Slashdot Mirror
After Linux-Apple?
Rustless Walter writes "In a series of articles starting here, John Martellaro discusses how Linux represents a threat to Apple's OS market share, but claims that, after Linux has peaked, Apple will be the next wave.
Martellaro is a Linux user, and has experienced NT's instability firsthand. Some of his predictions make sense, but he seems to be convinced that people care more about what their computers look like than how well they work.
" Hmmm...hasn't Apple been the next big thing for a while? Or was that Java? I always get confused.
Meanwhile, the best strengths of Linux are its stability and price. The stability is not unique to Linux alone; most Unix products share that feature. And any consumer who wanted to install Linux would probably buy a Linux distribution on CD, running around $50, to avoid 48 hours of continuous download time. So Linux is not an unbeatable giant
where did this guy get his prices? redhat (at 39.95$) is not the only distro. maybe he should look at www.cheapbytes.com.
He is pretty much correct with the curve thing. I think, however, that it is too early to predict whether MacOS X or Linux will be "the next big thing". Whatever, anything is better than MS.
In computers, if everyone favored form over function, that would definitely be a bad thing. Computers are created to function, not to look pretty.
Then again, the role of the computer in the household is changing. If Operating Systems ever get stable enough, computers as we know them today will become "appliances". That is when form will become overwhelmingly important.
Let's say you have a choice between two computers. They both do the same things, and both do them at the same quality. Which do you choose? One of them is an ugly box. The other is a work of art.
I am a user of any platform that gets my work done the fastest. That way, I have the most time for leisure. Isn't that why we(humans) invented tools in the first place? Okay, maybe it was so that we could do more work, but I don't like that idea. hehe.
Most people try and look good, you know, dress well, be clean. If you're trying to look nice, you also make your office look good too. Then why not hace a computer that looks nice? For that purpose, I use a Macintosh.
Many Apple computers have very few straight lines, but they do it in good taste. Recently, companies like HP and Gateway2k have tried to copy that idea, only to make hideous creations that make you want to vomit at the words 'bezier curves'.
eh, that's my input on this whole wacky topic.
>They could make it nicer than linux, but will they try or will they just try to be like MacOS?
GUI will be 'advanced Macintosh look and feel'. Means they will use Nextisms when useful, use old MacOS conventions where better, and develop new ones. Actually this has already been done.
Mach, BSD layer, Yellow box (OpenStep) and the other critical parts of the OS will be on both MacOS and MacOS X server (was Rhapsody).
It's not 'less unix' than Linux is, unless adding a kick-ass, fire breathing, user kissing GUI atop of it makes it less unix.
I'm already in love. I just need a new powermac to run it.
Read more from Apple.
That was good for a laugh.
Mac OS X this, Mac OS X that.
Whatever.
It's funny to watch people complain about MS vapor, and then use Mac OS X as if it was shipping (No shit beta copies exist. Beta copies of Windows 2k exist, doesn't make it not vapor).
>> global clipboards, drag and drop, >> standardized filesystem access
KDE and Gnome provide these. Was there something
else you wanted from the Linux interfaces?
He said around $50, you dork. $39.95 = $40 = around $50.
I've seen Win2k too.
With apple, nothing is sure as shit until it's in the consumers hands
This is true about plug and play on the Mac. Though saying that Linux will NEVER have it....well, never is a long time.
I do have experience with how bad plug-and-play on the PC is from just this past weekend. My mother-in-law called me up and said that she and her husband tried installing a new IDE HD and CD-ROM burner on their new Dell...but now can't get anything to even boot up. They thought they could do the same thing that I did when I bought a new HD and CD-Burner for my Mac....just plug it in and load up the drivers. It took me about 15 minutes total time from taking the things out of the box to having them working on my Mac...and it's an old Mac!
They're computer is still down by the way, pending help from Dell.
Also, this is based on an average user with my mother-in-law. She's not a computer geek like the people here, she simply wants to do some stuff with her computer and thought it would be an easy thing to do. She got bit and bit hard. Though after she get's everything up and running, I'm sure she should be able to install HD and CD-Burners on a PC with the best of em!
> That was good for a laugh.
:)
> Mac OS X this, Mac OS X that.
> Whatever.
Don't take it personally
MacOS X has been developed very steadily and is going to be shipped. Believe me, I've been watching from the very beginning. Only major difficulty in meeting deadlines arose because of marketing reasons. They had to decide how to make the two paths of MacOS and MacOS X come together, and how to satisfy developers. They made Carbon and branded Rhapsody as MacOS X. But otherwise they have delivered what they have promised in time, in terms of developer versions. Quite exeptional.
Putting destructive buttons (ala Win 95/98) next to the shrink window button is a textbook case of bad user interface (Mac puts them at opposite ends of the window, where they should be). Yes, I know you can reconfigure it, but the standard setting should be the most logical setting (it sure as hell isn't).
Then there is the radio buttons vs. checkboxes issue. I could go on and on. The KDE team really needs to pick up a handbook on UI design. Apple's "Human Interface Guide" or Donald Norman's "The Psychology of Everyday Things" (a must read for anyone who has tried to push open a door that you were supposed to pull) would be great places to start.
Really, it doesn't take much effort, just common sense. I see none of these in the KDE interface.
of course they hate Be. The MacOs is touted as being easy to use and BeOS competes with that. Linux on the other hand does not so it's not a threat to macos
I have little interest in a failed company's attempt to make a single-GUI platform specific OS.
It's nearly the year 2000 and Linux has moved into the session manager wars. Any company that doesn't realize that this is where the next great computing battles will be fought and lost(and won) will be left to decay with all the other former computer greats.
It's not about what Chip-OS-GUI-Session Manager unit will win anymore, it's about which combination will yield the most speed and productivity. Personally, considering Linux's adaptive nature, I think Linux has the best chance of coming out on top.
-LameduCk
You can buy it now... ships next month.
The Server edition is supposed to be out either at the end of this month or next. It's ready. The user version later this year.
Beware, the server edition thanks to licensing issues and such is $1000, BUT that is a deal believe it or not since it includes WebObjects (Now if they'd just sell a cheaper server edition that doesn't include WebObjects).
Linux still doesn't have a UI or a development environment that beats what I already have with NEXTSTEP, and assuming that Apple doesn't screw that up in the MacOS X transition, they'll still keep me from defecting to Linux.
This is why I prefer E as my Window Manager (When it's stable.) Sure it's a bit more bloated than Window Maker (My next favorite) but I have the horsepower to run it and damn, it looks good.
so a bunch of "hobbiest" in their spare time can port a whole OS to another machine, yet a corporation can't do the same because it would "cost too much".
Wow, the power of Linux/Open source!!!
it's not a question; how can you make predictions about future ??
Having looked at the Mac G3 at work (For the purposes of installing Linux on it :-) I am quite impressed by how well the OS groks the hardware. I guess you can do that when you're the only hardware in town, but it's still most impressive. It groks the internet slightly less well and you can see that the whole house of cards falls as soon as someone introduces one (card) covered in java... or something.
Still, it's a smooth look and feel and if Apple goes the UNIX road, they ARE likely to tempt a lot of people. As long as we keep the open source lines of communication open, it shouldn't matter anyway. Objective C is quite portable and hopefully Linux programs will compile and run on Rhapsody and vice versa.
Let's take a brief look at history. Apple was the first gaussian wave. Most people
were ignorant about computers, so the simple one piece box was very successful.
However, Apple didn't want to share or loose control of their vision, so they were
very strict about licensing, and kept a tight reign on their hardware. Then came the
PC and Microsoft era. While more difficult to use, they offered more choice. Also,
Microsoft was much better about opening up their specifications and allowing third
parties to develop software (even if they stabbed them in the back later, and
consolidated once they had power.) Now we're seeing the rise of about the most
open systems possible.
=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
It went open-> closed.
Wintel existed long before macintosh.
Apple II specs were, I believe,open.
When Apple tried to have clones they almost killed 'em.. They went back to closed.
Firstly, I did like the line of Linux to NT in the second article "I am god, thou are dirt". I'll give credit for that.
Now he said all Apple has to do is:
1 Create the gretest operating system of all time
2 Sell lots of quality hardware cheaply
3 Sell amazing apps
Is that all?! I never knew Apple was so close to world domination! Run for your lives!!!
Sean
lavelle.14@osu.edu
I still hate the blue easter eggs they call computers...
Here are some interesting links...
7 30,2178630,00.html - Steve Job's keynote speech at Macworld Expo 99*
http://www.appleinsider.com/macosx.shtml - mac os x (and server) information.
http:// www.zdnet.com/zdtv/newscobrand/features/story/0,3
http://developer.apple.com/macosx/server/ - Apple's Mac OS X Server page
2 weeks ago I had no interest at all in anything related to Apple or Mac OS, but I've recently decided to switch my major to graphic design and having a Mac is almost a standard... not to mention my alternative is running Windows 95/98/NT which I do not find very useful for graphic designing, even though the software is there (the major stuff at least.) So, for the past week or so, I've been spending hours reasearching and stuff. It's really fun, and for some reason, I feel this love towards Apple... maybe it's major subliminal messages or something... whatever it is, it's working. Anyhow, by the time i plan on getting a new comp for college (transfer) february of next year, i plan on getting a powermac g4 500 mhz (hopefully they're out by then), 512 RAM, and all the extra goodies. i was planning on getting one soon, but after reading websites, apple has problems to iron out on the design of their new b&w powermac g3s, and mac os won't support preemptive multitasking until 8.6 which isn't quite out yet... and i imagine they'll be ironing out bugs a few months after 8.6 is released. i know all the arguments against buying an apple, and most are pretty weak. i also think i understand why they have to do things like axe the newton, keep a lot of things closed, not support be (if, of course this is a true fact.) anyway, if i feel like i'm in the mood to mess with linux, i can install linuxppc, but i do not see any need to use it anymore (i used to want to major in computer science, so all i cared about was programming and such, now i hate programming and want nothing to do with it.)
Rhapsody is now called Mac OS X in case you didn't know.
Apple plans on selling Mac OS X Server sometime in February at around $1k. That is a VERY high price, however, it comes with some expensive software bundled with it and you only have to pay that one price and you can run any number of computers off of it (as in imacs connected to the server running mac os x.)
*this requires realplayer, and ahum, is on zdnet. the coolest part is his presentation of mac os x server with the 50 imacs connected to one machine all running a different movie file from it at once. this speech the source of that recent q3arena movie released (it's a clip of q3arena running a powermac g3 presented by john carmack.)
I'm a Mac user, but I don't even want this to be the scenario (well, not exactly).
The way I see it, Linux will always be important - perhaps even a standard for other companies to follow. Think about it, why would people pay for an OS that isn't any better than what you can get for free?
What this will do is force Apple, Microsoft, and any other OS maker to innovate. Gains in Linux market share will also force them to be somewhat compatible with Linux. Perhaps the YellowBox APIs could be ported to Linux even, making it truly cross platform...
In short, I think MacOS X and Linux can cooexist, as can any other OS out there. With both Linux being free and Apple really wanting to gain market share, I see a large opportunity for both platforms through compatibility. And anything that makes it to Linux can make it to any other OS.
I dual-boot Linux and MacOS 8.5 on my dual-200MHz Mac.
Here's how the MacOS is better:
KDE is slower than molasses on a cold day. Even without hardware graphics acceleration, the Finder flat out runs circles around K. Sorry, but I can do without crazy font issues and sudden intermittent pauses in X.
Recent Apps and Documents folders in the Apple menu, and popup windows. There has been no other single interface feature that has ever made me more productive than these. The Start button and its various lookalikes just don't compare.
The windowshade. In the Finder, if I click the shade button, or double-click the menu, the window snaps out of the way. Windows' minimize moves the window to the task bar, where it takes much longer to get to. In X, the shade function is so cludgy that I curse myself every time I accidentally hit it.
Drag and drop. Truly an awesome timesaving feature. Try dragging a URL selection to the Mac desktop sometime (in 8.5). It creates an internet shorcut. Drag a complex mathematical function from the Graphing Calculator desk accessory into a word processing document, and all the symbols stay intact!
I realize that the Mac UI is not the end-all solution, but so far, there has been no equal.
Joshua E Cook
sahib@@earthling.net
If you used KDE, you would know that the window
buttons can be moved around to either side of
the window as you desire. Infact, you can make
the titlebar look quite similar to the MacOS one.
Furthermore, the new Platinum theme in QT 2.0
to help make it look even similar.
For better or worse, most things in Linux/Unix
tend to be quite configurable.
If one button is all you need then why the
need to press the shift, ctrl, option modifiers
on the keyboard? Then there is hokey press and
hold method the the Mac uses. Obviously there is
a need for more than one button on a mouse. I
really think 2 (sometimes 3) is the optimal. It
allows you to keep the other hand free to do
something other than the keyboard.
http://macopinion.com/columns/utopia/jan99/up-4
http://macopinion.com/columns/utopia/jan99/up-4
http://macopinion.com/columns/utopia/jan99/up-4
Apple is about as far away from open source as imaginable. Their model is one of rigid control, with proprietary, closed-source software running on proprietary hardware. It doesn't matter how great their stuff is (G3, G4, Altivec, OS X, whatever), because they've cut themselves off from everyone else. Their is no way they can possibly be cost-competitive with Linux on inexpensive X86 hardware. Apple's got their noses above water for now, but their position will always be precarious. Eventually they will drown unless they join the rest of the world.
Things that could enhance their chance of survival:
1. Open up their hardware to other OSs without reverse engineering. BeOS is the obvious example. I doubt MS would ever do it, but the G3 would probably be a great platform for NT (which, like it or not, will be an economically important OS for the foreseeable future).
2. Allow Mac clones again.
3. Release OS X for x86 architecture for a price reasonable for desktop use. Of course, this would run the risk of cannibalizing hardware sales, but it might be best for Apple to get out of hardware altogether and just be an OS company.
None of these things will happen. Jobs will keep Apple closed until the "insanely great" company becomes the "LATE insanely great" company.
i kind of think jobs is of an age where he know EXACTLY what hes doing, and he is giving the people what they want. remember nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the american people...
samedi@disinfo.NOSPAM.net
Nope, can't agree with you there. Yeah, great ideas come from young folks. Great ideas come from old folks too-- people who have been "mulling over" what they feel might be the next great thing for YEARS-- and have the financial backing and mental discipline to actually complete the task. The maturity to understand the entire journey ahead is a big deal. In the software industry, I consistently see better performance from older programmers-- they've seen the problems before, they've solved them more than once before, and they know what it means to ship product. It is very rare that I see those qualities in younger developers.
Ever hear of a dude named daVinci? The only Leonardo that matters isn't diCaprio. Think about his years at Chateau du Clos-Luce!
And my personal take? Steve has spent his years in exile, and now has returned to lead his people into the promised land. Yeah, I happen to love Apple a bit too much for my own good. I'm myopic on that topic. That doesn't invalidate my argument about older innovators.
To paraphrase jwz, Linux only costs $1.99 if your time is worthless.
Linux is at its start. When it reaches its _maximum_ something better will appear. And it would not be Apple. Apple has already appeared, had its rise and its fall, and its not yet time for the wheel of samsara to hit it and make its ideas reappear on the horizon.
Linux will be defeated by something that is in its beginning, if it has already been created.
--
Doomsday Prophet
;-)
I get sick and tired of the whole "We're number one" business. There is no such thing as "number one," IMHO. Here's my take on it-
-Number one how? In what market? In what way? If it's the end-user market, who cares? I'm not an end-user. I don't care what the end-user is using. Right now its that Windows garbage. I'm still using Linux. I seriously doubt that Apple will threaten anyone on the server-side for a very long time. All of the Unices have been powering the Internet for a very long time, all the while being the punchline of jokes. I go for results, and the results are in on that one.
-There's been a very large trend as of late towards diversifacation. I just got back from an internship faire not long ago, and was astounded at the number of employers who want to know if I have experience in Linux, Windows, and anything else they've got laying around. I think platform and OS diversifacation are wonderful things, as long as there's only a few media for networking. As long as we all can talk, that's fine.
-Linux is still more flexible all around. The 2.2.0 kernel has beginning implementations of Mac filesystem NFS support, right? I wonder if we'll ever see that courtesy returned.
Seriously, though...rather than fighting on who's "number one," shouldn't we just keep our eyes on the prize? Linux isn't going anywhere, even if Apple does steal away the end-user market from MS. I'm sitting right back here as happy as a clam.
They have the resources to start it all over again. When it broke (MacOS) they brought in Next to fix it. Apple, because they don't have the largest market share and a very dedicated following, can overhaul and change at regular intervals.. And not be crushed for it. If you're mainstream, you can't afford to have your users buying OS and hardware updates regularly. If you have a flock of dedicants, you can.
Apple is starting to win in a very trial/error system that looks like it could win.
Could you imagine what would happen if we all restarted every aspect of Linux from the base up? With OS X they get to mix and match what works, making a nice core and a nice gui at the same time.
The good part about their philosophy is that they won't gain that market share, that mainstream, until after they get it all right. Once they do we hope that they'll keep it right. If OS X is the best thing that ever happened to this world, it'll sell like hotcakes.
And hey, if it utterly destroys Linux as we know it (eg, everything somehow manages to work perfectly) then we suddenly have something to live up to and beat utterly. And we will! After all, I don't want to spend my life's savings on Mac hardware!
--
Tarnar
tarnar@yahoo.com
FWIW, I think Mac OS X will kick ass, but I agree that the claims of Apple's eventual dominance have been overstated time and time again (so far).
Of course, they *are* on an undeniable upswing... 5 quarters of profit, marketshare increasing, etc....gimme that Kool-Aid!
--Poster of first comment in this thread
Leonardo, Felini, Bergman, Einstein....
Or a young "creative type" line Curt Cobain...
Ginnie a freekin' break
Okay, I can agree with you one most things but
still, when they need to add a click mode where
one must hold the button for a long time, one
wonders if they are constrained by the one button
paradigm. What's next...morse code?!
>Fast forward to 1999. Everyone knows Apple is >only a fringe player, despite continuing to set >the pace for innovation in the PC market since >it started.
Apple has long since given up THAT title. Now they just recycle either their own old ideas (MacPlus formfactor) or someone else's (NextStep).
Due to this patented Apple arrogance, Apple has been playing catchup to NT and Unix for some time now.
Microsoft policiy: More advertizing, more brain washing, simple interface(from home user point), low pricing of s/w and h/w leading to price drops and vice-versa, more writers for max used platform, cheap apps..WITH LOTS OF CRAP.
Why the homeuser cares for a hitech,superfast linux when the home user just wants every thing in seconds not in miliseconds. Do they intend to run aerodynamics simulation on their PCs? Most people just ask what to type at logon!
Hey Steve Jobs, keep simple interface and auto-standard configuration for homeusers and command line for geeks. Thats the equation.
Your parents could use the extra money you paid for buying mac hardware and get it installed by someone at the store so they wouldn't have to wory about integration.
What the hell Redhat's doing..just bundling..cant it take up this project and at least emulate Mac UI and leave it to the linux community to improve it. Think how much later it can wield power.....
...comes from the newspaper ads I used to see several years
ago when Apple was still going strong:
CDROM drive: For PC: $200
For Mac:$300
Modem: For PC: $100
For Mac: $150
etc...
It always seemed to me that Apple had a scam going to
part people from their money, plus they had wierd religious
views about how people had to use their computers. I'd
be a lot more afraid of Apple dominating the computer world
than Microsoft.
Really? Perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't copy/paste just left mouse button (copy) center mouse button (paste)?
I use the above combinations all the time to get URL's from email in an xterm, or vice versa, and the functionality here is so much better than the cntrl-c cntrl-v stuff that MS uses, and even that varies on the application.
Granted, only text can be copied back and forth, but I can't think of a simpler method of copy and paste.
I don't know if they *don't like* Be, but if they go completely open-platform, they become just another hardware vendor...or not. But it certainly dilutes their OS marketiblity. I personally would love to get a PowerMac booting Linux, Be, MacOS, and enything else that might boot on a PowerPC. Competition is good.
And Be is groaning a little loud to see if they can get some support (IMHO), but I too would like to see a G3 running Be.
...is quite different from the game Linux is in.
:)
:)
Apple is more like a gambler who plays
in a game where the buy in is too high for
him. But its the single game in town so he
can't be picky. Now he has to bet most of his
hands "all in" to stay in the game. One lost major
pot would probably be the end. No bad beats
allowed here (Hello BeOS
Linux is more like a player who is playing in
many different games in parallel - cheap ones and
expensive ones. Some with pros and big boys involved,
others with clueless drunken tourists
who think they are tough until they have
to go all in and bust out. (Hello Novell
Linux could afford to loose a couple of hands and
still would be in the game. Apple can't. Guess
on which head I would place my checks?
I suppose if one really care about style they won't spent on half ass mix breed. a quarter style, a tenth power, the rest all price.
why not buy real style?
Custom made Armani suit, or better yet, Versace suit. and buy dual Alpha workstation, costum made titanium box by Valentino.
MacOS 8.6 is testing now and will ship most likely in March.
It has the feature set that was promised by Copland, but it is here, it works and is backward compatable with existing Mac software.
It has the MacOS-side of MacOS X- the Carbon API, a new nanokernal with real (not just guard page) memory protection, excellent multi-tasking, extremely effecient multi-processor support, etc., while still having the Applescript, Colorsync, Quicktime... all the stuff to get work done.
Its a sophisticated OS, and while its not the industrial unix beast that OS-X is, it is fast, smooth, stable and a highly productive system. Sort of the Mac side of OS-X. (I'll take mine running multiple 128 bit Activec copper G4s, which will also be shipping this spring.)
OS-X will rock, but the near future is kick-butt.
SheepShaver is gonna kick butt, Apple butt to be precise. SheepShaver will make it possible for LinuxPPC folks to use their (legacy ;-) MacOS apps right from their KDE/GNOME desktop. But wait, imagine running MacOS on an exported X display.. Even cooler!
:)
All this Gaussian Curve bullshit is just that, bullshit. This curve only applies to closed proprietary Operating Systems. OS OS'es like Linux are creating a paradigm shift. No way you can compare it with dBase and Lotus shit
Yes, but IBM still participates in the desktop market, doesn't it?
Gateway 2K, or whoever has the Amiga franchise this year, has a 100% locked-down user base that is wonderfully knowledgeable and loyal, never missing a chance to advocate their hardware to outsiders. Much good it does them now, eh?
Apple historically would rather have 80% of $1000 than 1% of $1,000,000 -- and sure enough, that's about the size of it. I don't see why they're complaining.
why don't you go program for your superior os (in every way!) and stop wasting your time responding to these obviously mindless idiots.
linux nazis are really getting annoying.
Fuck morse code, Smoke Signals is the wave of the furture!
Solaris, a closed UNIX-like system, is still favored over the free unices by many coporations. The primary reason? They feel more secure in an OS supported by an actual company than a faceless network of volunteers. Not that I agree with this, of course.
So true. Those old Macs were--are great computers.
RIP My IIfx 1989-1999. Nine years old, and more functional than this PII Linux box here (but slower).
I've just read through these posts and must seen a couple dozen posts accusing apple of closed hardware specs or wanting to monopolize their market.
Last I heard, Intel made about 90% of the motherboard chipsets in use in the x86 market and over 50% of the motherboards themselves. Until very recently, Intel had 90% of the x86 CPU market, although that's dropped now that CPU speed isn't that important anymore for most users.
Doesn't sound like a very open marketplace to me. Looks like Intel gets to set the prices and the specs, and AMD and Tyan and who ever follow along. Dell and Bob's Klones get their cut for putting the screws in.
Walk into Office Depot or other crappy low-end computer outlet. What you'll is 20 computers based on two different Intel chip sets, with two different Intel processors and an AMD.
Some choice!
8.6 won't have protected memory and preemtive multitasking. It will have the cooperative multitasking you see in 8.5 and more sophisticated guard pages. That is about it for what you can do with that code base.
Mac OS X sever is most of what will be in Mac OS X. As if MS propoganda holds any water.
All it seems your system is, is a big nintendo. Celery toy running bloated MSware. Period. Another lemming following CISC into oblivion.
i have to agree extreme mac advocates are really annoying. i also agree the think different campaign kind of sucks. but that's how corporations work, appeal to the greatest audience possible to make more sales.
it's sad corporations have to do this, it's also sad people allow themselves to be manipulated. i usually try to (over) analyze things before purchasing them or whatever... an example is, i am now deciding my next computer will be a macintosh (g4 by the time i plan on purchasing it.)
why? well, i plan on moving into graphic design and this is the best at the moment and almost a standard among graphic designers. Sorry, gimp doesn't cut it... and even with adobe products on win 95/98/nt, it's much faster, simpler, and pleasing to work in the mac os enviroment than windows for this.
i started out using dos when i was like 12 or 13 and have been using PCs (as in ahum, ibm compatible) since. i've used windows 3.11, 95, 98, nt, linux. i've also gone through anarchist and liberal beliefs which made me an avid linux supporter but now i've come to my senses and know we have to work with what's here while progressing. it's no black and white.
mac os is not the perfect os, neither is windows or linux. apple has not stopped progressing their os, neither has microsoft or the linux supporters. because mac os sucked when you used it 3 years ago does not mean it will suck now or in the future (8.x, OS X, OS X Server). Same for MS.. there's a chance WIndows 2000 will be great (haha, but you never know), and linux will (hopefully) not always be great for programmers but awful for about everyone else.
sorry if that got incoherent near the end. my blood sugar is low and it's late.
Someone jumping OS's to installing Linux and having all their apps available and being able to meet their deadline? That is just ROTLMAO.
Communism died if you didn't get the memo.
Another communist chimp that thinks more work is more productivity.
Been running my server with it for 3 months now, no crashes, no problems.
Maybe you meant VapoRub instead of vaporware?
Here is the reason linux will never be able to be more than niche no matter how good it is. Linux does not drive hardware innovation. All it does is cannabalize hardware from other platforms mainly x86 or powerpc. KNI and x86 were honed for MS. Altivec and G4 were designed for Mac. What hardware was developed *for* linux. Linux can't even call itself a player until it drives hardware developement. The big problem with advanced hardware features is how slow and incompletely oss and linux support hardware.
If I released a new superfast game accelerator tommorrow, how long would it be before drivers were available for it and then games? By that time the item would already be obsolete. Linux is in it for the long haul, but consequently it misses all the buzzword/hype that hardware brings. What buzzwords come out of linux? None, why? No marketing and less support. A bunch of hobbiests putting something together is just a bunch of geeks putting something together.
Linux hobbiests do not have the money and resources to implement the hardware even if they had it. Perhaps it you had hardware companies with branded versions of linux running tightly optimized and tuned versions of linux with software bundles and assured compatiblity on their hardware to differentiate themselves. Once again:
1. No *linux* hardware(linux versions for available hardware aren't acceptable)
2. No marketing
3. Slow hardware adoption(look how long its taken linux to get this far)
4. No OS or hardware roadmap
Everyone thinks that with enough time and code that linux will become the OS *they* want it to be. However that does not mean it will be. What happens when the next big thing oss operating system comes along with more buzzwords and marketing? If linux is dumbed down for eveyone geeks will jump to the next thing. If linux is made even more configurable it will be hailed as a nightmare to support for the average joe and the average joe won't make the jump to linux.
Akira
Who would be stupid enough to market linux anyway? I mean the next guy is giving it away for free.
As far as oss is concerned. A thousand chimps all writing on typewriters can write Shakespeare. rofl No, no a millions chimps all coding can code a masterpiece. lol
I mean is linux running under the socialist model of if we share enough code we can make a better product than corporations ie communism or the borg model of if we assismilate all the best features of all the other programs we can then surpass them? Take a hit of reality and address the huge problems with linux and oss before trying to tout its geekiness prowess.
How about this wacked idea? An internet oss OS that runs on a distributed computing model? Running a machine on the net with it and run short on processor cycles. No problem just borrow some from your neighbor who went to get a cup of coffee. Basically redistributing idle cycles to where ever they are needed.
How about companies taking preorders for processors in batchs with BTO specs in quantity. Say 1000 people put in an order for a G4 with 4 cores with Altivec and Maxbus. Have them fulfilled in 1000 quantity or whatever increment batches at given speed. How about being able to by the wonderchips out of batchs that run unusually high speeds packaged on a card for a premium price? For the geeks that have to have the fast thing.
They already do have a very nice floppy replacement.
It's called 100baseT networking. Ever used it? Pretty smooth. Faster than a floppy, carries much more data, and is perfectly at home in a G3-based computer such as an iMac, which, unlike most pentium-based computers I've used, actually CAN use all that bandwidth to its fullest potential.
In fact, they even changed the mac's name to indicate this new functionality: they stuck an "i" on it to tell you it was meant to be "internetworked."
Guess you missed that part, huh?
Sure, the average /. reader will still look at OS features, HW configurations and the like, but accept the fact that we are a tiny minority.
Most people are no technocrats. Pretty green and cute orange will be the selling point to look at. The iMac has proven that.
Who wants a lousy 3 percent or whatever?
If the screenshots of Rhapsody are to be believed then it looks like it will maintain alot of the unix influence of NextStep... Like a complete (or mostly complete) /etc?
They could make it nicer than linux, but will they try or will they just try to be like MacOS?
But looking good and having horsepower and stability under the hood don't have to be mutually-exlusive. Give the users both.
>Hmmm...hasn't Apple been the next big thing for a while?
Gee, I thought everybody's been predicting Apple's demise for years, not their resurgence.
Hey, whatever lets you mock them at any given juncture, I guess. So what if it's inconsistent?
It seems that Apple likes Linux, even encourages it's development to a certain degree. Or is LinuxPPC written on it's own without Apple's help at all?
If so, why does Be Inc. claim that Apple won't release certain specs or info or whatever, which is why there is no BeOS release for the G3 processors. Is this a cop-out for Be? Or is it something else? I've heard this from Be, but isn't the G3 IBM's or Motorola's? Last I heard, IBM was the one designing the things...so wouldn't it be on IBM's shoulders to release the info to Be?
Sorry for all the questions, but it mainly sounds all political to me...on all sides.
Why would anyone want to move from an open system such as Linux or BSD to a closed system like Apple? The only choice you have in the Apple worldview is which of the 5 color boxes you want. Beyond that, Apple is one of the most closed systems you could possibly get. There aren't even alternative sources for their hardware anymore.
Let's take a brief look at history. Apple was the first gaussian wave. Most people were ignorant about computers, so the simple one piece box was very successful. However, Apple didn't want to share or loose control of their vision, so they were very strict about licensing, and kept a tight reign on their hardware. Then came the PC and Microsoft era. While more difficult to use, they offered more choice. Also, Microsoft was much better about opening up their specifications and allowing third parties to develop software (even if they stabbed them in the back later, and consolidated once they had power.) Now we're seeing the rise of about the most open systems possible.
More likely is that the Linux/GNU/OSS desktop will become easy enough to use that a whole new class of people start picking up computers. The price point for consumer electronic devices to really take off is about $300, and an easy way to save $50 is to not use Windows. (The other easy way to get under $300 is to not require a separate monitor, so we'll see if HDTV pans out in this regard, or we have to wait an additional X years for displays to drop in price.) Anyway, linux computers that are "easy enough" to use for under $300 could sell into the billions worldwide at some point within the next 5-10 years.
Oh, this is too funny. Listen: x86 is similarly as far from open source as you could possibly imagine. Apple _II_ was open. Macintosh was not. But you're glorifying, as an alternative, twenty million incompetent hardware developers none of whom are talking to each other or implement the same way? Why, exactly, doesn't Plug and Play work for MS, if the world is as you think?
Forget it. You might as well suggest that Netwinders need to be totally clonable, or that Apple needs to ship everything triple-booting between MacOS, Be and Linux- or even Be, Linux and NT! Why should they get a chance to control their own products?
This is nonsense, and nobody is going to listen. And most people know what you don't- that your 'survival enhancing things' are suicidal. Some have been tried, some have not- none are sensible, even though it's a pity something like Be can't be supported.
The rest of the world is x86 running Windows- it _will_ be left behind by many different competitors. One of them is Apple. They're already obliterating the 'computing for Grandma' market without even major changes to MacOS, just by the iMac. That alone is putting x86 in the past for that market.
Just deal with the fact that you're, well, extremely incorrect, might I say? And none of this should suggest that it'd impede Linux adoption. Diversity is more natural and healthy- the linux crowd and the iMac crowd can be _very_ different- and still overlap here and there.
3% sure beats Linux's less than 0.5% (in the general public, which means desktops...it's higher among servers, of course).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Actually, the main reason Macs caught on in schools is because they're the logical extension of the Apple ][ series. Most schools in the US had Apple ][, ][+, and ][e computers, because the alternatives (PCs with CP/M or MS-DOS) were not very appealing. They also built up a huge software library. I remember my intermediate school bought Macs (LC IIs) specifically so they could run their old ][e software (with an add-on card...basically the entire ][e system on a card).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Posted by DonR:
I agree. Has anyone else noticed that software manufacturers make pretty good hardware? Apple makes nice hardware, Sun makes nice hardware, and even Microsoft makes nice hardware. Maybe the fact that they're concentrating on OS design instead of hardware design results in a better product? Engineers left alone make something good? Dunno. Comments appreciated.
we can see just how scared Apple is of Linux's sucess by how quickly Apple dropped MkLinux support for WINTEL Boxes, and how MkLinux development was long since fell behind Linux development and how Apple has put heavy priorities into developing MacOS and giving MacOS Unix-like features. Maybe one day Apple will get paranoid enough to drop MkLinux?
Linux scares both Apple and Microsoft, and for $20 a pop a CD-ROM can be bought from a computer store having Linux 2.2 on it, or Linux 2.2 can be downloaded for free over the Internet.
The MacJihad, those that evangelize Apple and Macintosh products, are like Sheep being led to the slaught of their platform eventually by Apple's insane actions! How can you stick with a company that changes its OS Designs every six months? Many developers I know that wanted to support MacOS have ended up moving to BeOS or Linux because at least those platforms are stable and don't have an ever changing API and OS Structure. Coupland, Rhapsody, Mac OSX, where will the OS Designs end? How much Vaporware is going to pass from Apple before the MacJihad figure out that Apple really doesn't have a decent OS and has been fooling them all these years into believe that a decent Apple OS will be coming out "Real Soon NoW!" Honest, Steve Jobs swears by it, and you know he would never lie to you! :)
I would rather use Linux 2.2 now, than Mac OSX later. Who cares if Linux is harder to set up than Mac OSX, at least Linux is here, now, and not Vaporware!
Face facts, Apple is run by cowards and arrogent engineers that think their way is the only way. One day they will have to wake up and face reality that they might have to downsize again to make the company profitable and outsource jobs to other companies. Until eventually one day, maybe in 2006, Apple won't have very much left to it and will have to shut down.
The Apple Doomsday Clock is ticking! Visit these web pages for more info!
The Apple Doomsday Clock Club
The Apple Doomsday Clock Web Page
...that's not necessarily a good thing (that people value form over function).
By comparison, I really don't think the difference between a two-button (or three-button) mouse and a keyboard-modified single-button mouse is all that significant.
As far as WIMP-style interfaces, I still believe OS/2's WPS to be the most consistent. There was a simple rule that was kept to pretty well: left button to select objects, right button to manipulate objects.
I still miss the WPS sometimes.
Back in 1994-95, IBM was rumored to be toying with the idea (for Workplace OS, which was to be the successor to OS/2) of a "Human Centered Interface," or something like that (I may have the name wrong) which basically would have had a kind of avatar-agent, sort of a disembodied head, with which you would interact, and assign your tasks to through voice recognition/synthesis.
This seemed ultra-cool to me, even if it might be a bit silly. I was hoping it (the head) would be customizable, so I could address my daily tasks to the disembodied head of Max von Sydow.
Now that would be cool...
BTW, it looks like there will be another client version of OS/2, as unlikely as that may have seemed recently. I've converted over to Linux, however.
His argument is predicated on the (foolish) assumption of gaussian distributions over time, when Apple clearly violates that by having peaked in the past and then growing again recently.
I agree that Linux's current interface will scare away a high percentage of Mac users. On the other hand, the relatively low diversity of hardware means that Macs make pretty good Linux machines. One could imagine an iLinux distribution that is designed for easy installation on an iMac, for example.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
ONE Apple model was outselling SINGLE PC models.
That's a BIG difference.
Even THAT is not enough to shift marketshare in a market as large as all of PC's (vs. just servers).
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
As much as I might like to slag KDE (and certain KDE developers), it is NOT a manual transmisson. Apple is NOT the last word on User Interfaces.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
They adhere to those as well and can do so without constraining you to ONE choice. The real integration is not in the stupid widgetsets but in things like corba/ole and DnD. An athena application can play just as nice with KDE or Gnome as can 'integrated' applications.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Heh, I've got some too:
1. No alpha channel support.
2. No subpixel precision for drawing primitives.
3. No network-transparent support for sound.
4. No support for hardward accelerated 3D. (Well, there is GLX, but that isn't X).
5. No integration with support for printing.
6. The single-threaded implementation of most conventional X servers leads to unresponsiveness.
7. No support for switching display depth on-the-fly.
8. The X11 protocol is not easily extensible.
--
Need undo/redo for your free software app? See Libundo
This is exactly my problem. X11 doesn't have anything to do with sound. I think it should. My thinking goes like this: X11 gives me nearly what I need to do all my I/O remotely, except it doesn't do anything about sound. If I remotely run an application which uses sound, all the sound will playback on the machine where the app is running, but the display will be on my X terminal. This is weird, and not what I wanted.
--
Need undo/redo for your free software app? See Libundo
//"Was there something else you wanted..."
:-)
/"Yes. A standard."
Heck, the guy already mentioned both gnome and KDE. That's two standards right there. I'm sure someone could come up with a third if you wanted
(currently testing something about signatures here)
I don't care how good the OS is, I'm not leaving my hardware behind for some Mac garbage. I've seen those much-touted G3s in action, and I'm totally not impressed. They just aren't as powerful as my Celeron at 504MHz. Period. The video acceleration sucks. Period. The audio options suck. Period.
Now, if the Mac OS X GUI ran on the Intel Linux kernel, I'd be all about it.
Interestingly, I've always thought that the nicest looking cases are on the machines where form matters least and function most. The best cases are on high-end workstations and servers (SGI, Sun) because the case is such a small fraction of the cost. People won't want a $200 case on a $900 PC, but if you're already paying $10K plus...
Not a great example -- GUIs and CLUIs aren't equivalent except for aesthetics. They are really totally different forms of interaction, with different tradeoffs.
But the general point is basically true. There is evidence that people's perception of the usability of a computer system is biased by its aesthetic appeal (relative to their actual productivity).
One thing that the author constantly assumes is that Linux has made it's peak. I disagree on the bounds that many companies that have vowed support /products for linux have yet to come out with these products. Once these products have been released and a fair ammount of time has been given then we can really tell where linux is headed.
:-)
As of yet Linux is somewhat in the same boat as Apple, our hands are somewhat tied. You may say that open source applications are fine and dandy, however people want a name on their products. They want to see the name "IBM" or "Compaq", etc written on the side.
Linux as of yet has no real marketting power / advertising power something that Apple has lots of, (e.g iMac). Right now we have Red Hat (which is too busy makeing deals with IBM, etc) and a highly loyal fan base. We have been extreemly lucky to have a lot of journalists publish good articles about this operating system. However, this still dosen't beat the good ole' commercials on tv.
My predection for when Linux will peak? Probably in 1 1/2 to 2 years. It'll take about one year for big name companies to release serious products for linux and then another six months for windows developers (and posssibly others) to start picking up toolkits. After linux? I'd like to see OpenBSD go on the rise... but chances of that happening? When the install dosen't make your hair turn white.
Or even better yet, Apple Linux.. I'd buy it if the administration tools were good. Even for a $150.. It'd be worth it. And with all those special web tools, I'd bet huge droves would pay $550.
When was the last time you looked at the figured, my friend? That data is at least two years old. By all accounts it's approaching ten rather rapidly in the market I assume you're quoting: the retail market (seeing as that is the only market in which Mac market share has ever dropped that low).
I might also add that you use the inappropriate statistic of "the market." Which market do you mean? There's far more than one, after all. Do you mean business? Home? Education (where MacOS holds over sixty percent?) Content creation?
Now, it's true that all great empires eventually fall. MacOS peaked and declined. Microsoft is starting its eventual decline. Linux and MacOS appear to be both on the rise again (empires can come back after declining, after all). Eventually, both will fall when something better comes around; that's inevitable. Perhaps it'll be OSX, but it might be HURD, or some incarnation of BSD, or maybe M$ will surprise us all and come out with a respectable OS, or Be could somehow take the field in a serious way, or whatever; make no mistake it will happen. It's all a question of when, and what will replace it.
Vaporware my ass. Have a look here.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/
For $1000 you also get Web Obects.
Just because you can't afford it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
OSX will be released. If you don't like it, then don't use it.
they may look nice, but adding ram to a tower was a pain in the @$$!!!! remove the Motherboard, dissconect all wires/cables, for 32 megs of ram?
You had to remove the motherboard and all the cables to add RAM?? Yeah, right. What year was that? 1991? I guess you haven't seen the trap door on the new G3's. It has the easiest to access motherboard I've ever seen on a commercially produced computer.
Their recent moves, the iMac and new G3s are really desperate moves; successful perhaps and maybe it'll keep them afloat long enough to wade out their next innovation slump, but they are desperate moves nonetheless.
Do you really believe this? I think the iMac has more to do with giving the people what they want than a desperate move. It was a way of moving into a market that they had never been successful in. I think it was a smart move. It's kept them in the public eye. And it's kept a lot of developers (especially game developers) from jumping the MacOS ship.
Then there's the reality of who uses Apple computers to make a living. I'm a graphic artist that makes a good living using Macs. Apple would continue to produce computers for the graphic arts and printing fields alone if they had no other market to sell to. Where are the viable graphic arts, printing, multimedia, and other content creation solutions on Linux? There are none. And most artists that have used Macs from the start aren't going to switch to M$/Intel as long as Apple is there.
Do you really want imbeciles and secretaries using the best operating system around?
Yes! Since what the imbeciles (management) and the secretaries use will be what the rest of the folks in a company use (because you have to actually interact with imbeciles and secretaries, which means the communication protocols must be compatible, which is unlikely on any proprietary system), I want them using what I want to use.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
"Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, Memento Mori
Why would Be have to reverse-engineer the G3? Why can't they just look at the work the LinuxPPC folks did? I don't mean copy source code per se (cause then Be would have to be GPL'd ;-), but they could use the specs that they reverse engineered (or reverse-engineer the source code to avoid the GPL).
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
"Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, Memento Mori
I am curious how many people will actually jump from Linux back to a proprietary OS like Windows or MacOS. If anything people will jump to the HURD and I think that that itself is highly unlikely.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
"Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, Memento Mori
What don't you like about X, specifically?
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
"Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, Memento Mori
I'm not sure why you replied to my post, and I'm even more baffled as to why you took the time to quote it. What you replied with was completely irrelevant to what I said. I said I wonder how many people would jump *from* Linux *back* to a proprietary OS.
I recommend you take some time out next time to think about what you're going to write. "A closed mouth gaters no foot."
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
"Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, Memento Mori
You joke, but seriously, the only reason Apple ever had a foothold in education had little to do with the quality of their computers and more to do with them all but giving them away to schools. That, coupled with the disproportionately high level of Mac-bigotry running through the vains of the upper echelons of school districts, explains that side of it.
At my high-school, the teachers (the ones who actually had to teach on and use the computers) practically begged for PCs because of all the problems we had with the Macs. But guess what got installed the next year (luckily I graduated before then)?
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
"Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, Memento Mori
I know X has its failings, I just wanted to make sure you weren't going to say "Motif is ugly" or something like that.
BTW, how many other windowing systems are network transparent?
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
"Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, Memento Mori
...when I last cared about the colour of a computer. It was an ICL 2900 mainframe in bright orange ('Hot Tango'), and it was the one on which my Dad showed me the rudiments of programming. Maybe that's why I sometimes have an urge to yell "GROW UP!" at that kind of Mac user.
Actually, MOSR.com reports that the mach stuff is being joined with the NuKernel stuff that Copeland had (stupid move).
Remember that hyped product that all but killed the OS as we know it?
*n/t*
aside from improvements to KDE and gnome, Linux systems will
remain generally linked to the tired PC architecture. To be sure,
you'll be able to run a great Linux system on a 500 MHz Pentium
III later this year, but it will still require you to remove eight
stainless steel screws to open it up, you won't have Firewire
drives, and it will still be a damn beige box. The whole won't be
greater than the sum of the parts.
Does "architecture" mean architecture or does it mean the case & power supply? Either way this is obviously false. Linux is less bound to a particular architecture than any OS yet. I can't even see how someone could think that it's bound to a certain style of case.
LinuxPPC already has both LinuxxPPC Lite and LinuxPPC Live installers in order to easily download, install and run Linux on a Powermac. They'll probably have something like that when they get Release 5 out.
It would be good for macs and PCs alike.
--- Just make it crash, I want to see.
Ah -
I see. If it's pro-Mac, it's 'bigotry'. If it's pro-Linux, it's 'advocacy'.
Thank you for setting me straight.
- Darchmare
- Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
- Jeff
If I remember right, MacOS is pretty much one bloody huge shared lib sitting over unprotected hardware. It's at least as tangled-together, kernel and UI, as Win95.
MacOSX (once NeXT then Rhapsody) is much better; an object oriented web of libraries safely resting on a proper unix kernel (probably a hacked-up BSD variant).
The only similarities between the two OSes, really, are [a] the UI looks similar (it feels very different, though) and [b] a castrated version of MacOS ("carbon") is available in shared-lib form on top of the BSD kernel, for quick-n-dirty app porting. (same idea as Winelib, really)
Lemme tell you a tale...
I've got a computer at home that I run a windowing system, write/edit HTML and Tcl, surf the web, check email, Telnet, do word-processing, and even some page-layout. Expensive workstation?
Nope, my plain old SE/30, circa 1989. Runs with 8 megs of RAM, 80 meg hard drive, System 7.1, and has a 10baseT ethernet card. Motorola 68030 processor at 33 mhz, with an FPU (3.9 MIPS). You'd be hard pressed to put together a 386/33 8/80 running Linux with X, much less a 386 that wouldn't unbalance your desk. Faugh!
People bought Macs (the SE/30 in 1989 sold for $4,400) because you couldn't get anything like it ANYWHERE. Totally unique. And that sumbitch is still running. Boots in 25 seconds, too.
If that isn't impressive enough, lemme tell you about my SE (circa 1987, 68000, no FPU, 4 meg RAM, 20 meg HD, Ethernet, sold in '87 w/HD for $3,700) that runs a windowing system, can word-process, edit HTML/Tcl, Telnet, check email, even surf the web (with MacWeb or Lynx).
Bah, you get Linux and X running on a PC/XT (or even AT -- I'm feeling charitable) in 4 megs of RAM, then we can talk.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
It is weird, but people do that a lot. I have even caught myself basing my opinion of a computer on how it looks (although I tend to shy away from pretty little clear boxes with no floppy). One of my friends always based her opinion of a computer on how "big" it was (please no replies to this one). Maybe that could be a good marketing technique: "We have the biggest computers on the market." Whatever.
No, wait! Lets make a list of lists!
Personally I think the whole KDE/Gnome thing is bullshit. People are throwing away effort on code that still has X underneath.
would it be possable to weld MacOS X UI onto the Linux kernal? A unified UI on on the hardware
Linux supports would suddenly give them the appearance of being very popular.
--
When she told me I was average, she was just being mean.
Don't tell me Apple was so foolish as to imbed the UI into kernel?
--
When she told me I was average, she was just being mean.
I implied nothing of the sort...
i was wondering if the linux kernel could be swaped out, so to speak, with the MacOS kernel...
not one-to-one im sure, but...
i mean look at the title, the word GNU was replaced with MacOS(in the title)
--
When she told me I was average, she was just being mean.
Here's some not aimed at specifically at KDE, but at the OS in general.
Click on a file with an unknown extension (yes i know extensions suck but they're even hints for MIME types). On windows, up pops a window asking what program you want to use to open it, and a checkbox to make it permanent. Demonstrate the equivalent in KDE.
How about volume tracking? Having to use a mount command reminds me of using lpadmin for changing print wheels. Quaint.
How about CD Autoplay? (not my favorite feature but occasionally useful)
How about auto-res, a little tray utility where you can change your screen resolution depth.
How about the Documents folder, which contains the stuff you most recently used.
How about drag-and-drop from the file manager equivalent to file->open in 90% of apps.
I suspect most people will reply that such things are irrelevant or that they "suck" - a corollary to NIH syndrome.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
You got it, it's politics. Jean-Louse Gasse was a director of marketing for Apple before he left for Be. Aside from "Apple" and "Marketing" being oxymorons from the whole period between the 1984 ad and the iMac, there's a lot of bad blood between Gasse and Apple, and not a lot of kind words for Steve Jobs even.
And Be wasn't whining about the specs for the PPC, it's the mainboard specs of PowerMacs he needs, and hasn't been getting.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
First, go to MacOSRumors for the latest on the MacOS X kernel. Apple has some of the smartest people in the industry churning out what appears to be the most complete and robust OS yet. The first OS allowing you to both use the best UI AND go down to the command line. Finally and Apple os that uses the PPC to the max, with a fast, responsive UI, great dev tools, tons of features, all the buzzwords and then some, Quicktime, OpenGL, AppleScript, and lots more. When this comes out, i defy ANY ONE who posts here not to at least want to try it once.
It will turn the heads of NT-Centric IT folks
It may finally bring respect to Apple from the *NIX camp.
It will have the highest adoption rate of any OS when it comes out. Fancy boxes aside, this OS will sell hardware. Fast. I cant wait to benchmark it...
"Stuff... In my home!? NEVER!" - Zim on Invader Zim
"I want the toilet seat!" - Little Dog on Two Stupid Dogs
I will say this for Apple - there is a sense of UI integration and consistency that unix will never have. Not just linux, but any unix. There are an amazing number of interface motifs that are pervasive and supported well across apps. Unix UIs are still more or less chrome. The most advanced functionality of WindowMaker is about a decade behind the Mac interface. And WindowMaker is the exception - the rule is crap like Enlightenment, which simply adds more obnoxious chrome without much functionality at all.
While there are disadvantages to the tight integration of hardware and software, Apple's plug and play is still the best - linux users shouldn't even dream of anything like this - it will never happen.
Well, of course if the earth gets hit by an asteroid, you're screwed. The "if Apple goes out of business" argument is ridiculous.
Apple has always had enough money (see the balance sheets on yahoo finance or elsewhere) in the bank to keep going for years. I'm sorry, but that argument is still weak.
Applying traditional sales and market cycles to an OSS project is probably not valid. If someone actually knew exactly how OSS is going to interact with business, they'd be in a great position to make a lot of money. Right now, I see a lot of companies trying various models for doing business as OSS companies..
This 'gaussian cycle' garbage is just an excuse for the author to make ridiculous assumptions about the industry... nothing more.
Gaussian - Shmaussian... That's this kind of a-la scientific numerology drivel that leads to all errors.
There is no Gaussian law for the rise and fall of technology. One can not judge what will be the future technology jsut by looking on charts as it is described in the article.
This author is beyond dumb.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
I'm glad OS X is where it is. But I'd say there are much more 'end-users' on Macs than PC's. And while we can see the goodness of Next in OS X, I think the usual Mac admin will cringe at / anything - which OS X has a lot of. :-) I'm not worried in the least.
I don't think there should be any real concern for Apple snuffing Linux out. I mean, Linux is free - OS * is *at least* $80 - with another $80 update comin out every 6 months (a waste!). PC hardware is (always will be) cheaper and more available than Apple.
The problem I've always had with OS 8.* is that it's not a 'real' multitasking os. The finder is okay, but I'll take X any day over that. Hell, give me a command line over that
While on the surface it does appear that technical creativity does peak in the 20s, I've never seen any definite research on the subject.
However, most CEOs are well past their twenties.
Note that Jobs is playing the role of CEO. I don't believe he does any coding.
SteveM
Sorry dude, the Mac is a fantastic platform.
Once you understand how it runs you can do amazing things. If it crashes and locks it is because you just don't understand the OS.
My 1994 PowerMac 7100AV was capturing video out of the box. I plugged my Yahama DX27 keyboard into a MidiMan and had Finale transcribing what I played in a matter of an hour. And by the time I went to OS 8.0, I could go two weeks without rebooting. Try that with Win95/98.
So to get on with your spew...
They are better for graphics / multimedia.
I own Photoshop, Director, and Quark for both Win and MacOS, and Mac versions are easier to work with. Bryce also renders as fast on an iMac as it does on my PII 400.
OS overhead does not negate speed increases.
MacOS can be very stable and take little overhead if trimmed down from a standard install. And it is much friendlier than Windows in terms of trimming down the OS. Try removing DLLs from your windows directory as easily as I can remove extentions from a Mac System file. (or try thinning down and compiling linux 2.2)*grin*
So learn about your Macs and quit complaining.
- jonbrewer
BTW, I've owned systems based on 680xx, PowerPC, 286, 386, 486, Pentium, Pentium Pro (SMP), Pentium II and Alpha. Liked them all too.
funny you mention size...
I find that it is much easier to impress people with a PC server inside a double-wide 14 bay server case (with redundant PS, of course) than it is to impress them with the same guts in a regular case that would do the same job.
And as stupid as this may sound, it is important to impress people, especially people who pay the bills. You guys just don't know how many times a manager has had me show off cool looking equiptment to customers just because it looks cool. (that's why I prefer to buy purple hubs, yellow Cat5, and chartruse patch cables.)
-JB
About that circus of PC makers enabling the architecture to live forever...
Why would Mac users be screwed if Apple went away?
Standard 72 Pin Simms were used in the first round of Power Macintoshes. Standard SDRAM Dimms are used in the current G3s. Hard disks come in SCSI or IDE. With the advent of MultiSync displays, all Macs became able to use PC monitors. How about PCI cards? Last time I checked you could use many PCI ethernet cards in both Macs and PCs with different drivers. Video cards are different somewhat, but near-identical models can be purchased for PCs and Macs now.
Absolutely the ONLY proprietary hardware is the motherboard and chip.
So I think that if Cupertino fell into the Pacific ocean that mac users would go happily about their business for many years to come. While users may be stuck with an old OS, most certainly wouldn't be bothered with it. I know of many people who are happy running System 7.1 on their older Macs, and don't have plans to upgrade.
And about those older computers they've been left with. Think about how old your fridge or washing machine is. You haven't replaced it because it still does what you bought it to do.
So I think most Mac users would be fine if Apple went away. Of course it won't.
In some cases, form will supercede function ... keep in mind that some folks need a system that is EASY (for the "Average Joe") to use and maintain. In *n[i|u]x, form definitely follows function -- (nearly) everything revolves around text files and is therefore scriptable, searchable, infinitely customizable. But it is also very very very obscure. For people with large brains it is the logical choice because with a little practice all the obscurity becomes transparent and you are left with an infinitely malleable system that bends to your every whim.
On the other hand, some (actually most) people want a somewhat shallower learning curve -- usability will supercede functionality in terms of importance. MacOS currently resides (in my opinion) at the top of the ease-of-use pyramid once you figure in the reliability factor of the "other guys" (WinXX).
What's about to happen with Mac OS X is that Form and Function will begin to unite -- there will be an easy-to-use GUI based on a combination of MacOS and NeXTstep on top of an infinitely customizable unix-like OS. This allows Joe Average to have his GUI and Melvin Unix to have his shell scripting, cron, perl, etc.
Eventually, Linux will need a similar "dumb" front-end if it wants to compete. The current WMs will need to standardize on a more "Windows/Mac-like" interface. I'm not talking about looks and feels here, I'm talking about things like global clipboards, drag and drop, standardized filesystem access.
Like it or not, the Windows 95/MacOS interface is how people expect their computers to function and they will expect it of Linux too.
The problem with the WMs available for Linux is that there are no standards for things like drag and drop, bundled icons, global clipboards... the little things that add usability to a GUI.
Each WM may support the features I mentioned, but they are all implemented differently and to different degrees. This is actually evidence of one of the biggest problems with Open Source software -- anybody with a little bit of knowhow can fork the code and do their own implementation of a feature. This is good for innovation, but bad for standardization.
The tight control that MS and Apple exert over their GUIs is a good thing when you are a non-expert user (or even an expert without the time to struggle with ten different WM implementaions).
I'm all for innovation -- my argument is that without standardization, Linux is never going to be anything more than a geek's tool.
Decide for yourself if that's good or bad.
How come somebody hasn't stepped up to the plate and brought a decent GUI to *nix?
X sucks. On this point there can be no serious argument. But the Linux kernel (for all of my philosophical differences) is an astounding bit of engineering. How is it that there aren't any "fresh" new projects to replace the Abomination Formerly Known As X?
The Linux kernel mated to a font-handling, colorspace managing, consistent GUI would be a hyper-attractive target for ports of graphics tools currently unavailable to *nix (Photoshop, Illustrator, to name just two.)
Curious,
JFB
To spur "enterprise Linux," Big Bang, the distributed two-phase commit.
My, my, so much discussion of how tied Linux is to Intel, and so can't "turn on a dime", like Apple can.
The last time Apple turned, as far as I can see, it did so as though it were a several-million-tons displacement ship. Apple can no more turn on a dime than it can spin straw into gold. Steve Jobs or not. Especially, "Steve Jobs".
When are the Apple fans going to learn? Jobs is of an age where he's, frankly, past it in terms of spotting the "insanely great". Sorry. We all age. I don't understand the culture of 15 year-olds any more, and I'm only 29. But too late for me.
Here's an interesting note: those Technology Review articles about Linux and GNOME and MS's research labs (there was a reference about this on /.; I read the article in my father's issue, while home for Christmas) struck me as missing the obvious factor: all the folks portrayed in the Linux article, with the exception of RMS, were young. The MS-research guys, for the most part, were people who had invented this or that, usually more than 10 years ago. In other words, they were done inventing. They're smart. They have other things to say. But they're past the really creative point for coders. (Don't believe me? Go visit your local maths department.)
Guess which group Jobs fits into?
Nope, not false reports. Commendable marketing savvy. But technically, not even slightly insanely great. Not even a little great. Indeed, not even a new idea.
And not even the world's greatest sales success, considering what's been sold in toto during the last six months of computer sales. The iMac mostly looks good compared to the flatlined sales Apple had been experiencing.
Why would anyone want to move from an open system such as Linux or BSD to a closed system like Apple?
Because most people don't care, at all, if a system is opened or closed. They only want to know: What can it do for me, right now, today?
The only choice you have in the Apple worldview is which of the 5 color boxes you want.
If you know anything at all about Apple, then you know that statement is totally false and nothing but a troll (for which I seem to have fallen).
There aren't even alternative sources for their hardware anymore.
Is Microsoft Windows open? How many alternative hardware sources do they have? See first response.
2nd paragraph: Many errors.
First came the Altos. Then came the Apple I, which you had to build yourself. Then came the Apple II, which you had to program yourself. It had a bus architecture with expansion slots, BTW. Then came the PC, which rocked the corporate world because it was from IBM. Then came the Mac, which rocked science and academia because that's where the smartest people are. Then came the PC clones and MS-DOS, which succeeded for one reason: They were the cheapest way to run the software that was already entrenched! Ease of use or not, openness or not had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Then came Windows 3.0, in which MS annihilated Lotus and WordPerfect with products it ported from the Mac and became the dominant player in applications as well as OS. And the rest is history. There are some unimportant other players I didn't mention because they're unimportant.
Fast forward to 1999. Everyone knows Apple is only a fringe player, despite continuing to set the pace for innovation in the PC market since it started. MS is old news. What's new and exciting? The Internet! The Internet was invented on Unix, which is all that saved that old monolithic kerneled dinosaur from extinction. Well, Linux is pretty cool: a free version of that ancient OS that has a really fanatical following. David v. Goliath... that sells magazines!
Meanwhile, nobody but Unix true believers from the old fart contingent, rebellious teenagers and idealistic original or 2nd wave hippies actually expects Linux to affect MS in the long run any more than a gnat affects an elephant.
More likely is that the Linux/GNU/OSS desktop will become easy enough to use that a whole new class of people start picking up computers.
Not unless it becomes a whole lot easier than the commercial OSes that exist now. Being as easy isn't enough. There has to be a compelling reason not to use the default product. The only way Linux will ever catch on in the mass market without creating a whole new usability paradigm shift is if it develops a critical mass of end user applications.
This point is really important, so I'll repeat it. The one and only factor that makes a PC OS successful or not is having a critical mass of end-user applications. So far, only two OSes have done that: Mac and Windows. The only reason Linux exists at all right now is because it's essentially free. Is this enough of a boost to let it play with the big boys?
It's up to the application programmers to make it happen.
Both use QT/GDK as a platform dependent layer, so all they need to do is change those , and they "should" work on the next big thing (berlin?). At least if the basic system is still a Unix.
I know I will be moderated down for this, but . . . Vincent
He spent a fair amount of time touting the portability of Linux. He explained how easy it was to compile on a new platform by just typing "make." He mentioned Sun helping port Linux to the Sparc. He indicated that Apple had something to fear from promoting Linux on the Mac, despite the fact that they helped put it there.
Then he turns around at the end and dismisses Linux as "tied to the Intel platform"! He claims that Apple will move in on the Windows/Intel/Linux rubble and take over. I'm sorry, but the analogy to armies breaks down here. A free operating system can't run out of food or be weakened by a battle.
There's a project to do exactly this, run
OpenStep apps on Linux. See www.gnustep.org.
Portions are fairly far along.
The big holdup is the Display Postscript
interpreter, which is tricky to write, and
which a lot of things depend on.
Adobe has screwed Apple by refusing to license
DisplayPostscript on reasonable terms, so
Apple itself is having to rework their graphics
system. The "user" version of MacOSX won't
be out for a year at least. I suspect longer.
In the meantime you have to plunk down $1,000
for the software, plus a couple grand for an
apple machine to run it on. it's got some
good tools that are worthwhile if you're an
apple shop--you can netboot MacOS clients
from a server, and WebObjects is a tres cool
web development tool. While I'd cough up some
extra bucks for a little convienience and ease
of use over Linux, I wouldn't cough up that much.
They'd have to sell it at a price point of a
couple hundred bucks or so, in a non-crippled
configuration--capable of having a comipler
and web server and nfs server and sendmail
running on it--before it would be very
interesting.
Apple is technically capable of releasing
Rhapsody/MacOSX on Intel, but won't. They're
back to being a hardware company.
Within 10 or 20 years free software will own just about every segment of the OS market. Most likely Linux will be the top dog, though special-needs niche systems like eCOS or RTEMS for embedded development or *BSD for BSD bigots will have a place. Proprietary systems like Windows or MacOS will have a legacy existence at best.
It's not even because open source solutions will be technically superior in all ways. Maybe in some ways they won't be. MacOS is a lot more novice-friendly today than GNOME or KDE will be for a while, I'd bet. But that doesn't really matter. As long as the open source solution is technically good enough (or even close to good enough) you can't compete.
Free software makes operating systems into a commodity and proprietary systems cannot compete on a commodity level. It's true some may establish themselves as "premium" brands but it would take a damn lot of technical superiority to make the user's while.
Microsoft would keep their Hardware proprietary if they made hardware. Their business model began and continues to be what it is out of self preservation just like Apple.
Perhaps Apple should have allowed cloning earlier, but they didn't and that's that. I think that Apple is much more likely to be willing to coexist with Linux and eventually move to an Open source model than Microsoft.
"The world is a construct of forceful imagination. Those who don't know walk around in the reailties of those who do"
I thnk the author makes some very valid points here. Linux stands the best chance of chipping away at the Microsoft empire until Apple's modern OS gets out the door.
Apple's hands are pretty much tied until it has a viable competitor to both Linux and NT. Linux will never be "mainstream" until it has a decent, intuitive, and easy-to-configure interface attached to it. Gnome and KDE are NOT any of these... at least, not for consumer-level users. The Mac OS interface is.
As for the aesthetics being important, well frankly, I think they are! Steve Jobs definitely hit on something when he designed machines for consumers. Consumers are where the market growth is, not IT departments, not to geeks like us who've been using computers since the 70's, and not to businesses. It's "Joe Six-pack" (as Robert Morgan calls it) who will provide the future of the industry. GM learned this lesson in the 50's when they created a "consumer market" and car culture out of Ford's all black Model T's.
Look where it took them!
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
I think placing these two OS's in even the same sentance when discussing user interface is a serious error. The MacOS has a far more easy to use interface when dealing with: on-screen controls, menus, windows and the window concept, interface consistancy across apps, user interactivity (letting the user "explore" their environment), and forgiveness (try letting a user muck about with a UNIX config file or the registry... BAM errors up the wazzoo; you can put almost anything in the extensions folder without causing damage in the MacOS).
While I agree that more configuration is possible in UNIX systems, it is not made available in an access method to the "consumer" user. What good is configuration if the act of configuring is too complex for the avg. user?
I was refering only to the Mac OS interface vs. UNIX ones... I don't know why you're bringing up WinXX at all...
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
Apple should skip the OS and use Linux. Then port the Mac User Interface to X
-- end result a killer interface (what many people say Linux needs) and lots of boxes sold (what Apple needs).
Hey, at least Intel publishes its hardware standards, and ,well, nothing good to say about MS. Anyway, Apple wants to lock their market down, only Apple hardware, only Apple OS's. Hot news flash, proprietary kills. If you are proprietary, you automatically shoot yourself in the foot. Why do you think that the PC architecture is going strong after all these years, it certainley isn't because of technical supperiority, its because its open! Open source, open standards win every time:)
-Master Switch, one more element in the machine
MacOS, Linux (or any other *nix), and NT are all just different ways getting the job done.
You can spend you whole life (if you can find one) debating the merits of various operating systems and hardware platforms, but when it comes time to do the job, you have to pick the best tool for task at hand. If you try to be religious about your tools, you are going to fail.
I love my Mac, it is easy to use and take care of.
Until something better comes along, I will continue to use Macs as my primary desktop machine.
Unfortunately, Macs (for now at least) suck as servers. That's were Linux (or some other *nix) comes in. Bulletproof servers and easy to use desktops makes for happy people.
Gaussian Curve
Stability
Linux & Hardware
Nimbleness
Just some thoughts.Apple has spent a great deal of money learning what people really want. And as annoying as it may be sometimes, people won't use things they don't want.
/. are not Apple's target customers.
All of Apple's research has shown, for example, that most users prefer a one-button mouse. I, personally, use a three-button trackball, on any machine I possibly can.
But I am not Apple's target audience. Readers of
My Mom prefers a one-button mouse. Most people off the street prefer a one-button mouse. Sure, it'd be nice to have a forty-two button mouse, completely changeable window managers, etc, but who is going to teach everyone to use them?
Read the Design of Everyday Things, by Donald A. Norman, ISBN 0385267746. It's $12.76 at Amazon.com as I write this, and well worth every penny.
Sure KDE offers advantages. So do manual transmissions, but people buy automatics. No one really cares how _powerful_ a tool _can be_, if they don't know how to use it, and don't want to invest the time to learn.
Apple's strengths lie in their (mostly) strict adherance to their Human Interface Guidelines. Ease-of-use is something that many power users forget.
My favorite editor is vi. I can do things with it that people using Word can only dream about. Yet, I'm not teaching my brother how to use it. He uses AppleWorks. It has fewer features than Word, and fewer features than emacs, and yet, he gets far more done with it than he could with either of those, because he really, truly, honestly doesn't care to learn how to use them.
And frankly, that's how the real world works.
i tend to like the idea that apple and linux/OSS be good buddies. after all, apple is first and foremost a hardware company. that's where their money is made and spent, time expended in R&D, etc. better hardware means better performance for hardware-independent oses...
if apple can continue to make powerpc boxes that smoke intel's best offerings, and the oss community can be made comfortable with the platform for development - and a lot has been made of linuxppc lately - then i could very well see a future generation of macs without what some people are calling 'the closed, proprietary macos'
as a developer, i would think taking some of the high marks from the macos - namely the high level of hardware integration, plug and play that works, dammit, etc - and tying them together with a bombproof linux kernel would be a great goal to set for the 'linux desktop' people are looking forward to.
hell, if i could get a disk to eject just by dragging its icon onto an 'eject' icon in X, i'd be thrilled.
- Entertaining Bits from the Ancient Kernel Tree
Hey, is the MacOS X really a modified NeXTStep layered atop BSD atop Mach?
Why could not someone mix and match the MacOSX GUI/WindowManager with Linux? Stranger things have happened...
So all of a sudden, the power and stability and reach of Linux, the power, the ease, the usability of MacOS... Boom! Instant accpetance?
I dunno, NeXT also ran on PCs, so I would assume that the MacOS GUI could also be ported to PCS, atop the BSD core again... And if this is the case, we could have MacOS on top of BSD or Linux running on PPC or x86... Imagine this far out combination:
MacOS atop Linux, running on an AMD K7 using an EV6 motherboard, thereby bypassing all major monopolies, industries, and gaining the best of all possible worlds...
Anyone want to comment?
-Twink
Having looked into KDE myself, and Linux in general, the MacOS UI is pretty darn perfect for their target market...
I'm not sure why you say Apple isn't the last word on user interfaces, because things they do that make mucho sense:
1) one mouse button; no confusion about which button to click, and which one to double click... With 3 buttons that makes 6 choices for click and double click. Curse all you want the fact that you have to alt, ctrl, option click, but it is as intuitive as shift-a for A, for example. I don't see a reason why 2 or 3 buttons are better; more efficient and compact, yes, but better, no. One button limits user to just acting with the mouse, and modifiying actions with the keyboard, ala caps, shift, ctrl, and alt on most regular keyboards...
2)Acutally, cooperative-multitasking...
Not because its slow, inefficent, etc, but because there exists a large portion of the population that would not know what to do with 7 different things at once; I browse 3 Netscape windows, telnet, mp3, ICQ, and RCA all at once, and usually can deal with all throwing data to me at once, but for people who have as much literacy around computers as I have around cars, point and click, and CPU focus are fine; I couldn't deal with it, but its ideal for my dad, for example.
3)One menu bar on top...
Sure its limiting for those who don't use it...
But its like having more than one book at a time, since you can only read one book. Why have several title bars available when you can only act on one at a time? Again, no big deal for computer literates, but for those who stare at a monitor and only see whatever they're working on, a second, third, or fourth menu bar would just confuse them.
4)Drag and drop functionality...
Again, counter to the CLI user group, but for the visual, intuitive, and illiterate crowd. Akin to books with pictures and text for little kids, it gives them something to visualize and see while they learn to grasp the meaning of the text and language. In an OS, it gives them insights into such functionality as redirection, the separation between programs and data, the concept of locations and file organization on a computer, and the concept of a program as an executable, as a different outfit or tool that a computer can use.
There may be many others, but my rant is getting quite long =)
-Twink
Yes, I would like that MacOS GUI, with its ease of use and consistency, and its design considerations running atop Linux, with its power, flexibility, and open source.
If Apple did this, I would have no reservations buying an Apple as my next machine... I would gladly pay the OS tax, as it were, if it were an option to install Linux and place the MacOS GUI as some sort of window manager/desktop environment ala KDE or GNOME.
As for arguments to make your own, Apple already has an excellent one; why waste my time and effort when I could conceivably buy it from Apple?
-Twink
the author of this article doesn't realize why home consumers buy macs: simplicity. does he want to answer the tech support call when mrs. smith from Greendale, Ohio has to edit her inetd.conf?
;)
he also fails to recognize that people who use linux find it, not the other way around. there is a pre-requisite to using linux, and that's knowing how to use linux. all the marketing in the world won't teach this to the customer what to do at a login prompt.
there's also a mention here of the performance of linux far outpacing that of macos. sure, it does when you're benchmarking, but you're not comparing similar environments. the macos uses more overhead to provide user services in the GUI. if you loaded up a window manager which replicates EVERY feature of the macos GUI, i'm sure linux would slow down considerably. you're comparing apples to oranges (pardon the pun.
I do agree that Apple will have a surgence in popularity. With all the technological advancement we've been priveleged to witness, why should computers be problematic? Apple has always been focused on the user. while everyone else is talking about pre-emptive multitasking and protected memory, they've been neglecting the user in favor of the computer. windows is slowly getting easier, but the frustration-factor is still high for some of the most simple tasks. linux is getting easier slowly, but troubleshooting is still far beyond the average user.
apple started out with ease of use, and now with macos X they'll be adding the low-level features. they'll have the horses and the cart. i don't think it will be quite as easy as apple hopes; but a unified api set (carbon) shows promise. they'll sure beat windows2001 out the door.
mKb
I get so tired of this one. $150M does not bail out a $8B company. When Amelio left Apple, they had around a Billion in the Bank!
The $150 was, if you'd been following the news, an investment to cloak a larger payment to settle patent infringements by M$quish.
Also - I would bet the house that Jobs will never allow any substantial open source products from Apple, and if he ever gets canned - that'll be the reason.
Both Linux and Mac OS X (Server release now
announced) are being advertised as being
POSIX compatible, and support lots of the
same development software such as gdb and
emacs out of the box. This is so far from
what other OS vendors have to offer it seems
like the competition will be largely between
POSIX compatible systems that work well with
state of the art free-source software, and
crud like Windows (which must surely loose).
The Revolution. Now available as a convienent six tape series from PBS.
I paid $27.99 for RH 5.2 at best buy. I prolly coulda found it cheaper if I had looked elsewhere, but I'm lazy. :)
-Where the hell is my army of me!