Re:Its hard to take this kind of criticism serious
on
Another Look At OS X
·
· Score: 2
Physical distros serve two purposes -- (1) to serve as a token of ownership; and (2) to serve as a vehicle to reduce the amount of time/bandwidth necessary to install the software.
That may be true for Linux, but a commercial OS (like OS X) has to have as few bugs as possible. Most users never run any updates at all. Major bugs and even missing features will stay in the OS for a long time, even if there is an update available. Microsoft and Apple both try hard to get more people to keep their software updated (using tools such as the Software Update control panel), but it is very hard to teach most people that there is more to the OS than the CD.
That said, this release of OS X is not really intended for the average consumer (whatever that means); it's meant for people who pretty much know what they're doing with a computer. Those types will be much more likely to download OS updates than most, but it's still a falsity to say that the OS X CD's job is to "serve as a vehicle to reduce the amount of time/bandwidth necessary to install the software."
Apple is clearly targeting this release to the geeky crowd. They want to make it clear that OS X really is Unix; hence, the inclusion of developer tools in the box (remember that you had to download them in the public beta; you couldn't compile anything in the default install).
On a related note, the only Apple ad for OS X I've seen is on Slashdot. They may be low keying the 10.0 release for consumers, but they definitely want to get as many people who can program as possible familiar with OS X as soon as possible. In July, ads for OS X 10.1 will be on every prime time TV show and every web site you can find, but they're nowhere to be found right now (except on Slashdot).
At my school, object oriented programming is taught from the very beginning. When they use a language, it's Java, although most of the lectures are not about any specific language at all. They are very proud that "we teach CS like no other school in the country." However, last month, they did not give tenure to the assistant professor who teaches (and designed) the intro curriculum. Now, the school wants to go to a more 'traditional' (read: pragmatic and vocational) CS curriculum. I don't get their logic.
I'm not sure exactly what they'll do next year; I don't know whether they're just going to modify the previous professor's curriculum a little or start from scratch. If they do start from scratch, I hope they do stay with OOP from the beginning (and I'll be taking the intro course next semester, so they better have it ready).
(In the interest of full disclosure, note that I (a freshmen this year) did not take any CS courses, so everything I know about the curriculum is based on one conversation with the professor and a few friends who are in the intro course.)
The DVD player does not work in Classic (I've tried it on the public beta). Classic can only read devices that OS X itself knows how to read; OS X does not let Classic get at any hardware devices directly.
This article (<http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0102/28.o sx.shtml>) on MacCentral starts off:
When Mac OS X arrives next month, it probably won't have every item that users will want. Ken Bereskin, the company's OS X product manager, told MacCentral that DVD playback won't be initially available. He also noted that, although X versions of iTunes and iMovie are in the works, they "probably won't" ship on the March 24 OS CD.
Seeing as there probably won't be any real major game releases until later in the Spring/early Summer, the accelerated video is not as important as you think it is.
Remember that Quake 3 is already out for Mac OS X.
That said, I do realize that most hard core gamers will not be among the early adopters of OS X, especially not without good accelerated video support.
Q. Why is Apple opening up its source?
We believe the open source model is the most effective form of development for certain types of software. By pooling expertise with the open source development community, we expect to improve the quality, performance and feature set of our software.
Secondly, we realize many developers enjoy working with open source software, and we want to provide them the opportunity to use that kind of environment while delivering solutions for Apple customers.
...
Q. How did you come up with the Apple Public Source License (APSL)?
First, we studied several of the open and community source models that currently exist, including the Free Software Foundation's General Public License (GPL), BSD license, Apache license, Netscape and Mozilla Public Licenses, and Sun's Community Source License. Drawing from those examples, we drafted the APSL in an effort to promote open source development of our software while at the same time allowing Apple to reasonably protect our intellectual property and meet our business goals. We are grateful for the many community members who put significant time and effort into helping us revise the APSL to create version 1.2.
Apple never claimed to offer free software; they are merely offering interested programmers the opportunity to work on Darwin, as long as they're willing to do so under Apple's terms. Apple has the right to protect their intellectual property (yes, intellectual property exists; I'm not going to waste my time refuting claims that it doesn't), and they still own Darwin (as stated in the APSL).
Why doesn't Stallman attack the licenses for every other commercial piece of software? The fact that Apple is releasing a portion of the OS X source code does not mean that they're making Darwin truly free.
Marathon is a 6-year-old game; of course its engine is not going to compete with Q3 or Unreal Tournament. Bungie GPL'd it largely because they aren't going to sell many more copies anyway (and those that they will sell will probably still be sold even though the source code is available freely); they'll probably benefit more from the promotion of the franchise via stories like this one. After all, Halo is based on the Marathon universe; if Marathon starts getting back in the news and is ported to more platforms, that's great free marketing for Bungie.
That said, I also like to think that Bungie was just a really cool company (now a fairly cool studio in Redmond) that GPL'd Marathon because they really want to see the game take on a new life.
That sort of concept is basically how users interact with computers in Star Trek or 2001: A Space Odyssey for relatively basic tasks. (They do it vocally rather than through a keyboard, but that doesn't really matter.) Clearly, 'intelligent' computers that can understand plain English (or Spanish, Japanese, Swahili, whatever) commands are the ultimate goal in user interface design. However, is the technology really there, or will it be any time soon?
For that kind of interface to work, it has to be implemented very well. You can't have a computer that acts like a human who understands most English, but won't be able to interpret slang commands or any command that it doesn't already know.
We all hate user interfaces that try but fail to be intelligent; when computers start trying to do what they think we meant rather than what we said and are wrong, they only get in the way. Therefore, the computer has to be right almost all the time when it interprets our commands; until computers can do that, they need a pre-defined set of commands (either character strings in a command line or buttons/ controls in a GUI) and very predictable responses to every set of commands.
while there are some nice elements of System/MacOS, I find that using an OS designed for 3rd Graders/Grandmothers a bit annoying. I dealt with too many problems on Apple's Mac OS in the 6.0-7.5 levels to want to think about their old-designed, cooperative multitasking OS, and while this may sound like a dis on it's creator, it is. At school I often use HP Terminals running CDE, and while not perfect, they're not too much harder than the MacOS, I click on the little pictures at the bottom, and the apps launch. I click the close box, and the app goes away. If grannies and 3rd graders want an easier to use OS, fine, but don't expect me to really care about it...
And who says that UNIX can't be made at least somewhat usable to Joe Schmoe?
Mac OS X has very little to do with Mac OS 6.0-7.5, and the relationship between them is only on the surface. (Hell, not one machine that can run Mac OS 7.5 will run OS X.) Mac OS X is not an "old-designed, cooperative multitasking OS;" it is "UNIX... made at least somewhat usable to Joe Schmoe."
The Mac OS's strength has always been its powerful but easy to use (the two are not mutually exclusive) interface. It was never designed for novices; it was designed so that the computer does not get in the way of the user's work (as Raskin said). The user could be a third grader or any power user who could stand the OS's admittedly weak underpinnings. The lack of a command line does not make Mac OS < 10 a toy for third graders and grandmothers; it makes it a tool that a relatively large audience can use relatively efficiently, whether they be third graders, grandmothers, or people who know computers very well and have real work to get done.
At the risk of pointing at the blatantly obvious, Mac OS X has a GUI that seems like it will be at least decent (it may not be as mature as Mac OS 9 until version X.1 or X.2) coupled with a command line (for those who want it) all built on top of a buzzword compliant core.
Therefore, Mac OS X is an OS that third graders can and 'power users' can both use as they see fit. I've been running the Public Beta for 4 months now, and this is definitely not your grandmother's OS (although mine will be using it:) ).
Apple is a 'total product' company
on
OS X on x86?
·
· Score: 3
Apple sells a vertically integrated product. They control the hardware and the software. That is why Macs are historically more reliable and easier to configure: there is one company controlling everything. That advantage started to erode when Apple allowed clones; therefore, Jobs killed them (smartly, in 20/20 hindsight).
Apple is able to largely avoid hardware conflicts because there are only 5 current machines (PowerBook, iBook, G4 Tower, G4 Cube, iMac) that run the Mac OS. Apple tests their products extensively on every machine that can run them from the past few years. Microsoft could never test their products on all the machines that run their software.
Apple makes their money by selling superior hardware. However, people buy the hardware because of Apple's superior software (Mac OS). If Apple allowed other companies to sell computer that would run Mac OS X, they would lose the advantage of controlling everything about the boxes they sell. In the end, it doesn't matter whether the chip inside the computer is a PPC or an x86; it matters that only Apple can produce a Mac.
Poor kids can't afford to play Everquest on a P4 with a 20" monitor and a broadband connection, but any kid that has power and a phone line can scrape together the cash to get on the net with a cheap Linux box and an old modem.
Most people on Slashdot could grab an old computer, set it up with Linux and an old modem, and get it on the net, but we have, for the most part, had access to much more expensive machinery. Kids are not born with the ability to set up Linux (or MacOS, or Windows, or whatever); in order to learn how to use computers, one has to have access to them. Only once kids know how to use computer can they get one set up for next to nothing.
Bush's administration probably will drop the case against Microsoft, but he will do it because he doesn't care about anyone but the big businesses that bankrolled his election.
It may be true that Microsoft will lose it's dominance because of market forces anyway, but the fact that Bush will drop the case should scare us because he is disappointed that Gates might lose a few billion dollars; if that happens to many big businesses, who will pay for Bush's reelection campaign?
Come on; Bush Sr. was president for 4 years relatively early in the 'PC boom.' Clinton was president for 8 years when practically every teenager from a moderately wealthy family (read: time on his hands) had a computer with net access. Of course Clinton's administration busted more hackers than Bush Sr.'s; there were a lot more hackers to bust.
Apple will lose everything if they ship Intel OSX
on
NeXT Lives -- In Apple
·
· Score: 1
If Apple ships OS X on Intel and directly competes with Microsoft, Microsoft will cut development of Office for Mac. End of Mac platform as a viable option. Have a nice day, Apple.
It sucks, but that's the reality.
(In addition, Apple is, has been, and always will be a hardware company.)
Start labeling these bombers as American Airlines planes, and every real American Airlines plane will be a legitimate target for all the terrorists and rogue nations in the world. I don't think that even the U.S. military is that stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
That may be true for Linux, but a commercial OS (like OS X) has to have as few bugs as possible. Most users never run any updates at all. Major bugs and even missing features will stay in the OS for a long time, even if there is an update available. Microsoft and Apple both try hard to get more people to keep their software updated (using tools such as the Software Update control panel), but it is very hard to teach most people that there is more to the OS than the CD.
That said, this release of OS X is not really intended for the average consumer (whatever that means); it's meant for people who pretty much know what they're doing with a computer. Those types will be much more likely to download OS updates than most, but it's still a falsity to say that the OS X CD's job is to "serve as a vehicle to reduce the amount of time/bandwidth necessary to install the software."
Apple is clearly targeting this release to the geeky crowd. They want to make it clear that OS X really is Unix; hence, the inclusion of developer tools in the box (remember that you had to download them in the public beta; you couldn't compile anything in the default install).
On a related note, the only Apple ad for OS X I've seen is on Slashdot. They may be low keying the 10.0 release for consumers, but they definitely want to get as many people who can program as possible familiar with OS X as soon as possible. In July, ads for OS X 10.1 will be on every prime time TV show and every web site you can find, but they're nowhere to be found right now (except on Slashdot).
At my school, object oriented programming is taught from the very beginning. When they use a language, it's Java, although most of the lectures are not about any specific language at all. They are very proud that "we teach CS like no other school in the country." However, last month, they did not give tenure to the assistant professor who teaches (and designed) the intro curriculum. Now, the school wants to go to a more 'traditional' (read: pragmatic and vocational) CS curriculum. I don't get their logic.
I'm not sure exactly what they'll do next year; I don't know whether they're just going to modify the previous professor's curriculum a little or start from scratch. If they do start from scratch, I hope they do stay with OOP from the beginning (and I'll be taking the intro course next semester, so they better have it ready).
(In the interest of full disclosure, note that I (a freshmen this year) did not take any CS courses, so everything I know about the curriculum is based on one conversation with the professor and a few friends who are in the intro course.)
The DVD player does not work in Classic (I've tried it on the public beta). Classic can only read devices that OS X itself knows how to read; OS X does not let Classic get at any hardware devices directly.
This article (<http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0102/28.o sx.shtml>) on MacCentral starts off:
Remember that Quake 3 is already out for Mac OS X.
That said, I do realize that most hard core gamers will not be among the early adopters of OS X, especially not without good accelerated video support.
Apple never claimed to offer free software; they are merely offering interested programmers the opportunity to work on Darwin, as long as they're willing to do so under Apple's terms. Apple has the right to protect their intellectual property (yes, intellectual property exists; I'm not going to waste my time refuting claims that it doesn't), and they still own Darwin (as stated in the APSL).
Why doesn't Stallman attack the licenses for every other commercial piece of software? The fact that Apple is releasing a portion of the OS X source code does not mean that they're making Darwin truly free.
Marathon is a 6-year-old game; of course its engine is not going to compete with Q3 or Unreal Tournament. Bungie GPL'd it largely because they aren't going to sell many more copies anyway (and those that they will sell will probably still be sold even though the source code is available freely); they'll probably benefit more from the promotion of the franchise via stories like this one. After all, Halo is based on the Marathon universe; if Marathon starts getting back in the news and is ported to more platforms, that's great free marketing for Bungie.
That said, I also like to think that Bungie was just a really cool company (now a fairly cool studio in Redmond) that GPL'd Marathon because they really want to see the game take on a new life.
That sort of concept is basically how users interact with computers in Star Trek or 2001: A Space Odyssey for relatively basic tasks. (They do it vocally rather than through a keyboard, but that doesn't really matter.) Clearly, 'intelligent' computers that can understand plain English (or Spanish, Japanese, Swahili, whatever) commands are the ultimate goal in user interface design. However, is the technology really there, or will it be any time soon?
For that kind of interface to work, it has to be implemented very well. You can't have a computer that acts like a human who understands most English, but won't be able to interpret slang commands or any command that it doesn't already know.
We all hate user interfaces that try but fail to be intelligent; when computers start trying to do what they think we meant rather than what we said and are wrong, they only get in the way. Therefore, the computer has to be right almost all the time when it interprets our commands; until computers can do that, they need a pre-defined set of commands (either character strings in a command line or buttons/ controls in a GUI) and very predictable responses to every set of commands.
Mac OS X has very little to do with Mac OS 6.0-7.5, and the relationship between them is only on the surface. (Hell, not one machine that can run Mac OS 7.5 will run OS X.) Mac OS X is not an "old-designed, cooperative multitasking OS;" it is "UNIX... made at least somewhat usable to Joe Schmoe."
The Mac OS's strength has always been its powerful but easy to use (the two are not mutually exclusive) interface. It was never designed for novices; it was designed so that the computer does not get in the way of the user's work (as Raskin said). The user could be a third grader or any power user who could stand the OS's admittedly weak underpinnings. The lack of a command line does not make Mac OS < 10 a toy for third graders and grandmothers; it makes it a tool that a relatively large audience can use relatively efficiently, whether they be third graders, grandmothers, or people who know computers very well and have real work to get done.
At the risk of pointing at the blatantly obvious, Mac OS X has a GUI that seems like it will be at least decent (it may not be as mature as Mac OS 9 until version X.1 or X.2) coupled with a command line (for those who want it) all built on top of a buzzword compliant core.
Therefore, Mac OS X is an OS that third graders can and 'power users' can both use as they see fit. I've been running the Public Beta for 4 months now, and this is definitely not your grandmother's OS (although mine will be using it :) ).
Apple sells a vertically integrated product. They control the hardware and the software. That is why Macs are historically more reliable and easier to configure: there is one company controlling everything. That advantage started to erode when Apple allowed clones; therefore, Jobs killed them (smartly, in 20/20 hindsight).
Apple is able to largely avoid hardware conflicts because there are only 5 current machines (PowerBook, iBook, G4 Tower, G4 Cube, iMac) that run the Mac OS. Apple tests their products extensively on every machine that can run them from the past few years. Microsoft could never test their products on all the machines that run their software.
Apple makes their money by selling superior hardware. However, people buy the hardware because of Apple's superior software (Mac OS). If Apple allowed other companies to sell computer that would run Mac OS X, they would lose the advantage of controlling everything about the boxes they sell. In the end, it doesn't matter whether the chip inside the computer is a PPC or an x86; it matters that only Apple can produce a Mac.
Most people on Slashdot could grab an old computer, set it up with Linux and an old modem, and get it on the net, but we have, for the most part, had access to much more expensive machinery. Kids are not born with the ability to set up Linux (or MacOS, or Windows, or whatever); in order to learn how to use computers, one has to have access to them. Only once kids know how to use computer can they get one set up for next to nothing.
Bush's administration probably will drop the case against Microsoft, but he will do it because he doesn't care about anyone but the big businesses that bankrolled his election.
It may be true that Microsoft will lose it's dominance because of market forces anyway, but the fact that Bush will drop the case should scare us because he is disappointed that Gates might lose a few billion dollars; if that happens to many big businesses, who will pay for Bush's reelection campaign?
Come on; Bush Sr. was president for 4 years relatively early in the 'PC boom.' Clinton was president for 8 years when practically every teenager from a moderately wealthy family (read: time on his hands) had a computer with net access. Of course Clinton's administration busted more hackers than Bush Sr.'s; there were a lot more hackers to bust.
If Apple ships OS X on Intel and directly competes with Microsoft, Microsoft will cut development of Office for Mac. End of Mac platform as a viable option. Have a nice day, Apple. It sucks, but that's the reality. (In addition, Apple is, has been, and always will be a hardware company.)
Start labeling these bombers as American Airlines planes, and every real American Airlines plane will be a legitimate target for all the terrorists and rogue nations in the world. I don't think that even the U.S. military is that stupid.