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."
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.
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
Open source (free as in speech), as a different beast entirely, and we are doing very well, TYVM.
Silence is a state of mime.
The S is in there for a reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mavericks_(location)
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
...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
OSX - free as in mousetrap cheese.
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
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.
> 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.
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.
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 $200 Macbook from craigslist. I have one six or seven years old that runs it happily.
When I read about the OS X Maverick's free release...
I didn't think about how it would affect Linux on the desktop at all...thought never crossed my mind...
Linux is just irrelevant to the desktop market. Is that harsh? Not intended to be...I still hate M$ 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
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.
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!
...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?
It's not Free Software, it's just a free binary. Really says it all.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
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.
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.
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.
Well, except for the RAM upgrade.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
the same exact parts
Like the machined case, best trackpad money can buy, best webcam also, thunderbolt connector? I don't think so.
Interesting... See #18 here:
https://geonames.usgs.gov/domestic/faqs.htm