of course it's possible that you're making a Common Law vs. Civil Law joke.*

      *(The joke would be that, since the US, like the UK and most former colonies, uses Common Law, where most of the body of law comes from precedent, not from statue.)

    35. Re:the second dose is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...but Apple users had to pay a bundle for the OS that they're upgrading to Maverick from, remember.

      Minimum upgrade point is Snow Leopard, which still only costs $30.

      I guess "a bundle" has extremely varying values.

      $30?? What about the $1000's you lose in revenue?

    36. Re: the second dose is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's perfectly legal no matter what Apple says. Creating a business to redistribute like Psystar did isn't legal. A hobbyist should have full rights to create a hackintosh.

      Free changes things, if I were Apple I would look the other way as hobbyists install MacOS on their friends and families computers to solve problems with Windows. Sooner or later these friends and family members will need to buy new computers, most likely a genuine Mac?

      It solves the whole switch to Mac problem, Apple doesn't have to support these switchers until they buy genuine hardware. It will eat away at Windows, and over time they can capture the levrage Microsoft once had. It will be Mactel in 10 years, they just need to look the other way for a moment. The people who can't afford genuine hardware now might be able to in the future.

    37. Re:the second dose is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copyright covers making copies, duh.

      If you re-write Harry Potter, that is making a derivative work i.e. copying then changing the copyrighted work. This is not allowed unless a) the copyright holder allows it b) your actions constitute fair use / fair dealing c) there's no copyright. It may not be well enforced, but even straight up making a derivative work can be disallowed. If you made a fanfic, you'd try and characterise it under fair use by being noncommercial, limited or no distribution, and have no negative effect on the market for the copied work.

    38. Re:the second dose is free by CanHasDIY · · Score: 0

      Actually it's more like $300 to $1300, depending on which hardware you bought to run it on.

      Incorrect: it will install just fine on the free 2008 Macbook I was given.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    39. Re:the second dose is free by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1
      Please read carefully:

      fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. . . factors to be considered . . . commercial nature of the use.

      Neither a hobbyist of OS X nor my use of Harry Potter is commercial in nature. For a hobbyist researching on OS X operates on different hardware is legitimate fair use. If I hated how JK Rowling chose to end the book, I can critique it with my own interpretation.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    40. Re:the second dose is free by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1
      You missed the part above that:

      fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. . . factors to be considered . . . commercial nature of the use.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    41. Re:the second dose is free by gnasher719 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's perfectly legal no matter what Apple says. Creating a business to redistribute like Psystar did isn't legal. A hobbyist should have full rights to create a hackintosh.

      You're not allowed to copy any software except if the license allows it. Apple's license allows installing it on Apple branded computers. (Often more than one for the paid for versions, depending on the situation. For a free-as-in-free-beer version, it doesn't make a difference). There's also just a very small amount of DRM which checks if the OS is running on Apple hardware. It's easy to get around it, but still enough so that the DMCA catches.

      That said, the difference between hobbyists and Psystar is whether Apple cares about it and takes action or not. Psystar not only created a business, but they made very very loud noises claiming that what they were doing was perfectly legal, making it basically impossible for Apple to ignore them.

    42. Re:the second dose is free by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Snow Leopard was free for a while last year. By download or by disk. As part of the MobileMe shutdown and transition to iCloud, they were giving away Snow Leopard for free to anyone that filled out the form and asked for it, just in case the lack of Snow Leopard was the reason you weren't migrated to iCloud yet. I managed to snag a couple DVDs of the OS direct from Apple. Of course if you missed it, you're SOL now :-)

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/adriankingsleyhughes/2012/04/19/upgrade-your-old-mac-to-snow-leopard-for-free/

      Awesome as that would have been, I didn't get the Macbook until February this year :(

      Still, $30 for a full version upgrade isn't breaking the pocketbook.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    43. Re:the second dose is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unknowing Fool, indeed.

      The factors to be evaluated, which must be done on a case-by-case basis, are not automatic. Claiming "criticism" and "research" is not sufficient for that conclusion. The fact that the use is not commercial does not mean it's Fair Use, nor does the thin argument that your prima facie infringement falls under the research exception or that your private rewrite is actually a careful critique.

      These kinds of harebrained arguments are why people hire copyright lawyers instead of getting laughed out of court.

      Your personal use of an operating system in an unlicensed manner, done to avoid the cost or sacrifice of selecting the legal, retail means of obtaining access, is not and would not be deemed Fair Use, whether you think it's a "fair" "use" or not. The burden of proving Fair Use would fall on you, and you're clearly not equipped to meet that burden.

      Neither a hobbyist of OS X nor my use of Harry Potter is commercial in nature. For a hobbyist researching on OS X operates on different hardware is legitimate fair use.

      That would be what we call a "nice try" defense.

    44. Re:the second dose is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not legal, confirmed in the Pystar case. You purchase a license to use OSX and are bound to its conditions, which prevent the software from being installed on non-Apple hardware. You would also violate the DMCA trying to circumvent the controls Apple has incoroporated.

    45. Re:the second dose is free by Nyder · · Score: 1

      No, the expensive hardware is bundled with it, not the other way around. You can go to the store and buy a copy with no hardware whatsoever, then install it on some used $200 Macbook from craigslist. I have one six or seven years old that runs it happily.

      Is it free? Because the discussion is the OS isn't really free, regardless of a free upgrade.

      No, you paid for those OS's that were NOT bundled with hardware.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    46. Re:the second dose is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is but only Mac Pro's at the right time. (Last time the whole thing was worth less than the loose cost of the top end xeon's in it).

      Rest of it is far too flimsy and unnecessarily difficult to repair if necessary.

    47. Re:the second dose is free by wagnerrp · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      They hold their value because people place move value on them than a simple utility. A PC is for utility. A Mac is a fashion item. The equivalent era Mac is no more capable than the equivalent era PC, considering they're made with the same exact parts.

    48. Re:the second dose is free by jo_ham · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They hold their value because people place move value on them than a simple utility. A PC is for utility. A Mac is a fashion item. The equivalent era Mac is no more capable than the equivalent era PC, considering they're made with the same exact parts.

      The same exact parts like... a metal case?

      "The same exact parts" is demonstrably untrue - there aren't many metal PCs, and the scant few that do exist (Dell's XPS 15 for example), tend to be expensive.

      It's not about the Mac being a "fashion item" (as if owning something with decent aesthetics somehow makes it a lesser utility item). No, Macs hold their value because they are well built and last a long time. Other laptops and desktops with plastic cases and parts just don't have that longevity, and those that do also tend to hold their value.

      Again, like the previous poster, you don't seem to be able to look at the big picture beyond "lol, they are toys for fashionistas". The quality of a product goes beyond the raw specs (which are comparable, with the switch to Intel in 2005/2006) and has to consider the whole package; the physical case the parts are enclosed in, along with other design elements are a large part of why Macs hold their value - especially the laptops.

    49. Re:the second dose is free by amorsen · · Score: 1

      You have a click-through EULA to get past though. Whether that is enforceable depends on the jurisdiction. Unfortunately I live in a jurisdiction where they are enforceable in general.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    50. Re:the second dose is free by LMariachi · · Score: 1

      I just looked it up and the MBP I’m typing this on was produced in mid-late 2007. I installed Mavericks without any workarounds and it runs just as well as any of the preceding OS versions.

    51. Re:the second dose is free by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      Sometimes it isn't even that the specs matter it is Apple decides they matter. A few years back working with old Mac hardware G4 systems couldn't be upgraded past Jaguar but G5 could get Tiger or whatever it was. It wasn't a technical limitation it was just Apple arbitrarily decided that computers 3.5 years old don't get the upgrade but ones 3 years old do. Similar to how they limit which iPhone gets which version of iOS. Microsoft will give you a relatively low recommended specs and you are free to try it at that. Apple I think has more of a mentality that they want users to have a certain base experience and refuse to allow you to run it if it would be slower than they deem acceptable (whether or not you want to/technically can).

    52. Re:the second dose is free by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between adhering to the EULA and copyright infringement. Psystar was accused of both violating copyright and the EULA. A hobbyist can claim Fair Use though this has never been proven or challenged in court. Psystar unquestionably was infringing on copyright so it is not a good example of a EULA challenge.

      As for action on Apple's part, if Apple takes no action on hobbyists but knows about their activities, it can be implied that they didn't want to pursue a defense of their copyrights. Failing to defend their copyright can be used by others.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    53. Re:the second dose is free by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Psystar is not a good example as they modified (creating a derivative) and then resold OS X without Apple's consent which is clearly against copyright laws. The courts did not decide if it was legal for them to modify and not resell (like a hobbyist).

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    54. Re:the second dose is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, to the kind of people who settle for Linux,

      you mean like these guys?

      http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/10/the-navys-newest-warship-is-powered-by-linux/

    55. Re:the second dose is free by nuonguy · · Score: 2

      Go ahead and hate on the mac and mac users all you want, just come out and say it. Justifying it is not necessary. It's easy to demonstrate what you say is not true. You don't need to pretend to be rational about it.

    56. Re:the second dose is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WAAAAA!!!!!!!
       
      LOL!!!!!!!
       
      I love to see you little faggots cry like a faggot getting fucked in the ass by a gorilla.
       
      BTW: My Mac does tons of utility. Sorry if you don't know shit about that.

    57. Re:the second dose is free by brantondaveperson · · Score: 3, Informative

      the same exact parts

      Like the machined case, best trackpad money can buy, best webcam also, thunderbolt connector? I don't think so.

    58. Re:the second dose is free by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Anonymous Coward declares all uses infringing without looking at case by case basis but says all Fair Uses must be examined in a case by case basis. You can't have it both ways. There are legitimate Fair Use cases in building a hackintosh. Blanketly saying it isn't Fair Use is a lack of logic.

      Claiming "criticism" and "research" is not sufficient for that conclusion. The fact that the use is not commercial does not mean it's Fair Use, nor does the thin argument that your prima facie infringement falls under the research exception or that your private rewrite is actually a careful critique.

      One factor is commercial use. I guess you failed to read the other ones. I guess you don't understand what "parody" means then. Saturday Night Live can be sued for every skit they've ever done then under your logic. Since you don't know what is in my rewrite you claim to know a lot about something that can't possibly know. Unless you are claiming omnipotence as well.

      Your personal use of an operating system in an unlicensed manner, done to avoid the cost or sacrifice of selecting the legal, retail means of obtaining access, is not and would not be deemed Fair Use, whether you think it's a "fair" "use" or not. The burden of proving Fair Use would fall on you, and you're clearly not equipped to meet that burden.

      Now you are claiming to know my motives in building a hackintosh. There are legitimate reasons to build a hackintosh including if I was a student and testing hardware compatibilities that Apple does not offer. For example, Apple did not offer USB 3 for a long time. If I wanted to test whether my company's USB 3 hardware was compatible with Snow Leopard, we'd have to wait for Apple to make such hardware or I could build a hackintosh. But since your are omnipotent, we should ask you.

      That would be what we call a "nice try" defense.

      Seeing how Apple knows about hobbyist and have never done anything about them, then how does your brilliant legal training get around defense of laches which will definitely come up.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    59. Re:the second dose is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, when OSX is available for all x86 computers, I'll install it - on a VM.

    60. Re:the second dose is free by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      Look, you do have to factor in the cost of the software when you buy an Apple machine. You don't just get the OS, you get garage band & iphoto & the funny little graphing too thingy. So it's not true that Mavericks (terrible OS name....) is free. It's obviously paid for by the hardware profits. And it's a smart move from a security and support perspective to get more people onto the newer OS.

      And I don't get your other comments. What fanless computers? Other than the ill-fated and quickly-discontinued cube, all the Apple machines that need them contain fans. And they don't overheat or melt, unless you, you know, block the fans. And what B&W screens? Are you talking about the early B&W macs? How are they relevant?

      Now glued together parts is a problem, and is the reason I didn't buy a retina macbook pro. The macbook pro I did buy isn't glued together, and neither is my mac mini. In fact, the first thing I did with the macbook was to swap the HD out with one from an older machine. Both the new & old machines didn't even break their stride when the hardware was suddenly changed underneath them.

    61. Re:the second dose is free by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      You have a click-through EULA to get past though. Whether that is enforceable depends on the jurisdiction. Unfortunately I live in a jurisdiction where they are enforceable in general.

      EULAs are not actually enforceable. But you need a license to use software, and not agreeing to the EULA means you have no license, and copying or using the software without license means copyright infringement.

    62. Re:the second dose is free by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      You said it. I would have to go way out of my way to spend $1500 on a new machine. That's true even for a laptop. Forget a desktop.

      There's a reason that Apple has the lead in the over $1000 market. PCs haven't had to cost that much in a LONG time.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    63. Re:the second dose is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous Coward declares all uses infringing without looking at case by case basis but says all Fair Uses must be examined in a case by case basis. You can't have it both ways.

      Actually, that's exactly how it works. When you have an exclusive right to do something and someone else does it without your permission, then that's infringement. A copyright owner does not need to prove anything further; your modification, reproduction, or distribution without their permission is prima facie infringement. If you as the defendant want to turn around and claim an affirmative defense, like Fair Use, then you need to prove that.

      There are legitimate Fair Use cases in building a hackintosh.

      There may well be, but that's not what you said.

      Blanketly saying it isn't Fair Use is a lack of logic.

      No, it's an application of the law. Until a court rules that your conduct is "Fair Use", then your use is automatically infringing because by definition you wouldn't need to claim fair use in the first place if it would otherwise be noninfringing.

      One factor is commercial use. I guess you failed to read the other ones.

      Boy, are you digging your hole deeper by the sentence! There are four factors, and all four must be evaluated and adjudicated before you'll win a fair use argument. Commercial use is just one of the four--you can in some cases use a work commercially and still have it be found to be fair use and you can also have non-commercial use that isn't fair use. Picking and choosing, or merely asserting that what you're doing sounds like something that is sometimes ruled noninfringing is not enough to support your sweeping and invalid premise.

      Unless you are claiming omnipotence as well.

      You've yet to say anything that would qualify your examples as Fair Use. No omnipotence is needed to say that you've failed to meet your burden.

      There are legitimate reasons to build a hackintosh including if I was a student and testing hardware compatibilities that Apple does not offer. For example, Apple did not offer USB 3 for a long time.

      Testing hardware compatibilities that Apple does not offer is not helpful to your argument--if your OS X-driven product requires something other than what's available on a Mac, then you've got no legal market for it. I'd strongly suggest reading up on the kinds of activities that fall under the research exception before continuing to cram your foot down your throat.

      Seeing how Apple knows about hobbyist and have never done anything about them, then how does your brilliant legal training get around defense of laches which will definitely come up.

      Sigh. Laches is an remedy for delay against a defendant. What you're talking about is equitable estoppel.

      Apple not caring about hobbyist infringement is a good thing, but it's not the same thing as not having the legal right to do it.

    64. Re:the second dose is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Minimum upgrade point is Snow Leopard, which still only costs $30.

      I'm pretty sure I only paid $20+tax for Mountain Lion, direct from Apple.

      Also; it's my understand told that you can get any version of OS X as a torrent free of charge. So you really don't have to pay a bundle for the OS.

    65. Re:the second dose is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly the reason why the "free" OSX is no threat to Linux, not in the way the article implies. Because with Linux you know where you stand, as developer, individual or corporate user, it's open source, you know your rights clearly.
      When, or rather, IF, they ever make it open source, with a dedicated team, they could catch up in some key points on Linux, and then make it a threat. But untill that happens, this is just another apples and oranges comparison.

    66. Re:the second dose is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for action on Apple's part, if Apple takes no action on hobbyists but knows about their activities, it can be implied that they didn't want to pursue a defense of their copyrights.

      Which means nothing. A tiny fraction of 1% of copyright infringement results in legal action.

      Failing to defend their copyright can be used by others.

      There's no obligation to defend your copyright to maintain it. You can choose who to sue and not to sue as you please.

    67. Re:the second dose is free by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      But then again, apart that metal case, the electronic components are pretty much the same.

    68. Re: the second dose is free by Camembert · · Score: 1

      Yeah, right, it is such a scandal that the upgrade doesn't work on 7 year old computers. Haters clutching at straws...

    69. Re:the second dose is free by jawtheshark · · Score: 1
      Funny... I have a Dell XPS 15 (L502x). Core i7-2630QM, 4GB RAM - upgraded now to 16GB for cheap, 500GB disk, NVIDIA GeForce GT 525M, FullHD screen and even a 3G/HSDPA. Bought it in june 2011. Why? I got a 50% discount coupon. I'm always on the lookout for sales.

      With Dell, you better not pay full price ever. Keep an eye on discounts, coupons, etc. If you don't get at least a 20% discount, you're getting ripped off. You only pay full price, if you absolutely have to have what you want right now, and let's be honest: most of us can keep running on our older gear for just a bit longer.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    70. Re:the second dose is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Minimum upgrade point is Snow Leopard, which still only costs $30.

      You're forgetting the $600 minimum buy in from whatever Mac hardware allows you to run this OS.

      You must be really dumb if you can't find a used Mac Mini for less than $600. But hey, it's you!

    71. Re:the second dose is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then again, apart that metal case, the electronic components are pretty much the same.

      Apart from those evil proprietary ones, right?

    72. Re:the second dose is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does thunderbolt connect too?

    73. Re:the second dose is free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a reason that Apple has the lead in the over $1000 market. PCs haven't had to cost that much in a LONG time.

      Alienware, asshole. Just to name one.

    74. Re:the second dose is free by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      What does thunderbolt connect too?

      too what?

      Too high?
      Too fast?
      Too expensive?
      Too purple?

      I'm not sure where that sentence is meant to be going.

    75. Re:the second dose is free by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      I bought a Macbook Pro with a 50% discount once. That means Apple computers are not expensive, right?

      You heard it here first, folks.

    76. Re:the second dose is free by polyp2000 · · Score: 1

      Apple's license allows installing it on Apple branded computers. ... So i presume if i buy a beat-up stripped mac shell / case off ebay and put a motherboard of my choice inside - that would be ok would it ? N.

      --
      Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
    77. Re:the second dose is free by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      You don't get it. These kind of discounts are routine with Dells. Sure, perhaps not the 50% one. I repeat: you're insane if you pay full price for a Dell.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    78. Re:the second dose is free by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      You don't get it. These kind of discounts are routine with Dells. Sure, perhaps not the 50% one. I repeat: you're insane if you pay full price for a Dell.

      No, I do get it - Dell's business model is to subsidise consumer sales with business sales. It still means you end up with a Dell though. In my experience, I've never had a good one (in my hands, or the hands of many friends and coworkers), so my incentive to shell out for the expensive ones like the XPS 15 is much reduced, even if they do promise that "*this* one is really well made, honest!" I'm not going to take that risk.

    79. Re:the second dose is free by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Dell's business model is to subsidise consumer sales with business sales.

      Why would they do that, and do you have any evidence that they do?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    80. Re:the second dose is free by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Dell's business model is to subsidise consumer sales with business sales.

      Why would they do that, and do you have any evidence that they do?

      I'm drawing inference from the OP's claim that "50% off" deals are "routine" and are in fact so common that buying a Dell that isn't 50% off is being ripped off. So, either Dell artificially inflates its prices and then offers 'discounts', or it is able to sell a certain stock amount at a discount because it's making the bulk of its profit on the hardware elsewhere. Given how large Dell is, and the number of businesses who purchase them in bulk, this seems like a likely place.

      Alternatively, the OP was full of crap.

    81. Re:the second dose is free by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's exactly how it works. When you have an exclusive right to do something and someone else does it without your permission, then that's infringement. A copyright owner does not need to prove anything further; your modification, reproduction, or distribution without their permission is prima facie infringement. If you as the defendant want to turn around and claim an affirmative defense, like Fair Use, then you need to prove that.

      Sigh. Unless it is clearly codified that it is not an infringement. USC 107 lists several examples of Fair Use and declares them to be not an infringement which contradicts your statement that it isn't Fair Use. Please read carefully again.

      Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . is not an infringement of copyright.

      In USC 107 it does not say only these examples or "limited to". Second, when you file a lawsuit you have to have standing. Suing over copyright without considering Fair Use first will likely get you into trouble. Oh you can sue for any reason, but the court will not be happy. Specifically in the DMCA, suing without considering Fair Use has been ruled against the copyright holder. See Lenz v Universal.

      There may well be, but that's not what you said.

      Sigh. Please read above. I said building a hackintosh is neither easy nor trouble free. Someone said it wasn't legal. I said Fair Use allows for it. Fair Use is not an infringement of copyrights even by your definition.

      No, it's an application of the law. Until a court rules that your conduct is "Fair Use", then your use is automatically infringing because by definition you wouldn't need to claim fair use in the first place if it would otherwise be noninfringing.

      Again a lack of logic: USC 107 already says Fair Use is noninfringing. And a lack of knowledge. Courts have already ruled it is a computer program is not an infringement given :

      (1) that such new a copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
      (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

      Installing a hackintosh on hardware that it is not supposed to run on covers (1).

      You've yet to say anything that would qualify your examples as Fair Use. No omnipotence is needed to say that you've failed to meet your burden.

      No you clearly claim to know something about something you can't possibly know. That is claiming omnipotence which is exactly the nature of my rewrite. Courts have ruled parody is Fair Use but since you can't bother looking it up: Wind Done Gone.

      Testing hardware compatibilities that Apple does not offer is not helpful to your argument--if your OS X-driven product requires something other than what's available on a Mac, then you've got no legal market for it. I'd strongly suggest reading up on the kinds of activities that fall under the research exception before continuing to cram your foot down your throat.

      What are you smoking? By that argument no one could create any peripheral or software ever for any machine beyond what the manufacturer intends? I suggest you read your own arguments carefully and think them through.

      Sigh. Laches is an remedy for delay against a defendant. What you're talking about is equitable estoppel

      Again what are you smoking? Did

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    82. Re:the second dose is free by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      There's no obligation to defend your copyright to maintain it. You can choose who to sue and not to sue as you please.

      Laches. If a copyright holder contends that infringement has occurred but does not purse legal action, then they risk losing the ability to sue later. They don't have to sue right away but the law recognizes a reasonable time period. Suing years later. See Petrella v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer where a screenplay was written and copyrighted in 1963. According to the plaintiff, the movie Raging Bull (1978) infringed on it but the plaintiff did not sue until 2009. The courts handed summary judgment against the plaintiff not even considering the merits of the plaintiff's case but only deciding that waiting 30 years to sue was not allowed.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    83. Re:the second dose is free by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      I'm not full of crap. The 50% was exceptional, I admit... but then, when was the last time you saw an Apple Computer on sale, like anywhere? On Dells 20% is routine. A few things: you have to actively follow their offers, and be willing to take what you get. You eyed that Latitude, but a Vostro is on sale? Too bad, take what you can get.

      Got myself a nice little rackmount for 1000€ (incl VAT, since it's business stuff you never get the prices with VAT). Trick was, again, a coupon, base machine was already reduced, another free shipping code and finally the fact that the 2TB HDDs were at the price of 1TB disks (another "action"). I had trouble making the order, so I contacted them by phone. None of the sales would give me those reductions. Second time online, it worked.

      I do not know why they do this. It doesn't make sense, but damn, they do it and if you just happen to need anything, you get your stuff with such reductions. If you fancy new gear, you just wait until reductions come around the corner.

      I'm pretty brand-agnostic. Typing this on a an Acer Ultrabook (also on sale, obviously!). I've got a mix of Apple, Dell, Acer, Zotac (barebones), Foxconn (barebones) and diverse self-builds around the house. I've had Toshiba, HP, Fujitsu-Siemens and Asus laptops, as wel as IBM, HP, Fujitsu-Siemense desktops and I'm surely missing some.

      A final word on Dell. I've found their XPS line have a very nice build quality. (When I got the 50% sale, I bought three identical machines, for me, my sister and my brother) The other consumer lines are fine, but it's mostly plastic. At work, we use Latitudes, and those really are damn well built machines. They're definitely not sexy like whatever Apple has, but they're well built, reliable and the support is excellent.

      I really don't mind Apple. They have nice gear. I even recommend Apple to all my acquaintances that refuse to learn about computers. That way I have them out of the shooting line, and they usually don't ever need me again. The problem are those who would need an Apple, but can't afford it. Take the Acer Aspire S3 I'm typing this on. It is made from metal. The type says it's a MS2346. I got it on sale for 649€ at a local supermarket. You can get it cheaper elsewhere, but due to keyboard layout reasons, I prefer to buy locally unless the sale really is too good to be true. I will not say it is as good as a MacBook Air, it most likely is not. It is however, a fancy little machine, that runs Ubuntu just fine and is 380euro; cheaper than the cheapset MacBook Air I can get. That's the kind of machines, many people need because of the price constraints.

      Basically, yes, I'm a computer bargain hunter. Sadly, there never are bargains with Apple. We have a 27" iMac for my wife, and we didn't spare any expenses for that one. No sales, no coupons. Why? Because it's for my wife and now she doesn't need me to hold her hands while she uses her computer. It works, but damn, it better works until until at least 2021.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    84. Re:the second dose is free by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      B&W computers? Let me count them. Apple Macintosh back when even the Atari 800 had color. NeXT computer. Another B&W screen. Melting computers: starting from at least the Apple III.

  3. Whiplash Article by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 4, Funny

    That article jerked around from one disjoint topic to another, and appears to have been written by someone who is functionally illiterate in computer technology.

    --
    the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
  4. Come on... by wbr1 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It is 'free' if you own OSX. Therefore it is a free update. In terms of the number of changes it may be larger, but in actuality it is no different than windows 8.1 or a Service Pack.

    Open source (free as in speech), as a different beast entirely, and we are doing very well, TYVM.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:Come on... by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      It's free if you own a sufficiently new preceding version of OSX. If your current version is too old, you have to buy an intermediate version, upgrade to that, then upgrade to that again. Odds are, however, that such a machine doesn't meet the system requirements anyway.

      The power management changes are genuinely a Big Deal this time around. They've learned a lot from mobile. Be interesting to see if MS tries something similar in 8.2.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:Come on... by FreonTrip · · Score: 1

      Timer coalescing's been a feature in x86/x86_64 versions of Windows since Windows 7, and was added to Linux a bit before that.

    3. Re:Come on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, you need reasonably new hardware. All those early Intel 64bit quad xeons have been dropped off the OS lists and rendered non upgradable by Apple. They do this with each OS release, the next level of hardware mysteriously gets abandoned. There is absolutely no excuse for mac pros to not handle an OS update, it's fscking UNIX for god's sake. Intel Macs are no different from PCs other than some built in obsolescence and non-standard PCIe requirements. Apple had to do this to ensure their hardware wasn't identical to generic PCs so people buy their hardware that has rather high profit margins.

    4. Re:Come on... by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      It is 'free' if you own OSX. Therefore it is a free update. In terms of the number of changes it may be larger, but in actuality it is no different than windows 8.1 or a Service Pack.

      It's more like an upgrade from Windows 7 or XP to Windows 8 - it's a complete OS installer, not a mere upgrade, and you can do a clean install.

    5. Re:Come on... by H0p313ss · · Score: 2

      Exactly, it's an apples and oranges example.

      And the oranges are free... :)

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    6. Re:Come on... by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

      It's free if you own a sufficiently new preceding version of OSX. If your current version is too old, you have to buy an intermediate version, upgrade to that, then upgrade to that again. Odds are, however, that such a machine doesn't meet the system requirements anyway.

      Actually, no. You must own an Apple branded computer (that's the license requirement), and obviously you must have a Mac that is capable of running 10.9. In that case, it is free. If your current OS is too old to support the app store, it's a bit more difficult to get it, but not impossible. (Basically, ask someone else to download the installer for you and put it on a memory stick).

    7. Re:Come on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And yet Windows still gets much worse battery life on the same hardware.

      http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2013/10/why-does-windows-have-terrible-battery-life.html

    8. Re:Come on... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      The power management changes are genuinely a Big Deal this time around. They've learned a lot from mobile. Be interesting to see if MS tries something similar in 8.2.

      They can't. Many of the power improvements that Apple has done break compatibility badly. You have to be willing to force applications to upgrade like Apple does to do what they've done in the same way. Microsoft is going to have to approach the problem via a much more complex and lengthy process.

    9. Re:Come on... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      On Windows it is a system service off by default that applications can use. On OSX it is a system on by default that applications can pass additional information to. Big big difference.

    10. Re:Come on... by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      They can't. Many of the power improvements that Apple has done break compatibility badly. You have to be willing to force applications to upgrade like Apple does to do what they've done in the same way. Microsoft is going to have to approach the problem via a much more complex and lengthy process.

      Except Apple has done a lot of work to give a conservative default to old apps. Just running on Mavericks gets you App Nap by default. What Apple did was they used system libraries to notify the kernel about the application so as long as you're making the required library calls, you're participating in App Nap by default.

      Of course, if you add support for Mavericks, you can get finer grained control of power savings (including the ability to defer tasks until you're on AC power) rather than conservative guesses.

      Of course, there's also a name-and-shame thing going on, so devs are encouraged to update ASAP.

      For compatibility, Apple has maintained the same position they always have - only use APIs that are documented by Apple. Functionality is only guaranteed in that case. If you go outside the boundaries (no one's stopping you from using private APIs after all), then Apple reserves the right to break those non-documented APIs at will, and they generally do.

      Microsoft has the same problem - devs use private APIs and private resources way too liberally, creating hidden dependencies. It's why even today, you can find "Program Manager" as a window title (because too many developers look for that exact title), why a whole pile of applications assume "C:\Program Files" (the 64-bit change to "Program Files (x86)" did a number on this), and why Windows is full of legacy cruft. Microsoft has tried to change things around - see what happened when Vista broke a lot of things. Vista basically tried to break off a lot of legacy crap, and revealed all the brokenness (and general incompetence) of Windows developers.

      It's also why Vista, Windows 7 and others have a Documents And Settings link to Users, why each user profile has a My Documents link etc. (And yes, Microsoft has an API - GetSystemPath or something like that - to get the path of the Windows directory, Program Files, user profile, etc).

    11. Re:Come on... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      And that's essentially why it's free, it has extremely minimal improvements over what people already have. Not sure why they actually charge for Lion and such since it's very similar, except that there was probably a built in set of customers prepared to open their wallets for whatever came out of Cupertino.

    12. Re:Come on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Open source is great... by setting your planned revenue to zero, you will always reach your goal.

    13. Re:Come on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do this with each OS release, the next level of hardware mysteriously gets abandoned.

      No, they do not. It's ironic that you trot this trope out on this story; the new release (10.9 Mavericks) supports exactly the same hardware list as the previous (10.8 Mountain Lion).

      There is absolutely no excuse for mac pros to not handle an OS update, it's fscking UNIX for god's sake.

      I have one of those Mac Pros which was unsupported by Mountain Lion, and I followed the reasons why. It wasn't completely arbitrary the way you make it sound. They chose 10.8 to be the release where they stopped providing a 32-bit kernel; OS X is now a pure 64-bit OS. Unfortunately, even though all Mac Pros use 64-bit CPUs, early models have a 32-bit implementation of the EFI firmware (64-bit EFI wasn't fully baked when they were originally designed back in 2006). What's more, that 32-bit EFI can't boot the 64-bit OS X kernel. (If you install Lion (10.7) or Snow Leopard (10.6) on a Mac Pro 1,1, it always boots the 32-bit kernel even though those OS versions do provide a 64-bit kernel.)

      Ideally, when Apple decided to stop supporting the i386 instruction set, they would have issued a 64-bit firmware update for these old Mac Pros. But this is one of those things which sounds simple, but seldom is. It would've translated to "backport modern EFI to an old machine, and then test to make sure it works". The testing part would've been particularly nasty since firmware for a Mac Pro has to be tested against all PCIe cards they might expect users to have installed. I'm a bit annoyed that I can't install the most current OS without using a pile of semi-broken hacks, but I also understand why Apple might not want to spend a lot of money on engineering and test to support 5- to 6- year old hardware (now hitting 7 years old in 2013).

      Note particularly that people doing firmware and firmware test work are usually employed supporting the release of new products, which are (as with any hardware company) Apple's lifeblood. Deferring work on new hardware in order to sell a small number of additional units of a $19 OS update probably did not look like a good allocation of resources to Apple management.

      Intel Macs are no different from PCs other than some built in obsolescence and non-standard PCIe requirements.

      Anybody who has ever opened up a PC and an Intel Mac, or looked at a device tree report, knows that it actually isn't true that Intel Macs are just generic PCs. Also, what non-standard PCIe requirements would those be, again? Can you actually name anything which is nonstandard? (note: requiring something other than PC BIOS compatible formware is not "nonstandard")

    14. Re:Come on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can it be a system service at all? It's a kernel scheduler modification. There is no way you can implement tickless scheduling as a userspace process.

    15. Re:Come on... by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      It's actually a significant improvement over Mountain Lion. It looks much the same as it used to, but there have been significant performance improvements. The UI has less Skeuomorphism too.

      Also, you can now get iBooks for Mac. Frankly, it should have been a major embarrassment that Amazon had better support on Apple equipment than their own eBook reader..

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    16. Re:Come on... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      These feel minor in many ways. Not something you get a marketing campaign behind. And no one in marketing uses silly terms like skeumorphism, instead they just say "it's even hipper that the old hip stuff". And ibooks? Who cares, that's an app, just download it!

  5. Wrong Mavericks by Sockatume · · Score: 5, Informative

    The S is in there for a reason.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mavericks_(location)

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    1. Re:Wrong Mavericks by Score+Whore · · Score: 0, Troll

      If you've spent much time on the site, you'd realize that they operate with a very special kind of stupid around here. And by special kind of stupid, I mean about 1,000x the normal human amount.

    2. Re:Wrong Mavericks by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you've spent much time on the site, you'd realize that they operate with a very special kind of stupid around here. And by special kind of stupid, I mean about 1,000x the normal human amount.

      Yes, but it is free and open source stupidity; so that if you have some special need you can adapt it to your particular use of stupid. Some folks simply use it as is with a pre-existing build that they can cut and paste in replies, others make minor modifications and some fork it into a whole new type of stupidity because they think they have a better way to be stupid.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    3. Re:Wrong Mavericks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The newest version of OS X may be gratis for Apple hardware buyers, but it's notably far from the original, (literally) un-branded sense of "mavericks."

      They should have saved the confusion and just gone with the alternate term hairy dick[2]

      2^ Adams, Ramon F. (1989). The Old-Time Cowhand. University of Nebraska Press. p. 157. ISBN 978-0-8032-5917-1.

    4. Re:Wrong Mavericks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple said their new operating software generations would be named after places in California that have inspired them.

      I can't wait to see all the great new features coming in OS X San Berdu

    5. Re:Wrong Mavericks by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      You are expecting journalists with a passing knowledge of technology to research things before they express opinions?

      And why is Apple starting to copy Microsoft on using Locations to name the OS rather than Cats? We haven't run out of cat species have we? I was hoping for Ocelot or something for the next release.

      God forbid we get Mac OS Longhorn -- no the animal, not the location!

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    6. Re:Wrong Mavericks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a quantitative difference, not a qualitative difference.

    7. Re:Wrong Mavericks by harperska · · Score: 2

      Best comment ever in the history of slashdot. Pretty much sums this place up completely.

    8. Re:Wrong Mavericks by fnj · · Score: 1

      Actually it was sophomoric. Doesn't take much for some people to get their yucks.

    9. Re:Wrong Mavericks by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I want Mac OS Chupacabra.

    10. Re:Wrong Mavericks by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Uh Oh. We're going recursive here.....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    11. Re:Wrong Mavericks by Lazere · · Score: 1

      Is it too much to hope for Mac OS Saucy Salamander?

  6. Free as in mousetrap cheese. by SchroedingersCat · · Score: 5, Funny

    OSX - free as in mousetrap cheese.

    1. Re:Free as in mousetrap cheese. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks! That was my first thought as well but your choice of words are just great!

    2. Re:Free as in mousetrap cheese. by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      A couple of points of fact.

      1. You can run non-MacOS software on Mac hardware. (E.g. Windows, Linux.)
      2. You can run MacOS on non-Apple hardware (though it is a violation of the license agreement).

      I take your point, but I think it would be more apt to say "free as in bar mix". Yes, it's figured into the overall bill. Yes, it makes you want more of the product for sale. But it's not really a trap. More of a loss leader.

    3. Re:Free as in mousetrap cheese. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think GP was referring to Apple's general strategy of vendor lock-in that pervades all their products.

  7. How anyone would think it's related to Linux? by loonycyborg · · Score: 0

    They only offer UPGRADES for free? Then nothing changed, really. You'd still need to buy a Mac to use it legally. In fact it's kinda stupid OS updates were paid for in the first place.

    1. Re:How anyone would think it's related to Linux? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They only offer UPGRADES for free? Then nothing changed, really. You'd still need to buy a Mac to use it legally. In fact it's kinda stupid OS updates were paid for in the first place.

      Yea, the question really wasn't that insightful since OSX and Linux really don't compete for the same user base; it's really a marketing shot at MS as well as a way to get people onto the new OS so as Apple decides to move in certain directions that can be assured much of their user base is on the latest OS.

      Oddly enough, Apple has come full circle from its early Apple ][ days when every OS release was free; it wasn't until MacOS came out did they eventually start charging. I forget what release was the first paid update. Of course, many programs were the same way, HyperStudio for example let any user upgrade to the latest version for free. I wonder if Apple is thinking it is better to tie users into the least versions and to your software by giving it away so that you can make money on devices and services; and they're betting that keeping everyone up to date will bind them even tighter into their closed ecosystem.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    2. Re:How anyone would think it's related to Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell Redhat that. It does affect the GNU linux community after all!

      Seriously, OS development is rather time consuming. It's unappreciated work and people expect it to be free and they expect it now. Linux, BSD or any other OS project developers get shit for not supporting their work. Apple only gave this away because Microsoft did it first. I expect OS X to become a third class citizen to iOS very soon anyway.

    3. Re:How anyone would think it's related to Linux? by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      They only offer UPGRADES for free? Then nothing changed, really. You'd still need to buy a Mac to use it legally. In fact it's kinda stupid OS updates were paid for in the first place.

      I know, right? I've upgraded for free from Windows 3.1, 98, ME, XP, Vista, 7, and 8, not!

    4. Re:How anyone would think it's related to Linux? by loonycyborg · · Score: 1

      OS development is hard indeed. But taking money from every use of the software is just too limiting. It does cost almost nothing for them to make updates available, and Apple can draw revenue entirely from hardware.

    5. Re:How anyone would think it's related to Linux? by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      Since 8.1 is a walled garden, I'm kind of rooting for mac again!

  8. Free OS X Is No Threat To Linux by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 3, Informative

    Free OS X Is No Threat To Linux

    Since Mavericks only runs on Apple hardware unless you hack the OS, I'd say that's pretty obvious so why get up on a soap box and make noise about it? And just for the record the OS X core components are open source.

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
    1. Re:Free OS X Is No Threat To Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      why get up on a soap box and make noise about it?

      He didn't. Some clueless "journalist" interrupted Linus's life to ask him about it.

    2. Re:Free OS X Is No Threat To Linux by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      He didn't. Some clueless "journalist" interrupted Linus' berating and insulting a kernel developer to ask him about it.

      FTFY

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:Free OS X Is No Threat To Linux by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Since the core components are FOSS, can't anyone simply take it, recompile it on a standard PC and then make it available? Sorta like the Hackintosh project, for PC users who don't wanna buy a Mac?

    4. Re:Free OS X Is No Threat To Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can Darwin run even one of the most popular OS X apps? Quicksilver? Nope. Adium? Nope. Chrome? Nope. MS Office? Nope. Photoshop? Nope. etc etc etc.

    5. Re:Free OS X Is No Threat To Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like a lot of what comes out of Linus' mouth, this was obviously said with tongue planted firmly in cheek.

    6. Re:Free OS X Is No Threat To Linux by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Since the core components are FOSS, can't anyone simply take it, recompile it on a standard PC and then make it available? Sorta like the Hackintosh project, for PC users who don't wanna buy a Mac?

      The open source bits, sure - you can just get them directly from Apple, in fact.

      The UI that runs on the top though is not open, and they won't give you the source to that.

      You can just install OS X on an appropriately-constructed PC though (i.e., find parts that are common to Macs to minimise driver issues). Apple won't stop you as a home user (no DRM or encryption on the installer except a text file that says "please don't steal OS X"). If you try to make a business out of it though, they might take notice (Psystar).

  9. Pointless point by King_TJ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fact is, most Linux users get interested in installing/using it because they've got (typically older) hardware in front of them that they'd like to make useful without spending more money on it.

    The only Mac system users I've encountered who ran Linux were using very old "legacy" Macs that have long since been abandoned by Apple with software updates or support.

    So generally, the use-cases for OS X or Linux just don't really cross much.

    1. Re:Pointless point by jedidiah · · Score: 0

      The value of being able to avoid hardware with a fruity logo is far more interesting than using "older" hardware.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:Pointless point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.

      It really ticked me off that PC-BSD is going x64-only as of 9.2. I have several old Dell D6XX and D8XX laptops that have big hard drives, are maxed out on RAM, and run 32-bit code really well, but PC-BSD has abandoned them. They will remain useful with that OS only as long as the 9.1 code continues to be patched. Oddly, FreeBSD, which PC-BSD is based upon, is committed to x86 for the foreseeable future.

      And trying to Hackintosh those laptops would be a maddening exercise in futility, I am certain...

    3. Re:Pointless point by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      It's not "hatred", it's simple pragmatism.

      The only positive value of Apple hardware is the fact that it is authorized to run MacOS. Beyond that, Apple hardware is inferior and more expensive. You get to spend more to get less.

      I don't have to run "old" hardware with Linux. I can spend less, still get more box, and have cycles to spare for a VM or two.

      If the freebie aspect of this current release of MacOS were actually relevant, I could run it on such a VM.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:Pointless point by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

      It's not "hatred", it's simple pragmatism.

      Doubtful when you are buying worse hardware from a sense of "pragmatism".

      Being cheap is one thing; being pragmatic wholly different.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    5. Re:Pointless point by jo_ham · · Score: 1, Troll

      No, it really is hatred. You are mistaking your hatred for Apple for pragmatism.

      If you can't see that your totally blanket statement that there is only one positive feature to Apple hardware, and that it is inferior and expensive is totally subjective, then I can't help you. Consider that some people (and the subset of people who use computers is vast) don't have the same criteria for hardware selection that you do.

      You sound reasonably intelligent, but you appear to have a mental block on this issue.

  10. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is an OS that one has to initially pay for and only runs on proprietary hardware going to be a threat to a freely downloadable OS that runs on commodity hardware?
     
    No, the true issue here is the quality of the software that runs on the OS, not the OS itself.

  11. Silly article by onyxruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Free OS X doesn't compete with Linux except on a very limited basis - it's free.

    Unless you build a hackintosh and blatantly violate the license you can't even install OS X anywhere except a Mac. It's very distinctly not open source and arguably just as proprietary as Windows. It's free, but only if you purchased the hardware to begin with, and Apple has never been accused of making price competitive hardware by anybody except a fanboy.

    You can certainly run Linux on your Mac, but that's a pretty limited subset of people to begin with. Considering the last Mac OS only cost $20 to begin with and you likely didn't have too many people holding out for cost reasons alone. In other words, the people that wanted to have the Mac hardware with Linux almost certainly made that move a while ago. This really doesn't impact much of anyone.

    1. Re:Silly article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and blatantly violate the license**

      **License clause invalid in some juridictions

    2. Re:Silly article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which jurisdictions? Apple is the copyright holder, so you can't legally copy their bits without their permission.

    3. Re:Silly article by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 0

      This is Slashdot. If it's not the GPL, people think the license can and should be ignored.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    4. Re:Silly article by vux984 · · Score: 1

      This is Slashdot. If it's not the GPL, people think the license can and should be ignored.

      The GPL doesn't put any restrictions on anyone using the software. At all. None. It hard for a user to "ignore the GPL" even if they wanted to because it doesn't restrict their use of it in any way, at all, ever.

      The only caveat is with redistribution rights, which you don't have BY LAW, BY DEFAULT. And in that case the GPL automatically grants you redistribution rights, provided you distribute the source. Otherwise you have to negotiate a separate distribution license with the copyright holder -- (something you would have to do with any software you wanted to re-distribute). And this of course is possible in many, but certainly not all cases.

      The Apple EULA on the other hand, imposes usage restrictions on what hardware you may use it with by, quite frankly, abusing copyright laws, conflating "sale of copy" with "license".

      Buying a copy of a software program and then using it should not even touch upon copyright laws as long as you don't redistribute. The copies made to install the software and in RAM etc are explicitly permitted by copyright law where I live, and yet we're still demanded to consent to a EULA after we purchase it, for permission to use it. Permission we, quite bluntly, DO NOT NEED. So damned right we feel justified in ignoring it.

      EULAs disgust me. Contracts of adhesion, demanded after a sale, with no consideration, ... fuck em.

    5. Re:Silly article by Pinhedd · · Score: 1

      The core components of OSX are completely open source in the form of the Darwin operating system.

    6. Re:Silly article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GPL doesn't put any restrictions on anyone using the software. At all. None.

      The GPL is one of the *most* restrictive open source licenses... That was kind of the point of it.. That is the reason the Stallmanites preach 'Free Software' and not 'Open Source'. The entire premise around the GPL is that it binds the end user to always release any modifications under the same (or a newer) license. The license you are describing sounds more like the BSD or MIT license.

    7. Re:Silly article by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      You are completely wrong.

      Without a license, you have no rights to make copies. You are talking about restrictions, and how GPL has no usage restrictions. But that's not what a license does: It cannot have restrictions because you have no rights in the first place. The GPL gives you _permission_ to make the copies necessary to run the software, and _permission_ to make copies that are not distribution, and _permission_ to use these copies, and _permission_ to distribute while following certain conditions.

      And that's what Apple's SLA does as well: It gives you permission to use the software on a Mac, and permission to make certain copies on other Macs for private use, and some other permissions. And then it stops. It doesn't include "permission to make copies on non-Macs".

      Well, that's the right of the copyright holder. Just as the copyright holder has the right to slap the GPL on their software, so does Apple has the right to put their license on their software.

      And the permissions that Apple does or doesn't give you _are_ permissions that you need if you want to copy the software. And there is no "abusing copyright law" as you claim: Controlling how copies of their software are made is _exactly_ the right that copyright law gives the copyright holder. On the other hand, telling you hypothetically that you cannot run Linux on a Mac would be different, because that would be a restriction on copying software where Apple doesn't have the copyright, and they have no right to do that.

    8. Re:Silly article by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Without a license, you have no rights to make copies.

      3. (1) For the purposes of this Act, âoecopyrightâ, in relation to a work, means the sole right to produce or reproduce the work or any substantial part thereof in any material form whatever, to perform the work or any substantial part thereof in public or, if the work is unpublished, to publish the work or any substantial part thereof, and includes the sole right

      [...]

      (h) in the case of a computer program that can be reproduced in the ordinary course of its use, other than by a reproduction during its execution in conjunction with a machine, device or computer, to rent out the computer program,

      I realize its pretty contorted, since the overt purpose of the clause is to assign the right to copyright owner over rentals of copies, but the read the exclusion sub-clause carefully.

      Its saying that the copyright holder has the sole right to all copies, OTHER than those by reproduction during it's execution in conjunction with a machine. That is: that the copies made to run the program are not the sole right of the copyright holder.

      You can also apply the interoperability clauses which grant the owner of a legally purchased program the explicit rights to make a copies and or modifications as necessary to interoperate with a machine. So, the legally purchased copy of X on a CD, may be legally reproduced (installed) onto a computer hard drive, as this is a necessary transformative copy for the program to interoperate with the machine, including modifying it to work as necessary.

      Without a license, you have no rights to make copies.

      Yes and no. The copyright act makes specific exceptions granting the right to make copies in specific circumstances. Installing a legally purchased piece of software onto a computer is one such legal copy.

      Backups are another legally protected class of copies. I don't need a license to make a backup. Copyright law explicitly grants me that right.

      29.24 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright in a work or other subject-matter for a person who owns [...] a copy of the work or subject-matter (in this section referred to as the âoesource copyâ) to reproduce the source copy if

              (a) the person does so solely for backup purposes in case the source copy is lost, damaged or otherwise rendered unusable;

      [...etc...]

      Maybe where you live the laws are different, but here if you bought software. First sale and copyright combine to give you all the rights you require to use it without entering into a further EULA with the copyright holder.

      And that's what Apple's SLA does as well: It gives you permission to use the software on a Mac

      Which is fine, but I don't need Apple's permission for that. That permission is implicit by the fact that they sold me a copy of the software in the first place.

      It doesn't include "permission to make copies on non-Macs".

      Yeah. I don't need their permission to make the software I purchased legally to inter-operate with a machine, any more than I need their permission to use scissors to open the cellophane wrapper. Copyright law states that I have that right.

      Well, that's the right of the copyright holder. Just as the copyright holder has the right to slap the GPL on their software, so does Apple has the right to put their license on their software.

      Again you are conflating usage rights with copyrights. The copies made to use the software are permitted by copyright. I don't need a license for that. I only need to enter into a licening agreement if I wish to exercise one of the rights that is the sole right of the copyright holder. Installing the software onto a computer is not one of one of those rights.

    9. Re:Silly article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No?

      Darwin and XNU was closed. While there might still be open forks of Darwin, the Darwin used in recent versions of OSX is not open source, and the rest of OSX has copy protection built into it that you have to subvert to get it to run on an open source Darwin kernel (as Hackintossers do).

      FFS. Opensource Darwin doesn't even include CoreAudio, or Quartz. or any of the Coreobject system. I would say those are all core components of OSX, but they are not Darwin and not open source. The Finder? nope, not open source.

      So, no.

    10. Re:Silly article by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I've always thought that anyone who buys a Mac, of all things, to replace OS X w/ Linux, is rather retarded. Why do it, when one can buy customized matching hardware from Dell or HP? Or anyone else?

      Linux would have one selling point if it could seamlessly run native OS X applications on it. Is it the case? Can one install Linux, and run OS X apps on that? If that's possible, it would be a big shot in the arm for Linux. One could make a distro that has something like XFCE (which seems closest to the OS-X DE) and then run those apps on it. Maybe something like Xubuntu. Package those OS X apps w/ it, and sell it for a price that covers the cost of those licenses.

      That way, one might get a Mac experience w/o actually having to buy a Mac.

      Incidentally, on a separate note, does PC-BSD run OS X applications seamlessly, or are there incompatibilities that would prevent them from running?

    11. Re:Silly article by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      Darwin and XNU was closed.

      Wrong

      Opensource Darwin doesn't even include CoreAudio, or Quartz. or any of the Coreobject system. I would say those are all core components of OSX, but they are not Darwin and not open source. The Finder? nope, not open source.

      So, no.

      This is true. Everything that makes OS X OS X rather than just another BSD with a heavily modified kernel is proprietary.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    12. Re:Silly article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I totally agree with this poster, there are components of OSX that are open, but regardless of that for the amount you spend on a mac for what you get, the OS SHOULD be free. People buy Apple for the 'bling' and status not because it runs well. Also, the retail mark up on Apple outside of an Apple store is stupidly low so Apple wins all round, you retail Apple for foot traffic not for revenue $, I have sold them. Only an idiot will think it a great deal and buy a mac so they can save a whole $20 on the OS upgrade they now don't need to buy. This is not a case of whether this will hurt Linux more than it did when the OS cost $20, nor is there a case of Win8.1 hurting Linux any more. One way you have to buy the proprietary hardware and get hosed, the other you have to have purchase a crappy OS to go on your personal hardware so you get a slightly better OS free. And yes, I have used OSX for years and ditched it because of crappy hardware on 2/3 units I owned. Windoze 7 I keep for games only and hope that I don't need to rely on it for that forever but we will see.

    13. Re:Silly article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please, this is supposed to be a NERD site. Darwin is far from a complete operating system. The GUI, Drivers, System Utilities, etc. are all closed source. Darwin is a kernel, and nothing more. OpenDarwin, and later PureDarwin were attempts to use the Darwin kernel and open source software to create a complete desktop OS, and have not been updated in awhile. This to me suggests that Darwin itself is not even very remarkable as a kernel, when compared to any other open source kernels, including BSD variants and also the linux kernel. (Why try to build a desktop OS around a kernel with a relatively small community, when there are plenty of open source kernels with large communities, and desktop OSes built on top of them already?).

      The only good use I can see for darwin is perhaps someday when enough people actually care about Apple computers (most don't, and use either windows or linux) a fully functional binary compatible clone of OSX may materialize. I doubt this will happen, as the time invested in reverse engineering every bit of proprietary Apple software written on top of Darwin is just about as daunting of a task as finishing ReactOS (which is an open source, binary compatible clone of windows, that is constantly playing "catch-up with microsoft" - they have successfully achieved a working OS, along with binary compatibility at the level of WindowsXP, and are working on Windows 7 / Vista, however microsoft has again changed it up, so there is even more work, integrating Windows 8 capabilities)

    14. Re:Silly article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GPL doesn't put any restrictions on anyone using the software. At all. None. It hard for a user to "ignore the GPL" even if they wanted to because it doesn't restrict their use of it in any way, at all, ever.

      Ugh. This chestnut again. Yes, the GPL substantially restricts use, and yes, it's in place right up front. There is no legal mechanism by which you can magically create some obligations in the future--you need to agree that those obligations will come into existence, and if a certain condition is required to trigger them and that condition never comes up, then lucky you. But all of your rights and obligations with regard to GPL software are in place and fully apply at the exact moment you come into possession of the software upon a lawful distribution. That the GPL does not restrict a specific use does not mean you can "ignore" it.

      It's pure sophistry to claim otherwise. You're just saying, "it's okay to ignore stop signs on the road!" when there are no stop signs on the road.

      quite frankly, abusing copyright laws,

      That word. It does not mean what you think it means.

      conflating "sale of copy" with "license".

      In what way? The sale of a copy refers to physical manipulation rights. The license is the legal arrangement governing your possession of it. When you buy a house, a bottle of Coke, or a plane ticket, you're dealing with a complex interaction of rights. What you're doing is simply being confused about the scope of ownership.

      Buying a copy of a software program and then using it should not even touch upon copyright laws as long as you don't redistribute

      Utterly nonsensical. You can't buy a copy of a copyrighted work without touching on copyright laws.

      and yet we're still demanded to consent to a EULA after we purchase it, for permission to use it.

      When you hand over money is largely irrelevant, and yet you seem so fixated on it.

      Permission we, quite bluntly, DO NOT NEED.

      And you're basing that conclusion on what, exactly?

      So damned right we feel justified in ignoring it.

      And yet have no justification to offer in support of that feeling.

      EULAs disgust me. Contracts of adhesion, demanded after a sale, with no consideration,

      Everything about that is true of the GPL, too. You're rather proving GP's point.

    15. Re:Silly article by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Ugh. This chestnut again.

      The only chestnuts are in your skull.

      Yes, the GPL substantially restricts use, and yes, it's in place right up front.

      What use is restricted?

      It's pure sophistry to claim otherwise. You're just saying, "it's okay to ignore stop signs on the road!" when there are no stop signs on the road.

      So we agree then that there are no stop signs on the road? I didn't so much claim it was ok to ignore them as to claim it is moot.

      That word. It does not mean what you think it means.

      It means exactly what I think it means.

      In what way? The sale of a copy refers to physical manipulation rights.

      Possession (ownership) of a legal copy, by virtue of first sale and copyright extends certain rights to the owner. Including those rights required to use it.

      The license is the legal arrangement governing your possession of it.

      Which I did not accept, nor am I required to accept to use it. I am already permitted to use it under copyright law, by simply having legally purchased it.

      You can't buy a copy of a copyrighted work without touching on copyright laws.

      Perhaps I should have phrased that as the purchase of a copyrighted work doesn't touch upon any needs to license rights from the copyright holder that aren't already granted to me by copyright law for basic usage of the software.

      When you hand over money is largely irrelevant, and yet you seem so fixated on it.

      Grow up. I refer to the completion of the sale for which the act of handing money is a metaphor.

      And you're basing that conclusion on what, exactly?

      Copyright law, as cited.

      And yet have no justification to offer in support of that feeling.

      See above. As cited.

      Everything about that is true of the GPL, too. You're rather proving GP's point.

      The GPL is entirely different. It is an unconditional grant of additional rights NOT AVAILABLE BY DEFAULT under copyright law. Those additional rights do have strings attached, but provided you don't exercise the additional rights, you can use GPL software without being impacted by its terms. Because if you reject the GPL, default copyright law applies. That's the entire point of it. And default copyright allows me to use the program.

      An end user rejecting the GPL is as meaningful as a motorist choosing to ignore stop signs on a road without any.

    16. Re:Silly article by vux984 · · Score: 1

      The entire premise around the GPL is that it binds the end user to always release any modifications under the same (or a newer) license.

      The end user doesn't make modifications, nor redistribute. The GPL doesn't restrict end users at all.

      It restricts software developers.

    17. Re:Silly article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What use is restricted?

      First and foremost, if the software is distributed exclusively under the GPL, you need the GPL to establish your legal right to possess the copy in the first place. The claim that you do not need to "accept" the GPL in order simply to run a copy of the software is a rhetorical misdirection with no legal significance. If the distribution takes place under the GPL, then it's the GPL that governs the rights of the parties. If the copyright owner simply hands you a copy outside of the GPL, then the GPL isn't a factor at all and there's no need to care about it in the first place.

      More significantly, GPL software disclaims all warranties and waives all liability. Unless you'd agree that such waivers do not apply to end users and they can actually go ahead and sue, never having consented to the disclaimer (which is not the position of the developers, the FSF, or the courts), the use of software distributed under the GPL is subject to those restrictions that would not be in place by default under copyright law.

      Also restricted are the grants of reproduction, modification, and redistribution rights. While you're correct that these rights are not things you'd otherwise have the right to do, they are still valid end user pursuits, and the fact that you think it's suitable for a copyright owner to set conditions on the exercise of those rights, particularly distribution, when there's no legal difference between distribution to you, the second party, and your subsequent redistribution to a third party, shows an intrinsic bias.

      The GPL also substantially restricts the rights of the author, but that's unimportant because the author is the one who selected those terms and voluntarily committed to holding up his end of that deal.

      The bizarre claim that a copyright holder, with the exclusive right to control the manner and terms of distribution of his work, can only exercise that right against third parties and not second parties, is a fundamental flaw in either your understanding of law or in the honesty of your argument.

      Possession (ownership) of a legal copy, by virtue of first sale and copyright extends certain rights to the owner. Including those rights required to use it.

      First, the conditions of that sale or transfer are determined by the copyright owner, be it under the terms of a proprietary or GPL license or under some other arrangement. Second, copyright does not extend any right to "use" the work in the manner you describe. The way you know this is that despite the thousands of published US cases regarding copyright, not one has ever held that the simple exchange of money invalidates the terms of that sale as imposed by the copyright owner.

      Which I did not accept, nor am I required to accept to use it.

      Afraid not. That's entirely up to the copyright owner to decide. If you don't accept the terms that the copyright owner has placed on distribution of the software, then you're not in possession of a legal copy.

      Perhaps I should have phrased that as the purchase of a copyrighted work doesn't touch upon any needs to license rights from the copyright holder that aren't already granted to me by copyright law for basic usage of the software.

      And you'd still be wrong. The act of making it available for purchase in the first place is an act of distribution, under the exclusive authority of the copyright owner to impose whatever terms and in whatever manner s/he chooses.

      Grow up. I refer to the completion of the sale for which the act of handing money is a metaphor.

      That reference is the problem. It's a confused conflation of "sale", which is a complex legal transaction involving the exchange of multiple kinds of rights, and the exchange of consideration, which is just one piece of that. You can hand money over to Best Buy without reading their return policy, or to Verizon b

  12. Just because an OS upgrade is free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... doesn't mean the software that runs on that OS is free.

  13. No overlap in audience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the people who use Macs, and the people who use Linux, have very different goals for their computer use. Mac users typically want multimedia and online sharing, while Linux users are software developers. True, some Linux users may use Macs because they're UNIX laptops (I'm guilty) but they aren't really the content consumption/cloud sharing/app buying audience Apple is milking. Apple doesn't care about the upgrade, because they want people to buy stuff online.

  14. $20 bundle by themushroom · · Score: 1

    ...compared to free,

    Today's caviat is that I admit not knowing how much OS X 10.8 cost off the shelf. Do know that previous versions cost well above that, and when I was looking up 10.4 for a blueberry iMac it cost more than 10.8.

    Also, I stick by what I was trying to say: any price > free and thus the whole premise of competition regarding a free upgrade to an OS you paid for (X 10.9 or Win 8.1) to the truly free-of-charge is kind of silly.

    1. Re:$20 bundle by lowen · · Score: 1

      ...compared to free,

      Today's caviat is that I admit not knowing how much OS X 10.8 cost off the shelf.

      I paid $19.99 for both Lion and Mountain Lion, straight from the App Store (need to be at 10.6.8 first). Snow Leopard was a bit more expensive; I think it might have been $29.99 for the DVD. Leopard and prior were (and are, on eBay at least) quite a bit more than that.

  15. bonk by themushroom · · Score: 0

    That's what I was going for: I knew several versions of Mac's OS were costly even if the very latest couple were not, that's where I was coming from.

    Post as Flamebait? Heh, only if you're an Apple fanboy. ;-)

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

      Old hardware won't run new operating systems. News at 11.

    2. Re: bonk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Linux 3.11 with the latest KDE, 4.11?, run just fine on my black plastic MacBook. Except for KDE and Chromium, the same can be said of my 10+ year old computers.

      But yeah, Linux has a problem with a lack of hardware drivers...

  16. desktop by globaljustin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When I read about the OS X Maverick's free release...

    I didn't think about how it would affect Linux on the desktop at all...thought never crossed my mind...

    Linux is just irrelevant to the desktop market. Is that harsh? Not intended to be...I still hate M$ and think Apple is a little fruity...

    But srsly...after 8 years on /. reading ridiculous thread after thread debating Debian vs Red Hat or w/e (try Gentoo!)...

    The open source world just hasnt' evolved the maturity to make a universal desktop OS **that people use**

    It's totally possible...it *will* happen...but Linux destop fanbois need to rethink some shit

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:desktop by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      > Linux is just irrelevant to the desktop market.

      So is MacOS really. This was true even when it was competing with MS-DOS of all things.

      So any "helpful suggestions" will likely be total nonsense.

      Computing history is littered with the corpses of companies that conformed to whatever "advice" you care to come up with.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:desktop by globaljustin · · Score: 2

      So is MacOS really. This was true even when it was competing with MS-DOS of all things.

      we should probably just say "The desktop market is irrelevant" right?

      that's what always got me, going way back to the olden days...you brought up DOS...I remember when Windows 3.x came out I really didnt' understand what the big deal was...it was just a staging area to run the actual programs you wanted to use...that's what the OS does (heh not saying its easy to make one!)

      i love that an Open Source desktop option exists...if i had disposable income i'd donate...i'll even say that Linux killed Microsoft...

      none of that contradicts that the OS is mostly a functional, boring, workmanlike piece of software in the computing world...it's like an actual desk in that way...

      we couldn't work w/o them, and people can spend millions on it...but it's really just a surface to do other things

      advice: don't base your profit model on selling desktop operating software ;)

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    3. Re:desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So is MacOS really.
       
      If you really felt that way you wouldn't bother with this at thread at all.
       
      I love seeing you Linux fanboys getting your panties in a bunch over OSX. You squirm like a 5 year old child getting a haircut.

    4. Re:desktop by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Pity the most heavily used environment isn't open source. If only something like Android existed.

      Unless you define desktop ever more narrowly open source is finally doing fine in that space.

    5. Re:desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's totally possible...it *will* happen...but Linux destop fanbois need to rethink some shit

      Agreed.

      Meanwhile there's a contingent of us just getting work done .. on Linux. I've got OpenOffice, *gasp* VirtualBox and Wine if need be, and a metric fuckton of open source programming tools.

      As a UNIX pro I probably dislike the fanboys as much as you do.

    6. Re:desktop by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      The open source world just hasnt' evolved the maturity to make a universal desktop OS **that people use**

      That's really nor fair, Linux is quite mature. Google sells Linux on more shipping CPUs than just about any other OS, they just call it "Android." If Google were to decide that they wanted to seriously make a push for the desktop with Android or Chrome, they probably would. Apple makes a killing selling computers with a rebranded and modded BSD distro, after all.

      The reason we don't see Linux everywhere on the desktop is strictly due to marketing -- Linux can't take over the world just be being good, large organizations have to sell it, support it, package it for hardware, and provide end-to-end application solutions. Linux is mature enough to run workstations and servers, it's just missing something on the level of an iPhoto.

      Where organizations do push Linux solutions, they prosper, generally in situations where they can use Linux to undercut competition on price. However, these people never push Linux as a brand, they use it as a middleware or a framework to roll their own OS or solution, open source or otherwise. Thus, Android may be Linux, but it's is slowly becoming a Google Play Services platform that uses Linux as a boot and driver environment.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    7. Re:desktop by globaljustin · · Score: 1

      yeah go for it you crazy kids! OpenOffice (libre office?) is de rigeur for college students these days...they use Word too, but OO is always there as they navigate from computer lab, to old laptop, to classmates laptop, to their new macbook they got for xmas

      fanbois of Linux sure mean well, but Linux on the desktop (try Gentoo!...) just has all the elements of fanboidom...used to be even *mentioning* a criticism of Linux would get you -1 Troll faster than you can forward an NSFW email...

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    8. Re:desktop by amorsen · · Score: 1

      "Regular" Linux and Android are almost entirely distinct, with only the mostly-shared kernel in common. You can install some utilities to get a more Unix-like environment, but most users don't do that. It is probably easier to port a GNU/Linux application to Mac OS X (with the X subsystem) that it is to port it to Android.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    9. Re:desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pro tip: <p> tags are meant to delineate paragraphs, not sentences. Using them gratuitously like that is just torturing your readers.

    10. Re:desktop by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > If you really felt that way you wouldn't bother with this at thread at all.

      That EXACTLY the reason why I would bother with this thread at all. This is just another example of the mindless hype that the media tries to artificially create. The media are acting like an unofficial divison of Apple Corp rather tha proper journalists.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    11. Re:desktop by elashish14 · · Score: 1

      The open source world just hasnt' evolved the maturity to make a universal desktop OS **that people use**

      Not really. It's as mature as any other operating system, if not, more mature (apt vs whatever you have on Windows or OS X for example, more customizable desktops and better defaults). That doesn't mean that it doesn't take effort to use a new OS - just that people aren't willing to put the effort in, or they're waiting for some program to get ported over. Or they won't learn to use alternatives which often have the same functionality as other programs but once again, aren't interested in learning to use them in a new way (which isn't wrong, so much as it is sad, but really the greater mistake is using platform-restricted programs in the first place).

      But the Linux ecosystem is perfectly rich enough for users who are either willing to switch and put the effort in, or already have and are satisfied. And I think the rate of users who are satisfied when they do make the switch is perfectly good, if not remarkably so, and will continue to ensure the livelihood of the environment.

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    12. Re:desktop by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      ... strictly due to marketing ...have to sell it, support it, package it for hardware, and provide end-to-end application solutions.

      None of those things are marketing. Advertising is marketing, and they certainly would need to do that too, but you didn't list that. You listed a whole bunch of software work, and a whole bunch of infrastructure to sell & support it. The reason we don't see desktop Linux is because of shit software.

    13. Re:desktop by Mr.+Flibble · · Score: 1

      8 years on Slashdot?

      GET OFF MY LAWN!

      --
      Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
    14. Re:desktop by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      The open source world just hasnt' evolved the maturity to make a universal desktop OS **that people use**

      It is more likely that people have not yet evolved to use an open source desktop.

      --
      -- $G
    15. Re:desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice troll.

      I run Linux on my desktop, Millions of other people are running Linux on their desktop.

      Is Linux good? no.

      Is OSX or Windows good? no.

      Is BSD good? no.

      Is there a good desktop OS? no.

      You have to use something (or maybe it's just better to go off in the woods and hunt and chop wood). Linux is full of insane defects, insane interfaces designed by imbeciles, and crazy fanbois trying to say it's all candycanes and unicorns, and yet I still prefer the suffering that deranged unix clones bring, to the suffering that living in some cunt's walled garden brings.

      What brings me down is that there are so many emperors-no-clothes type loonies, who try and pretend that Linux is perfect, and shit on anyone who brings concrete criticism or tries to point out how something can be improved (even if that point-out is in the form of changesets).

      I love open source, but I hate unix and I hate walled gardens (except the real kind, those are alright), I wish there was a decent open source community around some platform that wasn't unix, but unfortunately the two cults run together, and you can't criticise the cult of unix without being ostracised from the cult of Free software. So you just grit your teeth and bear the insanity that permeates the community, because it's still better than no community at all.

  17. How can someone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...confuse prohibition (no beer) with fascism (control of speech and thought)? This is free as in beer, not free as in speech.

  18. Not true. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't have to have an intermediate version, just Apple hardware. On the other hand, how you would install it without an earlier version of OS X already installed [or getting it from a friend], I have no idea.

    So it's true that there is a huge difference between just supporting their hardware versus releasing OS X on their website for anyone to attempt to use.

  19. Linus and pissing matches by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In my recollection, Linus has never been much for getting worked up in fanbois pissing matches (pertaining to platform "greatness" or market share) What gets him riled up is stupid brain-dead code stupidly done by stupid people for stupid reasons. That stuff he'll take issue with regardless and argue about forever.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  20. Open Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its not a threat until Apple starts to un-tether its OS from its hardware. If Apple were to have the driver database that Linux has, then Linus may sing a different tune.

    1. Re:Open Apple by gunzy83 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The Linux kernel might not get a heap of vendor driver support but it has a gigantic list of supported hardware and peripherals, and that support is not dropped between OS versions. I find more things, particularly older devices that don't work on later versions of Windows, "just work" under Linux.

  21. Re:W00O0O0O0OSH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Saavik, two As.

    Posted anonymously because pedants aren't appreciated.

    Have a cookie.

    Milk?

    They'll realize how important you are, one day.

  22. Real surfer here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is somewhat of a tradition that surf spot names appear "plural", but this is usually just a bastardization of the possessive form. For example, "Mavericks" really should be "Maverick's", but for some reason the apostrophe just wasn't cool enough. Hence we get "Mavericks", which appears plural to the untrained eye, but is actually possessive.

    In the end, it doesn't have to make sense. If other surfers repeat it, it sticks.

    1. Re:Real surfer here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct, it's really "Maverick's"

      However, dropping the apostrophe isn't "surfing tradition", it's the government (USGS) policy for place names. For example, "Pikes Peak".

    2. Re:Real surfer here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assure you, 99.99% of surfers are completely unaware of that. They simply don't pay much attention to grammar.

    3. Re:Real surfer here by flargleblarg · · Score: 2

      Interesting... See #18 here:
      https://geonames.usgs.gov/domestic/faqs.htm

  23. Apple hardware only by Nethead · · Score: 1

    So you're saying that it won't be free for my Franklin Ace?

    --
    -- I have a private email server in my basement.
  24. Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In fact, one of the reasons Torvalds uses the term open source instead of free software because there is a difference between open and free, he said.

    While Apple's Mavericks update might be free it is not open source and people still need expensive hardware to use the OS, he said.

    I think RMS' head just exploded

  25. What does the name have to do with anything? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    Apple has always said "Mavericks" is named after the surfing site not animals, not persons. Just like Longhorn was not named after the animal but a bar like Whistler.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  26. Why ask Linus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't OS X BSD based and not Linux?

  27. Debugging brick wall. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Price isn't the issue for me. The issue is that with Linux, you can always dig deeper when debugging and hacking. With Windows, OSX, or any other system without full source, the debugging will hit a brick wall at system calls.

    1. Re:Debugging brick wall. by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      Price isn't the issue for me. The issue is that with Linux, you can always dig deeper when debugging and hacking. With Windows, OSX, or any other system without full source, the debugging will hit a brick wall at system calls.

      Actually, with OS X, you can go below the system call layer (but not down to the device driver layer, as most of those are part of the non-open-source part of the kernel-mode code, and not down to some file systems such as AFP, as the AFP client isn't open-source either). The big problem would be with debugging stuff sufficiently far above the system call layer, such as problems in the Cocoa Framework and AppKit layers.

  28. What people have to realize is that... by bennomatic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...Apple does not have to fail for Linux to succeed, nor visa versa.

    The comments on this thread remind me of heated conversations I had as a 13 year old, when my friends and I couldn't agree on which was better, the Commodore 64, the Apple IIe or the Atari 800. Anyone who's read my previous comments probably knows that I was firmly in the Commodore 64 camp.

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
    1. Re:What people have to realize is that... by billcarson · · Score: 1

      But the C64 disk drive was terribly slow. And expensive, I might add.

    2. Re:What people have to realize is that... by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      This is why I try to keep my hand in all the pots at the same time... I say try, I just can't justify the cost of having enough hardware to be mucking around with iOS, Android and Linux on tablets at the same time.

      I should just give in and get me one of those cheap nexus 7 tablets and accept that it won't be a production system in my dirty little hands.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    3. Re:What people have to realize is that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because the Commodore 1541 was a computer, with its own 6502 processor.
      Wicked cool design, but the firmware sucked.

    4. Re:What people have to realize is that... by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

      All disk drives were expensive back then. But yes, the C64's seemed to include extra suckiness for the price.

      --
      Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
    5. Re:What people have to realize is that... by genghisjahn · · Score: 1

      I fondly remember the month of the Amiga desktop.

      --
      Sorry about the mess.
    6. Re:What people have to realize is that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The comments on this thread remind me of heated conversations I had as a 13 year old, when my friends and I couldn't agree on which was better, the Commodore 64, the Apple IIe or the Atari 800.

      I had a dog in all three camps (used Apple at school, Vic was bought with lawn mowing money in 1981, Atari bought with restaurant earnings in 1983) and grew to love them all.

      Then.. I went to my uncle's house (he's an electronics and robotics tech from back in the day).. and experienced a TRS Coco running OS-9 with a 6809E with 512k hacked in. Shheeeeeit.. who packed a mainframe into this little box???

    7. Re:What people have to realize is that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you expect from a crowd that needs to generate their self esteem by what they own, not what they can do with it?

    8. Re:What people have to realize is that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was in the C64 camp as well, but only because the Apple II cost a lot more than I had to spend at the time. Which was fine, because the C64 was WIDE OPEN, you could make it SING OPERA if you wanted to take the time, and nobody could stop you. VERY VERY sad that all that has been sacrificed.

  29. It's not Free Software by Arker · · Score: 2

    It's not Free Software, it's just a free binary. Really says it all.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    1. Re:It's not Free Software by unixisc · · Score: 1

      But Apple does ultimately release the source code to the OSs - it just isn't available the moment it's out, as in the case of Linux or the BSDs

    2. Re:It's not Free Software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? where can I get the code for Core or SystemUIServer? Because I'm totally all about it..

    3. Re:It's not Free Software by Arker · · Score: 2

      No they dont.

      They release source for a lot of the infrastructure, because it's actually Free Software that they simply adapt to their needs. But a large portion of the OS is not in that class and is never released.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  30. and free hardware from Microsoft is coming by legont · · Score: 1

    next year. Nice! Where do I preorder both? http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2004/03/62867

  31. Same ol same ol Microsoft. by Vince6791 · · Score: 1

    Microsoft is a joke when it comes to licensing their products. Why couldn't they just release the Windows 8.1 pro for $99 3 license. Instead we get standard, pro, pro packs, family packs, upgrade 8.1 to 8.1 pro, etc.... Make it fucking simple for the regular joe. I can't blame people(not into gaming, adobe products, or windows development) for leaving MS for Linux which is $0 cost. Now, people complaining of issues when upgrading from 8 to 8.1. They should of allowed their customers who bought a windows 8 copy to download a full 8.1 ISO instead of the upgrade broken path. Shitheads. Corporations always ripping of their fucking customers, just ask Time Warner Cable.

     

  32. Are they actually competitors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there anybody out there that is actually debating between a Mac or a Linux box? It really seems like two separate markets.

  33. Stupidest Question Ever by tomxor · · Score: 1

    This question makes as much sense as asking if free screen wash with a $100,000 car is any threat to a free online recipe for home made screen wash.

    (Excluding the esoteric and technically illegal hackintosh route) Free OS X vs Free Linux is a stupid comparison... one runs on almost all consumer hardware and the other only runs on a very specific brand of hardware. It's free because you pay for the hardware that it runs on...

  34. I'm an Aspie and I want to get fixed by tepples · · Score: 1

    I'm an Aspie, and I need my sarcasm detector retrained. What's a good place to get this done in northeast Indiana? Do they take insurance? I'd use Google, but I think my malfunctioning sarcasm detector is keeping me from coming up with keywords.

    1. Re:I'm an Aspie and I want to get fixed by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Try the clown shop. A bright red nose and a tank of helium and a couple of Nitrous Oxide poppers and you should be good to go.

      Better living through chemistry (TM).

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:I'm an Aspie and I want to get fixed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Step 1: Move out of Indiana.
      Step 2: Move out of the United States

      After that, everything should come naturally.

    3. Re:I'm an Aspie and I want to get fixed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm an Aspie

      well i never, it's a talking pie.

    4. Re:I'm an Aspie and I want to get fixed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm an Aspie

      well i never, it's a talking pie.

      Ass-burgers taste better.

  35. Timothy by Desler · · Score: 4, Informative

    The newest version of OS X may be gratis for Apple hardware buyers, but it's notably far from the original, (literally) un-branded sense of "mavericks."

    Good to see that "Timmeh" is just as bone-headed as ever. "Mavericks" is named after the California surf spot not an animal. That's why the default wallpaper and the promo images of the Macs running Mavericks are of a large wave. The keynote introducing Mavericks explained this as well.

    1. Re:Timothy by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Maveriks is named after a dog, Maverick, that hung out at the surfing spot (It's Maverik's spot). The apostrophe, like many other bits of grammar and style in the country, got dropped off somewhere and is probably panhandling for quarters in San Mateo.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Timothy by Desler · · Score: 1

      Yes, the site was named after that, but OS X was not. Nor was it named after unbranded cattle as Timmeh's editorial dubiously claims.

    3. Re:Timothy by Meski · · Score: 1

      If the site inherits its name from a dog, and the OS inherits its name from the site, then inheritance rules say the OS inherits from the dog :) OO analogy?

  36. *FREE by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 0

    * free with hardware purchase.

    hardware is high priced and as OSX cost build in with no way to order with no os.

  37. Oh poor Linus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh Linus Torvalds. Don't fret. Apple only has more installations of OSX than all your desktop linux installs combined. I guess free isn't better?

  38. Why would it be a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The assumption appears to be that people use Linux because it's free, and therefor, free alternatives (that matter) are a threat.

    In my experience, free has little to do (if at all) to most people that use Linux, so OSX being free is apples to penguins.

  39. Moronic definition of 'free' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Where has this cretinous Internet meme arisen from?. Apple's OS is NOT free, never will be free, and Apple will continue to sue to destruction ANYONE who attempts to build hardware designed to run ANY Apple OS.

    Apple will continue to chose whether or not to directly seek payment for UPGRADES to any of its software, including versions of various OSes. Keeping its customers "on the same page" is very, very profitable to Apple when when considers how important the Apple store is.

    But you see the same old technology SHILL sites, including Slashdot, trying to get nerdy sheeple to think something significant has happened in the greater industry now Apple has provided a given upgrade for 'free'. It is almost as if Apple's PR people have been travelling around handing out free cash- oh wait, they is EXACTLY what has been happening- generous cash pay-outs for tech sites promoting this 'free' nonsense.

    Only ONE thing threatens Linux- and that is Linux (the people behind it). Had Linux chosen to be the free reliable replacement for Windows XP when MS chose to abandon this platform, Linux would be seeing great success on the desktop today. But Linux chose to go head-to-head with the high-fashion gimmicks of Windows8 and OSX/iOS, while being vastly worse in every important metric BUT cost.

    Now the world awaits Android-for-Desktops, assuming Google intends to give power-users the first decent free OS when ARM goes mains-powered and 64-bit in 2014. Non-Android Linux is a massive joke (for ordinary desktop use), and the joke is only getting funnier as infighting takes the focus further and further from what the customer base actually needs. XP was a sitting target, trivial to equal, but Linux has no desire to be any type of practical alternative.

    Apple is in the type of decline sheeple can NEVER understand. Sheeple only see market share, and the current power of a company. Apple is at the height of its powers, but failing in every way to build a sustainable future. It's iPAD Air was an extraordinary feat of engineering, that makes the flop product from MS and Intel, the Surface Pro 2, look like the primitive, badly engineered, over-priced piece of garbage it is. But the Surface Pro 2 is not even close to being a competitor in the marketplace. The 'competition' is ever cheaper, ever better, good-enough for 99.9% of users Android tablets.

    The tablet market, now the budget hardware is much better, is becoming increasingly price-sensitive. Worse, if tablet owners EVER care about AAA GPU performance, Apple will be forced to return to using Nvidia and/or AMD parts, eliminating its current tech advantage. If tablet owners don't ultimately care about GPU performance, non-Apple tablets will be seen as having equivalent performance at MUCH lower prices.

    Of course, Apple's own ARM chip design department is really there to ELIMINATE Intel from all Apple devices, including Laptops and desktops. Even while this hasn't happened, Apple can use their in-house design team to strong-arm better prices from Intel.

    In the near future, good tablets and quite powerful PCs are going to have to get very much cheaper. Consumer grade computing hardware will no longer command any where near current average prices. The value of the OS, regardless of who provides it, is going to have to drop well below TEN dollars. Today, MS should be giving away the rotten OS called RT for free to attempt to build market-share, but MS is too thick to understand this.

  40. "Threat?" by Tarlus · · Score: 1

    Was this ever even really a concern? Any person running Linux on a Mac is not doing it because of the cost of the OS (which comes included with the hardware anyway). It's cool that Apple is making their upgrades free, but even $30 for previous upgrades is not that expensive if it's something you want or need.

    --
    /* No Comment */
  41. Got the free upgrade, then booted back into linux by Marrow · · Score: 1

    If OSX really wants to be a threat to linux, then they need to have apt or rpm repositories of pre-built open source software for OSX. That MIGHT make me think about booting OSX again. Maybe.

  42. "free" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not like you can download, legally, an ISO of the OS-X install disk and use that to install OS-X on any machine. You still need to buy an expensive Mac computer, so honestly, I'd say they just say it's free, but you still paid for it by buying the more expensive hardware.

  43. Re:Got the free upgrade, then booted back into lin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you've tried Homebrew? http://brew.sh/

  44. free as in beer, not as in speech by johnrpenner · · Score: 1

    OSX mavericks is free — as in beer; but not free as in speech.

    linux is free (as in speech), but may not be free as in beer (since open source companies typically charge for services and not software).

    OSX is free (as in beer). but only employs 'free as in speech' to parts of the whole system — they lockdown the engine, and use & contribute to open source — significantly, the darwin kernel is actually open source, and they use open protocols (xml).

    either of these is still better than windows 8.1 (which still uses closed NT filesystem, no open source kernel — and windows hood, and document formats are all bolted shut).

  45. Adults versus Teenagers by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    Teenagers use Linux because its free and trendy.

    Adults use Linux because they prefer it, not because its $0 cost.

    If you're still concerned about the 'cost' of purchasing an OS license as an adult, you need to seriously take a look around you at the real cost of a license for something like OSX or Windows (even the $350 style windows licenses) versus the rest of the shit you do in your life.

    If you're bitching about software licensing costs, you're ignorant of the cost compared to what it does for you and how it compares to other things that accomplish the same task for you.

    Seriously, software licesing is nothing. $2,000 for a copy of Adobe Creative Suite is fucking pocket change considering a days work will pay for it. A Windows Server license SHOULD pay for itself in just a few days or you're business/service has already failed, even with a massive server farm.

    If you're asking if the Free OSX upgrade or Free Windows 8.1 upgrade is a threat to Linux, what you're actually doing is telling everyone you're not qualified to ask the question in the first place.

    If you're using Linux because of its cost of license rather than a technical reason, you've already failed in at least 8 different ways.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  46. Re:Got the free upgrade, then booted back into lin by BitZtream · · Score: 0

    So ... theres this thing ... its called the app store ... try it, it has pre-built packages, even some open source!

    Of course there are also several other ways to get OSS binaries on your system, such as ports. Do you even own a Mac or are you just so fucking stupid that you're not aware that these things have existed for nearly 10 years already?

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  47. Not completely true by Marrow · · Score: 3, Informative

    I am running xubuntu on a retina because I prefer the Linux environment. There are a lot of comfort points for me in linux that are not present in OSX. I like the terminals, the command line, the mouse handling, the cut/pasting better in linux. I like the easy free software availability. And there are a lot of pain points in OSX.
    Granted, sound is still a pain in linux even after all these years, but I like to live in linux better than OSX.

    1. Re:Not completely true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sound is hardly a pain in Linux, as long as you can read and think.

      Solution 1: Do nothing. Sound just works, though latency will kind of suck, and just like Windows and OSX, if you run some exclusive mode program, sound will work nowhere else.

      Solution 2: Install PulseAudio (could be same as 1, depending on distro), Sound just works, latency is better than using ALSA dmix with default config.

      Solution 3: Install OSS4 and blacklist alsa, sound will mostly just work, though you have to install a compatibility layer for alsa programs, and OSS4 doesn't support MIDI.

      Solution 4: Read the ALSA docs, configure your asoundrc to setup dmix or pulseaudio exactly how you want for your esoteric setup. Then sound will just work.

      Solution 4: Copy your buggy fucked .asoundrc from an ancient Linux install, where you did a bunch of hacks which no longer work. Sound is all wonky and only sometimes works. This is the least desirable solution and the one you probably went with.

      Now, I will admit, the ALSA API sucks if you are a programmer (but the WDM and CoreAudio api are similarly fucked), and I often resort to programming to the OSS api and using one of the many compatibility layers, because I just can't be bothered writing 200 lines of code to program a piece of hardware that is less complicated than a uart.

      But this is only a user issue if you are writing code, and if you're writing a lot of code, you've probably resigned yourself to the fact Linux is full of APIs designed by retarded imbeciles, and either written wrappers/boilerplates around them, or reverse engineered them to get at the syscall/ioctl guts of them.

  48. Re:Got the free upgrade, then booted back into lin by Desler · · Score: 1

    You mean like MacPorts that has been around for 11 years?

  49. Free my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You still have to fork over a lot of cash to get the machine that runs it! And why should they charge for OS X when iOS is free? You still have to buy apple's device in that case too.

  50. Linus INVENTED Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, sorry, he did not INVENT anything. Operating Systems were nothing new. Kernels were nothing new. Most of what he did was not new. It was just his own implementation.

    Implementing a known, existing technology with your own flavors added is not invention.

    1. Re:Linus INVENTED Linux? by gunzy83 · · Score: 1

      Yep, this. I am so sick of people saying "xxx invented xxx" when they don't actually understand the meaning of the word invention.

    2. Re:Linus INVENTED Linux? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      He created it. As in 'gave birth' to Linux

  51. Re:Got the free upgrade, then booted back into lin by timmyf2371 · · Score: 1

    I doubt Apple is really bothered about being a threat to Linux.

    For the server market, Linux and Windows largely have this tied up. For the enterprise desktop market (excluding pros), Microsoft largely has this tied up. Apple's computers with the exception of the Mac Pro are aimed at the consumer market - those people who have disposable income and are cool with spending an extra $100 or so to get a Mac.

    --

    Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
  52. Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fails for the desktop user, Ubuntu failed.
    I supported it but they didn't do a good job, and have nothing new to offer...
    It's a damn shame but too bad..

  53. Simple... by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

    I'm struggling to comprehend why people are making such a big deal out of Apple's free upgrade. This is no different than what Microsoft has been doing for well over a decade, offering service pack upgrades for free.

    I'm convinced that the fundamental motivation behind Mavericks being free was because of the recent release of Windows 8.1. That was billed as a fairly substantial update compared to Mavericks which, at least superficially, hasn't changed a whole lot. Apple wouldn't have come out of this looking good if they had charged for it.

    Linux has nothing to do with any of this.

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

      Does Word, Excel, and PowerPoint come free with windows ?

      My new upgrade came with the Keynote, Numbers, and Pages programs... free.

    2. Re:Simple... by gtall · · Score: 1

      "I'm struggling to comprehend why people are making such a big deal out of Apple's free upgrade." They aren't. But it is difficult to tell that on Slashdot.

  54. Installing for free is possible anyways by ModelX · · Score: 1

    According to our experience every installer version since Leopard upgraded the previous version without checking anything except for Apple hardware. iTunes doesn't care. Our institution eventually paid for OS upgrade licenses once a year, but by that time we already had the latest version installed. It seems to be Apple policy to move users to the latest OS version whether you pay for it or not. Now they are just making it official for the latest upgrade.

  55. Apple's incredible marketing machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple likely found that making OSX for free is cheaper than applying a marketing campaign for it. If it's free, it will spread easily word of mouth and through automated updates--that's free advertising compared to superbowl commercials.

  56. Desktop Linux would die overnight if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple allowed PC users to buy and install Mac OS X.
    I'd like an actual good looking, functional desktop for a change without fragmentation.

  57. dream world v 0.001.12.1 by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    The reason we don't see Linux everywhere on the desktop is strictly due to marketing

    oh boi...didn't mean to fan the flames...maybe you're not...let's see were you're going with this...

    Linux is mature enough to run workstations and servers, it's just missing something on the level of an iPhoto.

    fanboi alter!

    caught you...

    Linux is industry standard on W, Y, & Z...the only thing it doesn't do is X.

    Where X = what 99% of computer end users do on a computer

    understand this: it's not good enough...it's just not...

    and maybe: now that M$ is dying its slow death the desktop OS won't be bottlenecked for irrational profit...maybe the big companies will eventually **release the desktop for free**

    just accept it...move forward

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:dream world v 0.001.12.1 by gunzy83 · · Score: 1

      Where X = what 99% of computer end users do on a computer

      I am assuming you mean "X" is being useful as a desktop OS. Every modern Linux distro can do what most typical end users need: a browser, an office package, media playback and games (Steam). Sure if you need a particular program for your work (eg CAD, graphic design etc), those may only be available on other platforms but that has nothing to do with whether or not Linux is capable of running those programs (it is more than capable) and more to do with what has been preloaded on systems sold in stores via vertical integration (Apple) or monopolistic practices (Microsoft) and therefore is what people have by default on their systems (most people will not install their own OS) and what those software vendors will write to.

  58. Tim Cook managed what Steve Jobs never could... by n7ytd · · Score: 1

    Wasn't the standard line from Apple that they always wanted to give away updates for free, but shucks, Sarbanes-Oxley prevented them from doing so?

    I guess Apple finally found an accountant that could make it happen...

  59. New OS X isn't free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess people haven't read the fine print. If you don't own a copy of the Mac OS, then you don't get the new OS X. You have to BUY Apple hardware to get the new operating system or currently own a a system running certain versions to then upgrade. Free would mean I could download it and install it without purchasing anything.

  60. Troll Much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The question of OS X vs Linux is a troll's ploy, and a pretty transparent one at that.

    Consider instead that Mavericks is to Mountain Lion as Windows 7 is to Vista. Each is based on it's predecessor, but has significantly improved feature sets. But Mac owners can go to Mavericks for free. PC owners upgraded to Windows 7 for approx $200.00 USD to get the "ultimate" edition (i.e. the only one that actually compares with Mavericks).

    Flame on!

  61. Re:Got the free upgrade, then booted back into lin by gtall · · Score: 1

    Not really. I use Macs because I cannot stand Window's interfaces (any of them) nor Linux's. That said, I do a fair amount of development for Linux. I'm not impressed. I generally switch back to Mac when I need decent guis for apps. Once I'm done creating the new widgets (C++, etc), I use the Breakstone gui for svn and then do an svn update on Linux and off we go into linking, compiling, and debugging hell.

  62. Yes of course by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

    That article jerked around from one disjoint topic to another, and appears to have been written by someone who is functionally illiterate in computer technology.

    Yes. In other words, an Apple Hater.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  63. Someone is Confused by Wovel · · Score: 1

    Linux is no threat on the Desktop to um anything.

  64. UNIX =! Mac OS X by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    in the same manner:

    Linux =! Android

    Android is a fork of Linux...wouldn't you say?

    at a certain point the hands who do the work change the FOSS so much that it has become its own fork....good to see others here on /. are thinking the same way I am

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  65. July 11, 2000 by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    Technically I first started reading on July 11, 2000 when I heard the co-founder of Gnutella testify before congress and mention slashdot...

    I was a Congressional intern and I snuck in the press box (obv b/c of Metallica and Fanning it was packed). These were the days were an Intern badge meant that you could pretty much go anywhere, because you were so insignificant. We were sort of purposefully overlooked. Lewinsky & the Patriot Act ruined that forever :/

    Gene Kan, a co-founder of the Gnutella project just came in and PWNed the whole situation like a boss...the sum of the moment, with all the ways Napster changed the industry, really had a profound effect on my career.

    He said that from a technical perspective, Gnutella essentially made the Judiciary's current plans pointless. I was headed for a career in the Air Force but the energy and weight of the moment always stuck with me.

    Here's a .pdf of the transcript...it's a great read...Lars is an asshole: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-106shrg74728/pdf/CHRG-106shrg74728.pdf

    I started reading /. daily after that but I didn't comment until around 2004 or so when I felt I could actually add value...before that I browsed as an AC.

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  66. Linus does very little desktop work by Mabhatter · · Score: 1

    People tend to forget Linus does very little "desktop" OS work, and hasn't for a very long time. He is a "nuts and bolt" guy, who'd rather be knee deep in developing the kernel itself and interesting technologies at the source code level. That's about as far away from Apple's new shiny happy personal device desktop as you can get. Apple had a brief go at getting OSX officially certified "UNIX" during the Intel switchover heyday (like maybe 2007-2009), but that was a few versions ago and then Apple stopped selling servers or even supporting OSX as a server since then.

    If there's any ill effects, it's that the armchair Geek set is floating away with OSX and those of us that work in IT are further away from it at home than ever... It's Microsoft mopping up lately. So when Microsoft comes for your IT department, we've all been playing with out iPads and iPhones too long to care about recompiling out Linux and Microsoft's slick suits swipe the bosses business away from "real" computing like HP or IBM.

  67. 32-bit BSDs by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Given the way that the OS has grown, I don't blame them. In fact, at this point, the only OS that should have 32-bit at all should be XP, earlier Linuxes/BSDs, and Minix. One thing you could try out would be Minix 3.2 - the version that now comes w/ NetBSD userland. The OS would have a really small memory footprint, since it's a microkernel, and you could then run anything that runs on NetBSD on it.

  68. Linux & sound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    During the time that I had Linux on a laptop, this is what I ran into.

    I first had RHEL 5, which I had installed, and came with no sound. So I went to ALSA, downloaded a driver for it, did a 'configure && make && make install', and then ran it. It ran fine. I saved that driver just in case I ever needed to re-install.

    Weeks later, I had a hard disk failure on my laptop, so I installed a CD that had some extra applications that I wanted. Now, these apps came as a part of a CD which had an RHEL 5 based distro, called Maximum Linux. So I installed it, again sound didn't work, so I copied the ALSA file I had and tried the 'configure && make && make install'.

    Guess what? Didn't work. I had to go back to ALSA, download a few more versions, and try compiling different ones to see whether they worked. Finally one did, but gave pretty mediocre sound. The laptop in question? A Lenovo. Bottom line - one has to do quite a bit of digging, and matching the exact ALSA version w/ the exact kernel version in order to get the combination to work. Or else, one is SOL.

    I agree with the GP. There are a lot of things about Linux that are good. Sound isn't one of them.

  69. iMac vs. Mac mini by tepples · · Score: 1

    According to the page you linked, a Mac mini needs to be a lot newer than an iMac to run Mavericks. People who bought a Mac mini between mid-2007 and early 2009 are out of luck.

    1. Re:iMac vs. Mac mini by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I never said anything about a Mac mini. Only iMac and MacBooks. The thread said Macbooks as old as "6 or 7" which I corrected to be 5 or newer. Overall hardware, iMacs as old as 2007 are compatible.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  70. Linux is a total FAIL by vandamme · · Score: 1

    The increase in adoption on supercomputers has come to a standstill also (flat line). There is no increase in market share possible.

  71. The NSA is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By injecting their malicious code.

  72. Re:W00O0O0O0OSH by JabberWokky · · Score: 1

    Posted anonymously because pedants aren't appreciated.

    I'll state publicly, under my account, that I appreciate pendents.

    --
    "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
  73. Free... If you paid for it already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when does free have the provision that you have already paid for it? For the cost of Apple's products you have paid way over what the OS cost. All for a crappy computer that looks cooler than a PC, here's my $1000+ for my pretty computer can I have my free OS now? Congrats. Same problem with 8.1, you had to have purchased 8 to upgrade to 8.1... So free? Duh. At least when you purchased an OEM system Win8 was pre-installed 'free'.

    I know we can get pretty desperate for news in the Linux universe, but how are either of these OSs being 'free' any more of a threat to our minimal market share than they already were? Until we have a show distro to compete with M$ or OSX we won't increase. We are too pampered, so many options yet so many still gripe when you don't like something about one of them. You need to learn that some people actually may not agree with you. Now after that shock, stand up, give yourself a shake and get on with it. I like options, I support what I like and ignore what I don't. In Windows or OSX if you don't like something, well, suck it up buttercup. In Linux, we move to a different DE or if necessary a different distro and it essentially still works the same way so unlike a move from M$ to OSX you don't need to relearn everything you knew. As of now, Ubuntu could be that distro to take market share, partly because of Unity. I don't like Unity but it helped foster all the spin offs with virtually any DE you could want, for the masses that wanted the stability of Ubuntu and apps that are available without what I feel is a bad DE. You don't have to like everything the giant does to appreciate some of the support they bring to the community. The more people they bring to Linux, the better. For the COMMUNITY, not for yourself. More research for our favourite apps, if not our favourite DE/distro. So, stop the hate, suck it up buttercup and take one for the community.

  74. I am running xubuntu/pulse by Marrow · · Score: 1

    And the output is forcing hdmi audio instead of the headphones. Even after I set the fallback, the settings I choose are getting lost which means it works, just not until I fix it again. So my fix is to use the hardware I didnt intend to use. Im sure that there is a fix for saving the settings I select again and again. I will find it.

  75. TL;DR by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Free OS X developers donot compete with Linux developers.

  76. Free as in Beer is NOT Free as in Speech by Gallomimia · · Score: 1

    And that's why Apple's OS nor Microsoft's will never be a threat to linux. Because the people who know "why linux?" have no price you could pay them to use a non-free non-open-sourced OS.

    --
    Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.