It's interesting to me, a Mac and LinuxPPC2000, user and occasional visitor to/., that the discussions about Apple on/. have changed over the past 18 months. Then, the general concensus was "Apple sucks because the OS is a pile of antiquated monkey crap. And, Jobs sucks because he's an egomaniac" Now, the Apple-haters seem fewer in number (with most complaints still aimed at Jobs' character flaws, real or exaggerated), with the consensus opinion about what Apple makes seeming to be more neutral and wait-and-see-if-they-can-pull-this-off. I don't know why this has happened (and don't ask for numbers to back this up; it's just my impression), but I suspect it has much to do with OSX. Does it? As more and more information gets out about the guts and architecture of the new OS, the/. readers, who call in verbal air strikes on any suspected BS in a minute, seem to be mulling things over. Intrigued, perhaps?
I have a theory that Jobs' real goal was to get to the new OS, from the very beginning. Without a modern operating system, Apple was dead. It was just a matter of time. However, he had to keep the company afloat in the meantime. All the fruit-colored iMacs, then the G4's, and now the Cube, in a real sense, were just means to an end.
Long-term, I don't see anything more important to the platform's survival than OSX, then OSXI, etc.
But I'm curious about my own assumptions about this group. Do you see a difference here, and to what do you attribute it? Do you see yourself giving OSX a try, even, or is it of no interest? What effect are the changes at Apple, including all the product hype and the new OS, having on your own assumptions about what constitutes a good computing experience?
How boring. Consider this: What if Dell and Compaq started bundling a version of OSX for Intel (or one of the other chips)? Most of your arguments would be irrelevant.
I'm not technically competent to comment on the practicality of moving OSX to Intel. But the specultations I've seen on this and other lists about Apple's supposed business plans just don't hold water.
People seem to assume that Apple's only option is to make money by selling boxes. Funny, I seem to have heard of a company in Redmond, WA, that made a few bucks selling an operating system. No hardware sales.
The business model Apple is possibly emulating is right in front of your noses. Don't you suppose that Steve Jobs would like to go for the big enchilada and beat Bill at his own game? He's got the ace up his sleeve -- OSX -- to do just that.
Re:Finally they get something out of the investmen
on
Apple's New Trackpad?
·
· Score: 1
All else stipulated as true, one additional feature that would make me buy one would be thumbprint recognition.
Imagine being able to use a thumb/finger print on the touch pad instead of typing in passwords all day long!
You're exactly right. I appreciate the open source community for what it has accomplished.
However, the recent announcement of Aqua by Apple has somehow changed the landscape. It's beginning to define the meaning of User Experience again, at least by my unscientific sampling of formus here and on Ars Technica, and other places.
It's going to a consumer version of Unix--the first major company to do this, as far as I know--and it's got great mindshare with the consumer market as an innovative company that makes computers that are easy to use. That image is going to be enormously valuable to them. From what I"ve seen, the upcoming OSX Consumer -- and I'm really not trying to start any flames, here, just expressing an opinion -- is what the Linux/OSS community wishes it had. It's got flaws, but basically it carries all of the subtle, powerful attention to detail that has always been the hallmark Apple's UI design.
Apple has screwed up more times than my brother-in-law, but they care deeply about one crucial thing: the UI. They believe that it defines who they are, to a great extent. They failed to develop a truly modern OS for much, much too long, and rested on their laurels for so long they almost got thrown out of the game. But OSX, with all the usual caveats, is a major change. They've got some great plumbing in there, and Aqua will be very popular with the masses. Add WebObjects, NetBooting, Apache, and OSX Client, the ability to use legacy Mac apps, and Cocoa, and you've got something a sys admin can save money on, and users will like.
This is a good point, but may be difficult to pull off by the very nature of the open source community. My guess is that its strength in withstanding M$ is also it's greatest weakness-- decentralization.
All previous models of large-scale, even global marketing -- that's what we're really talking about, after all -- are based on corporate methods and billion-dollar budgets.
What's needed, IMO, is a marketing effort that's coordinated with people like Red Hat. Contributing code won't be enough for this, though. Cash will be required.
The consumer probably has at least two problems with Linux, or any Open Source Software.
One, it sounds kind of good ("Open" is better than "Closed". It's not more complicated than that in marketing), but what is it supposed to do in her life that would make her give up Windows, which, with all of its drawbacks, is still Good Enough? What's so compelling -- from a usability/functionality/price-- point of view to persuade someone standing in front of a cheap PC box at Office Depot pick and OSS over Windows?
The consumer, for whom a computer is just another buy for the house, more often than not, is gonna pick the safe choice, every time. Hell, they'll take their kid's advice before they take yours. Advertising and consistent marketing will help move the bubble, but it's gonna take time, and even then only if it's awfully, awfully good.
Actually, this effort could be kind of interesting. (I obviously like hopeless causes. I'm not signing on for this one, as I already have one, thanks.) How does one take the OSS philosophy and make it work in advertising? How would it be funded? Who would approve the ad copy? Who would hire the ad agency? How would goals be defined? Who watches the budget? How would development be crafted to aim more at the consumer market, and not just the IT market?
If this group has proven anything, it's that it can shape a new paradigm. This, I would guess, has never, EVER been tried before.
This seems a perfect opportunity to let the Vice President know just how welcome it would be for the White House to intervene. Oh, and put ABC News in as a 'cc' on your email. I won't both giving this group the email addresses; I'm sure you can find them. Instead of chewing on this with each other, why not strike a blow for effective Internet feedback?
Does might make right? I think this is the issue here.
I believe this case is about enforcing the rule of law.
We are all harmed if Microsoft is given special treatment just because it's bigger than most nations and has been spreading buckets of cash around D.C., which they have been doing. Remeber the news a couple of weeks ago about how they were lobbying to cut the budget of the DOJ Antitrust Unit?
Unlimited power is dangerous, and must be checked. That lesson has been enforced over and over again throughout history. We cannot depend on the good nature of Microsoft to do the "right thing", any more than Poland could depend on the benevolence of Adolf and the good will of Germany in 1936.
To require Microsoft to cease and desist from the practices Judge Jackson has found they engaged in, and to pay damages where they can be shown to have occured, is nothing more than the minimum we should expect from our legal system.
It may be a quaint point of view these days (god do I sound Old!) but our collective security as a society rests, in large part, on the equal application of the law to everyone, without fear or favor.
Re:A**hole bosses are not confined to IT
on
NetSlaves
·
· Score: 1
They are everywhere. I had a newspaper publisher (I used to be a mnging editor) who was famous among the surviving staff for his staff meetings. One story I favor is the one where he spent 30 minute berating an ad rep until she fainted and slid off the chair. He simply shifted fire to the next poor schmuck and let her lay. Last I heard, he'd gotten fired, but not until he'd ruined a dozen more people. I finally quit, without having another job, because it was either that or choke the life out of him one day. That sort of thing plays hell with the old career plan, believe me. No particular lesson here, I suppose, other than the obvious: A**holes are always with us. Count yourself lucky if you never work for one.
I agree with most of what you say. It's almost as if Netscape has given up. Whipped. I still use Navigator 4.7, but find that with my bad eyes, one feature of IE makes me use it on the increasing number of sites that use microscopic type, or CSS, or both. The Larger/Smaller button on the tool bar (in the Mac version, at least) is a good example of giving the user the power to control the environment. I can blow the type up to readable size, or reduce it for quick navigation on the fly. I like that, and if Netscape added that I'd probably never use IE. I think Microsoft deserves to be drawn and quartered for all the good stuff they've killed in the crib --- and will someone tell Bill Gates he ought to shut up and not do TV interviews anymore. God, what a dweeb!-- but give the Devil his due, the frigging Larger/Smaller buttons are great. Pathetic, ain't I?
Win? They'll "Win"?? A monopolist crushing all opposition is a good thing? Lay off the Jolt, take a deep breath and think for a minute. What will it mean if they "win?" Uncompetitive, mediocre software. Do you really think they'd be as good as they are if the DOJ wasn't threatening them, and competitors were finally figuring out where their weak spots are? Personally, I would rather compute in a world where no one company dominated, where there were several models, more or less balancing each other out. In sports leagues, that's called "equity," and is considered a good thing. What's different here? It's a fact that Microsoft has hurt innovation; if nothing else, that's what this finding of fact points out clearly. I want to barf every time I see Gates mouth the platitudes about Microsoft being an innovator. Good God, Anonymous, can't you see through this Huckster's con? They either bought it or stole it. Innovation my aunt Betty's two-button mouse! Win. Rah Rah. give me a break.
This is true, but no one is claiming that the Mac OS is as stable as UNIX. All I said was that 8.6, and presumably 9.0, will be so much more stable than what we used to have that it begins to approach the kind of stability that UNIX users are so proud of, and what we poor slobs so envy.:-) (Note: sarcasm delivered with affection) But then, my guess is that power and reliability in the consumer -- not the server -- market is what Apple's going for with OSX. If they're able to craft a GUI and user experience that is as elegant and transparent as with the old OS, the consumer market is going to explode for them. Especially if they get Sun to port Star Office Suite over for them. I know for a fact three major offices near me that would convert to Mac in a heartbeat, if they had the Office aps. That may not be important to everyone, but it is their motivation. Or a major one, anyway. After they saw that big bright light at the end of the tunnel a couple of years ago, and heard Aunt Tillie calling, Apple may be excused for going for the homerun. With OSX, they just might have it. We'll see.
Here goes.... Mac OS 9 is the latest in the traditional Mac OS line, following version 8.6. Apple has made tremendous improvements since version 8.1 to stripping out legacy APIS, moving to full TCP/IP networking, and fixing bugs, especially since Jobs came back and Apple bought NeXT. Version 8.6 is very stable, by Mac standards, and approaches that of the Unix world. I do tech support for an office of 30, and have iMacs, G3s and even older models, like the 4400s and 6500's that go days or weeks without crashes or involuntary restarts. OSX is a result of the NeXT deal, and is descended from BSD and NeXT, which I understand from others (I'm no authority on UNIX) means that it's not, strictly speaking, a true version of UNIX. I am using an OSX server, which is my first foray into the UNIX-ish world, and it's been great. Very stable, very slick, very powerful. OSX client, which is due out late this year or early next year, is a workstation/consumer version of OSX with a Mac-like interface, rather than the NeXT GUI that OSX server has. Put together, the OSX family will allow netbooting of all clients (even though you can do that now for Mac OS clients, if you've got the bandwidth) Apache web serving, and UNIX file services, QuickTime streaming, and WebObjects. All in all, it seems like they've got a plan, for a change. A good one. Hope this helps.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a theory that Jobs' real goal was to get to the new OS, from the very beginning. Without a modern operating system, Apple was dead. It was just a matter of time. However, he had to keep the company afloat in the meantime. All the fruit-colored iMacs, then the G4's, and now the Cube, in a real sense, were just means to an end.
Long-term, I don't see anything more important to the platform's survival than OSX, then OSXI, etc.
But I'm curious about my own assumptions about this group. Do you see a difference here, and to what do you attribute it? Do you see yourself giving OSX a try, even, or is it of no interest? What effect are the changes at Apple, including all the product hype and the new OS, having on your own assumptions about what constitutes a good computing experience?
Nope, they're easier to use -- and more powerful -- than ever before. And I say that as a Mac user who suffered through the Performa fiasco.
How boring.
Consider this: What if Dell and Compaq started bundling a version of OSX for Intel (or one of the other chips)?
Most of your arguments would be irrelevant.
I'm not technically competent to comment on the practicality of moving OSX to Intel. But the specultations I've seen on this and other lists about Apple's supposed business plans just don't hold water.
People seem to assume that Apple's only option is to make money by selling boxes. Funny, I seem to have heard of a company in Redmond, WA, that made a few bucks selling an operating system. No hardware sales.
The business model Apple is possibly emulating is right in front of your noses. Don't you suppose that Steve Jobs would like to go for the big enchilada and beat Bill at his own game? He's got the ace up his sleeve -- OSX -- to do just that.
Imagine being able to use a thumb/finger print on the touch pad instead of typing in passwords all day long!
I agree. "Embrace and 'extend'" Old habits die hard.
However, the recent announcement of Aqua by Apple has somehow changed the landscape. It's beginning to define the meaning of User Experience again, at least by my unscientific sampling of formus here and on Ars Technica, and other places.
It's going to a consumer version of Unix--the first major company to do this, as far as I know--and it's got great mindshare with the consumer market as an innovative company that makes computers that are easy to use. That image is going to be enormously valuable to them. From what I"ve seen, the upcoming OSX Consumer -- and I'm really not trying to start any flames, here, just expressing an opinion -- is what the Linux/OSS community wishes it had. It's got flaws, but basically it carries all of the subtle, powerful attention to detail that has always been the hallmark Apple's UI design.
Apple has screwed up more times than my brother-in-law, but they care deeply about one crucial thing: the UI. They believe that it defines who they are, to a great extent. They failed to develop a truly modern OS for much, much too long, and rested on their laurels for so long they almost got thrown out of the game. But OSX, with all the usual caveats, is a major change. They've got some great plumbing in there, and Aqua will be very popular with the masses. Add WebObjects, NetBooting, Apache, and OSX Client, the ability to use legacy Mac apps, and Cocoa, and you've got something a sys admin can save money on, and users will like.
All previous models of large-scale, even global marketing -- that's what we're really talking about, after all -- are based on corporate methods and billion-dollar budgets.
What's needed, IMO, is a marketing effort that's coordinated with people like Red Hat. Contributing code won't be enough for this, though. Cash will be required.
The consumer probably has at least two problems with Linux, or any Open Source Software.
One, it sounds kind of good ("Open" is better than "Closed". It's not more complicated than that in marketing), but what is it supposed to do in her life that would make her give up Windows, which, with all of its drawbacks, is still Good Enough? What's so compelling -- from a usability/functionality/price-- point of view to persuade someone standing in front of a cheap PC box at Office Depot pick and OSS over Windows?
The consumer, for whom a computer is just another buy for the house, more often than not, is gonna pick the safe choice, every time. Hell, they'll take their kid's advice before they take yours. Advertising and consistent marketing will help move the bubble, but it's gonna take time, and even then only if it's awfully, awfully good.
Actually, this effort could be kind of interesting. (I obviously like hopeless causes. I'm not signing on for this one, as I already have one, thanks.) How does one take the OSS philosophy and make it work in advertising? How would it be funded? Who would approve the ad copy? Who would hire the ad agency? How would goals be defined? Who watches the budget? How would development be crafted to aim more at the consumer market, and not just the IT market?
If this group has proven anything, it's that it can shape a new paradigm. This, I would guess, has never, EVER been tried before.
This seems a perfect opportunity to let the Vice President know just how welcome it would be for the White House to intervene. Oh, and put ABC News in as a 'cc' on your email. I won't both giving this group the email addresses; I'm sure you can find them.
Instead of chewing on this with each other, why not strike a blow for effective Internet feedback?
I believe this case is about enforcing the rule of law.
We are all harmed if Microsoft is given special treatment just because it's bigger than most nations and has been spreading buckets of cash around D.C., which they have been doing. Remeber the news a couple of weeks ago about how they were lobbying to cut the budget of the DOJ Antitrust Unit?
Unlimited power is dangerous, and must be checked. That lesson has been enforced over and over again throughout history. We cannot depend on the good nature of Microsoft to do the "right thing", any more than Poland could depend on the benevolence of Adolf and the good will of Germany in 1936.
To require Microsoft to cease and desist from the practices Judge Jackson has found they engaged in, and to pay damages where they can be shown to have occured, is nothing more than the minimum we should expect from our legal system.
It may be a quaint point of view these days (god do I sound Old!) but our collective security as a society rests, in large part, on the equal application of the law to everyone, without fear or favor.
They are everywhere. I had a newspaper publisher (I used to be a mnging editor) who was famous among the surviving staff for his staff meetings. One story I favor is the one where he spent 30 minute berating an ad rep until she fainted and slid off the chair. He simply shifted fire to the next poor schmuck and let her lay. Last I heard, he'd gotten fired, but not until he'd ruined a dozen more people. I finally quit, without having another job, because it was either that or choke the life out of him one day. That sort of thing plays hell with the old career plan, believe me. No particular lesson here, I suppose, other than the obvious: A**holes are always with us. Count yourself lucky if you never work for one.
I agree with most of what you say. It's almost as if Netscape has given up. Whipped. I still use Navigator 4.7, but find that with my bad eyes, one feature of IE makes me use it on the increasing number of sites that use microscopic type, or CSS, or both. The Larger/Smaller button on the tool bar (in the Mac version, at least) is a good example of giving the user the power to control the environment. I can blow the type up to readable size, or reduce it for quick navigation on the fly. I like that, and if Netscape added that I'd probably never use IE. I think Microsoft deserves to be drawn and quartered for all the good stuff they've killed in the crib --- and will someone tell Bill Gates he ought to shut up and not do TV interviews anymore. God, what a dweeb!-- but give the Devil his due, the frigging Larger/Smaller buttons are great. Pathetic, ain't I?
Win? They'll "Win"?? A monopolist crushing all opposition is a good thing? Lay off the Jolt, take a deep breath and think for a minute. What will it mean if they "win?" Uncompetitive, mediocre software. Do you really think they'd be as good as they are if the DOJ wasn't threatening them, and competitors were finally figuring out where their weak spots are? Personally, I would rather compute in a world where no one company dominated, where there were several models, more or less balancing each other out. In sports leagues, that's called "equity," and is considered a good thing. What's different here? It's a fact that Microsoft has hurt innovation; if nothing else, that's what this finding of fact points out clearly. I want to barf every time I see Gates mouth the platitudes about Microsoft being an innovator. Good God, Anonymous, can't you see through this Huckster's con? They either bought it or stole it. Innovation my aunt Betty's two-button mouse! Win. Rah Rah. give me a break.
This is true, but no one is claiming that the Mac OS is as stable as UNIX. All I said was that 8.6, and presumably 9.0, will be so much more stable than what we used to have that it begins to approach the kind of stability that UNIX users are so proud of, and what we poor slobs so envy. :-) (Note: sarcasm delivered with affection) But then, my guess is that power and reliability in the consumer -- not the server -- market is what Apple's going for with OSX. If they're able to craft a GUI and user experience that is as elegant and transparent as with the old OS, the consumer market is going to explode for them. Especially if they get Sun to port Star Office Suite over for them. I know for a fact three major offices near me that would convert to Mac in a heartbeat, if they had the Office aps. That may not be important to everyone, but it is their motivation. Or a major one, anyway. After they saw that big bright light at the end of the tunnel a couple of years ago, and heard Aunt Tillie calling, Apple may be excused for going for the homerun. With OSX, they just might have it. We'll see.
It might run on older boxes, but Apple's only going to "officially support" it on the G3s and later.
Here goes.... Mac OS 9 is the latest in the traditional Mac OS line, following version 8.6. Apple has made tremendous improvements since version 8.1 to stripping out legacy APIS, moving to full TCP/IP networking, and fixing bugs, especially since Jobs came back and Apple bought NeXT. Version 8.6 is very stable, by Mac standards, and approaches that of the Unix world. I do tech support for an office of 30, and have iMacs, G3s and even older models, like the 4400s and 6500's that go days or weeks without crashes or involuntary restarts. OSX is a result of the NeXT deal, and is descended from BSD and NeXT, which I understand from others (I'm no authority on UNIX) means that it's not, strictly speaking, a true version of UNIX. I am using an OSX server, which is my first foray into the UNIX-ish world, and it's been great. Very stable, very slick, very powerful. OSX client, which is due out late this year or early next year, is a workstation/consumer version of OSX with a Mac-like interface, rather than the NeXT GUI that OSX server has. Put together, the OSX family will allow netbooting of all clients (even though you can do that now for Mac OS clients, if you've got the bandwidth) Apache web serving, and UNIX file services, QuickTime streaming, and WebObjects. All in all, it seems like they've got a plan, for a change. A good one. Hope this helps.