But I've seen that OS X 10.0 was faster than OS X beta, and 10.0.4 was faster than 10.0. and 10.1 was faster than 10.0.4, and 10.1.4 was faster still (at least Sherlock, AppleWorks, and iTunes)
The problem is that there are two classes of optimizations within the PPC camp; taking advantage of the large register space and larger cache, which applies to both G3s and G4s, and taking advantage of AltiVec, which applies to only G4s.
Still, there's reason to believe that the 10.2 release will be faster than the 10.1 release if nothing else due to gcc compiler optimizations as well as better threading and code optimizations throughout the OS.
The problem is that the announcement is ambiguous. There are three levels of performance improvements Jaguar can provide:
gcc related performance improvements (yes) OS related performance improvements (yes) Quartz optimization performance improvements (???) Quartz hardware acceleration performance improvements (???) Quartz Extreme hardware acceleration performance improvements (yes)
I figure that they won't mention all three in the same breath, but there *will* be performance improvements for your iBook due to gcc and OS optimizations; the real question is whether Quartz Vanilla gets optimized, and whether Quartz Vanilla gets hardware accelerated.
Quartz Extreme won't run on an iBook doesn't mean Quartz won't be faster under Jaguar on a modern iBook.
Likewise the OS X pages mentions 32mb recommended for optimum performance, not 32mb required for Quartz to run.
So iBook owners *will* see a performance boost, Quartz *will* go faster, but people with 32+MB T&L AGP4x video cards will see the *most* performance gain, just as people with G4 CPUs will see more performance gains than people with G3 CPUs
Copyright gives the rights of ownership, copying, distribution, and modification of a work to the author of a work, unless they decide to give those rights to others. GPL modifies basic copyrights to automatically give the rights of copying, distribution, and modification to anyone else who also chooses to everyone with access to the work as long as they continue the right of unlimited access to the work.
In short, as far as I understand it, a clear description of the GPL would be as follows:
This source and binaries (work) is protected by the General Public License (GPL). This work belongs to the original author or authors (owners), but the owners have granted everyone rights to copy, modify, and redistribute the work under the stipulation that any changes to the source are made available to anyone with access to the binaries, as defined by the GPL. This work is protected under standard copyright law if you do not agree to the GPL, meaning you cannot redistribute a modified binary without the consent of the owners of the source.
Right, Xerox may have innovated the ideas of WiMP and mice first, but Apple's Lisa was the first machine you could buy, and the Mac was the machine that sold well, that brought something other than CLI or blinkenlights to the masses.
Quicktime 1.0 the product was released, what, 1991, while MPEG1 spec was released in 1992?
Unless you're talking about some other thing entirely?
I never claimed Apple *invented* the mouse, WiMP, or movies, in my post. I just said they introduced those concepts to home computers at a time when computers were more of a novelty than they are today:)
Bang for the buck is always a great exercise to play, but how about maximum buck?
Why $600 per machine? Why not.. $400? Worst case you've got a power supply, motherboard, CPU, and ram. Everything else (peripheral cards, video cards, networking cards, sound cards, monitor) stay the same.
Best case, you can reuse the power supply.
Go for 800-900 MHz, rather than 1.4GHz. Go for 266DDR, rather than 500+ So you spend about $60 on a CPU, you spend about $110 on the motherboard, you spend about $180 on 512mb RAM... that's $350...
How much performance do you need, how much performance can you afford, and how much performance can you settle for?
Re:The main thing I think the article misses ...
on
The Next Generation
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I strongly think the electric light and the power grid has fundamentally changed the daily course of daily events.
So has the watch and calendar.
As have the alarm clock.
Or feminism.
Let me count the ways:
Before electricity and the electric light, there really wasn't much you could do after sunset; 5pm in the winter, 8pm in the summer. You were forced to adopt the solar cycle. Now we can/have decouple ourselves (to our own detriment, of course) from the same old same old; get up at dawn, go sleep shortly after dusk. Now think how long you sleep now, vs how long you would sleep without an electric light. I do 12am to 7am, my brother does 2am to 9am; but without electriciy and light, we would probably be forced on a 8pm to 6am schedule. And I would have no choice; without light, there's precious little I can do, at all.
Then there's the whole concept of swing shift.
Imagine genetic engineering allowing 100% decoupling from the solar cycle?
Okay, how about watches and calendars?
We would be reliant upon good weather and sundials. We wouldn't be able to predict the future at all, because we couldn't predict the present. The lowest granularity would be 'morning, afternoon, evening, bedtime', but now we can do better 'every ten minutes', 'ever 30 seconds', 'every three hours'.
Again, separation from the solar cycle. This allows us to do chemical reactions, physics experiments, planning into the future (meet tomorrow at 3pm'. Does this change the way we live life? Yes, it makes life more regimented and predictable (probably to our detriment)
Try an experiment; turn off or disable all clocks in your house for two weeks, it's actually very relaxing.
Or feminism: The very thought that a woman's body and life are her own.
Fundamental change: Childbearing age has shifted from 14 years old to much later; late 20s, late 30s, even the occasional 40 year old.
It means women have a choice how to live their life, instead of being tied to the social/cultural needs as dictated by men. It means they have a chance to dictate their own lives.
This probably comes from a combination of political though, abortion inducing technologies, and anti-pregnancy technologies;contraceptives.
Since I don't own one, I'll probably make a grievous error, but my ego compells me to try to see if I understand what a TiVo is.
A TiVo disconnects you from any time dependency in your viewing habits.
As such, the closest analogy would be a CD player or mp3 player -> FM radio, assuming you owned all the CDs or MP3s the radio ever broadcast.
Another analogy might be a hand delivered newspaper at your doorstep, as opposed to going to get one yourself, and as opposed to waiting for a 7 o'clock or 11 o'clock broadcast, excepting that print medium is actually a couple days delayed for the convenience of 'read on demand' as opposed to 'read on broadcast'
A better analogy would be CNN.com -> CNN on broadcast, in that rather than being forced to wait through meaningless news you hear/see meaningful news, you can pick and choose, search, and read on demand, as opposed to view on broadcast. It breaks, of course, in the fact that CNN.com doesn't 'cache' locally, unlike TiVo.
Sure, until now a lot of the work was genetic engineering, where the goal was the end product; but with the research into DNA and genetic computing, and genetic chemical sensors, the line between organic and mechanic is growing thinner.
A virus that makes you ill vs a nanoprobe that makes you ill; which is simpler?
A virus that fixes your cancer vs a nanoprobe that fixes your cancer; which is simpler?
A bacterium that repairs a ruined liver, vs a nanoprobe that repairs a ruined liver; which is simpler?
A bacterium you switch on and off with adrenalin, or some artificially inserted compound (like caffeine) to enhance bloodflow to the muscles, vs a nanoprobe to do the same; which is simpler?
A bacterium you switch on and off to increase production of adrenaline, endorphines, and other fight/flight compounds, vs a nanoprobe to do the same; which is simpler?
A bacterium you switch on and off to generate pain killing compounds vs a nanoprobe to do the same; which is simpler?
A bacterium which generates clot enhancing compounds in some situations (careful of the heart, of course!) while producing clot reducing compounds in other situations (in the heart, near the brain, etc) vs a nanoprobe to do the same; which is simpler?
Not everything is easily done with biologics; nor is everything easily done with nanotech. Each have their own strengths.
Correcting people who don't know Latin by showing off their own knowledge of Latin and then labeling the mistaken wordsmith a l33t h4x0rz is itself an act of elitist snobbery.
Especially since you aren't adding to the conversation but pulling a tangent that has nothing to do with the topic of nanotech and biologics.
Anyway, scale aside, a machine doesn't have to be metallic or ceramic for it to work.
There are different problems and issues with biological machinery than with robotic machinery, on the cellular scale, and I'm not sure that either one can be claimed to be 'out of infancy', though perhaps in strict comparison with nanotech, biologics is more primitive...
I don't think we have a solution in either technology that can repair a genetic disorder yet, though we already have biologic agents that can kill people already.
Why do nanobots have to be metallic and reliant upon the whims of EM?
Virii and bacterium have been doing fine for millions of years without caring about magnetics except where it was an advantage.
Cheese and yogurt, as an example, are produced by the action of special natural nanobots that react and process milk into portable storable food products. Beer and wine, as well.
I didn't say Apple invented the GUI concepts; I said the graphical PC, since before then you couldn't actually buy (to my knowledge) a Xerox PC with a mouse and graphical interface?
You do realize that it seems silly to talk about Linux when OS X has answered most of those questions already? Attitude: The consumer n00b is your customer Destkop usability: Aqua, Dock, etc Installation process: Okay, it's a *bit* hairy, but mostly a lot better than Linux
THINGS change. Lots of 'normal' users choose Mac; that's why Macs are still here, 18 years after they're supposed death, and counting.
I dunno, it seems as valid to get a computer to fit your desk as it does to get a desk to fit your computer, doesn't it?
You certainly have the right to bitch, but it doesn't mean I'll agree with you.
I especially like the fact that TheGreenLantern can't understand why people like to hide their PC or have matching curtains.
It's the same deep inner drive to shape the environment to meet internal requirements that drive Jobs to make the iMac LCD and domed, or Jobs to create WXP with product activation and Luna, or Linux to create his kernel, or anyone to do anything that doesn't just meet demands of survival, procreation, and child rearing.
I find I'm agreeing with you on the most part; ID software follows your social contract model, having released the source code to their popular Quake, Quake 2, and Doom series of games after having made millions off them.
If Apple were to similarly follow suit, they would release the source to their previous OSes, up to say, System 8, for people to play with and 'improve' and access, while they focus on OS 9 and OS X; and then in the near future, when they decide to drop OS 9 entirely, release that source so the community can maintain it themselves...
Etc.
That, I can see, would be an excellent social contract.
AME has a great answer to your point. Apple is not exactly *rolling* in dough.
As people like to joke, they've been dying for the past twenty years.
Perhaps you don't realize it, but some of your analogies have problems. The music analogy is good in terms of the nature of the product. You want books and music that are signficantly cheaper, for some reason.
I don't.
I see *no* problem with a $30 DVD or a $6 book. If they were $20 DVDs and $3 books, I would buy *more* DVDs and books.
So it's not the price.
What I want to see is more money going back to the developers; IE, the artists!
In terms of software, I actually think Adobe, Apple, et al have it right, and the video game, movie, and music industry have it wrong.
Because Adobe, Apple, et al, pay their engineers about $70k->$200k salaries thanks to their profit-pricing scheme.
Economics says that products will tend to price themselves to whatever the market will bear.
So $700 for Photoshop, $130 for OS X, and $1000 for Final Cut Pro seem reasonable.
So does $30 for a DVD and $20 for a CD and $6 for a book. $15, $10, and $3 would be *nicer*, but I would just buy twice as much then.
As I said before, it's the distribution of wealth that's the problem. If DVDs were $40, I would buy fewer DVDs. If DVDs were $20 I would buy more. It's self corrective behavior and the market adjusts. The problem is that no money is being funneled to the content creators (or pitiful amounts, really, compared to what the producers get).
Anyway, that's Off Topic.
I think Apple has done fine by co-opting BSD. This was done over 20 years ago, at NeXT, so don't go blaming Apple. It's *OLD* history.
Apple has even done so much as release the core of their OS and their Quicktime Streaming Server as open source. The same with their game sprockets technolgy, I believe.
I have no objections to socialist bents. Apple is a capitalistic entity; it tries to change the world (the way computers work, the way people interact with each other and with computers, how people can be freed to be creative), and to do that Apple must stay in business, and thus make profits.
Apple also tries to feed and clothes all of it's employees, which is also a good thing; send all of those employee's children to school, donate to charitable causes, etc, but in order to do that they must earn profits. Business is a transaction; I pay them money, they offer me a good.
You don't like that? You want your own model? It's a fairly free country, which rewards success. Go out and build your own OSS wealth redistribution system. If it has merit and works, you will be wealthy, as will everyone working with your, because it *works* and people are willing to pay for it because it offers a substantial service that *saves* them money.
That's how Photoshop and Apple work.
You plunk down $7000, and in a year you've earned a $70k salary. Or higher.
So create your better, ideal, system, and change the world for the better, the OSS way.
Slashdot Mirror
Macs have had this kind of capability for, oh, say the past 8 years or so?
:)
Get a cheap, old, Mac, learn AppleScript, get yourself some mics, and play with it's text-speech and voice recognition software!
Or get a new Mac; those capabilities are still there
I've only owned a Mac since March last year :D
But I've seen that OS X 10.0 was faster than OS X beta, and 10.0.4 was faster than 10.0. and 10.1 was faster than 10.0.4, and 10.1.4 was faster still (at least Sherlock, AppleWorks, and iTunes)
The problem is that there are two classes of optimizations within the PPC camp; taking advantage of the large register space and larger cache, which applies to both G3s and G4s, and taking advantage of AltiVec, which applies to only G4s.
Still, there's reason to believe that the 10.2 release will be faster than the 10.1 release if nothing else due to gcc compiler optimizations as well as better threading and code optimizations throughout the OS.
In case you're interested, Monday, May 6th, Apple has preannounced Apple rackmount hardware, more info to be released May 14th or so.
This was from Job's keynote at the WWDC, which you can find in plenty of places.
The problem is that the announcement is ambiguous. There are three levels of performance improvements Jaguar can provide:
gcc related performance improvements (yes)
OS related performance improvements (yes)
Quartz optimization performance improvements (???)
Quartz hardware acceleration performance improvements (???)
Quartz Extreme hardware acceleration performance improvements (yes)
I figure that they won't mention all three in the same breath, but there *will* be performance improvements for your iBook due to gcc and OS optimizations; the real question is whether Quartz Vanilla gets optimized, and whether Quartz Vanilla gets hardware accelerated.
Quartz Extreme won't run on an iBook doesn't mean Quartz won't be faster under Jaguar on a modern iBook.
Likewise the OS X pages mentions 32mb recommended for optimum performance, not 32mb required for Quartz to run.
So iBook owners *will* see a performance boost, Quartz *will* go faster, but people with 32+MB T&L AGP4x video cards will see the *most* performance gain, just as people with G4 CPUs will see more performance gains than people with G3 CPUs
Like my own! But I hesitate to mention it for fear of the Slashdot effect.
Heh, right, security through obscurity. But it isn't a secret, either.
Copyright gives the rights of ownership, copying, distribution, and modification of a work to the author of a work, unless they decide to give those rights to others. GPL modifies basic copyrights to automatically give the rights of copying, distribution, and modification to anyone else who also chooses to everyone with access to the work as long as they continue the right of unlimited access to the work.
In short, as far as I understand it, a clear description of the GPL would be as follows:
This source and binaries (work) is protected by the General Public License (GPL). This work belongs to the original author or authors (owners), but the owners have granted everyone rights to copy, modify, and redistribute the work under the stipulation that any changes to the source are made available to anyone with access to the binaries, as defined by the GPL. This work is protected under standard copyright law if you do not agree to the GPL, meaning you cannot redistribute a modified binary without the consent of the owners of the source.
Right, Xerox may have innovated the ideas of WiMP and mice first, but Apple's Lisa was the first machine you could buy, and the Mac was the machine that sold well, that brought something other than CLI or blinkenlights to the masses.
:)
Quicktime 1.0 the product was released, what, 1991, while MPEG1 spec was released in 1992?
Unless you're talking about some other thing entirely?
I never claimed Apple *invented* the mouse, WiMP, or movies, in my post. I just said they introduced those concepts to home computers at a time when computers were more of a novelty than they are today
I can't agree with the author's rhetoric, but I do think Apple has changed our lives.
Introduced the PC with the Apple I/Apple II, in a serious way and not just in a hobbiest homebrew way.
Introduced the mouse to computing.
Introduced the 'window, icon, mouse, pointer' pardigm.
Introduced the WYSIWYG concept.
Introduced color managment. Publishing industry.
Introduced audio and video, via Quicktime, to home computers.
You know, things that today you take for granted, Apple helped popularize.
Bang for the buck is always a great exercise to play, but how about maximum buck?
Why $600 per machine? Why not.. $400?
Worst case you've got a power supply, motherboard, CPU, and ram. Everything else (peripheral cards, video cards, networking cards, sound cards, monitor) stay the same.
Best case, you can reuse the power supply.
Go for 800-900 MHz, rather than 1.4GHz.
Go for 266DDR, rather than 500+
So you spend about $60 on a CPU, you spend about $110 on the motherboard, you spend about $180 on 512mb RAM... that's $350...
How much performance do you need, how much performance can you afford, and how much performance can you settle for?
I strongly think the electric light and the power grid has fundamentally changed the daily course of daily events.
So has the watch and calendar.
As have the alarm clock.
Or feminism.
Let me count the ways:
Before electricity and the electric light, there really wasn't much you could do after sunset; 5pm in the winter, 8pm in the summer. You were forced to adopt the solar cycle. Now we can/have decouple ourselves (to our own detriment, of course) from the same old same old; get up at dawn, go sleep shortly after dusk.
Now think how long you sleep now, vs how long you would sleep without an electric light. I do 12am to 7am, my brother does 2am to 9am; but without electriciy and light, we would probably be forced on a 8pm to 6am schedule. And I would have no choice; without light, there's precious little I can do, at all.
Then there's the whole concept of swing shift.
Imagine genetic engineering allowing 100% decoupling from the solar cycle?
Okay, how about watches and calendars?
We would be reliant upon good weather and sundials. We wouldn't be able to predict the future at all, because we couldn't predict the present. The lowest granularity would be 'morning, afternoon, evening, bedtime', but now we can do better 'every ten minutes', 'ever 30 seconds', 'every three hours'.
Again, separation from the solar cycle. This allows us to do chemical reactions, physics experiments, planning into the future (meet tomorrow at 3pm'. Does this change the way we live life? Yes, it makes life more regimented and predictable (probably to our detriment)
Try an experiment; turn off or disable all clocks in your house for two weeks, it's actually very relaxing.
Or feminism: The very thought that a woman's body and life are her own.
Fundamental change: Childbearing age has shifted from 14 years old to much later; late 20s, late 30s, even the occasional 40 year old.
It means women have a choice how to live their life, instead of being tied to the social/cultural needs as dictated by men. It means they have a chance to dictate their own lives.
This probably comes from a combination of political though, abortion inducing technologies, and anti-pregnancy technologies;contraceptives.
I'm sure there are others I haven't thought of.
What is TiVo?
Since I don't own one, I'll probably make a grievous error, but my ego compells me to try to see if I understand what a TiVo is.
A TiVo disconnects you from any time dependency in your viewing habits.
As such, the closest analogy would be a CD player or mp3 player -> FM radio, assuming you owned all the CDs or MP3s the radio ever broadcast.
Another analogy might be a hand delivered newspaper at your doorstep, as opposed to going to get one yourself, and as opposed to waiting for a 7 o'clock or 11 o'clock broadcast, excepting that print medium is actually a couple days delayed for the convenience of 'read on demand' as opposed to 'read on broadcast'
A better analogy would be CNN.com -> CNN on broadcast, in that rather than being forced to wait through meaningless news you hear/see meaningful news, you can pick and choose, search, and read on demand, as opposed to view on broadcast. It breaks, of course, in the fact that CNN.com doesn't 'cache' locally, unlike TiVo.
Do any of those work?
Sure, until now a lot of the work was genetic engineering, where the goal was the end product; but with the research into DNA and genetic computing, and genetic chemical sensors, the line between organic and mechanic is growing thinner.
A virus that makes you ill vs a nanoprobe that makes you ill; which is simpler?
A virus that fixes your cancer vs a nanoprobe that fixes your cancer; which is simpler?
A bacterium that repairs a ruined liver, vs a nanoprobe that repairs a ruined liver; which is simpler?
A bacterium you switch on and off with adrenalin, or some artificially inserted compound (like caffeine) to enhance bloodflow to the muscles, vs a nanoprobe to do the same; which is simpler?
A bacterium you switch on and off to increase production of adrenaline, endorphines, and other fight/flight compounds, vs a nanoprobe to do the same; which is simpler?
A bacterium you switch on and off to generate pain killing compounds vs a nanoprobe to do the same; which is simpler?
A bacterium which generates clot enhancing compounds in some situations (careful of the heart, of course!) while producing clot reducing compounds in other situations (in the heart, near the brain, etc) vs a nanoprobe to do the same; which is simpler?
Not everything is easily done with biologics; nor is everything easily done with nanotech. Each have their own strengths.
Virii are used by people who don't know Latin.
Correcting people who don't know Latin by showing off their own knowledge of Latin and then labeling the mistaken wordsmith a l33t h4x0rz is itself an act of elitist snobbery.
Especially since you aren't adding to the conversation but pulling a tangent that has nothing to do with the topic of nanotech and biologics.
Of course you're an AC as well.
Is that what it's called?
Anyway, scale aside, a machine doesn't have to be metallic or ceramic for it to work.
There are different problems and issues with biological machinery than with robotic machinery, on the cellular scale, and I'm not sure that either one can be claimed to be 'out of infancy', though perhaps in strict comparison with nanotech, biologics is more primitive...
I don't think we have a solution in either technology that can repair a genetic disorder yet, though we already have biologic agents that can kill people already.
Why do nanobots have to be metallic and reliant upon the whims of EM?
Virii and bacterium have been doing fine for millions of years without caring about magnetics except where it was an advantage.
Cheese and yogurt, as an example, are produced by the action of special natural nanobots that react and process milk into portable storable food products. Beer and wine, as well.
Nothing says nanobots have to be metallic at all.
I didn't say Apple invented the GUI concepts; I said the graphical PC, since before then you couldn't actually buy (to my knowledge) a Xerox PC with a mouse and graphical interface?
Funny how Apple got it right with OS X?
Apple who *invented* the graphical PC in the 80s with Lisa?
You do realize that it seems silly to talk about Linux when OS X has answered most of those questions already?
Attitude: The consumer n00b is your customer
Destkop usability: Aqua, Dock, etc
Installation process: Okay, it's a *bit* hairy, but mostly a lot better than Linux
THINGS change. Lots of 'normal' users choose Mac; that's why Macs are still here, 18 years after they're supposed death, and counting.
How about a 10 minute (or according to what subscription level) head start over the average viewer?
Avoid the slashdot effect, as it were.
Haha, my mistake. Gates, not Jobs, the second time.
I dunno, it seems as valid to get a computer to fit your desk as it does to get a desk to fit your computer, doesn't it?
:)
You certainly have the right to bitch, but it doesn't mean I'll agree with you.
I especially like the fact that TheGreenLantern can't understand why people like to hide their PC or have matching curtains.
It's the same deep inner drive to shape the environment to meet internal requirements that drive Jobs to make the iMac LCD and domed, or Jobs to create WXP with product activation and Luna, or Linux to create his kernel, or anyone to do anything that doesn't just meet demands of survival, procreation, and child rearing.
Okay, so that may be a bit general
How can you say video is just a niche?
You've seen all the 'old' home videos in popular culture?
The concept of filming someone's birthday, setting up the projector, and boring the grandma with an hour of dull footage?
It's even easier today with digital camcorders, iMacs, and DVD-Rs
I mean, who's buying half a million iMacs if not people who want to make DVDs?
I find I'm agreeing with you on the most part; ID software follows your social contract model, having released the source code to their popular Quake, Quake 2, and Doom series of games after having made millions off them.
If Apple were to similarly follow suit, they would release the source to their previous OSes, up to say, System 8, for people to play with and 'improve' and access, while they focus on OS 9 and OS X; and then in the near future, when they decide to drop OS 9 entirely, release that source so the community can maintain it themselves...
Etc.
That, I can see, would be an excellent social contract.
AME has a great answer to your point. Apple is not exactly *rolling* in dough.
As people like to joke, they've been dying for the past twenty years.
Perhaps you don't realize it, but some of your analogies have problems. The music analogy is good in terms of the nature of the product. You want books and music that are signficantly cheaper, for some reason.
I don't.
I see *no* problem with a $30 DVD or a $6 book. If they were $20 DVDs and $3 books, I would buy *more* DVDs and books.
So it's not the price.
What I want to see is more money going back to the developers; IE, the artists!
In terms of software, I actually think Adobe, Apple, et al have it right, and the video game, movie, and music industry have it wrong.
Because Adobe, Apple, et al, pay their engineers about $70k->$200k salaries thanks to their profit-pricing scheme.
Economics says that products will tend to price themselves to whatever the market will bear.
So $700 for Photoshop, $130 for OS X, and $1000 for Final Cut Pro seem reasonable.
So does $30 for a DVD and $20 for a CD and $6 for a book. $15, $10, and $3 would be *nicer*, but I would just buy twice as much then.
As I said before, it's the distribution of wealth that's the problem. If DVDs were $40, I would buy fewer DVDs. If DVDs were $20 I would buy more. It's self corrective behavior and the market adjusts. The problem is that no money is being funneled to the content creators (or pitiful amounts, really, compared to what the producers get).
Anyway, that's Off Topic.
I think Apple has done fine by co-opting BSD. This was done over 20 years ago, at NeXT, so don't go blaming Apple. It's *OLD* history.
Apple has even done so much as release the core of their OS and their Quicktime Streaming Server as open source. The same with their game sprockets technolgy, I believe.
I have no objections to socialist bents. Apple is a capitalistic entity; it tries to change the world (the way computers work, the way people interact with each other and with computers, how people can be freed to be creative), and to do that Apple must stay in business, and thus make profits.
Apple also tries to feed and clothes all of it's employees, which is also a good thing; send all of those employee's children to school, donate to charitable causes, etc, but in order to do that they must earn profits. Business is a transaction; I pay them money, they offer me a good.
You don't like that? You want your own model? It's a fairly free country, which rewards success. Go out and build your own OSS wealth redistribution system. If it has merit and works, you will be wealthy, as will everyone working with your, because it *works* and people are willing to pay for it because it offers a substantial service that *saves* them money.
That's how Photoshop and Apple work.
You plunk down $7000, and in a year you've earned a $70k salary. Or higher.
So create your better, ideal, system, and change the world for the better, the OSS way.