It's much easier to measure OS X adoption since most of it is just purchases of Mac computers. It's impossible to do the same with Linux. Who knows how many Linux users there are out there. I've never registered my copy of Linux, for one. That's nice, but the provided stats don't measure hardware/software sales or downloads. They measure marketshare more or less based on internet use. I'm not sure how exactly, and I don't take stats seriously until I learn exactly how they were obtained. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if they were pretty accurate. A couple years ago it was pretty rare to see an iBook or PowerBook on campus, even at my relatively Mac-centric university (UofU). Nowadays, I would say it's pushing half-and-half. If this same trend is occurring on other campuses, OS X marketshare increase is inevitable.
OS X sales can be counted, Linux downloads more or less can't.
Also, those must be US-only figures, surely? OSX 7%!?
Actually, the stats provided aren't based on sales. It's more or less based on internet use. Unless you can come up with some fairly obvious reasons for bias, I see no reasons why the stats wouldn't be accurate.+
Supporting AAC is easy. However, the specific DRM system Apple uses is not licensed to others; rumors abound about why this is, with probably the most sensible explanation being that Apple -- which is theoretically on the hook to the record labels if/when somebody cracks the DRM scheme -- doesn't trust anyone else to implement it.
I don't know about any "rumors," but Apple has already stated why they haven't licensed their DRM. From their website:
Apple has concluded that if it licenses FairPlay to others, it can no longer guarantee to protect the music it licenses from the big four music companies.
If you don't want to read the entire letter, basically it says that having DRM means maintaining "secrets" which would undoubtedly be leaked if the system was available for license. This is true because the content is encrypted, but you also have the key to the encryption so you can play it. The trick of DRM is allowing people to use the key without them knowing how. Considering the rate that information is leaked from Apple (and it is mostly due to 3rd parties), I think he's probably right.
From the same page, Steve Jobs also states that he would prefer not to use DRM, but that it is a requirement to appease the record companies. I don't doubt that Apple [executives] would like a monopoly (who wouldn't), but I agree with you that this lawsuit is frivolous. So far, they really haven't shown the monopolistic qualities that has been shown through Microsoft, etc.
You're already at +5 moderation, but your comment deserves much higher. Dvorak writes flamebaits for the only purpose to get listed on sites like Slashdot a lot. Editors need to ignore this troll so he'll be forced to change his strategy.. perhaps (heaven forbid) go out and make an honest living!
The biggest obstacle to innovation isn't open-source: it's software patents and the associated legal thicket that's being constructed to strangle innovation and thereby preserve the profits of the incumbents.
I'm not sure I agree with this--the software patents part. Patents prevent people "taking" ideas, copying them, and capitalizing on other peoples' work and money (this does not apply to bogus patents, which exist in all industries and are never helpful). Innovation doesn't include copying but rather creating something new, so I don't see how patents are an obstacle of innovation. Or maybe you're arguing that bogus patents stifle innovation which I could agree with.
In other words, patents can be seen as providing the basis for what has already done. Innovation is doing what has not been done, as I would describe it. In a way, you might think that since patents limit what one can do, innovation must be stifled by this, but that's probably not correct. Truly, the existence of limitations actually provide a better environment for creativity and thus innovation. For example, Bach set strict limits in the type of music he wrote (including tonality and the multitude of number games he played), and he was more creative for it. Creativity and innovation exist in doing something cool/useful within and despite the limits imposed on you (in this case, software patents). This is also why we impose limitations on ourselves whenever we embark on a project.
Anyway, clearly the author of this article is either clueless or a troll: the idea that open-source software is stifling innovation is ridiculous. But I don't think that software patents are responsible either.
So because Apple made a partnership with AT&T to reduce their risk in entering a new market, we have to hear people bawl and whine about teh Evilz of APPLE every time someone submits another flamebait on Slashdot? Lovely.
I mean, seriously. Usually companies are flamed her for NOT patching their security holes, but only Apple will be flamed for patching their software.
What surprises me even more is why the hell people and developers bother with Apple products? Seriously, I just don't understand how you can piss everybody off *and* have a large loyal fanbase. I'm not sure who the loyal fans are that are supposed to be so pissed. As a developer, I develop apps for the iPhone/iPod touch because it's a fun platform. I expect Apple to patch their security issues, so that doesn't make me pissed when they do. We'll just have to find a new one until Apple releases their official SDK. No biggie. Honestly, I'd be much more pissed if they _didn't_ patch their own security holes.
As a user, it doesn't make me upset either since I know exactly what I bought. I didn't expect it to do more than advertised, so why would I be upset when I can do even more by way of jailbreak for a while until Apple patches their software? Plus, if there are 3rd-party apps I've come to rely on, there certainly is nobody forcing me to upgrade to Apple's new patch. I'll do it when I'm good and ready. Should I be mad that Apple patches their software? No, that's irrational.
You could try to argue the point that Apple should just patch the bugs and leave the apps, but you would be ignoring the fact that the apps are still unauthorized and (for all they know) malware. Under the current model, it would be a security problem for Apple to leave unknown apps on peoples' iPhones and iPod touches until they have established the "right way" via an SDK and probably some sort of authorization system.
So no, as a developer and owner of an iPod touch, this does not make me angry. Who knows when the official SDK will be ready, but until that time it will be fun trying to jailbreak Mobile Mac OS X again.
Shit. Looks like I'm going to finally become one of those Mac weenies I used to make fun of. It is a great place to be, but remember this: You can be a Mac user without joining the religion. I've been a Mac user since the Quadra 650, observing problems such as DLL hell and the multitude of viruses on the other platform come and go, all the while counting how many times I could have said "I told you so," but didn't. Back in those days, people would sneer or snicker when they found out you used a Mac, but I never snickered back (out loud) when their cruddy system became unstable (which it often did) because I didn't want to join them.
I know what "Mac fanboys" come across as, and so do you, coming from the other side. They sound just as dumb and irrational as those they are trying to convert. Trust me, you don't need to join their religion. I am happy to see MacOS gaining some marketshare because I've known it to be a better experience for over a decade, but I still won't join the choir. You can be a perfectly rational and sane Mac user without becoming a "Mac weenie."
While I've checked my email via SSH and played with the huge cinema displays, I haven't spent more than 20 minutes in the store at that mall and I didn't notice anyone else doing so either. That's interesting, but that hasn't been my experience with the Apple Store at The Gateway in SLC. I actually hadn't even really given in much thought before this article, but it really is kind of a community place. It's always the most packed place in the (relatively small) mall, and people do hang around for quite a while. I haven't bought anything there, but it's usually where I go when I get to the mall too soon, before my movie starts at the Megaplex.
It's common for people commenting on this story to immediately point the finger of accusation at PC Magazine in order to perhaps justify their own use of Linux. Two things:
1. There shouldn't be a need for justification toward yourself or anyone else in this matter.
2. PC Magazine obviously gets money from Microsoft for ads, though it is unknown whether this causes bias in reviews. However, it shouldn't matter where this negative review comes from. If we are rational thinkers, we will consider each point and determine areas where improvement is indeed possible rather than complaining about the source and possibly missing some truth.
PC is supposed to parody Bill Gates? I thought PC was supposed to represent a computer. In any event, Apple's commercials are more funny than the drivel produced by FSJ. That would just be my opinion, though.
Anyway, relax. The story is a hoax produced by FSJ, the author of the blog. It's unfortunate that it's currently being portrayed as fact on Slashdot, but I've learned to not take anything very seriously here.
> It has all the earmarks of a true story......and also many earmarks of a hoax.
Apple's lawyers listing him his assets and threatening his family!? I mean, some on. We joke a lot about lawyers (and they deserve it for the most part in my opinion), but do you think that Apple's legal team would really do this?
Wow. Youareclueless. If you believe what you write regarding Apple's stance on open source software, you have some research to do to remove some of that ignorance.
Yeah, and neither does Apple. Wow you people are retarded.
THIS IS A HOAX! Apple's lawyers never contacted him; they never listed his assets; they never threatened his family. How do you expect Apple's lawyers to even get a list of his assets anyway!?
Of all the stupidity, I can't believe how many suckers here are falling for this, but then perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.
> Perhaps I'm just paying more attention, but it feels to me that Apple is becoming more and more of an Evil Empire(tm).
I think you chose a bad time to start ranting. Apple's source shared private corporate information to Think Secret. (That's illegal.) Apple tries to find out the identity of the source so that the law can be enforced. Think Secret refuses to cooperate, thus preventing the enforcement of the law. What do you think the outcome should be?
Should Apple ignore the situation (instead of pursuing the company's interests), their problem with leaked information would escalate. Should they do they right thing (which they have done) in trying to make sure the LAW is enforced, a few twits on Slashdot will try to make a big deal about it, but Apple owes it to their stock holders (i.e. the public) to not behave like a doormat.
As for the iPod nano, if it's such a big deal for you to have a _green_ iPod rather than a silver one, apparently you have proved that there is increased value in colored iPods. Therefore, the solution is simple: Assuming the iPods are otherwise identical, if the value of having a green iPod is $50 or greater than having a silver one, then get the green one. That's all you have to consider in order to be a rational consumer. These marketing techniques are not unique to Apple by any means. So if you ever get pissed about any product that costs more due to seemingly artifical factors, just remember that products (especially luxury items) are priced on perceived value.
Anyway, there is a lot of other topics more deserving of an "anti-Apple" rant. I don't know why you chose this one...
I think it's quite apparent from the context he was using that he meant user in the sense that you are using the OS, which is accurate whether you made the black box or not. If you're using the router (or whatever), you are using NetBSD in the sense of the word that he used. Either way, it also becomes quite obvious that _somebody_ is using NetBSD, and as it turns out (like the GP pointed out), many people are using NetBSD, in the traditional sense.
I for one don't think it makes you a clueless troll.
It just makes you psychotic.
Every OS since way back when already asserts a successful copy before deleting originals, therefore power backup systems are not required. The root of your problem is that you upgraded too early. If you got screwed over the Leopard bug, well, my advice is to wait 4-6 months before upgrading to new major versions; that's my general philosophy for Linux kernels and other 'critical' software, too. There are many, many ways that software can screw up to cause data loss. That doesn't mean you have to be paranoid and psychotic; just allow others to play guinea pig until the software is proven. Simple.
I don't think your stats are very accurate. Every recent report I've seen has put Mac OS X (PPC and Intel, since they usually count them separately) at 6-7%.
> I mean, even something like MacOS runs pretty good if the hardware it's required to run on is limited enough.
I think the point blew right over you. Mac OS X has nothing to do with Windows running faster on Apple's computers. Dell, as a Microsoft partner, has no excuse not to be able to make a faster laptop for Windows. It has nothing to do with how "streamlined" or "limited" Apple's hardware is because that relates only to Mac OS X.
And hype relates to the actual quality of the product... how?
Seriously, why should the overall quality be judged against hype... I really don't know. Plus, I have never ever heard before or after the launch of the iPhone that is was expect to "liberate US consumers." I assumed everybody knew what it would be... just another Apple product.
> If this were a Microsoft property, people would be screaming bloody murder.
And those people would be wrong, though there is less of a chance they would be corrected since people generally distrust Microsoft around here. There's nothing wrong with that, since Microsoft genuinely does very little to gain our trust.
Regarding this.Mac security flaw, it seems like a serious problem, and I'm surprised it has taken so long for anyone to realize the problem with not providing an interface for logging out. The fallacy many people are coming up with, however, is that Apple's decision to aggressively moderate their support forums is an indication of their position on security. It's not. It's unlikely that their security programmers are the same people who moderate user forums.
The fact that Apple's forum moderators aggressively remove certain posts does not reflect Apple's attitude towards security. It doesn't mean they're sweeping problems under the rug, etc. Their _track record_ is the only thing that will provide you with that sort of information. How long does it take them to address security flaws? Etc, etc. There is definitely a system put into place to allow users to report bugs (and even feature requests, etc.) directly to those who can use that information, and the support forums are not that system.
I'm sorry you can't understand it, but it's true. Some people limit their view of capitalism exclusively to the writings of Adam Smith, but he is merely one contributer, and he certainly wasn't the first to write about the ideas that make up capitalism. I'm sorry your education has apparently been so limited that he is the only one to whom you can refer.
So let me again reiterate: Scarcity is not an ideal of capitalism, and therefore it certainly isn't a requirement or anything like that. Go back and read your Aristotle and your Confucius.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, many people buy Apple computers for their hardware. Either way, it's good to have choice huh?
OS X sales can be counted, Linux downloads more or less can't.
Also, those must be US-only figures, surely? OSX 7%!?
Actually, the stats provided aren't based on sales. It's more or less based on internet use. Unless you can come up with some fairly obvious reasons for bias, I see no reasons why the stats wouldn't be accurate.+Supporting AAC is easy. However, the specific DRM system Apple uses is not licensed to others; rumors abound about why this is, with probably the most sensible explanation being that Apple -- which is theoretically on the hook to the record labels if/when somebody cracks the DRM scheme -- doesn't trust anyone else to implement it.
I don't know about any "rumors," but Apple has already stated why they haven't licensed their DRM. From their website:http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
If you don't want to read the entire letter, basically it says that having DRM means maintaining "secrets" which would undoubtedly be leaked if the system was available for license. This is true because the content is encrypted, but you also have the key to the encryption so you can play it. The trick of DRM is allowing people to use the key without them knowing how. Considering the rate that information is leaked from Apple (and it is mostly due to 3rd parties), I think he's probably right.
From the same page, Steve Jobs also states that he would prefer not to use DRM, but that it is a requirement to appease the record companies. I don't doubt that Apple [executives] would like a monopoly (who wouldn't), but I agree with you that this lawsuit is frivolous. So far, they really haven't shown the monopolistic qualities that has been shown through Microsoft, etc.
You're already at +5 moderation, but your comment deserves much higher. Dvorak writes flamebaits for the only purpose to get listed on sites like Slashdot a lot. Editors need to ignore this troll so he'll be forced to change his strategy.. perhaps (heaven forbid) go out and make an honest living!
The biggest obstacle to innovation isn't open-source: it's software patents and the associated legal thicket that's being constructed to strangle innovation and thereby preserve the profits of the incumbents.
I'm not sure I agree with this--the software patents part. Patents prevent people "taking" ideas, copying them, and capitalizing on other peoples' work and money (this does not apply to bogus patents, which exist in all industries and are never helpful). Innovation doesn't include copying but rather creating something new, so I don't see how patents are an obstacle of innovation. Or maybe you're arguing that bogus patents stifle innovation which I could agree with.
In other words, patents can be seen as providing the basis for what has already done. Innovation is doing what has not been done, as I would describe it. In a way, you might think that since patents limit what one can do, innovation must be stifled by this, but that's probably not correct. Truly, the existence of limitations actually provide a better environment for creativity and thus innovation. For example, Bach set strict limits in the type of music he wrote (including tonality and the multitude of number games he played), and he was more creative for it. Creativity and innovation exist in doing something cool/useful within and despite the limits imposed on you (in this case, software patents). This is also why we impose limitations on ourselves whenever we embark on a project.
Anyway, clearly the author of this article is either clueless or a troll: the idea that open-source software is stifling innovation is ridiculous. But I don't think that software patents are responsible either.
So because Apple made a partnership with AT&T to reduce their risk in entering a new market, we have to hear people bawl and whine about teh Evilz of APPLE every time someone submits another flamebait on Slashdot? Lovely.
I mean, seriously. Usually companies are flamed her for NOT patching their security holes, but only Apple will be flamed for patching their software.
I'm not sure who the loyal fans are that are supposed to be so pissed. As a developer, I develop apps for the iPhone/iPod touch because it's a fun platform. I expect Apple to patch their security issues, so that doesn't make me pissed when they do. We'll just have to find a new one until Apple releases their official SDK. No biggie. Honestly, I'd be much more pissed if they _didn't_ patch their own security holes.
As a user, it doesn't make me upset either since I know exactly what I bought. I didn't expect it to do more than advertised, so why would I be upset when I can do even more by way of jailbreak for a while until Apple patches their software? Plus, if there are 3rd-party apps I've come to rely on, there certainly is nobody forcing me to upgrade to Apple's new patch. I'll do it when I'm good and ready. Should I be mad that Apple patches their software? No, that's irrational.
You could try to argue the point that Apple should just patch the bugs and leave the apps, but you would be ignoring the fact that the apps are still unauthorized and (for all they know) malware. Under the current model, it would be a security problem for Apple to leave unknown apps on peoples' iPhones and iPod touches until they have established the "right way" via an SDK and probably some sort of authorization system.
So no, as a developer and owner of an iPod touch, this does not make me angry. Who knows when the official SDK will be ready, but until that time it will be fun trying to jailbreak Mobile Mac OS X again.
I know what "Mac fanboys" come across as, and so do you, coming from the other side. They sound just as dumb and irrational as those they are trying to convert. Trust me, you don't need to join their religion. I am happy to see MacOS gaining some marketshare because I've known it to be a better experience for over a decade, but I still won't join the choir. You can be a perfectly rational and sane Mac user without becoming a "Mac weenie."
It's common for people commenting on this story to immediately point the finger of accusation at PC Magazine in order to perhaps justify their own use of Linux. Two things:
1. There shouldn't be a need for justification toward yourself or anyone else in this matter.
2. PC Magazine obviously gets money from Microsoft for ads, though it is unknown whether this causes bias in reviews. However, it shouldn't matter where this negative review comes from. If we are rational thinkers, we will consider each point and determine areas where improvement is indeed possible rather than complaining about the source and possibly missing some truth.
> This isn't about record companies deciding DRM is bad. It is about making sure Apple doesn't control the distribution of digital media.
Of course, and moving to no DRM was Apple's idea in the first place. They're really afraid of Apple.
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/09/1653255
PC is supposed to parody Bill Gates? I thought PC was supposed to represent a computer. In any event, Apple's commercials are more funny than the drivel produced by FSJ. That would just be my opinion, though.
Anyway, relax. The story is a hoax produced by FSJ, the author of the blog. It's unfortunate that it's currently being portrayed as fact on Slashdot, but I've learned to not take anything very seriously here.
Cheers.
> It has all the earmarks of a true story... ...and also many earmarks of a hoax.
Apple's lawyers listing him his assets and threatening his family!? I mean, some on. We joke a lot about lawyers (and they deserve it for the most part in my opinion), but do you think that Apple's legal team would really do this?
Wow. You are clueless. If you believe what you write regarding Apple's stance on open source software, you have some research to do to remove some of that ignorance.
> Even Microsoft doesn't do this bullshit.
Yeah, and neither does Apple. Wow you people are retarded.
THIS IS A HOAX! Apple's lawyers never contacted him; they never listed his assets; they never threatened his family. How do you expect Apple's lawyers to even get a list of his assets anyway!?
Of all the stupidity, I can't believe how many suckers here are falling for this, but then perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.
> Perhaps I'm just paying more attention, but it feels to me that Apple is becoming more and more of an Evil Empire(tm).
I think you chose a bad time to start ranting. Apple's source shared private corporate information to Think Secret. (That's illegal.) Apple tries to find out the identity of the source so that the law can be enforced. Think Secret refuses to cooperate, thus preventing the enforcement of the law. What do you think the outcome should be?
Should Apple ignore the situation (instead of pursuing the company's interests), their problem with leaked information would escalate. Should they do they right thing (which they have done) in trying to make sure the LAW is enforced, a few twits on Slashdot will try to make a big deal about it, but Apple owes it to their stock holders (i.e. the public) to not behave like a doormat.
As for the iPod nano, if it's such a big deal for you to have a _green_ iPod rather than a silver one, apparently you have proved that there is increased value in colored iPods. Therefore, the solution is simple: Assuming the iPods are otherwise identical, if the value of having a green iPod is $50 or greater than having a silver one, then get the green one. That's all you have to consider in order to be a rational consumer. These marketing techniques are not unique to Apple by any means. So if you ever get pissed about any product that costs more due to seemingly artifical factors, just remember that products (especially luxury items) are priced on perceived value.
Anyway, there is a lot of other topics more deserving of an "anti-Apple" rant. I don't know why you chose this one...
I think it's quite apparent from the context he was using that he meant user in the sense that you are using the OS, which is accurate whether you made the black box or not. If you're using the router (or whatever), you are using NetBSD in the sense of the word that he used. Either way, it also becomes quite obvious that _somebody_ is using NetBSD, and as it turns out (like the GP pointed out), many people are using NetBSD, in the traditional sense.
Thankyou. You've just reminded my why I like BSD so much. Really, thanks. I'd almost forgotten.
I for one don't think it makes you a clueless troll.
It just makes you psychotic.
Every OS since way back when already asserts a successful copy before deleting originals, therefore power backup systems are not required. The root of your problem is that you upgraded too early. If you got screwed over the Leopard bug, well, my advice is to wait 4-6 months before upgrading to new major versions; that's my general philosophy for Linux kernels and other 'critical' software, too. There are many, many ways that software can screw up to cause data loss. That doesn't mean you have to be paranoid and psychotic; just allow others to play guinea pig until the software is proven. Simple.
I don't think your stats are very accurate. Every recent report I've seen has put Mac OS X (PPC and Intel, since they usually count them separately) at 6-7%.
Thanks, though.
> I mean, even something like MacOS runs pretty good if the hardware it's required to run on is limited enough.
I think the point blew right over you. Mac OS X has nothing to do with Windows running faster on Apple's computers. Dell, as a Microsoft partner, has no excuse not to be able to make a faster laptop for Windows. It has nothing to do with how "streamlined" or "limited" Apple's hardware is because that relates only to Mac OS X.
And hype relates to the actual quality of the product... how?
Seriously, why should the overall quality be judged against hype... I really don't know. Plus, I have never ever heard before or after the launch of the iPhone that is was expect to "liberate US consumers." I assumed everybody knew what it would be... just another Apple product.
> If this were a Microsoft property, people would be screaming bloody murder.
.Mac security flaw, it seems like a serious problem, and I'm surprised it has taken so long for anyone to realize the problem with not providing an interface for logging out. The fallacy many people are coming up with, however, is that Apple's decision to aggressively moderate their support forums is an indication of their position on security. It's not. It's unlikely that their security programmers are the same people who moderate user forums.
And those people would be wrong, though there is less of a chance they would be corrected since people generally distrust Microsoft around here. There's nothing wrong with that, since Microsoft genuinely does very little to gain our trust.
Regarding this
The fact that Apple's forum moderators aggressively remove certain posts does not reflect Apple's attitude towards security. It doesn't mean they're sweeping problems under the rug, etc. Their _track record_ is the only thing that will provide you with that sort of information. How long does it take them to address security flaws? Etc, etc. There is definitely a system put into place to allow users to report bugs (and even feature requests, etc.) directly to those who can use that information, and the support forums are not that system.
> Just what is that supposed to mean anyway?
I'm sorry you can't understand it, but it's true. Some people limit their view of capitalism exclusively to the writings of Adam Smith, but he is merely one contributer, and he certainly wasn't the first to write about the ideas that make up capitalism. I'm sorry your education has apparently been so limited that he is the only one to whom you can refer.
So let me again reiterate: Scarcity is not an ideal of capitalism, and therefore it certainly isn't a requirement or anything like that. Go back and read your Aristotle and your Confucius.