Actually, if they'd just open up the license for Leopard (non server) to be able to be virtualized, modern machines are more than powerful enough to just run old apps in a copy of leopard. I've emailed them this, doubt it will happen though:D
Woz wanted more slots on the apple 2 as well - originally management wanted 4 slots max, he pushed for 8 and refused to do any less. He's a geek. He's not a businessman.
Apple don't want to get into the commodity market - there's no point. They can sell media to PC users already anyway. There's plenty of money in apple hardware and plenty of people willing to pay a bit more to get something that runs OS X and is nice.
There IS however a gap in their lineup between the Mac Pro and the iMac, but realistically the market is only a very vocal minority and I doubt there's much money in it. Most users are fine with an iMac, and if they need more apple would likely rather push them to a Xeon. Those who will refuse to select either of those 2 machines are probably such a small number they're not worth chasing. From a business perspective...
Maybe your time is better spent on #DEFINEs or similar to get your code to work on other compilers? Tying yourself to GCC irrespective of what apple does is not really a wise move.
I'd actually argue the point that BSD folks just want better software. They put the source out there for anyone to use as they see fit, so we can all stop reinventing the wheel (with new bugs) whether it is for commercial closed source applications or not.
If Microsoft were take BSD code and use it to put out a less buggy version of Windows, we all still win. Less spam, less botnets, less congested networks, etc. As Steve Jobs said re: microsoft upon his return: "For apple to win, Microsoft doesn't have to lose". The same applies in this case.
For open source software to flourish, closed source software doesn't have to lose/die.
The GPL crowd seem to believe that for open source to get anywhere, commercial software has to be defeated - and if that means we need to make things difficult for our users or limit the applications of our code, so be it. This is the reason that no truly open, cross-platform standard will ever originate via software developed under the GPL.
One reason for that is because the GCC team won't accept Apple's patches for new versions of Objective-C. Apple want to move Objective-C forward, GCC has become a barrier to that, so they support CLANG/LLVM development. The version of GCC included is simply for legacy support and will be removed in due course once CLANG support for C++ is good enough.
Clang/LLVM also gives you nifty stuff for interfacing with the IDE, far better compilation errors/warnings, faster compile times, etc.
Well, I can't help everyone who goes to a bunch of shitbags for their computer needs. And anyway, just seeing the wifi device show up in the settings is a good enough sign to where I'd take a chance. The smartest thing is to do a little research. If you have only one option as to where you'll buy from (within reason) then go see what they have, then go somewhere else (a library? the unemployment office? tell them it's work-related) and look up the specs and reviews for what's on offer.
The cost is (retroactively) buying hardware that is compatible in advance, and fucking around to make it work if it doesn't work out of the box.
If you frequent macrumors or other mac sites, you will realise that mac owners are some of the most bitchy/picky people on the planet. Apple does NOT get a free pass with their users. Their gear generally works better BECAUSE of this intolerance of existing apple users, not the other way around. Just google some of the complaints about Lion.
Further to this, since I've owned my mac, i've been able to get real work done without having to purchase very many applications at all. Pixelmator, TextWrangler and with iLife and Xcode, i can create/edit multimedia content write native applications, do web development, network admnistration (ssh, and friends are included), etc.
there's a port for freebsd at least, open-vm-tools - that does most of the vmware tool stuff with open-source code. should be available for openbsd too i would suspect?
Meanwhile, i could just skip the shenanigans, order a macbook and everything works out of the box. This is why apple hardware and software sells. Having to do research before buying a machine is for nerds. Nerds aren't even 10% of the population.
Most people want "small, medium or large" as about the only question to worry about, and if macrumors is anything to go by, even making THAT choice is a stretch.
Because the entire point of Ubuntu is that people shouldn't need to make that choice. If you know what you're doing, good for you. For the average user it just makes it harder, means Canonical have to support multiple different desktops with phone support, etc. If you want a different DE you are not the ubuntu target user. Go run Debian or something else.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, if they'd just open up the license for Leopard (non server) to be able to be virtualized, modern machines are more than powerful enough to just run old apps in a copy of leopard. I've emailed them this, doubt it will happen though :D
Woz wanted more slots on the apple 2 as well - originally management wanted 4 slots max, he pushed for 8 and refused to do any less. He's a geek. He's not a businessman.
Apple don't want to get into the commodity market - there's no point. They can sell media to PC users already anyway. There's plenty of money in apple hardware and plenty of people willing to pay a bit more to get something that runs OS X and is nice.
There IS however a gap in their lineup between the Mac Pro and the iMac, but realistically the market is only a very vocal minority and I doubt there's much money in it. Most users are fine with an iMac, and if they need more apple would likely rather push them to a Xeon. Those who will refuse to select either of those 2 machines are probably such a small number they're not worth chasing. From a business perspective...
Maybe your time is better spent on #DEFINEs or similar to get your code to work on other compilers? Tying yourself to GCC irrespective of what apple does is not really a wise move.
I'd actually argue the point that BSD folks just want better software. They put the source out there for anyone to use as they see fit, so we can all stop reinventing the wheel (with new bugs) whether it is for commercial closed source applications or not.
If Microsoft were take BSD code and use it to put out a less buggy version of Windows, we all still win. Less spam, less botnets, less congested networks, etc. As Steve Jobs said re: microsoft upon his return: "For apple to win, Microsoft doesn't have to lose". The same applies in this case.
For open source software to flourish, closed source software doesn't have to lose/die.
The GPL crowd seem to believe that for open source to get anywhere, commercial software has to be defeated - and if that means we need to make things difficult for our users or limit the applications of our code, so be it. This is the reason that no truly open, cross-platform standard will ever originate via software developed under the GPL.
He would, he wants to stamp GNU ownership on everything.
Netapp, Juniper, IX Systems... Apple...
Add Netapp to that list.
One reason for that is because the GCC team won't accept Apple's patches for new versions of Objective-C. Apple want to move Objective-C forward, GCC has become a barrier to that, so they support CLANG/LLVM development. The version of GCC included is simply for legacy support and will be removed in due course once CLANG support for C++ is good enough.
Clang/LLVM also gives you nifty stuff for interfacing with the IDE, far better compilation errors/warnings, faster compile times, etc.
The GPL, and the hostile attitude towards Objective-C support.
The cost is (retroactively) buying hardware that is compatible in advance, and fucking around to make it work if it doesn't work out of the box.
If your time is free, go for it.
If you frequent macrumors or other mac sites, you will realise that mac owners are some of the most bitchy/picky people on the planet. Apple does NOT get a free pass with their users. Their gear generally works better BECAUSE of this intolerance of existing apple users, not the other way around. Just google some of the complaints about Lion.
Further to this, since I've owned my mac, i've been able to get real work done without having to purchase very many applications at all. Pixelmator, TextWrangler and with iLife and Xcode, i can create/edit multimedia content write native applications, do web development, network admnistration (ssh, and friends are included), etc.
What is this mystical work you can't do on a mac?
Are you SURE that certificate presented by Adobe is legit, and their CA hasn't been hacked? Be sure to write your security updates yourself.
That's a linux epidemic...
there's a port for freebsd at least, open-vm-tools - that does most of the vmware tool stuff with open-source code. should be available for openbsd too i would suspect?
marketing
Soon fashion advertisements won't look like they're using pre-pubescent boys in drag any more.
Ahh but OpenCL is apple-developed, and apple is bad at the moment on slashdot.
Meanwhile, i could just skip the shenanigans, order a macbook and everything works out of the box. This is why apple hardware and software sells. Having to do research before buying a machine is for nerds. Nerds aren't even 10% of the population.
Most people want "small, medium or large" as about the only question to worry about, and if macrumors is anything to go by, even making THAT choice is a stretch.
Because the entire point of Ubuntu is that people shouldn't need to make that choice. If you know what you're doing, good for you. For the average user it just makes it harder, means Canonical have to support multiple different desktops with phone support, etc. If you want a different DE you are not the ubuntu target user. Go run Debian or something else.
Who owns all the oil? Who's the USA's best friend in the middle east?
The problem with voting for the smaller parties is that they give their vote to either of the other 2 via preferences anyhow.
Both parties with any hope of winning parliament would have done exactly the same thing.
Because open source has proven to be immune to such things? Puhlease...
Reading comprehension: F
Try again, that wasn't what I suggested. I actually suggested that his opinion is irrelevant as far as the general public goes.