First, sorry for calling you a douchebag. It was way uncool, as the kids say. Well that wasn't me. I kinda jumped into the thread midway.
I agree that the naming situation is tough, but I'm not sure what I'd expect Microsoft to call their 64-bit OS. I guess when you get right down to it, the world isn't ready for a fully 64-bit OS. If they'd made it so that 32-bit drivers could still run, they could have slowly transitioned people into 64-bits. Hell, even Apple doesn't do this right. OS 10.5 (developers releases, at least) don't support the iPhone, either. But then, Apple has a history of drastically changing the ABI and not always having compatibility built in. Microsoft (and Intel, AMD) focus on backwards compatibility almost to a fault. If they hadn't been doing it for years, and then suddenly stopped with 64-bit Windows, no one would have complained.
But really, why the hell are people using 64-bit Windows, anyway? I purchased Win2003 64-bit for a client's server, and it's one of the stupidest things I ever did.:) Not sure. Does it even come standard from any OEM? People probably buy it because they expect it to be better. I guess if you need to access more than 4 gigs of memory, it is.
Even organisms that evolve on other planets are subject to the same laws of physics as the ones here; six-foot-tall exoskeletal insects are not feasible, simply because exoskeletal structures can't support the weight of a creature six feet tall. For Earth-gravity, and with exoskeletal structures that we're familiar with. Lower the planetary gravity a bit (must have enough to maintain an atmosphere) and throw in a structure that's a little sturdier, and it could be feasible. The problem with speculating on these things is that we cannot (yet) create large-scale life. We don't know if such things are possible.
Interestingly, they release a trial version to people who are interested in trying out their product. That is distribution. They should have to provide the (modified) source to anyone who ever downloaded the trial.
They also made it known that the 3D effects would be in the next version. I was tracking this very closely, as it was affecting my decision on if/when to take the plunge and buy a Mac. I thought that they made it pretty clear.
It is false advertisement to print something false on a retail box. There's a pretty good argument to be made that XP-64 and Vista-64 are products separate from XP and Vista. The compatibility issues alone are enough--and note that when something supports these non-mainstream operating systems, they tend to specifically mention it. No one says, "Supports XP-32 and Vista-32."
Checking the specs at Apple.com:
Windows Vista Home Premium, Business, Enterprise, or Ultimate Edition; or Windows XP Home or Professional with Service Pack 2 or later Note how they mention two of the five XP editions. If I bought this, plugged it into an MCE or Tablet Edition PC, I wouldn't expect it to work based upon their specs. Why should I expect it to work with the x64 Edition, which is notorious for compatibility issues, and which is not listed in their specs?
It is bad customer service to delete support requests from your support forum. I couldn't agree more, and I'm getting really tired of these companies deleting posts in order to maintain their image. If it's spam or a made up problem ("My iPhone won't turn water into wine!!! It sucks!!!") I could understand. But legitimate issues? Someone might read the forum, realize that the iPhone won't work with their computer, and decide not to buy it, saving them hassle and probably a 10% restocking fee. Apple should allow these posts.
Microsoft did not perform the referenced actions, and are therefore not accountable for them. True. Microsoft did two things: 1) Chose not to provide a 32-bit compatibility layer for drivers. 2) Provided explicit names for their operating systmes (see their list of XP editions.)
Neither of these makes them culpable for the iPhone drama, however addressing number 1 would be nice as it would mean more compatibility overall.
I'm not an Apple guy. I used to want a Macbook Pro because I think that their OS is kinda neat, but then I realized that it doesn't really do anything that Linux+Xorg+Beryl doesn't do. The iPhone, in my opinion, is rife with flaws (lack of 3G, lack of 3rd-party support, no OTA sync/iTunes, lack of hardware buttons, lack of customization--ringtones specifically--etc.) I definitely don't think that Apple can do no wrong--they do lots and lots of wrong (like speaking out against DRM while keeping DRM in their own OS.) But you've got to be fair. I don't think that Apple did anything legally wrong, and while mentioning that 3 editions of XP aren't supported would have been nice, they clearly stated which versions were supported. That should be enough.
HTC makes plenty of phones which give you the WEB and WiFi. They run Windows, and they work pretty darned well.
The iPhone doesn't do anything new except for visual voicemail (I can live without it--I usually answer my phone when it rings) and Youtube. Neither of those is going to be a killer feature for most people.
Computers of today have a really hard time breaking the rules. They basically only get to do so when there's a bug in the program. Otherwise, no matter how many times you try to get 2+2 to equal 5, it's always going to equal 4.
Except nowhere was it suggested that the machines would be compared to each other, or even another machine or system image, so there is no "control" in this case either. Nowhere was it suggested that they wouldn't be compared to each other. In fact, for the purposes of the challenge, the challenger didn't even say that the software itself would detect bluepill--he said, "We get to install our software on both and run it, [and] we point out which machine [Blue Pill] is on." My first reaction to that sentence was that there would be human interpretation as to the results--for example, they could drive up the CPU and then watch how many context switches each computer can perform in a given period of time.
I don't believe that Joanna ever claimed that her rootkit was undetectable from the outside--just that it was undetectable from the inside.
If Joannas time estimate is correct, its about 16 times harder to build a hypervisor rootkit than to detect it. Id say that supports our findings. What a bullshit response.
First, they say that they are trying to debunk her claim: that it is possible to make a rootkit which is undetectable from within the system. Now they're trying to say that it's "good enough" for it to be 16 times harder to build the rootkit than to detect it.
Nope.
If Joanna is right, and Blue Pill is undetectable through automated processes, then it could take 3 years to develop--the results would still be devestating once it was released.
Also, I imagine that there are many more people writing rootkits than there are people writing rootkit detection software. That means that the overall resources are skewed. Even if it is harder, with more resources, the gap closes.
So strippers who dress as cops have power over others they don't deserve? Be careful of blanket statements, for they make you look more of a fool than you clearly are. I would argue that impersonating a cop and dressing up as a cop (particularly, but not limited to, non-regulation uniforms with hotpants and a shirt which exposes your midriff) are two different things.
Most of the Windows boxes that get oh-so-compromised are single-user systems. "Oh, but those people run as admin!" Yeah, but now, any program on the box can "run as admin."
'Javashit' is what allows web pages to function as cross-platform software applications without having to rewrite. Though coding for 5 web browsers at once is a bitch, it's a price I pay gladly. While the rest of your rebuttal to the troll was spot on, this one is simply bullshit. Javascript allows for flashy cross-platform software applications. CGI was done long before AJAX, DHTML, and Javascript.
But I think that the point he was making was more that requiring Javascript just to pull down the right stylesheet sucks. There are lots of good reasons to disable Javascript (mostly security-based) and requiring it for site functionality sucks, particularly when all you're doing is displaying content (rather than really interacting with the user).
Two of the terrorists were on watch lists, and based on frequent flier numbers and the addresses used, intelligence agencies could have (in theory) correlated enough information to find most of the rest of them.
There are more rights than just Constitutional ones.
Generally speaking, consumers have a right to use a product they buy. They have a right to use it as they see fit. If I buy a chair, I have the right to put my TV on it--the chair builder does not have a right to say that the only way I can use it is for sitting. Or, for an analogy closer to the issue at hand, they can't say that I can only sit in it if I'm sitting at their tables, too. Or the newest model of their tables. If I buy a product, I should be able to do whatever I want with it.
If they can manage to make the tables and chairs physically incompatible in some way, I should have the right to modify either the table or the chairs in order to make them work. Even in (old) copyright law, this was the case. You could reverse engineer software for the purposes of compatibility. However I'm fairly certain that Microsoft will whip-out a DMCA violation and send it to anyone found distributing this modification, and that's where the analogies fork. I can distribute instructions on how to modify a piece of furniture, even if the manufacturer doesn't want me to. I'm fairly certain that if they tried to stop me, they'd be laughed out of court. Software, however, gets absurd special considerations. Maybe Microsoft will surprise me, and this hack will be 'allowed.' I'd certainly hate to pass judgement unfairly. But if I were a gambling man, I know which side of this coin toss I'd put money on.
The nice thing for Microsoft to do (in this case) would be to only support Vista, but not actively prevent the game from installing and running on older systems. They get a support call? First question should be which version of Windows you're running, and then say that unless you're running Vista, you don't get support. They didn't do this, though. They decided to actively prevent the game from running, even though it is quite capable of working with XP.
Nah, it's more like a cereal maker saying that you can only eat their product out of a certain bowl, and with a certain spoon, and with a certain brand of milk.
It was during the 90's where people didn't care about CrAzY things like software source portability Most people still don't care about this. Apple's increasing market share means that people are starting to care more, but even the recent announcement that EA will start supporting Macs is smoke-and-mirrors--they're going to be supporting it using Codeweavers software, if I recall correctly.
Microsoft could get away with it because they knew what will break and when because they had the source for Windows. And because they're a virtual monopoly.
Just like integrating the web browser into the OS. Everyone though it would be great because the browser would have a lower level access to the equiptment(sic), not thinking (I did say it was a bad idea at the time by the way) that if there was any security hole the attacker would have full control of the system. I can't believe that was the real reason that they integrated the browser with the desktop. I just don't see the benefits. All of the common controls are available to any application, so the browser doesn't need anything special there. More likely, I think it was to reduce code use. Browsing a file system and a browsing the web are similar concepts, and it logically makes sense to combine the code bases in some way. One way to combine the code bases is to abstract out the common parts so that you can change the higher level code and the changes propagate to both Explorer and Internet Explorer. Another way to combine the code is to simply make them the same executable (and this is the path that Microsoft took).
Don't forget that DirectX includes support for more than just 3d graphics. DirectX includes Direct3D, DirectInput, DirectMusic/Sound, etc. It's one API for a complete gaming experience. In theory, this should lead to consistency in interfaces and API calls (though who knows--it's highly probable that sub-teams were working on the individual components of DirectX).
I didn't see anyone say anything about IMAP until you did. The original post that started off this thread just complained about all those "Web 2.0 apps". Webmail was around long before Web 2.0. AJAX Webmail ought to be less bandwidth-intensive than traditional Webmail because you don't load the entire page each time.
For your SSH vs AJAX situation, it should have been obvious that the AJAX would be heavier on the bandwidth. Assuming that the application reads lines up until a newline, every line that the user enters would be accompanied by a new request to the server, compared to the lines being processed directly on the server with the SSH client.
If you mean the hardware that displays the video, I've got no clue. If you mean hardware that gets the video from Youtube's servers so efficiently, my guess is "no one."
On other phones that play music, it's a pain to find specific tracks. iPhone provides iTunes album preview mode. I guess you've tried all other phones, then? I've had two phones that play music, and used a third. The first one was from Motorola, and it wasn't great, but it wasn't too bad, either. It wasn't the iTunes phone that they tried, but another one which could play mp3s. The second phone is a Windows Mobile 5.0-based phone. It's as easy to play individual tracks as just about any music player for Windows, and many from Linux (for the easiest application to play a single track, I have to give it to mplayer.) The third phone was a Treo. Same story as the WM5 phone--pretty simple.
Other smartphones give you subsets of websites; crippled "pseudo-web" implementations. iPhone gives you a complete browser. Sans Flash, Java, or any other plugins. At least it has a decent Javascript implementation, though, so you still get the XSS parts of the web.:) Seriously, most PDA phones offer a very nearly complete version of the web. Mine is mostly lacking good Javascript support--but I can even coerce it into playing Flash 7 (which the iPhone reportedly can't, as I said above) and Java. I call this one a tie, which is pretty generous, I think.
No awkward dials, knobs, or scrollwheels to move about. Want to zoom in? Spread your fingers. Zoom out? Pinch them. I fully expect that we'll see a new form of carpal tunnel from iPhone use, kinda like Blackberry-Thumb. That is not a comfortable gesture. I expected more from Apple.
The most important part that people are missing, is that this will be the first phone that the Manufacturer is >encouraging people to plug into their computer. It is the integration with other pieces of software that will make this thing good. PDA phone manufacturers have been "encouraging people to plug into their computer" for.. well, as long as there have been PDA phones. Same for non-PDA smartphones, I believe. It's certainly true for the Windows Mobile variety. Sorry, I just can't buy this as innovative.
Yeah, but if it doesn't work the first time on the Blackjack (in a 3G area), you've got like, what, 3 more attempts before the iPhone will loaded the video?
I'm sorry, I consider 3G to be the show stopper for me. The iPhone could be the best thing since sliced bread with a fantastic interface, excellent music player, etc. and I still couldn't go back to EDGE speeds for Internet browsing.
Combine that with a lack of expandability, a reported lack of a user-replaceable battery (no spares for long trips?), and no SSH client (necessary for me, but obviously not for the masses--you could easily just replace this with 'no real third party development')? No thanks.
The 'fake' web is mobile sites. mobile IMDB, mobile Slashdot, mobile CNET... These sites are a shadow of the real sites, often presenting abbreviated content (in the case of Slashdot, you can only see the top 5 comments from any given story) in a crippled interface.
Anyway, I think there's a market for people who like nice interfaces, but who are also function hogs. I'm quite comfortable on the command line, but I find that I'm more efficient with X Windows. On the same screen, I can have 6 xterms, a browser in the background, and other applications easily accessible. Toggling background processes or using screen is fine, but you only see one thing at a time. The split-screen mode of screen works well, but my monitor doesn't seem to support high enough resolutions to get the same amount of content on my monitor while in text mode.
One of the things I've envied about OS X recently is Expose(accent). It's a nicely implemented, smooth feature, and it allows for higher productivity (seemingly, at least, by making it easier to work with lots of windows open). I've seen non-GL implementations that simply pale in comparison, both for Windows XP and Linux. Somehow, Apple got it right. I think that Beryl has the same feature, however I use a non-GL window manager due to compatibility issues.
Anyway, the point of my rambling is that in the case of Expose(accent), form and feature both seem to play an integral part in the delivery of the entire product. It's a useful feature, it's quite pleasant to look at, it's smooth, and it's something that, to the best of my knowledge, Apple came up with.
Spotlight, while less of a draw to me, is another place where the tools simply don't exist (or aren't as deeply embedded) on Linux. Indexing the content is one thing, but being able to index the metadata of non-Apple applications (assuming the authors implemented the ability) is really quite fascinating. You don't get that on Linux, probably mostly because it's a completely different mentality. GNU/Linux is a lot of simple programs that does one thing, but does it very, very well. OS X is a complete user experience. Regardless, I defy you to search pictures, documents, pdfs, arbitrary applications (where the author saw fit to include the ability--and many, many of them do) within Linux at the speed of Spotlight. If there is such a way, please let me know how!
It's not all about having a simple interface. There are lots of innovations in that Apple software that go beyond interface.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that the naming situation is tough, but I'm not sure what I'd expect Microsoft to call their 64-bit OS. I guess when you get right down to it, the world isn't ready for a fully 64-bit OS. If they'd made it so that 32-bit drivers could still run, they could have slowly transitioned people into 64-bits. Hell, even Apple doesn't do this right. OS 10.5 (developers releases, at least) don't support the iPhone, either. But then, Apple has a history of drastically changing the ABI and not always having compatibility built in. Microsoft (and Intel, AMD) focus on backwards compatibility almost to a fault. If they hadn't been doing it for years, and then suddenly stopped with 64-bit Windows, no one would have complained. But really, why the hell are people using 64-bit Windows, anyway? I purchased Win2003 64-bit for a client's server, and it's one of the stupidest things I ever did.
Interestingly, they release a trial version to people who are interested in trying out their product. That is distribution. They should have to provide the (modified) source to anyone who ever downloaded the trial.
There's a link to upgrade for $50.
They also made it known that the 3D effects would be in the next version. I was tracking this very closely, as it was affecting my decision on if/when to take the plunge and buy a Mac. I thought that they made it pretty clear.
Even Microsoft differentiates them by edition.
Checking the specs at Apple.com: Windows Vista Home Premium, Business, Enterprise, or Ultimate Edition; or Windows XP Home or Professional with Service Pack 2 or later Note how they mention two of the five XP editions. If I bought this, plugged it into an MCE or Tablet Edition PC, I wouldn't expect it to work based upon their specs. Why should I expect it to work with the x64 Edition, which is notorious for compatibility issues, and which is not listed in their specs? It is bad customer service to delete support requests from your support forum. I couldn't agree more, and I'm getting really tired of these companies deleting posts in order to maintain their image. If it's spam or a made up problem ("My iPhone won't turn water into wine!!! It sucks!!!") I could understand. But legitimate issues? Someone might read the forum, realize that the iPhone won't work with their computer, and decide not to buy it, saving them hassle and probably a 10% restocking fee. Apple should allow these posts. Microsoft did not perform the referenced actions, and are therefore not accountable for them. True. Microsoft did two things:
1) Chose not to provide a 32-bit compatibility layer for drivers.
2) Provided explicit names for their operating systmes (see their list of XP editions.)
Neither of these makes them culpable for the iPhone drama, however addressing number 1 would be nice as it would mean more compatibility overall.
I'm not an Apple guy. I used to want a Macbook Pro because I think that their OS is kinda neat, but then I realized that it doesn't really do anything that Linux+Xorg+Beryl doesn't do. The iPhone, in my opinion, is rife with flaws (lack of 3G, lack of 3rd-party support, no OTA sync/iTunes, lack of hardware buttons, lack of customization--ringtones specifically--etc.) I definitely don't think that Apple can do no wrong--they do lots and lots of wrong (like speaking out against DRM while keeping DRM in their own OS.) But you've got to be fair. I don't think that Apple did anything legally wrong, and while mentioning that 3 editions of XP aren't supported would have been nice, they clearly stated which versions were supported. That should be enough.
I'll feed this troll.
HTC makes plenty of phones which give you the WEB and WiFi. They run Windows, and they work pretty darned well.
The iPhone doesn't do anything new except for visual voicemail (I can live without it--I usually answer my phone when it rings) and Youtube. Neither of those is going to be a killer feature for most people.
64-bit Windows is hardly mainstream.
Computers of today have a really hard time breaking the rules. They basically only get to do so when there's a bug in the program. Otherwise, no matter how many times you try to get 2+2 to equal 5, it's always going to equal 4.
I don't believe that Joanna ever claimed that her rootkit was undetectable from the outside--just that it was undetectable from the inside.
First, they say that they are trying to debunk her claim: that it is possible to make a rootkit which is undetectable from within the system. Now they're trying to say that it's "good enough" for it to be 16 times harder to build the rootkit than to detect it.
Nope.
If Joanna is right, and Blue Pill is undetectable through automated processes, then it could take 3 years to develop--the results would still be devestating once it was released.
Also, I imagine that there are many more people writing rootkits than there are people writing rootkit detection software. That means that the overall resources are skewed. Even if it is harder, with more resources, the gap closes.
Yeah, but every time I say that, I get modded down. It happens just about any time a story on Linux security or Windows insecurity comes around.
Most of the Windows boxes that get oh-so-compromised are single-user systems. "Oh, but those people run as admin!" Yeah, but now, any program on the box can "run as admin."
Blah.
But I think that the point he was making was more that requiring Javascript just to pull down the right stylesheet sucks. There are lots of good reasons to disable Javascript (mostly security-based) and requiring it for site functionality sucks, particularly when all you're doing is displaying content (rather than really interacting with the user).
That's actually not true.
Two of the terrorists were on watch lists, and based on frequent flier numbers and the addresses used, intelligence agencies could have (in theory) correlated enough information to find most of the rest of them.
There are more rights than just Constitutional ones.
Generally speaking, consumers have a right to use a product they buy. They have a right to use it as they see fit. If I buy a chair, I have the right to put my TV on it--the chair builder does not have a right to say that the only way I can use it is for sitting. Or, for an analogy closer to the issue at hand, they can't say that I can only sit in it if I'm sitting at their tables, too. Or the newest model of their tables. If I buy a product, I should be able to do whatever I want with it.
If they can manage to make the tables and chairs physically incompatible in some way, I should have the right to modify either the table or the chairs in order to make them work. Even in (old) copyright law, this was the case. You could reverse engineer software for the purposes of compatibility. However I'm fairly certain that Microsoft will whip-out a DMCA violation and send it to anyone found distributing this modification, and that's where the analogies fork. I can distribute instructions on how to modify a piece of furniture, even if the manufacturer doesn't want me to. I'm fairly certain that if they tried to stop me, they'd be laughed out of court. Software, however, gets absurd special considerations. Maybe Microsoft will surprise me, and this hack will be 'allowed.' I'd certainly hate to pass judgement unfairly. But if I were a gambling man, I know which side of this coin toss I'd put money on.
The nice thing for Microsoft to do (in this case) would be to only support Vista, but not actively prevent the game from installing and running on older systems. They get a support call? First question should be which version of Windows you're running, and then say that unless you're running Vista, you don't get support. They didn't do this, though. They decided to actively prevent the game from running, even though it is quite capable of working with XP.
Nah, it's more like a cereal maker saying that you can only eat their product out of a certain bowl, and with a certain spoon, and with a certain brand of milk.
Don't forget that DirectX includes support for more than just 3d graphics. DirectX includes Direct3D, DirectInput, DirectMusic/Sound, etc. It's one API for a complete gaming experience. In theory, this should lead to consistency in interfaces and API calls (though who knows--it's highly probable that sub-teams were working on the individual components of DirectX).
I didn't see anyone say anything about IMAP until you did. The original post that started off this thread just complained about all those "Web 2.0 apps". Webmail was around long before Web 2.0. AJAX Webmail ought to be less bandwidth-intensive than traditional Webmail because you don't load the entire page each time.
For your SSH vs AJAX situation, it should have been obvious that the AJAX would be heavier on the bandwidth. Assuming that the application reads lines up until a newline, every line that the user enters would be accompanied by a new request to the server, compared to the lines being processed directly on the server with the SSH client.
If you mean the hardware that displays the video, I've got no clue. If you mean hardware that gets the video from Youtube's servers so efficiently, my guess is "no one."
I've had two phones that play music, and used a third. The first one was from Motorola, and it wasn't great, but it wasn't too bad, either. It wasn't the iTunes phone that they tried, but another one which could play mp3s.
The second phone is a Windows Mobile 5.0-based phone. It's as easy to play individual tracks as just about any music player for Windows, and many from Linux (for the easiest application to play a single track, I have to give it to mplayer.)
The third phone was a Treo. Same story as the WM5 phone--pretty simple. Other smartphones give you subsets of websites; crippled "pseudo-web" implementations. iPhone gives you a complete browser. Sans Flash, Java, or any other plugins. At least it has a decent Javascript implementation, though, so you still get the XSS parts of the web.
Seriously, most PDA phones offer a very nearly complete version of the web. Mine is mostly lacking good Javascript support--but I can even coerce it into playing Flash 7 (which the iPhone reportedly can't, as I said above) and Java. I call this one a tie, which is pretty generous, I think. No awkward dials, knobs, or scrollwheels to move about. Want to zoom in? Spread your fingers. Zoom out? Pinch them. I fully expect that we'll see a new form of carpal tunnel from iPhone use, kinda like Blackberry-Thumb. That is not a comfortable gesture. I expected more from Apple.
Yeah, but if it doesn't work the first time on the Blackjack (in a 3G area), you've got like, what, 3 more attempts before the iPhone will loaded the video?
I'm sorry, I consider 3G to be the show stopper for me. The iPhone could be the best thing since sliced bread with a fantastic interface, excellent music player, etc. and I still couldn't go back to EDGE speeds for Internet browsing.
Combine that with a lack of expandability, a reported lack of a user-replaceable battery (no spares for long trips?), and no SSH client (necessary for me, but obviously not for the masses--you could easily just replace this with 'no real third party development')? No thanks.
The 'fake' web is mobile sites. mobile IMDB, mobile Slashdot, mobile CNET... These sites are a shadow of the real sites, often presenting abbreviated content (in the case of Slashdot, you can only see the top 5 comments from any given story) in a crippled interface.
Anyway, I think there's a market for people who like nice interfaces, but who are also function hogs. I'm quite comfortable on the command line, but I find that I'm more efficient with X Windows. On the same screen, I can have 6 xterms, a browser in the background, and other applications easily accessible. Toggling background processes or using screen is fine, but you only see one thing at a time. The split-screen mode of screen works well, but my monitor doesn't seem to support high enough resolutions to get the same amount of content on my monitor while in text mode.
One of the things I've envied about OS X recently is Expose(accent). It's a nicely implemented, smooth feature, and it allows for higher productivity (seemingly, at least, by making it easier to work with lots of windows open). I've seen non-GL implementations that simply pale in comparison, both for Windows XP and Linux. Somehow, Apple got it right. I think that Beryl has the same feature, however I use a non-GL window manager due to compatibility issues.
Anyway, the point of my rambling is that in the case of Expose(accent), form and feature both seem to play an integral part in the delivery of the entire product. It's a useful feature, it's quite pleasant to look at, it's smooth, and it's something that, to the best of my knowledge, Apple came up with.
Spotlight, while less of a draw to me, is another place where the tools simply don't exist (or aren't as deeply embedded) on Linux. Indexing the content is one thing, but being able to index the metadata of non-Apple applications (assuming the authors implemented the ability) is really quite fascinating. You don't get that on Linux, probably mostly because it's a completely different mentality. GNU/Linux is a lot of simple programs that does one thing, but does it very, very well. OS X is a complete user experience. Regardless, I defy you to search pictures, documents, pdfs, arbitrary applications (where the author saw fit to include the ability--and many, many of them do) within Linux at the speed of Spotlight. If there is such a way, please let me know how!
It's not all about having a simple interface. There are lots of innovations in that Apple software that go beyond interface.