The support for open source applications on the Mac is lacking. I've got fink installed on an ibook and I'll say it again...lacking. I think that Apple wanted to get young kids used to their operating system so that when they are older, they will buy Apple's operating system. This is the drug dealer business model. It worked on me until I learned how to use other operating systems.
What is the difference between getting OS X for free on the $100 laptop and convincing Bill gates to give windows away for free on the laptop? You can run Firefox on windows. You can run openoffice BETTER on windows. You can run gaim on windows. There is more of that closed source stuff that you talked about in windows. Open source applications can be built just as easily on windows as they can be on a Mac. Windows is more compatible with the 90% of the other windows machines out there.
"Hell, you can strip a default OS X installation down to all free components and then build it up using truly free software if you were so inclined."
There is a reason nobody does this. Mainly cause GNU/Linux is way better at it and there is no reason to reinvent the wheel.
"Think of OS X as Linux (well, FOSS Darwin) plus bonuses like Quartz that may be closed source but do nothing but ADD value while leaving the doors open for other, more free alternatives if the user wishes."
I think what you meant to say is that quartz provides the needed vendor lock in that apple wants. Quartz limits applications to run on only OS X. Your quartz app doesn't run on a GNU/Linux box unless you recompile that application with a free frontend. I don't really want to add vendor lock in to a machine. That only subtracts value in my opinion. What if apple decides later that they need to increase profits and can no longer support the $100 laptops? With Linux there are many alternatives. With OS X there is only, Apple. I think of OS X as FOSS Darwin with vendor lock in and DRM. Getting rid of Quartz, apple's main vendor lock in mechanism, renders an OS X machine near useless as a desktop machine.
"Some people, even those in corporations, still would like a better world for their kids."
You'll notice that you said some people in corporations. The official stance of the corporation however is not to give everyone a warm fuzzy feeling inside. The only purpose that a corporation has is to make profit. Yes many individuals want to create a better world. Some of those individuals work in corporations. Those individuals should be commended for their forward thinking views.
The corporation would be pissed if it participated in any community service that did not receive any attention, publicity, mind share, or free advertising. The bricks and stones of a corporation headquarters don't shine a little brighter when it has helped another person.
"Especially in a developing nation - you want your computer to help you survive, not be an extra burden"
That's why the ends of the computer have been sharpened to hunt lions
Seriously though the whole purpose of the computers is to EDUCATE children. To that end, GNU/Linux is a better choice. What happens if apple decides not to stop supporting these $100 laptops? All of the sudden the children get a whole new lesson plan in vendor lock in. With Linux if your laptop doesn't work, you can get support from many places. That is one of many advantages of GNU/Linux.
"Darwin has it's source code available and it runs on i386 and PPC, the most common processors in the market. Besides they can run XWindows on it too."
Have you even tried to run Xorg's server on a mac without running it in a quartz window? Do you even know anyone that is running a totally open source Darwin installation on i386? The reason nobody does this is because doing this is like reinventing the GNU/Linux wheel. The use of Linux sounds very pragmatic to me. Saying "they should just use OS X" sounds like frothing apple zealotry.
Hence the need for biodiesel. Unfortunately the cost of used vegetable grease will go up if more people use biodiesel so... forget I said anything. Move along.
"Prius and Insight are small saloons, which are much more aerodynamic. They typically get 50-60MPG."
Realistically these numbers should be 40-50MPG. I swear Manufacturers drive their cars in frictionless worlds or something before they release their MPG numbers.
In what ways can you tinker with Linux that you cannot tinker with OS X? In fact, OS X gives you far more to tinker with because not only do you have the keys to the kernel and the BSD layer and X11, but also to everything that Apple provides. That answer makes no sense whatsoever."
Well I can't tinker with:
quartz, iwork, iphoto, itunes, airport extreme, spotlight, quicktime, isync, ical,imovie, apple's mail, safari (but you can tinker with safari's rendering engine), ichatAV, garage band, idvd, all the pro applications, and much much more.
Of course by tinker I mean:
-look at the source code
-make modifications to the source code
-distribute the code along with my changes without the possibility of getting sued.
"I can see Darwin, Streaming Server, Compiler tools, Kerberos, Open Directory, OpenPlay, Bonjour, KHTML, X11, BLAST, HeaderDoc, CDSA, CUPS."
Unfortunately I see Fairplay, no ogg support, broadcom chipsets for airport extreme, quartz extreme, iTunes, iWork, basically every app beginning with an i, the frontend of safari...The problem is that when you listed apple's open source contributions, those are buried under a mound of closed source software and closed hardware.
Yes apple contributes a little to open source projects, and for that I am happy. Apple however is far from an industry leader in free software contributions. For this reason I am sad and not spending money on those apple products. Unfortunately all that's left is to run darwin with some windowing system that I made run on the computer sharing a printer and running khtml without a frontend... basically I'd get frustrated and just install GNU/Linux.
I use magnatune also. Good music with no DRM. They support open formats. They release under creative commons...They rock. They respect my rights and so I respect them. The major labels don't respect me and so I don't respect them (I don't buy from them).
The problem with your communist commentary is the fact that you left freedom out of the equation. In communist Russia the government owned everything including the press. it could therefore limit what could and could not be printed. Since the government also owned the prisons it could take unfavorable journalists and do whatever they wanted with them in their prisons or gulags. Communism is often associated with the government oppression of dissent (whether this is fair or not is beside the point that the association is there). Since RMS stresses freedom, it does not help in understanding what he stands for by calling him a communist. He does not want to jail proprietary software developers. He wants to increase the freedom that software users and developers have. I would describe RMS as a software freedom advocate.
The device will cost $400. I don't want to buy a $400 mp3 player. I think that will be the biggest roadblock rather than how open source it is. To compete they need to be cheaper.
I think the philosophy is closer to "If an Open Source project doesn't have the features that a Linux user wants, someone will code those features for the project."
Disney has a massive brand name. If Disney could come out with some good animated movies without Pixar, then they wouldn't need to buy Pixar. The problem is that recent Disney computer animated films have not done well (especially compared to the films made by Pixar). All Disney would need to do is have a really good CGI movie and then have the previews for all of their future movie say "from the creators of that really cool movie, comes another movie". That's what Pixar is able to do by saying "from the creators of toy story, Nemo, whatever...comes a new movie" and then people go see it. Disney's problem is that they cannot create a big hit CGI movie. If Disney was smart, they would headhunt the brains behind Pixar's movies to produce a major hit that they can use for their future movies. I don't think Disney needs a whole lot more brand recognition. They simply need 1 good animated movie. Maybe that's what they are trying to buy with Pixar.
"PS- I don't hate mac users. I just hate the ones that walk around with a false sense of superiority."
Much like someone that would give up a perfectly good machine for one that is running an OS that is considered experimental at best on Laptops just for the cache it provides them?
You mean those kinda people?
Now you are trying to judge me. You are only proving my point further. I don't run Linux to try and fit an image. I run gnu/Linux for the freedoms that it gives me.
Well the wireless card on my ibook is not supported at all. I use wireless at home and around my work, so having wireless support is important to me. Some people are trying to reverse engineer the broadcom driver for the ibook. Broadcom is not helping the Linux community much and apple is not switching to a different wireless chipset.
Re:It's Just Business
on
Pixar For Sale?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You're not buying much if you have a mass employee exodus and a drop in moral in the company. The whole purpose of buying pixar would be to buy it's talent(employees). The pixar brand won't last if the talent to create good movies isn't there.
I think what you meant to say is that people that use apple computers are easily influenced by advertising. The things they wear and the products they use define their personality. In essence apple users are apple whores. Brainless consumers that buy apple because it fits their hipster mentality. It's the same mentality that needs reinforcing through cherry picked images(I'm looking at you anonymous coward).
In a completely unrelated topic, I can't wait to replace my ibook with a Linux laptop(airport extreme + Linux = no wireless).
PS- I don't hate mac users. I just hate the ones that walk around with a false sense of superiority.
Too bad it backfired. I couldn't find the first clue, decided I didn't want to play the game, and left not thinking too highly of google or the Carmen like game.
Like most unreleased technologies, I am skeptical. Many research groups publicize the possible miracle's their technology could fix while downplaying the downside of the technology. This is done in order to get more research dollars spent to fund your research. This sounds like publicity from a research group in order to get more funding. In that respect I think it is working.
I'll stick to Journal articles to see if the technology actually works though.
I think it would be obvious how ipod integration would help Microsoft. The benefit is kinda hidden for Apple. Apple has a little hesitation toward Microsoft integration. Apple made it so that you can plug in the ipod and have it load itunes on a PC. Apple didn't make it so that you could run windows media player. If apple wanted their ipod to hook up to your tv or your computer, they would not trust Microsoft to control that device.
Why is the parent post moderated "troll"? Be realistic, people -- this is one of the prime motivations for wealthy individuals and corporations to make charitable donations. Not the only motivation, mind you, but anyone who thinks it isn't a consideration in a multi-million-dollar donation is seriously naive.
I call it like it is and someone mods me troll. Brilliant. Maybe if I post it again I can get smarter mods:
I think gates used/uses his money to improve his tainted image. The best way to get money out of Jobs and others might be to start a personal campaign against them. The only way out of it would therefore be public donations.
I'd like to see a tech company use some of their donation money to improve the workplace and pay of those people that do the soldering and assembly of the actual computers. Personally I'd like to see the money go towards improving the future instead of preserving the past. I guess I'll just have to flame bill a bit more in order to get the money out of him.
I think gates used/uses his money to improve his tainted image. The best way to get money out of Jobs and others might be to start a personal campaign against them. The only way out of it would therefore be public donations.
I'd like to see a tech company use some of their donation money to improve the workplace and pay of those people that do the soldering and assembly of the actual computers. Personally I'd like to see the money go towards improving the future instead of preserving the past. I guess I'll just have to flame bill a bit more in order to get the money out of him.
Slashdot Mirror
What is the difference between getting OS X for free on the $100 laptop and convincing Bill gates to give windows away for free on the laptop? You can run Firefox on windows. You can run openoffice BETTER on windows. You can run gaim on windows. There is more of that closed source stuff that you talked about in windows. Open source applications can be built just as easily on windows as they can be on a Mac. Windows is more compatible with the 90% of the other windows machines out there.
There is a reason nobody does this. Mainly cause GNU/Linux is way better at it and there is no reason to reinvent the wheel.
"Think of OS X as Linux (well, FOSS Darwin) plus bonuses like Quartz that may be closed source but do nothing but ADD value while leaving the doors open for other, more free alternatives if the user wishes."
I think what you meant to say is that quartz provides the needed vendor lock in that apple wants. Quartz limits applications to run on only OS X. Your quartz app doesn't run on a GNU/Linux box unless you recompile that application with a free frontend. I don't really want to add vendor lock in to a machine. That only subtracts value in my opinion. What if apple decides later that they need to increase profits and can no longer support the $100 laptops? With Linux there are many alternatives. With OS X there is only, Apple. I think of OS X as FOSS Darwin with vendor lock in and DRM. Getting rid of Quartz, apple's main vendor lock in mechanism, renders an OS X machine near useless as a desktop machine.
You'll notice that you said some people in corporations. The official stance of the corporation however is not to give everyone a warm fuzzy feeling inside. The only purpose that a corporation has is to make profit. Yes many individuals want to create a better world. Some of those individuals work in corporations. Those individuals should be commended for their forward thinking views.
The corporation would be pissed if it participated in any community service that did not receive any attention, publicity, mind share, or free advertising. The bricks and stones of a corporation headquarters don't shine a little brighter when it has helped another person.
That's why the ends of the computer have been sharpened to hunt lions
Seriously though the whole purpose of the computers is to EDUCATE children. To that end, GNU/Linux is a better choice. What happens if apple decides not to stop supporting these $100 laptops? All of the sudden the children get a whole new lesson plan in vendor lock in. With Linux if your laptop doesn't work, you can get support from many places. That is one of many advantages of GNU/Linux.
Have you even tried to run Xorg's server on a mac without running it in a quartz window? Do you even know anyone that is running a totally open source Darwin installation on i386? The reason nobody does this is because doing this is like reinventing the GNU/Linux wheel. The use of Linux sounds very pragmatic to me. Saying "they should just use OS X" sounds like frothing apple zealotry.
"Prius and Insight are small saloons, which are much more aerodynamic. They typically get 50-60MPG."
Realistically these numbers should be 40-50MPG. I swear Manufacturers drive their cars in frictionless worlds or something before they release their MPG numbers.
In what ways can you tinker with Linux that you cannot tinker with OS X? In fact, OS X gives you far more to tinker with because not only do you have the keys to the kernel and the BSD layer and X11, but also to everything that Apple provides. That answer makes no sense whatsoever."
Well I can't tinker with:
quartz, iwork, iphoto, itunes, airport extreme, spotlight, quicktime, isync, ical,imovie, apple's mail, safari (but you can tinker with safari's rendering engine), ichatAV, garage band, idvd, all the pro applications, and much much more.
Of course by tinker I mean:
-look at the source code
-make modifications to the source code
-distribute the code along with my changes without the possibility of getting sued.
Apple will not allow any of this.
Unfortunately I see Fairplay, no ogg support, broadcom chipsets for airport extreme, quartz extreme, iTunes, iWork, basically every app beginning with an i, the frontend of safari...The problem is that when you listed apple's open source contributions, those are buried under a mound of closed source software and closed hardware.
Yes apple contributes a little to open source projects, and for that I am happy. Apple however is far from an industry leader in free software contributions. For this reason I am sad and not spending money on those apple products. Unfortunately all that's left is to run darwin with some windowing system that I made run on the computer sharing a printer and running khtml without a frontend... basically I'd get frustrated and just install GNU/Linux.
I use magnatune also. Good music with no DRM. They support open formats. They release under creative commons...They rock. They respect my rights and so I respect them. The major labels don't respect me and so I don't respect them (I don't buy from them).
http://www.geocities.com/isaac_hee/Eben_Moglen.htm l
The problem with your communist commentary is the fact that you left freedom out of the equation. In communist Russia the government owned everything including the press. it could therefore limit what could and could not be printed. Since the government also owned the prisons it could take unfavorable journalists and do whatever they wanted with them in their prisons or gulags. Communism is often associated with the government oppression of dissent (whether this is fair or not is beside the point that the association is there). Since RMS stresses freedom, it does not help in understanding what he stands for by calling him a communist. He does not want to jail proprietary software developers. He wants to increase the freedom that software users and developers have. I would describe RMS as a software freedom advocate.
The device will cost $400. I don't want to buy a $400 mp3 player. I think that will be the biggest roadblock rather than how open source it is. To compete they need to be cheaper.
If you move to another country like India, you won't have to pay taxes in New York.
I think the philosophy is closer to "If an Open Source project doesn't have the features that a Linux user wants, someone will code those features for the project."
Disney has a massive brand name. If Disney could come out with some good animated movies without Pixar, then they wouldn't need to buy Pixar. The problem is that recent Disney computer animated films have not done well (especially compared to the films made by Pixar). All Disney would need to do is have a really good CGI movie and then have the previews for all of their future movie say "from the creators of that really cool movie, comes another movie". That's what Pixar is able to do by saying "from the creators of toy story, Nemo, whatever...comes a new movie" and then people go see it. Disney's problem is that they cannot create a big hit CGI movie. If Disney was smart, they would headhunt the brains behind Pixar's movies to produce a major hit that they can use for their future movies. I don't think Disney needs a whole lot more brand recognition. They simply need 1 good animated movie. Maybe that's what they are trying to buy with Pixar.
Much like someone that would give up a perfectly good machine for one that is running an OS that is considered experimental at best on Laptops just for the cache it provides them?
You mean those kinda people?
Now you are trying to judge me. You are only proving my point further. I don't run Linux to try and fit an image. I run gnu/Linux for the freedoms that it gives me.
Well the wireless card on my ibook is not supported at all. I use wireless at home and around my work, so having wireless support is important to me. Some people are trying to reverse engineer the broadcom driver for the ibook. Broadcom is not helping the Linux community much and apple is not switching to a different wireless chipset.
You're not buying much if you have a mass employee exodus and a drop in moral in the company. The whole purpose of buying pixar would be to buy it's talent(employees). The pixar brand won't last if the talent to create good movies isn't there.
Because there are better news sites than CNN on the Internet. I don't go to CNN or NBC. Corporate controlled media is just plain terrible.
In a completely unrelated topic, I can't wait to replace my ibook with a Linux laptop(airport extreme + Linux = no wireless).
PS- I don't hate mac users. I just hate the ones that walk around with a false sense of superiority.
Too bad it backfired. I couldn't find the first clue, decided I didn't want to play the game, and left not thinking too highly of google or the Carmen like game.
I'll stick to Journal articles to see if the technology actually works though.
I think it would be obvious how ipod integration would help Microsoft. The benefit is kinda hidden for Apple. Apple has a little hesitation toward Microsoft integration. Apple made it so that you can plug in the ipod and have it load itunes on a PC. Apple didn't make it so that you could run windows media player. If apple wanted their ipod to hook up to your tv or your computer, they would not trust Microsoft to control that device.
I call it like it is and someone mods me troll. Brilliant. Maybe if I post it again I can get smarter mods:
I think gates used/uses his money to improve his tainted image. The best way to get money out of Jobs and others might be to start a personal campaign against them. The only way out of it would therefore be public donations.
I'd like to see a tech company use some of their donation money to improve the workplace and pay of those people that do the soldering and assembly of the actual computers. Personally I'd like to see the money go towards improving the future instead of preserving the past. I guess I'll just have to flame bill a bit more in order to get the money out of him.
I'd like to see a tech company use some of their donation money to improve the workplace and pay of those people that do the soldering and assembly of the actual computers. Personally I'd like to see the money go towards improving the future instead of preserving the past. I guess I'll just have to flame bill a bit more in order to get the money out of him.