I disagree with that thought. In my ventures into the linux world, I met so many good folks, that I should want for them to find the Mac interesting, and desirable. It would be a very good thing for linux devotees to try out Macs, and to adopt them. It would be good for the Mac world, as there are many capable folks who are drawn to linux.
I like the spirit of independence and resistance from the Penguinistas. The Linux Journal is a great magazine.
Having said that, I think on the merits, that BSD is more mature, and gets far too little attention.
I think Microsoft is as MS does. They may have to make a better product, in order to stay alive, if they were in a minority position, I will grant that. They would do as they have always done, go and purchase some body's work, or just take advantage of them(like Stac).
However, if one looks at the history of Apple, their engineers have always been innovative. It is with their executive management that they have had difficulty.
They needed management, as with the engineers not managing themselves, such as on the QuickDraw GX project ( which had a fine technology that really could have competed with PostScript), there came to be all kind of engineers from all different parts of the company working on it. The executive leadership was not greatly respected by the engineering community(Sculley did not come from engineering background). But then the engineers went in different directions, they did not have cohesive direction. So really Apple needed leadership, which they did not have enough of under John Sculley. The same was so under the Diesel, and then Gill Amelio tried to get them going in a good business direction, leading to the acquisition of Next.
Anyway, Jobs has given them strong direction, and thankfully he and his company have thrown in, at least to a certain degree, with the open source community. One may disagree in many ways with things they have done, but I surely am glad Apple Computer is around.
I don't see Microsoft as being the same in character. They have not been as innovative as Apple at all, including when Apple was more on top of things than MS(so far as the OS goes). They are more for taking what other folks do, and taking advantage of them. I will grant that the business software has been useful to many folks, thinking of Excel, and I know folks who really like PowerPoint.
Perhaps market position would make a difference, as far as Apple goes. Apple does things that are irritating. They have been responsive to their customers. They should be more responsive to their software partners, including their smaller 'vendors'.
I just think the character of the two is quite different, and that different market postion would lead to considerably different denouements.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree with that thought. In my ventures into the linux world, I met so many good folks, that I should want for them to find the Mac interesting, and desirable. It would be a very good thing for linux devotees to try out Macs, and to adopt them. It would be good for the Mac world, as there are many capable folks who are drawn to linux. I like the spirit of independence and resistance from the Penguinistas. The Linux Journal is a great magazine. Having said that, I think on the merits, that BSD is more mature, and gets far too little attention.
I think Microsoft is as MS does. They may have to make a better product, in order to stay alive, if they were in a minority position, I will grant that. They would do as they have always done, go and purchase some body's work, or just take advantage of them(like Stac). However, if one looks at the history of Apple, their engineers have always been innovative. It is with their executive management that they have had difficulty. They needed management, as with the engineers not managing themselves, such as on the QuickDraw GX project ( which had a fine technology that really could have competed with PostScript), there came to be all kind of engineers from all different parts of the company working on it. The executive leadership was not greatly respected by the engineering community(Sculley did not come from engineering background). But then the engineers went in different directions, they did not have cohesive direction. So really Apple needed leadership, which they did not have enough of under John Sculley. The same was so under the Diesel, and then Gill Amelio tried to get them going in a good business direction, leading to the acquisition of Next. Anyway, Jobs has given them strong direction, and thankfully he and his company have thrown in, at least to a certain degree, with the open source community. One may disagree in many ways with things they have done, but I surely am glad Apple Computer is around. I don't see Microsoft as being the same in character. They have not been as innovative as Apple at all, including when Apple was more on top of things than MS(so far as the OS goes). They are more for taking what other folks do, and taking advantage of them. I will grant that the business software has been useful to many folks, thinking of Excel, and I know folks who really like PowerPoint. Perhaps market position would make a difference, as far as Apple goes. Apple does things that are irritating. They have been responsive to their customers. They should be more responsive to their software partners, including their smaller 'vendors'. I just think the character of the two is quite different, and that different market postion would lead to considerably different denouements.