You are me about 3 months ago. Way back then I would have bought another mac if only it had a working airport extreme. I have since come to the conclusion that apple is no better than any other heartless corporation. Recent other troubles with my ibook has left me highly skeptical of apple's hardware. It's to the point where I think I would rather have a cheap dell after a windows rebate than an apple. Apple's hardware might be shiny but my ibook leads me to believe that apple's hardware is not reliable. I'd rather have an ugly working laptop than a shiny non functioning laptop. Maybe I'd go with a linux certified laptop to screw over dell.
After you check thinksecret just wait to see which story apple sues them over. Then you know they found something.
This will be the least excited I've ever been for a stevenote. A string of ibook problems and a guy on the phone telling you that your extended warranty doesn't cover the problem tends to take the wind out of apple's sails for me (or should I say sales).
I've got an ibook G4 with applecare. I started to get white spots. Apparently mine are caused from extreme pressure and are therefore not covered in applecare. So it's either deal with the ugly spots or pay $700 for a new screen. Applecare is a total waste if it doesn't actually pay for things when they break. Why even bother with applecare? This experience combined with the non linux friendly airport extreme has given me reason to never buy a mac again.
At the local apple store here so many people sign up online that when I get to the store the whole system is full. Nobody shows up so I go to the support "bar" and they yell out about 10 names and then say "ok I can help you now." Signing up online to get help is totally useless cause nobody shows up. Apple needs a better way to boot people off the support list.
"Arguably, Gates has a Robin-Hood scenario going: monopolizing the computer-owning upper classes to feed the poor"
The argument against that being that a real life robin hood would steal from Bill Gates since he is the richest man on the planet. If Bill is a modern Robin hood, he skims off the top so much that he is the number one target of any other modern day Robin Hood. The super rich stealing from the middle class to help feed the poor does not exaclty fit the robin hood stereotype. Just about anyone stealing from Bill Gates and giving to the poor would fit the stereotype.
This does make great marketing since you just spent time lokoing stuff up about a rumor for a movie. Better than a 30 second TV ad. Gotta hand it to the marketers on this one. Sex sells.
"I'm all for giving poor and developing nations access to this kind of technology but the fact remains that there are more pressing needs for these folks."
You are so right. That's why you will happy to learn that almost all of the researchers at MIT decided to stop working on this project and decided to switch to growing food, manufacturing aids medication, and producing condoms. Now I know what you are thinking. "But how are the grad students going to get their phD's?". Well the answer to that is simple: cheaper condoms. phD topics abound in that area. Obviously the grad students will have to change majors from computer science or electrical engineering to condom engineering, but 90% of the students were willing to make the transition. It was from the tireless and thankless job of posters like you that made this project a success. Thank you.
"Kind of odd since Darwin is %100 open source except for aqua."
Um...no. Apple's OS is far from open. Where do i download the source for quicktime? How about spotlight? Dashboard? any of the ilife applications. You see any application or section of the OS that apple builds on top of aqua tends to be closed source. There are small exceptions to that such as the rendering engine for safari.
Of the 8 pictures on the top right of this page: http://www.apple.com/macosx/
Which of those are open source? I'll give you half a point for the khtml code in safari.
If I were an MIT researcher I would also not go with apple because I could not modify the source code. To fix a bug in an application or to perhaps speed up an application to run on a very low end laptop, the folks at MIT would have to file a bug with apple and pray it gets fixed soon. It's the same problem you will have with any proprietary software vendor. Just because you can write hardware drivers because Darwin is open does not mean that OS X is all of the sudden an open OS. Solaris is open source. OS X is far from open source.
Look up the specs, construct a bill of materials, and let me know if you still think it's impossible. I think you'll find that reality is closer than fantasy. It is because the laptop uses very dated technology that it is able to be so cheap.
You just proved my point. The corporations that fail to make money don't last. They are weeded out until the corporations whose main goal is to make money are left. If the leadership of a corporation decided to spend all their profits on a massive donation spree, that corporation won't last against a corporation that spends it's profits on new products, R&D, or even donations that generate more publicity. The only reward a corporation would see for a donation would be free positive publicity.
Corporations could do whatever they want. They could donate all their money away. They could buy tons of trout. They could attempt to maximize profits at all costs. Monetarily successful corporations chose the last option. Trout salesmen probably chose the last 2.
Well there are many things that you could do. Running quartz on a $100 laptop (500 MHz machine) probably won't work all that well. Apple has never optimized it's operating system to run on lower end machines. You could run wine in an x window in quartz extreme. The problem is that it would be very slow and a massive drain on resources.
Running GNU/Linux on the laptop is the most sensible choice.
"Why didn't you write the front end for X11 in the first place?"
In order to run X11 I need to run quartz (another window manager). Running one window manager in order to run yet another is called bloat. Resources are limited on a $100 machine. Why don't I just trim the fat from the beginning and only run GNU/Linux. Go back and read what software the computer needs to run. Why do I need OS X to run this software? Why would I run two window managers on a resource limited machine? If I'm going to be that wasteful why don't I compile wine to run in an X session in a quartz session so that I can run windows applications?
Are you running OS X on a $100 laptop? I'm betting that you would want to tinker with your operating system to get it to work well on this new and unique machine. If you were a researcher at MIT you would not have access to the source code to tinker with the machine. The laptop does not need to run flaky 1/2 made software. It needs:
"Software will include a word processor, a Web browser, an email program and a programming system."
These needs are well served by a Linux distribution. They are stable. The operating system would however need to be tinkered with in order to get these stable applications to run on a $100 laptop. The options for an MIT researcher are the following:
Go with apple:
-ask apple nicely that they hire some good engineers to get everything running smoothly on the new hardware
-tell professor that it's all covered and that you'd be happy to explain how as long as he signs this NDA
Let's put the rubber to the road here for a second...
When I load my music jukebox program on my resource limited $100 laptop I have the wonderful option of purchasing $1 DRM laden music from apple's music store. Gosh I'd like to turn that option off. If it was open source I could easily do this...Instead I file a bug with apple and wait. I think maybe some of those spotlight preferences are not optimized for my $100 laptop here. I'd recompile spotlight so that it works super fast, but I don't have access to the source code. Instead I'll ask apple's engineers to look into it. Perhaps all this gui candy in OS X is slowing down my $100 laptop a bit. If I could only optimize it, disable a thing or 2... oh but I can't. Well then why don't I just disable those programs/window manager and use open source replacements. Those replacements are not very good/don't exist/prevent me from running other quartz applications because I just did a kill -9 on quartz.
How about those MIT researchers use GNU/Linux so that they can customize their OS to match their hardware instead of filing a bunch of bug reports to apple.
Are you running OS X on a $100 laptop? There are a lot of tweaks and GUI candy that I can turn off on a GNU/Linux install. Since Quartz is not open source I cannot tweak it to run really well on a $100 laptop. From a MIT researcher perspective I would go with GNU/Linux so that I would have the control to disable extra Quartz or program components. Do I need a music jukebox that can connect to a music store selling $1 DRM laden music tracks in a third world country? Can I mess around with spotlights settings to make some slight changes to optimize it for my $100 laptop? With apple, or other proprietary software developers, it's file a bug report and then start praying something happens and wait. With GNU/Linux, the MIT lab or anyone for that matter can start working on improvements. As Joe or Jane researcher at MIT I would go with GNU/Linux where I have more control.
"Well their reason for not selecting it might be zealotry, but I have to beleive[sic.] that they can create a Redhat based distribution that will work with their hardware all the time."
Especially when "they" includes a ton of money and an MIT research lab.
"That tells me that this project is doomed right now....This is like giving a telephone to someone, but requiring that they first learn the laws of electricity before they can use it to call their friends."
Seriously. When I run Unbuntu I am constantly trying to figure out how my Kernel allocates memory to my programs. A computer made by MIT researchers and backed by millions of dollars I think is the definition of failure. Those dumbasses at MIT are probably going to require that everyone compile their window manager. This project is doomed I say.... DOOOMED!
"You're aware that *all* apple powerbooks are running on G4 processors, yes ? About as fast as a late P3, or very early P4...
Tiger does very well on even G3 processors (~early P3) if you read the comments below from people who have it running on that hardware."
I have a triple boot OS X/OS 9/Debian powerbook 233 MHz G3. A custom GNU/Linux installation on that computer is much faster than OS X. I'd customize my OS X installation to speed it up, except apple doesn't allow me to.
"For example, what if you are teaching film-making? Linux has very little in the way of good video editing and graphics software."
I really doubt that $100 computers in the developing world will be doing a whole lot of video editing. Maybe if you built a beowolf cluster of $100 laptops to do your editing... In that case you would still use GNU/Linux.
"you could install Linux. or you could just kepp[sic.] using it - it won't stop working just because of official lack of support. How is it any different than if red Hat decides to stop supporting them?
If I decide to write a quartz program in OS X, I now have to rewrite the frontend to run on GNU/Linux. If I however write a program for gnome using Redhat, it easily runs on Debian, Suse....
"The problem with Linux is that it makes many tasks unnecessarily difficult. Users (especially those in need) just need to get on with things. When you can't get the software to do what you need, or need to learn obscure Linux skills, the computer becomes useless."
Developing countries should avoid vendor lock in with Apple or any tech company like the plague. GNU/Linux on the Desktop is getting better and better all the time. I'm sure that the MIT researchers are making the GNU/Linux installation work as easily as possible. I have faith that the children will be very interested in learning and improving their new laptops when they get them.
Slashdot Mirror
That sounds pretty notebook specific to me unless you kick your desktop from time to time just to keep it on its toes.
I think most people that want ogg support have decided to ignore apple.
You are me about 3 months ago. Way back then I would have bought another mac if only it had a working airport extreme. I have since come to the conclusion that apple is no better than any other heartless corporation. Recent other troubles with my ibook has left me highly skeptical of apple's hardware. It's to the point where I think I would rather have a cheap dell after a windows rebate than an apple. Apple's hardware might be shiny but my ibook leads me to believe that apple's hardware is not reliable. I'd rather have an ugly working laptop than a shiny non functioning laptop. Maybe I'd go with a linux certified laptop to screw over dell.
This will be the least excited I've ever been for a stevenote. A string of ibook problems and a guy on the phone telling you that your extended warranty doesn't cover the problem tends to take the wind out of apple's sails for me (or should I say sales).
I've got an ibook G4 with applecare. I started to get white spots. Apparently mine are caused from extreme pressure and are therefore not covered in applecare. So it's either deal with the ugly spots or pay $700 for a new screen. Applecare is a total waste if it doesn't actually pay for things when they break. Why even bother with applecare? This experience combined with the non linux friendly airport extreme has given me reason to never buy a mac again.
At the local apple store here so many people sign up online that when I get to the store the whole system is full. Nobody shows up so I go to the support "bar" and they yell out about 10 names and then say "ok I can help you now." Signing up online to get help is totally useless cause nobody shows up. Apple needs a better way to boot people off the support list.
The argument against that being that a real life robin hood would steal from Bill Gates since he is the richest man on the planet. If Bill is a modern Robin hood, he skims off the top so much that he is the number one target of any other modern day Robin Hood. The super rich stealing from the middle class to help feed the poor does not exaclty fit the robin hood stereotype. Just about anyone stealing from Bill Gates and giving to the poor would fit the stereotype.
This does make great marketing since you just spent time lokoing stuff up about a rumor for a movie. Better than a 30 second TV ad. Gotta hand it to the marketers on this one. Sex sells.
You are so right. That's why you will happy to learn that almost all of the researchers at MIT decided to stop working on this project and decided to switch to growing food, manufacturing aids medication, and producing condoms. Now I know what you are thinking. "But how are the grad students going to get their phD's?". Well the answer to that is simple: cheaper condoms. phD topics abound in that area. Obviously the grad students will have to change majors from computer science or electrical engineering to condom engineering, but 90% of the students were willing to make the transition. It was from the tireless and thankless job of posters like you that made this project a success. Thank you.
Um...no. Apple's OS is far from open. Where do i download the source for quicktime? How about spotlight? Dashboard? any of the ilife applications. You see any application or section of the OS that apple builds on top of aqua tends to be closed source. There are small exceptions to that such as the rendering engine for safari.
Of the 8 pictures on the top right of this page:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/
Which of those are open source? I'll give you half a point for the khtml code in safari.
If I were an MIT researcher I would also not go with apple because I could not modify the source code. To fix a bug in an application or to perhaps speed up an application to run on a very low end laptop, the folks at MIT would have to file a bug with apple and pray it gets fixed soon. It's the same problem you will have with any proprietary software vendor. Just because you can write hardware drivers because Darwin is open does not mean that OS X is all of the sudden an open OS. Solaris is open source. OS X is far from open source.
Look up the specs, construct a bill of materials, and let me know if you still think it's impossible. I think you'll find that reality is closer than fantasy. It is because the laptop uses very dated technology that it is able to be so cheap.
You should be able to buy one for $200, and that money will be used to subsidize the laptops going to the developing countries.
Corporations could do whatever they want. They could donate all their money away. They could buy tons of trout. They could attempt to maximize profits at all costs. Monetarily successful corporations chose the last option. Trout salesmen probably chose the last 2.
Running GNU/Linux on the laptop is the most sensible choice.
If you are going to run only an x server on top of Darwin, what is the advantage of Darwin over a GNU/Linux distribution?
In order to run X11 I need to run quartz (another window manager). Running one window manager in order to run yet another is called bloat. Resources are limited on a $100 machine. Why don't I just trim the fat from the beginning and only run GNU/Linux. Go back and read what software the computer needs to run. Why do I need OS X to run this software? Why would I run two window managers on a resource limited machine? If I'm going to be that wasteful why don't I compile wine to run in an X session in a quartz session so that I can run windows applications?
Go with apple:
-ask apple nicely that they hire some good engineers to get everything running smoothly on the new hardware
-tell professor that it's all covered and that you'd be happy to explain how as long as he signs this NDA
Go with Linux:
-start working
-publish results
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=168296&cid=140 33084
Here's a hint. I looked at:
http://www.apple.com/software/
You are correct: Apple makes a lot of fluff.
When I load my music jukebox program on my resource limited $100 laptop I have the wonderful option of purchasing $1 DRM laden music from apple's music store. Gosh I'd like to turn that option off. If it was open source I could easily do this...Instead I file a bug with apple and wait. I think maybe some of those spotlight preferences are not optimized for my $100 laptop here. I'd recompile spotlight so that it works super fast, but I don't have access to the source code. Instead I'll ask apple's engineers to look into it. Perhaps all this gui candy in OS X is slowing down my $100 laptop a bit. If I could only optimize it, disable a thing or 2... oh but I can't. Well then why don't I just disable those programs/window manager and use open source replacements. Those replacements are not very good/don't exist/prevent me from running other quartz applications because I just did a kill -9 on quartz.
How about those MIT researchers use GNU/Linux so that they can customize their OS to match their hardware instead of filing a bunch of bug reports to apple.
Are you running OS X on a $100 laptop? There are a lot of tweaks and GUI candy that I can turn off on a GNU/Linux install. Since Quartz is not open source I cannot tweak it to run really well on a $100 laptop. From a MIT researcher perspective I would go with GNU/Linux so that I would have the control to disable extra Quartz or program components. Do I need a music jukebox that can connect to a music store selling $1 DRM laden music tracks in a third world country? Can I mess around with spotlights settings to make some slight changes to optimize it for my $100 laptop? With apple, or other proprietary software developers, it's file a bug report and then start praying something happens and wait. With GNU/Linux, the MIT lab or anyone for that matter can start working on improvements. As Joe or Jane researcher at MIT I would go with GNU/Linux where I have more control.
Especially when "they" includes a ton of money and an MIT research lab.
Seriously. When I run Unbuntu I am constantly trying to figure out how my Kernel allocates memory to my programs. A computer made by MIT researchers and backed by millions of dollars I think is the definition of failure. Those dumbasses at MIT are probably going to require that everyone compile their window manager. This project is doomed I say.... DOOOMED!
Tiger does very well on even G3 processors (~early P3) if you read the comments below from people who have it running on that hardware."
I have a triple boot OS X/OS 9/Debian powerbook 233 MHz G3. A custom GNU/Linux installation on that computer is much faster than OS X. I'd customize my OS X installation to speed it up, except apple doesn't allow me to.
I really doubt that $100 computers in the developing world will be doing a whole lot of video editing. Maybe if you built a beowolf cluster of $100 laptops to do your editing... In that case you would still use GNU/Linux.
"you could install Linux. or you could just kepp[sic.] using it - it won't stop working just because of official lack of support. How is it any different than if red Hat decides to stop supporting them?
If I decide to write a quartz program in OS X, I now have to rewrite the frontend to run on GNU/Linux. If I however write a program for gnome using Redhat, it easily runs on Debian, Suse....
"The problem with Linux is that it makes many tasks unnecessarily difficult. Users (especially those in need) just need to get on with things. When you can't get the software to do what you need, or need to learn obscure Linux skills, the computer becomes useless."
Developing countries should avoid vendor lock in with Apple or any tech company like the plague. GNU/Linux on the Desktop is getting better and better all the time. I'm sure that the MIT researchers are making the GNU/Linux installation work as easily as possible. I have faith that the children will be very interested in learning and improving their new laptops when they get them.