Their "we could give a shit" attitude is gonna kill em eventially and it'll continue as long as Jobs is at the helm...I know from experience manufactures gouge you when buying from them, but Apple positively rapes you. Need an Apple fixed? Good luck.
Shrill, alarmist and wrong. There certainly are differences when buying/owning the number two platform, but your complaints are overstated for dramatic effect I think. I for one had enough of this hyperbole back in the mid-90's.
I just hope that phrase doesn't mean non-DirectX operating systems (Linux, Mac OS X) aren't about to get the short end of the grahics stick. I can visualize features not being implimented for OpenGL, or worse, support for OpenGL discontinued at some strategic point in the future "because our customers strongly prefer DirectX" [says Microsoft].
Ok maybe I'm paranoid. Maybe this is basically nVidia's baby and MS is only involved a little bit. Let's all hope. Can someone reasure me?
An OS for which there are many thousands of commercial applications available. A complete UI. A pre-installed, integreated-with-the-hardware OS, all designed to work together and all under the same waranty. Spit and polish. Taste. That kind of thing.
Linux in it's present state of development and present degree of desktop penetration is a totally different beast aimed at a radically different market.
And please don't fool yourself into thinking that Apple is "out to steal" Linux desktop marketshare. There's not enough there to bother with. Now Xserve muscle in on Linux server spaces? Sure I think they would like that. But that's another discussion.
If Apple had say 45% OS market share, I'm sure there would be many more Mac viruses rampaging across the net.
I hear that argument from Windows users all the time and I'm sure there's some truth to it. I mean it's obvious. But there's another part to the story. The part where Microsoft makes many of it's software products in an extremely vulnerable way in order to "give customers what they want."
Case in point. Why are Word, Outlook, Excel, PowerPoint, Access, etc all able to open programmable documents which could contain potentially malicious code? In plain english, the way they've chosen to impliment scripting and macros makes them dead-on guilty of making extremely vulnerable products.
Do you remember back in the days before such things existed? Before the concept of the "macro virus"? How many virii were there back then? How vulnerable did you feel? What percentage of Windows users even had virus protection? And most importantly, don't you think it's strange that everyone just accepts this? All for the sake of the 0.02% of macro-writers out there.
So yes, there would be more Mac virii if there were more Macs, I buy that. But there would be less Windows virii if MS didn't knowingly and repeatedly sell fundamentally insecure software products.
So please don't lull yourself to sleep with the old "there are so many Windows virii because there are so many Windows boxes out there." Rather, wake up and realize that Microsoft has decidedly turned away from security in favor of whiz-bang features that look good printed on the software box.
And please pardon the shrill, crazed tone of the above. I've been holding that one in for a while I guess.
Hey my post is not "offtopic." Let me say it another way:
Is Chimera...?
An organism, organ, or part consisting of two or more tissues of different genetic composition, produced as a result of organ transplant, grafting, or genetic engineering. Is Chimera a piece of software made from Netscape and other odd bits?
A substance, such as an antibody, created from the proteins or genes or two different species. Does it, like an antibody, cure the disease that is the current browser market?
A fanciful mental illusion or fabrication Is it just a lot of hype?
How's that for offtopic? Sheesh. I thought it was clever.
chimera also chimaera Pronunciation Key(k-mîr, k-) n. 1. a. An organism, organ, or part consisting of two or more tissues of different genetic composition, produced as a result of organ transplant, grafting, or genetic engineering. b. A substance, such as an antibody, created from the proteins or genes or two different species.
2. An individual who has received a transplant of genetically and immunologically different tissue. 3. A fanciful mental illusion or fabrication
I had no idea that this had occured. It's exciting!
I'm given to wonder, however, why someone with a full OS X installation would wish to use KDE. Perhaps there are a dozen reasons I can't think off off-hand, but the real prize would be to run KDE on top of Darwin! Is this possible yet?
Darwin core + good GUI = another no-cost operating system on the loose. It would no doubt have far lower system requirements than OS X, too. The idea has me drooling already.
Bah. Let's forget it. My own tone isn't any too great now that I read my own posts.
But you sound like Apple is so much of a better company to turn to than Microsoft.
Apple is a better company to turn to. They haven't violated federal laws in order to get more of our money. Microsoft has. No-brainer in my book.
any other proprietary software company wouldn't do the same thing if put in the same position
I really don't know what to say about that. Perhaps we should cease dealing with any companies at all. Hell, if they had monopolies they'd violate the law with them. Right?
But, I am skeptical on the needs of computing.
Frankly I quite agree with some of the sentiments you express here. This is why I, myself, endeavor to make computing more than this. I've taught digital video and audio recording and editing, web design, flash, director, etc. to people aged 7 and up in various settings. In July I'm teaching iMovie to disadvantaged highschoolers in my area. I can't wait.
Such as most textbooks distribute software to use as well--which typically only works Windows.
I don't know where you're getting that from, unless you're just thinking back to your "programming 201" class where the textbook came with a some free C compiler. It's a big, big world out there and there are plenty of other areas that really are cross-platform
...your appraisal of Apple which doesn't even seem to solve the fundamental problem
I think the source of dissagreement between us is really just about this. We have different ideas about what the "fundamental problem" is. I see the fundamental problem as Microsoft strong-arming anyone and everyone by illigally leveraging their monopoly. Solution? Do less business with them. The monopoly won't be as strong and you'll be less exposed to thier tactics, too.
And restrictive software is the fundamental problem I see here. Do you think any other proprietary software vendor will stop enforcing their licensing? That's pretty much what you mean by bullying
It's most assuredly not what I mean by bullying. it's being forced to hire two FTEs to the tune of 100g to do a mandatory audit. Add that item to big pile of other strong-arm tactics Microsoft has used against consumers and OEMs and competitors.
Please, get your head out of the clouds for just a little bit. Thank you
That's pretty arrogant for someone advocating a platform who's effectiveness in the education market is totally unproven and still in the realm of theoretical. I can come up with some pretty compelling reasons why no K-12 institution should even think about using Linux. Read the entire thread here and you'll find them.
In any case, claiming that Apple might in the future be just as bullying as microsoft at some point in the future is a long-shot in itself. Claiming that one should abandon for-profit hardware/software companies altogether because of MS is a ludicrous leap of thinking. At the very least it doesn't merit the "sure thing" tone of your response. It just makes you sound like a Linux political zealot and not someone who knows a lot about or cares at all about the actual issue.
...Apple is no different. I guarantee, if tomorrow we woke up and found that Macs had say 60% market share, within a few years, it'd be 95%, and Jobs would suddenly have morphed into Gates faster than you can say Jack Robinson.
I'm evaluating the above statement with the following one...
It may be that there is no desktop operating system that truly doesn't need a knowledgeable support person...but Linux is lightyears behind in terms of reaching this goal.
...And I, personally, keep coming up Mac. I guess it's just a question of which of these you find more compelling. For myself, I take the problematic present state of Linux to be more worrisome than what might happen if Apple gets 60% of the desktop market again. Maybe that's just me.
I have to state that the ONLY solution here is the PC/Linux combination, as whatever its flaws, it means nobody can hold them to ransom
Except the technology itself. K-12 institutions don't typically have any technical support. There are no sys admins, no help desk, etc. It may be that there is no desktop operating system that truly doesn't need a knowledgeable support person...but Linux is lightyears behind in terms of reaching this goal. The Macintosh is leading the pack in that arena.
Even if they could afford it (which they can't)...
It's true that many Macintoshes cost more than what you could get a similarly spec'd bargain PC. Everybody knows that. But so what? The expense of professional support (which going Linux would require) is even further beyond th reach of these institutions.
Besides, what are we really supposed to learn from the aforementioned "history book"? That because a for-profit company who holds a monopoly isn't very nice to do business with? I don't think anyone's going to be shocked by that news. Isn't claiming that nobody should do business with for-profit companies in that industry because of it..well, alarmist?
You're shocked or amazed by this? Heh. Wait till you talk to the tech guy for the school district and he looks at you in utter disbelief when you inform him that, yes, Macs can participate on an ethernet network.
I mistyped but I think you understood that I mean to say:
"...but is nobody aware that the computer make that sells the more boxes to the education market than anyone else is Apple?"
Your responded "no"? Well I simply counter with "yes." It wasn't an invitation to debate cost/benefit analysis of Mac ownership - it was a statement of fact. At least here in the United States. Apple is the number one provider of computers to the education market in this country.
Anyway, without getting too far into it...will those $1300 (CDN) boxes do everything the Macintosh will? I'm thinking...no.
Something that is little -understood outside of academia is that K-12 institutions have virutally no tech support. There really aren't any "sys admins" on hand and nobody to fix anything except maybe that one math teacher down the hall who kinda knows this stuff.
Institutions like this see a lot of value in an out-of-the-box solution with a warantee by a company who's been around since the beginning of the personal computer. A company who is renown for ease of use and customer satisfaction.
Paying more than Wal-Mart prices doesn't look so bad in that context.
That's not a bad point, really. Still, Apple's hardware is more prevalent in education than anyone elses and that's got to be accounted for.
this is the difference between "Linux zealots" and "Mac bigots."
Interesting take. I don't know about it being the difference. But it's sorta interesting.
not many people have the requisite $1000 to switch.
Everyone has the $1000 to switch. At least they do every four or five years. If they don't, then they can't really afford to own a computer and that's another issue altogether.
Linux can run on existing hardware and doesn't cost anything
It'll run on your PCs if they're not too old, sure. not Macintoshes. And good luck trying to run RH 7.2 with KDE 3 on a 486. So it doesn't run on "anything." And "doesn't cost anything"? Well not for the software, no. But every solution has costs.
Anyway, I think the major obstacle in the way of getting Linux into the desktop market (education or otherwise) is Linux itself. It's still radically inferior to commercial desktop operating systems when it comes to ease of installation, use and maintenance. I have elsewhere in these forums predicted that when someone finally makes a distro which truly is suitable for a novice, it will be universally hated by all current Linux geeks because it "lacks options" and "takes away my control," etc.
It hasn't been mentioned in the article, nor in this discussion so far as I can see...but is nobody aware that the computer maker that sells more boxes to the educaton market is Apple?
I realize that many in the slashdot crowd see any solution other than free/oss ones as inherently evil...and that companies with these solutions are engaged in nothing short of extortion and theft...but c'mon. Isn't one of the best options for these schools to simply buy more Macintoshes? Of course it is!
I not only read what you wrote, I freakin' quoted you. Repeatedly. Basically what you're doing now is saying "what I wrote isn't quite what I meant," which may be true but isn't my problem. Perhaps you didn't mean to give the impression that you thought Apple just sprang up from nowhwere two years ago. Perhaps you didn't mean to give the impression that you thought Apple's present sucess is the only sucess they've had to speak of. But you did give that impression quite clearly. Be more careful next time.
And now you've been modded up a point for denying it. Consider yourself fortunate.
Hey don't get me wrong. I'm delighted - yes delighted - that O'Reilly likes OS X. And everything he outlines as being good ideas really are good ideas.
But there is a slight element of ridiculousness to this whole post. The idea that what Apple needs to do to be "a big sucess" and make "more money" is create more man pages is absurd.
Golly gee, maybe they can be as sucessful as Linux next! Do ya think??
If you don't even understand the irony of the above line then you really need a reality check.
Anyhow, like I said I am positively giddy about O'Reilly's love for OS X. I myself benefitted directly from the Apache Web Serving In OS X series of articles which appeared under the O'Reilly banner not long ago. But still...the idea that pandering to the uber-geek is going to do wonders for Apple's marketshare or bottom line is absurd on it's face. They should still do it...but it's consumer products like iMovie, pricing and marketing that affect the bottom line, not man pages.
Slashdot Mirror
Their "we could give a shit" attitude is gonna kill em eventially and it'll continue as long as Jobs is at the helm...I know from experience manufactures gouge you when buying from them, but Apple positively rapes you. Need an Apple fixed? Good luck.
Shrill, alarmist and wrong. There certainly are differences when buying/owning the number two platform, but your complaints are overstated for dramatic effect I think. I for one had enough of this hyperbole back in the mid-90's.
"...in collaboration with Microsoft..."
I just hope that phrase doesn't mean non-DirectX operating systems (Linux, Mac OS X) aren't about to get the short end of the grahics stick. I can visualize features not being implimented for OpenGL, or worse, support for OpenGL discontinued at some strategic point in the future "because our customers strongly prefer DirectX" [says Microsoft].
Ok maybe I'm paranoid. Maybe this is basically nVidia's baby and MS is only involved a little bit. Let's all hope. Can someone reasure me?
An OS for which there are many thousands of commercial applications available. A complete UI. A pre-installed, integreated-with-the-hardware OS, all designed to work together and all under the same waranty. Spit and polish. Taste. That kind of thing.
Linux in it's present state of development and present degree of desktop penetration is a totally different beast aimed at a radically different market.
And please don't fool yourself into thinking that Apple is "out to steal" Linux desktop marketshare. There's not enough there to bother with. Now Xserve muscle in on Linux server spaces? Sure I think they would like that. But that's another discussion.
Oh I don' t know.. if by "*real* bitch" you mean "gotta enter the OF password," then yeah I guess so.
Seriously, is it more than that? I wouldn't have thought so.
If Apple had say 45% OS market share, I'm sure there would be many more Mac viruses rampaging across the net.
I hear that argument from Windows users all the time and I'm sure there's some truth to it. I mean it's obvious. But there's another part to the story. The part where Microsoft makes many of it's software products in an extremely vulnerable way in order to "give customers what they want."
Case in point. Why are Word, Outlook, Excel, PowerPoint, Access, etc all able to open programmable documents which could contain potentially malicious code? In plain english, the way they've chosen to impliment scripting and macros makes them dead-on guilty of making extremely vulnerable products.
Do you remember back in the days before such things existed? Before the concept of the "macro virus"? How many virii were there back then? How vulnerable did you feel? What percentage of Windows users even had virus protection? And most importantly, don't you think it's strange that everyone just accepts this? All for the sake of the 0.02% of macro-writers out there.
So yes, there would be more Mac virii if there were more Macs, I buy that. But there would be less Windows virii if MS didn't knowingly and repeatedly sell fundamentally insecure software products.
So please don't lull yourself to sleep with the old "there are so many Windows virii because there are so many Windows boxes out there." Rather, wake up and realize that Microsoft has decidedly turned away from security in favor of whiz-bang features that look good printed on the software box.
And please pardon the shrill, crazed tone of the above. I've been holding that one in for a while I guess.
Good ol' Dictionary.Com. And thanks for the vote of support.
Hey my post is not "offtopic." Let me say it another way:
Is Chimera...?
An organism, organ, or part consisting of two or more tissues of different genetic composition, produced as a result of organ transplant, grafting, or genetic engineering. Is Chimera a piece of software made from Netscape and other odd bits?
A substance, such as an antibody, created from the proteins or genes or two different species.
Does it, like an antibody, cure the disease that is the current browser market?
A fanciful mental illusion or fabrication
Is it just a lot of hype?
How's that for offtopic? Sheesh. I thought it was clever.
chimera also chimaera Pronunciation Key(k-mîr, k-)
n.
1.
a. An organism, organ, or part consisting of two or more tissues of different genetic composition, produced as a result of organ transplant, grafting, or genetic engineering.
b. A substance, such as an antibody, created from the proteins or genes or two different species.
2. An individual who has received a transplant of genetically and immunologically different tissue.
3. A fanciful mental illusion or fabrication
I had no idea that this had occured. It's exciting!
I'm given to wonder, however, why someone with a full OS X installation would wish to use KDE. Perhaps there are a dozen reasons I can't think off off-hand, but the real prize would be to run KDE on top of Darwin! Is this possible yet?
Darwin core + good GUI = another no-cost operating system on the loose. It would no doubt have far lower system requirements than OS X, too. The idea has me drooling already.
Sorry that you don't like my tone.
...your appraisal of Apple which doesn't even seem to solve the fundamental problem
Bah. Let's forget it. My own tone isn't any too great now that I read my own posts.
But you sound like Apple is so much of a better company to turn to than Microsoft.
Apple is a better company to turn to. They haven't violated federal laws in order to get more of our money. Microsoft has. No-brainer in my book.
any other proprietary software company wouldn't do the same thing if put in the same position
I really don't know what to say about that. Perhaps we should cease dealing with any companies at all. Hell, if they had monopolies they'd violate the law with them. Right?
But, I am skeptical on the needs of computing.
Frankly I quite agree with some of the sentiments you express here. This is why I, myself, endeavor to make computing more than this. I've taught digital video and audio recording and editing, web design, flash, director, etc. to people aged 7 and up in various settings. In July I'm teaching iMovie to disadvantaged highschoolers in my area. I can't wait.
Such as most textbooks distribute software to use as well--which typically only works Windows.
I don't know where you're getting that from, unless you're just thinking back to your "programming 201" class where the textbook came with a some free C compiler. It's a big, big world out there and there are plenty of other areas that really are cross-platform
I think the source of dissagreement between us is really just about this. We have different ideas about what the "fundamental problem" is. I see the fundamental problem as Microsoft strong-arming anyone and everyone by illigally leveraging their monopoly. Solution? Do less business with them. The monopoly won't be as strong and you'll be less exposed to thier tactics, too.
And restrictive software is the fundamental problem I see here. Do you think any other proprietary software vendor will stop enforcing their licensing? That's pretty much what you mean by bullying
It's most assuredly not what I mean by bullying. it's being forced to hire two FTEs to the tune of 100g to do a mandatory audit. Add that item to big pile of other strong-arm tactics Microsoft has used against consumers and OEMs and competitors.
Please, get your head out of the clouds for just a little bit. Thank you
That's pretty arrogant for someone advocating a platform who's effectiveness in the education market is totally unproven and still in the realm of theoretical. I can come up with some pretty compelling reasons why no K-12 institution should even think about using Linux. Read the entire thread here and you'll find them.
In any case, claiming that Apple might in the future be just as bullying as microsoft at some point in the future is a long-shot in itself. Claiming that one should abandon for-profit hardware/software companies altogether because of MS is a ludicrous leap of thinking. At the very least it doesn't merit the "sure thing" tone of your response. It just makes you sound like a Linux political zealot and not someone who knows a lot about or cares at all about the actual issue.
...Apple is no different. I guarantee, if tomorrow we woke up and found that Macs had say 60% market share, within a few years, it'd be 95%, and Jobs would suddenly have morphed into Gates faster than you can say Jack Robinson.
I'm evaluating the above statement with the following one...
It may be that there is no desktop operating system that truly doesn't need a knowledgeable support person...but Linux is lightyears behind in terms of reaching this goal.
...And I, personally, keep coming up Mac. I guess it's just a question of which of these you find more compelling. For myself, I take the problematic present state of Linux to be more worrisome than what might happen if Apple gets 60% of the desktop market again. Maybe that's just me.
I have to state that the ONLY solution here is the PC/Linux combination, as whatever its flaws, it means nobody can hold them to ransom
..well, alarmist?
Except the technology itself. K-12 institutions don't typically have any technical support. There are no sys admins, no help desk, etc. It may be that there is no desktop operating system that truly doesn't need a knowledgeable support person...but Linux is lightyears behind in terms of reaching this goal. The Macintosh is leading the pack in that arena.
Even if they could afford it (which they can't)...
It's true that many Macintoshes cost more than what you could get a similarly spec'd bargain PC. Everybody knows that. But so what? The expense of professional support (which going Linux would require) is even further beyond th reach of these institutions.
Besides, what are we really supposed to learn from the aforementioned "history book"? That because a for-profit company who holds a monopoly isn't very nice to do business with? I don't think anyone's going to be shocked by that news. Isn't claiming that nobody should do business with for-profit companies in that industry because of it
http://www.apple.com/education/k12/installedbase/
i on.html
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/1999/nov/01educat
Seen these?
Here's hoping that more of you are coming :)
You're shocked or amazed by this? Heh. Wait till you talk to the tech guy for the school district and he looks at you in utter disbelief when you inform him that, yes, Macs can participate on an ethernet network.
Think I'm kidding?
I mistyped but I think you understood that I mean to say:
"...but is nobody aware that the computer make that sells the more boxes to the education market than anyone else is Apple?"
Your responded "no"? Well I simply counter with "yes." It wasn't an invitation to debate cost/benefit analysis of Mac ownership - it was a statement of fact. At least here in the United States. Apple is the number one provider of computers to the education market in this country.
Anyway, without getting too far into it...will those $1300 (CDN) boxes do everything the Macintosh will? I'm thinking...no.
Something that is little -understood outside of academia is that K-12 institutions have virutally no tech support. There really aren't any "sys admins" on hand and nobody to fix anything except maybe that one math teacher down the hall who kinda knows this stuff.
Institutions like this see a lot of value in an out-of-the-box solution with a warantee by a company who's been around since the beginning of the personal computer. A company who is renown for ease of use and customer satisfaction.
Paying more than Wal-Mart prices doesn't look so bad in that context.
existing hardware
That's not a bad point, really. Still, Apple's hardware is more prevalent in education than anyone elses and that's got to be accounted for.
this is the difference between "Linux zealots" and "Mac bigots."
Interesting take. I don't know about it being the difference. But it's sorta interesting.
not many people have the requisite $1000 to switch.
Everyone has the $1000 to switch. At least they do every four or five years. If they don't, then they can't really afford to own a computer and that's another issue altogether.
Linux can run on existing hardware and doesn't cost anything
It'll run on your PCs if they're not too old, sure. not Macintoshes. And good luck trying to run RH 7.2 with KDE 3 on a 486. So it doesn't run on "anything." And "doesn't cost anything"? Well not for the software, no. But every solution has costs.
Anyway, I think the major obstacle in the way of getting Linux into the desktop market (education or otherwise) is Linux itself. It's still radically inferior to commercial desktop operating systems when it comes to ease of installation, use and maintenance. I have elsewhere in these forums predicted that when someone finally makes a distro which truly is suitable for a novice, it will be universally hated by all current Linux geeks because it "lacks options" and "takes away my control," etc.
I can't wait to see it.
I invite you to examine yourself, man. I didn't come into this with a chip on my shoulder. The chip appeared when you replied to me.
But whatever. No hard feelings here. Misunderstandings maybe, and a dead thread besides. See ya round.
It hasn't been mentioned in the article, nor in this discussion so far as I can see...but is nobody aware that the computer maker that sells more boxes to the educaton market is Apple?
I realize that many in the slashdot crowd see any solution other than free/oss ones as inherently evil...and that companies with these solutions are engaged in nothing short of extortion and theft...but c'mon. Isn't one of the best options for these schools to simply buy more Macintoshes? Of course it is!
I not only read what you wrote, I freakin' quoted you. Repeatedly. Basically what you're doing now is saying "what I wrote isn't quite what I meant," which may be true but isn't my problem. Perhaps you didn't mean to give the impression that you thought Apple just sprang up from nowhwere two years ago. Perhaps you didn't mean to give the impression that you thought Apple's present sucess is the only sucess they've had to speak of. But you did give that impression quite clearly. Be more careful next time.
And now you've been modded up a point for denying it. Consider yourself fortunate.
Hey don't get me wrong. I'm delighted - yes delighted - that O'Reilly likes OS X. And everything he outlines as being good ideas really are good ideas.
But there is a slight element of ridiculousness to this whole post. The idea that what Apple needs to do to be "a big sucess" and make "more money" is create more man pages is absurd.
Golly gee, maybe they can be as sucessful as Linux next! Do ya think??
If you don't even understand the irony of the above line then you really need a reality check.
Anyhow, like I said I am positively giddy about O'Reilly's love for OS X. I myself benefitted directly from the Apache Web Serving In OS X series of articles which appeared under the O'Reilly banner not long ago. But still...the idea that pandering to the uber-geek is going to do wonders for Apple's marketshare or bottom line is absurd on it's face. They should still do it...but it's consumer products like iMovie, pricing and marketing that affect the bottom line, not man pages.
Apple brought this technology to market years ago in their Newton product. Nice try though :)
Apple has become very successful over the last few years
:)
Well if by "few" you mean "twenty" then yeah
Apple addressed this with the iMacs, iBooks and Mac OSX IMO, by providing a simple "dumbed down" UI
Um...Again it sounds like you are unaware that Apple has been all about ease-of-use for the last two decades.
(and this will go even further with the next release of OSX, which has a "simple finder" option)
Yet again...this feature has been available for years in previous versions of the Mac OS. Quite useful, I'm told, for very young children.