The "fundamental design" is no less secure than Firefox.
Sure it is. Internet Explorer's fundamental security model is based on the assumption that it is possible to distinguish between whether data is trusted or untrusted depending on the location of the data, by making the HTML control responsible for deciding whether to allow a potentially untrusted object to run with local user privileges based on a heuristic model of "security zones".
This is not actually possible. Microsoft has been refining the model for over 10 years now, and it still hasn't managed to do it. No other browser or mail reader that I have used or supported (in 20 years of network administration experience) does this, and I was absolutely flabbergasted when not only did Microsoft not go "oops, we better change that" by the end of 1997 but actually took the company to the brink of being broken up to avoid having to change it.
It is not only incomprehensible to me how they came up with this, but it is also incomprehensible that anyone capable of coherent thought can defend it. Before 1997 the idea that anyone would write a program that would run potentially untrusted code outside as hard a sandbox as they could build was a joke. It was bad science fiction. What confusion in the mind would lead anyone to believe it's a good idea?
The world is full of dark fiber. If there's demand for more bandwidth, there will be money to put it into service, and the available bandwidth will increase.
I remember seeing this discussion more than 20 years ago over people transmitting images over Usenet and the ARPAnet. What happened was that the bandwidth was added to handle the traffic, and the bandwidth available for plain text applications like traditional Usenet was increased.
This is what I have to say to Southwestern Bell: "If they come, you will build it."
Zork was originally written on a Digital mainframe, and later ported to the 8-bit world. The biggest problem getting it to fit wasn't the 64k memory, it was getting the data files to fit on a floppy that (for some platforms) was as small as 320k.
If someone can show me an empirical model that can predict the nature of a system's consciousness from the system's physical properties I'll change my opinion on this.
Even if I grant your distinction between self-awareness and consciousness, I think that's rather a hard criterion to meet, since untangling a neural network's referents by observation of the network itself is a hard problem, and you kind of need to do that to pull out how far the neural network is actually modeling itself...
If they were really being consistent, they would ban Internet Explorer first.
No matter what soi-disant "security features" Microsoft implements, the fundamental design of IE is inherently insecure, and it can not be made secure without making deep changes in the API that will cause Microsoft to lose too much face to go through with it.
I really suspect that they could get the same benefits without the fancy 3d user interface and swoosh effects. To really benefit from 3d you need a metaphor that uses 3d usefully. Just putting 3d flash on an operation doesn't buy you anything over using a 3d metaphor in two dimensions (the window/desktop metaphor).
The physical world is one possible approach: virtual reality "desktops" are popular in science fiction, and have been since the early '80s. I don't think there's anything I could fit in a slashdot comment that hasn't been said a thousand times over.
The one I'd like to see used is *interest*. When you work on something, you move close to it. When you don't, it drifts away, eventually fossilizing on the virtual ground or at the edge of the screen in some kind of iconic representation of the window/program/. You don't explicitly navigate in 3d, but when you select something you zoom in to it, so you don't need a 3d mouse. You can cycle through objects, or reorganize them and drag them around if you want to, but it shouldn't need to in normal use.
There are probably other useful attributes that could be modeled in the third dimension. Apple uses "time" in Time Machine, but they mostly use it as flash... they could (for example) let you see the history of the object you're working on as you're working on it. Another possibility would be to take something like virtual desktops and arrange them in three dimensions, so that other desktops are visible, faded and fogged and possibly defocussed, behind the one you're working on.
But just using the third dimension as flash, that isn't really all that interesting. It's pretty, but what does it do for you?
You're arguing with someone else, you're not arguing with me. A couple of the more egregious examples:
MS still has monopoly influence to limit Apple's potential customer base
Look, in both previous messages I acknowledged that point. Bringing it up again is irrelevant.
That is NOT a common factor between now and the '90s.
Why?
Because that's not one of the things that killed the third party Macs. Apple wasn't selling an OS in competition with Windows (no, I don't count Microsoft's Power PC version of NT as anything but bait). Microsoft didn't have to threaten to hurt Power Computing's sales of Windows, because they didn't HAVE any.
I understand your perspective, but I still think you're trying to come up with reasons as to why Apple might fulfill your dreams and let you give them less money while giving Lenovo more money.
I don't care who gets my money, and that's more or less irrelevant because I'm not in the market for a laptop, period. I already have one that's going to last into the next decade, by which time the market will have changed again. I'm using this as an example of one possible way that Apple could address the problem. Another way would be by improving their current product line. A third (and, again, I've already said that's the least likely) is to license OS X.
Oh, and, Apple and IBM Japan (a group that is now part of Lenovo) cooperated on at least one of the Powerbooks.
You're also ignoring a lot of my points to attack statements that are close to but not quite what I said, for example:
According to the last survey I saw, 93% of respondents had claimed never to have upgraded their computer hardware instead of replacing it.
I wrote "Assuming there is a computer available that fits what they want to upgrade to."
Let me clear up ANY possible way for you to again misinterpret that.
Read it as "Assuming that, when they want to replace their Mac with a new computer, there is a new Mac that fits what they want at that time."
It doesn't matter whether it's a piecemeal upgrade or a forklift upgrade: even if Apple makes a computer that meets their needs now, when their needs change and they go to get a new computer... will there be one from Apple? Maybe. maybe not. If they bought their current computer from Dell they don't CARE if Dell has a computer to replace it with, because they can get a compatible computer from anyone.
That doubles the potential cost of replacing applications.
Again, people aren't stupid. They are capable of planning three years ahead when they buy a computer. Also, don't confuse familiarity with jargon for understanding of the issues. They may not know what "an OS" is, but they know that Macs aren't simply compatible with Windows apps, like they know Vista has driver problems without knowing what "drivers" are.
To satisfy the intent of the GPL, as explained in the preamble to the GPL, it has to be possible for users to use the source code to modify their own devices.
On the other hand, the FSF long accepted the necessity of having to buy hardware that was out of reach of individuals to run software that was GPL licensed. Much of the FSF's own software, including GCC and Hurd, required extremely high end hardware. And there has been plenty of open source software that requires a proprietary (and expensive) development environment.
So long as Apple does not impose restrictions on who can join the program and get a key, I don't think that this really violates the expressed intent of the GPL as described in its preamble. I'm sure RMS would disagree, but if so he should have expressed himself more clearing 20 years ago. $99 is not a great amount of money for someone who can afford an iPhone and a Mac running Leopard.
So while this violates GPLv3, it doesn't violate GPLv2, and GPLv3 doesn't actually infect independent modules: code distributed under "GPL2 or later" is dual-licensed, not GPL3-licensed.
Also, software that is written portably, so it can run on the iPhone or other OSX-derived platforms, is not even subject to the restrictions of the GPLv3 unless you distribute it in binary format for the iPhone. And, frankly, many OSX software authors really need a swift kick in the pants on the subject of writing portable code: there was code that would ONLY run on Leopard being shipped before Leopard was final... that makes Linux 'all the world's Red Hat' coders look positively scrupulous!
Plus, there's more licenses under the sun than GPLv2 and GPLv3.
Sorry but I have to believe Apple has done more market research than you.
I'm sure they have. They are also notorious for ignoring market research and doing what appears to be the wrong thing and getting big wins from it, and also coming up with monstrosities like a handheld computer that you can't fit in your pocket. They're also notorious for being amazingly resistent to doing sensible things until they can spin it as a brilliant idea... and all the hard core Apple fans forget (for example) that jobs said there would never be a headless desktop Mac and go all gaga about how cool the Mac mini is... ignoring the fact that it's a pretty awful desktop Mac.
Apple does stupid things. All the time. But at least they do manage to change their mind sometimes, which puts them ahead of Microsoft... a company that's even more addicted to making stupid decisions and keeping them alive.
First, why Lenovo?
Because the Thinkpad is still one of the best all-round laptops around (if not the best), and because Apple has worked with the Thinkpad division in the past when it was part of IBM.
Second, why would Lenovo do it
They did it before.
Yeah, some people don't like Apple's hardware, but very few are forgoing purchase of Macs for that reason, that would be likely to be real buyers otherwise.
Yep, that's what people used to say about headless desktop Macs before Apple came out with the Mac mini. And a lot of people who would never have considered Macs before bought them.
Apple ships about as many models as other system vendors their size.
(a) Apple isn't in the same position as other system vendors. They're not just a system vendor. People who buy an HP don't have to worry if the next HP model line will fit their needs in three years, they know that Dell or someone else will.
(b) No, actually, they don't. They have three desktop models, with two or three trim levels, and four laptop models, with one or two trim levels, and one tower. Thats' NOT comparable to any of the other big system vendors.
Most people don't know what an OS is or want a particular one.
If that were true Apple wouldn't have a market at all. If that were true we wouldn't be seeing "Vista" jokes in the mainstream media.
Most people don't want any upgradability in their machine and will simply buy a new one if they want an upgrade.
Assuming there is a computer available that fits what they want to upgrade to. Often they don't, and people know this. People aren't as naive and thoughtless as you're trying to characterize them as. There's a resistance to buying into Macs because they know it will limit their options. Even my AOL-loving inlaws who I should probably be charging at least a "friends-and-family" rate for tech support know about this, it was one of the first objections they came up with to getting a Mac.
Apple could solve this problem by increasing the upgradability of their computers, by increasing the variety of their product line, or by allowing people to buy Mac OS X and run it on third party hardware. Of these options I have already agreed with you that the third is least likely... because Microsoft would screw them big time.
I'm not arguing for Apple putting OS X on a white box, I'm responding to your argument that what happened with Power Computing and the other vendors has anything to do with the current situation. They are not comparable.
I agree that going up against Microsoft would be a mistake, at least until they build up a tolerance to iocaine powder. But I have to disagree with one thing:
In short, your post presupposes that selling OS X on white boxes would grow the OS X install base significantly. In a monopolized market, that is unlikely to be the case as Apple found out in the 90's when they tried it.
In the '90s:
(a) Mac OS really did suck an awful lot. Compared to Windows 95, even, Mac OS was a poor sister. I tried using OS 8 and OS 9 on Powermacs and it was appalling: it was slower than NeXTStep on a 68040. The memory management and disk IO in classic Mac OS was so bad that if you booted BeOS and ran OS 8 under Sheepshaver your Mac was more responsive, because BeOS handled the disk for you.
(b) If you bought a Mac clone and didn't like the OS, you had no place to go, there was no Windows alternative for your hardware, so there was nobody but existing Mac users as competition.
Today neither of these is true.
Also, today, Apple is hurting sales by limiting their product line. I ran OS X on used upgraded Powermacs for years rather than buy one of their iMacs or eMacs. The Mac mini was barely acceptable... it wasn't upgradable but it WAS headless (and even then I was shocked they released it after Steve Jobs comments about "no ugly monitors"... it must have been like drinking his own blood to make even that concession to practicality).
They still have no conventional desktop. The intel mini is less adequate, in 2008, than the original mini was when it came out. The iMac is an all-in-one.
I did eventually get a Macbook Pro. Getting a computer that cost that much was like drinking MY own blood, but I needed it at the time. I would have gotten a Macbook, but again they're unacceptable... thanks to the horrible intel GPUs... I can get a Thinkpad with exactly the same components as the Macbook plus an nVidia GPU and a MUCH better keyboard, trackpad, and overall design (including a docking station, something I miss every time I have to find all the cables when I plug my laptop in) for the same price as a Macbook.
If Apple got together with Lenovo and made a Thinkbook, and released a "Mac mini pro" with a 3.5" hard disk and a real GPU, they would sell more copies of OS X, because there's a lot of people like me who really do NOT like Apple's hardware and aren't quite as motivated by the software to put up with it.
Until they start shipping hardware that's attractive to a larger market, people are going to want to buy generic OS X and put it on hardware that sucks less. That's a real market, one that didn't exist in the '90s, because Apple's hardware wasn't as quirky and Apple's software wasn't as good.
Oh, I can see the logic. Having the code restricted to code that Cisco has certified will make it an easier sell for network administrators and consultants dealing with passive-aggressive IT managers, corporate standards, and so on.
If you want to run uncertified code in a Cisco switch there's already NetBSD and Linux ports to run on Cisco hardware. And don't forget that the PIX started out as basically a rack-mounted PC.
We the undersigned participants at this SC 34 meeting wish to make it clear that we deplore the personal attacks that have been made during the DIS 29500 standardisation project in recent months. What personal attacks? I can see accusations that the process was not being followed, but if the process was not being followed that's not a "personal attack", that's "news".
We believe standards debate should always be carried out with respect for all parties, even when they strongly disagree. I agree, and that is a two-way street. When standards committees respect experts and industry groups the way they respect Microsoft, then talk to us about respect.
We call on all organisations and individuals involved in SC 34 standardisation to support this view, and to refrain from initiating or engaging in any such personal attacks. That's a two-way street, too... or what else would you call referring to technical criticism and honest reporting of irregularities as "personal attacks"?
Before an application can actually be deployed onto an AXP, a certification process must first be completed. Part of the process includes a license agreement from Cisco as well as a support contract. The certification also provides a mechanism to ensure that only certified applications are deployed on the AXP. Or maybe a Tivo in a switch?
This is a corollary to the Peter Principle. If there's no way to get from the technical track to the management track, how do you promote people sideways out of the way of the people who haven't yet reached their level of incompetence?
Unix Express: Split into three operating companies.
Linux Cooperative: All passenger bring a piece of the aeroplane and a box of tools with them to the airport. They gather on the tarmac, arguing constantly about what kind of plane they want to build and how to put it together. Eventually, the passengers split into groups and build several different aircraft, but give them all the same name. Some passengers actually reach their destinations. All passengers believe they got there.
Apple Airlines: The terminal is neat and clean, the attendants are attractive, the pilots very capable, the planes are beautiful, and you always reach the correct destination... unfortunately they have a fairly small fleet, most planes have no baggage compartment or overhead storage, and the seats aren't adjustable. Frequent Apple fliers are known to attack anyone who suggests that these are important features.
Legacy Air: The terminal is neat and clean, albeit in an "industrial" style. You have to choose your plane ahead of time, because different planes only fly to different cities, and if your luggage doesn't match your plane you need to hire a baggage consultant to adjust it to fit. But the planes are fast, efficient, and always arrive on time or even ahead of schedule.
Windows Airlines: The terminal is very neat and clean, with security barriers every few meters. The attendants are attractive, even if it's kind of creepy how much they want to "help" (especially in the restrooms). The pilots are allegedly very capable, though nobody ever sees them and there's an armed guard by the cockpit door. The fleet of jets it operates are immense. Your jet takes off without a hitch, pushing above the clouds, and at 20,000 feet a message pops up on the seat back in front of your asking "Should this plane explode now?". Some idiot always answers "Yes".
Slashdot Mirror
The "fundamental design" is no less secure than Firefox.
Sure it is. Internet Explorer's fundamental security model is based on the assumption that it is possible to distinguish between whether data is trusted or untrusted depending on the location of the data, by making the HTML control responsible for deciding whether to allow a potentially untrusted object to run with local user privileges based on a heuristic model of "security zones".
This is not actually possible. Microsoft has been refining the model for over 10 years now, and it still hasn't managed to do it. No other browser or mail reader that I have used or supported (in 20 years of network administration experience) does this, and I was absolutely flabbergasted when not only did Microsoft not go "oops, we better change that" by the end of 1997 but actually took the company to the brink of being broken up to avoid having to change it.
It is not only incomprehensible to me how they came up with this, but it is also incomprehensible that anyone capable of coherent thought can defend it. Before 1997 the idea that anyone would write a program that would run potentially untrusted code outside as hard a sandbox as they could build was a joke. It was bad science fiction. What confusion in the mind would lead anyone to believe it's a good idea?
"All I want is users with frikken lasers on their heads!"
And
"I for one welcome our new mind-controlling laser overlords"
The world is full of dark fiber. If there's demand for more bandwidth, there will be money to put it into service, and the available bandwidth will increase.
I remember seeing this discussion more than 20 years ago over people transmitting images over Usenet and the ARPAnet. What happened was that the bandwidth was added to handle the traffic, and the bandwidth available for plain text applications like traditional Usenet was increased.
This is what I have to say to Southwestern Bell: "If they come, you will build it."
Zork was originally written on a Digital mainframe, and later ported to the 8-bit world. The biggest problem getting it to fit wasn't the 64k memory, it was getting the data files to fit on a floppy that (for some platforms) was as small as 320k.
IBM has built Mac laptops before.
The Powerbook 2400c was made for Apple by IBM Japan.
I would assume that the group responsible ended up on the Lenovo side of the line, and I would love to see an Apple branded Thinkpad.
If someone can show me an empirical model that can predict the nature of a system's consciousness from the system's physical properties I'll change my opinion on this.
Even if I grant your distinction between self-awareness and consciousness, I think that's rather a hard criterion to meet, since untangling a neural network's referents by observation of the network itself is a hard problem, and you kind of need to do that to pull out how far the neural network is actually modeling itself...
The first hit is a thread on a BBS complaining about the web forum inserting _popupControl.
How many other problems caused by injection are being blamed on the wrong parties?
If they were really being consistent, they would ban Internet Explorer first.
No matter what soi-disant "security features" Microsoft implements, the fundamental design of IE is inherently insecure, and it can not be made secure without making deep changes in the API that will cause Microsoft to lose too much face to go through with it.
THEIR customers would benefit, and so would they in the long run.
I really suspect that they could get the same benefits without the fancy 3d user interface and swoosh effects. To really benefit from 3d you need a metaphor that uses 3d usefully. Just putting 3d flash on an operation doesn't buy you anything over using a 3d metaphor in two dimensions (the window/desktop metaphor).
The physical world is one possible approach: virtual reality "desktops" are popular in science fiction, and have been since the early '80s. I don't think there's anything I could fit in a slashdot comment that hasn't been said a thousand times over.
The one I'd like to see used is *interest*. When you work on something, you move close to it. When you don't, it drifts away, eventually fossilizing on the virtual ground or at the edge of the screen in some kind of iconic representation of the window/program/. You don't explicitly navigate in 3d, but when you select something you zoom in to it, so you don't need a 3d mouse. You can cycle through objects, or reorganize them and drag them around if you want to, but it shouldn't need to in normal use.
There are probably other useful attributes that could be modeled in the third dimension. Apple uses "time" in Time Machine, but they mostly use it as flash... they could (for example) let you see the history of the object you're working on as you're working on it. Another possibility would be to take something like virtual desktops and arrange them in three dimensions, so that other desktops are visible, faded and fogged and possibly defocussed, behind the one you're working on.
But just using the third dimension as flash, that isn't really all that interesting. It's pretty, but what does it do for you?
Well, everyone who doesn't think a website should look like a sophomore art magazine and work like an experimental X11 application from 1988.
I hope I don't have to elaborate on this further (though recent evolution in the slashdot user interface makes me wonder).
You're arguing with someone else, you're not arguing with me. A couple of the more egregious examples:
MS still has monopoly influence to limit Apple's potential customer base
Look, in both previous messages I acknowledged that point. Bringing it up again is irrelevant.
That is NOT a common factor between now and the '90s.
Why?
Because that's not one of the things that killed the third party Macs. Apple wasn't selling an OS in competition with Windows (no, I don't count Microsoft's Power PC version of NT as anything but bait). Microsoft didn't have to threaten to hurt Power Computing's sales of Windows, because they didn't HAVE any.
I understand your perspective, but I still think you're trying to come up with reasons as to why Apple might fulfill your dreams and let you give them less money while giving Lenovo more money.
I don't care who gets my money, and that's more or less irrelevant because I'm not in the market for a laptop, period. I already have one that's going to last into the next decade, by which time the market will have changed again. I'm using this as an example of one possible way that Apple could address the problem. Another way would be by improving their current product line. A third (and, again, I've already said that's the least likely) is to license OS X.
Oh, and, Apple and IBM Japan (a group that is now part of Lenovo) cooperated on at least one of the Powerbooks.
You're also ignoring a lot of my points to attack statements that are close to but not quite what I said, for example:
According to the last survey I saw, 93% of respondents had claimed never to have upgraded their computer hardware instead of replacing it.
I wrote "Assuming there is a computer available that fits what they want to upgrade to."
Let me clear up ANY possible way for you to again misinterpret that.
Read it as "Assuming that, when they want to replace their Mac with a new computer, there is a new Mac that fits what they want at that time."
It doesn't matter whether it's a piecemeal upgrade or a forklift upgrade: even if Apple makes a computer that meets their needs now, when their needs change and they go to get a new computer... will there be one from Apple? Maybe. maybe not. If they bought their current computer from Dell they don't CARE if Dell has a computer to replace it with, because they can get a compatible computer from anyone.
That doubles the potential cost of replacing applications.
Again, people aren't stupid. They are capable of planning three years ahead when they buy a computer. Also, don't confuse familiarity with jargon for understanding of the issues. They may not know what "an OS" is, but they know that Macs aren't simply compatible with Windows apps, like they know Vista has driver problems without knowing what "drivers" are.
To satisfy the intent of the GPL, as explained in the preamble to the GPL, it has to be possible for users to use the source code to modify their own devices.
On the other hand, the FSF long accepted the necessity of having to buy hardware that was out of reach of individuals to run software that was GPL licensed. Much of the FSF's own software, including GCC and Hurd, required extremely high end hardware. And there has been plenty of open source software that requires a proprietary (and expensive) development environment.
So long as Apple does not impose restrictions on who can join the program and get a key, I don't think that this really violates the expressed intent of the GPL as described in its preamble. I'm sure RMS would disagree, but if so he should have expressed himself more clearing 20 years ago. $99 is not a great amount of money for someone who can afford an iPhone and a Mac running Leopard.
So while this violates GPLv3, it doesn't violate GPLv2, and GPLv3 doesn't actually infect independent modules: code distributed under "GPL2 or later" is dual-licensed, not GPL3-licensed.
Also, software that is written portably, so it can run on the iPhone or other OSX-derived platforms, is not even subject to the restrictions of the GPLv3 unless you distribute it in binary format for the iPhone. And, frankly, many OSX software authors really need a swift kick in the pants on the subject of writing portable code: there was code that would ONLY run on Leopard being shipped before Leopard was final... that makes Linux 'all the world's Red Hat' coders look positively scrupulous!
Plus, there's more licenses under the sun than GPLv2 and GPLv3.
Sorry but I have to believe Apple has done more market research than you.
I'm sure they have. They are also notorious for ignoring market research and doing what appears to be the wrong thing and getting big wins from it, and also coming up with monstrosities like a handheld computer that you can't fit in your pocket. They're also notorious for being amazingly resistent to doing sensible things until they can spin it as a brilliant idea... and all the hard core Apple fans forget (for example) that jobs said there would never be a headless desktop Mac and go all gaga about how cool the Mac mini is... ignoring the fact that it's a pretty awful desktop Mac.
Apple does stupid things. All the time. But at least they do manage to change their mind sometimes, which puts them ahead of Microsoft... a company that's even more addicted to making stupid decisions and keeping them alive.
First, why Lenovo?
Because the Thinkpad is still one of the best all-round laptops around (if not the best), and because Apple has worked with the Thinkpad division in the past when it was part of IBM.
Second, why would Lenovo do it
They did it before.
Yeah, some people don't like Apple's hardware, but very few are forgoing purchase of Macs for that reason, that would be likely to be real buyers otherwise.
Yep, that's what people used to say about headless desktop Macs before Apple came out with the Mac mini. And a lot of people who would never have considered Macs before bought them.
Apple ships about as many models as other system vendors their size.
(a) Apple isn't in the same position as other system vendors. They're not just a system vendor. People who buy an HP don't have to worry if the next HP model line will fit their needs in three years, they know that Dell or someone else will.
(b) No, actually, they don't. They have three desktop models, with two or three trim levels, and four laptop models, with one or two trim levels, and one tower. Thats' NOT comparable to any of the other big system vendors.
Most people don't know what an OS is or want a particular one.
If that were true Apple wouldn't have a market at all. If that were true we wouldn't be seeing "Vista" jokes in the mainstream media.
Most people don't want any upgradability in their machine and will simply buy a new one if they want an upgrade.
Assuming there is a computer available that fits what they want to upgrade to. Often they don't, and people know this. People aren't as naive and thoughtless as you're trying to characterize them as. There's a resistance to buying into Macs because they know it will limit their options. Even my AOL-loving inlaws who I should probably be charging at least a "friends-and-family" rate for tech support know about this, it was one of the first objections they came up with to getting a Mac.
Apple could solve this problem by increasing the upgradability of their computers, by increasing the variety of their product line, or by allowing people to buy Mac OS X and run it on third party hardware. Of these options I have already agreed with you that the third is least likely... because Microsoft would screw them big time.
I'm not arguing for Apple putting OS X on a white box, I'm responding to your argument that what happened with Power Computing and the other vendors has anything to do with the current situation. They are not comparable.
I agree that going up against Microsoft would be a mistake, at least until they build up a tolerance to iocaine powder. But I have to disagree with one thing:
In short, your post presupposes that selling OS X on white boxes would grow the OS X install base significantly. In a monopolized market, that is unlikely to be the case as Apple found out in the 90's when they tried it.
In the '90s:
(a) Mac OS really did suck an awful lot. Compared to Windows 95, even, Mac OS was a poor sister. I tried using OS 8 and OS 9 on Powermacs and it was appalling: it was slower than NeXTStep on a 68040. The memory management and disk IO in classic Mac OS was so bad that if you booted BeOS and ran OS 8 under Sheepshaver your Mac was more responsive, because BeOS handled the disk for you.
(b) If you bought a Mac clone and didn't like the OS, you had no place to go, there was no Windows alternative for your hardware, so there was nobody but existing Mac users as competition.
Today neither of these is true.
Also, today, Apple is hurting sales by limiting their product line. I ran OS X on used upgraded Powermacs for years rather than buy one of their iMacs or eMacs. The Mac mini was barely acceptable... it wasn't upgradable but it WAS headless (and even then I was shocked they released it after Steve Jobs comments about "no ugly monitors"... it must have been like drinking his own blood to make even that concession to practicality).
They still have no conventional desktop. The intel mini is less adequate, in 2008, than the original mini was when it came out. The iMac is an all-in-one.
I did eventually get a Macbook Pro. Getting a computer that cost that much was like drinking MY own blood, but I needed it at the time. I would have gotten a Macbook, but again they're unacceptable... thanks to the horrible intel GPUs... I can get a Thinkpad with exactly the same components as the Macbook plus an nVidia GPU and a MUCH better keyboard, trackpad, and overall design (including a docking station, something I miss every time I have to find all the cables when I plug my laptop in) for the same price as a Macbook.
If Apple got together with Lenovo and made a Thinkbook, and released a "Mac mini pro" with a 3.5" hard disk and a real GPU, they would sell more copies of OS X, because there's a lot of people like me who really do NOT like Apple's hardware and aren't quite as motivated by the software to put up with it.
Until they start shipping hardware that's attractive to a larger market, people are going to want to buy generic OS X and put it on hardware that sucks less. That's a real market, one that didn't exist in the '90s, because Apple's hardware wasn't as quirky and Apple's software wasn't as good.
Oh, I can see the logic. Having the code restricted to code that Cisco has certified will make it an easier sell for network administrators and consultants dealing with passive-aggressive IT managers, corporate standards, and so on.
If you want to run uncertified code in a Cisco switch there's already NetBSD and Linux ports to run on Cisco hardware. And don't forget that the PIX started out as basically a rack-mounted PC.
This is a corollary to the Peter Principle. If there's no way to get from the technical track to the management track, how do you promote people sideways out of the way of the people who haven't yet reached their level of incompetence?
Man, that is so out of date.
Unix Express: Split into three operating companies.
Linux Cooperative:
All passenger bring a piece of the aeroplane and a box of tools with them to the airport. They gather on the tarmac, arguing constantly about what kind of plane they want to build and how to put it together. Eventually, the passengers split into groups and build several different aircraft, but give them all the same name. Some passengers actually reach their destinations.
All passengers believe they got there.
Apple Airlines:
The terminal is neat and clean, the attendants are attractive, the pilots very capable, the planes are beautiful, and you always reach the correct destination... unfortunately they have a fairly small fleet, most planes have no baggage compartment or overhead storage, and the seats aren't adjustable. Frequent Apple fliers are known to attack anyone who suggests that these are important features.
Legacy Air:
The terminal is neat and clean, albeit in an "industrial" style. You have to choose your plane ahead of time, because different planes only fly to different cities, and if your luggage doesn't match your plane you need to hire a baggage consultant to adjust it to fit. But the planes are fast, efficient, and always arrive on time or even ahead of schedule.
Windows Airlines:
The terminal is very neat and clean, with security barriers every few meters. The attendants are attractive, even if it's kind of creepy how much they want to "help" (especially in the restrooms). The pilots are allegedly very capable, though nobody ever sees them and there's an armed guard by the cockpit door. The fleet of jets it operates are immense. Your jet takes off without a hitch, pushing above the clouds, and at 20,000 feet a message pops up on the seat back in front of your asking "Should this plane explode now?". Some idiot always answers "Yes".
Vaporliner?
Welcome to The Transparent Society.
And, yes, I have mixed feelings about it too.
The biggest privilege level violation problem in Windows is the fact that there's even a mechanism to allow privilege elevation in the HTML control.
If Microsoft wants to eliminate privilege elevation, they need to start by scrapping ActiveX.
Good luck with that.
Can't even keep Google Vans out of our driveways.
This is similar to the premise of David Brin's short story "Natulife (R)" in the collection "Otherness".