NUStep is the future of Free desktops because everyone agrees Mac OS X is the best desktop there is to buy at the moment. Why is GNUStep then the future? Because GNUStep is a copy of OpenStep, OpenStep is the open version of NextStep and NextStep is the basis for OS X (it's called Cocoa now).
What I'm saying is, GNUStep is almost the same as the thing Mac OS X is built with!
I stopped reading right here. It doesn't sound like the parent knows very much about what he is talking about. Mac OS X certainly isn't "built with Cocoa." You may consider Cocoa to be a NeXTStep implementation integrated into the system. Furthermore, Cocoa and GNUStep are merely application development frameworks and have less to do with the workings of the system.
That's funny. The things you call lousy are both just a matter of your own opinion. It's just the difference between how classic Mac OS worked and how X11 display managers do it today. If you like the X11 approach, then by all means stay on Linux. If, on the other hand, you want to switch then you need to realize that the Mac OS interface is different and that doesn't make it inherently bad.
What a ridiculous thing to say. Mac OS X is not Linux, nor is it trying to be. In Mac OS, a middle-click has never pasted so no Mac users expect it to. If you are switching to OS X with expectations that it should automatically be configured to how your previous operating system works, then you are obviously setting yourself up to be disappointed, as if you want the transition to be more rocky than it probably was.
In short, if you want the OS X interface to work more like Linux, you'll obviously have to do some customizing... I don't know why you didn't expect that.
I mean, if it were priced below M$ and ran on x86 machines, it would eventually win.
Oh. You mean like how NeXT won? Oh wait, they didn't. Perhaps you mean how Linux is currently winning. Oh wait, that's not happening either. In the ideal world, if there are two equal products with one priced below the other, the less expensive one would win. But let's face it, Microsoft is an exception to most economic rules. They have the cash and current marketshare to undermine the competition--any competition.
One of Microsoft's favorite techniques is to price their product(s) below all the competition and wait until they have won (i.e. the competition folds), and then they put the prices at whatever they want. They can do this over and over again every time a new competitor emerges.
I believe this is the most important reason Microsoft fears Linux. They realize that they will never be able to price Windows below Free. I'm a Mac user, but I see no possibility that the likes of Apple or anyone with an operating system they hope to make money on will ever have any hope of replacing Microsoft. I have hope that Linux will eventually do this, however.
Re:No it won't be, take a basic economics class(mo
on
Dell We'd Sell Mac OS X
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You're quite insane if you think Microsoft will sacrifice their operating system monopoly in order to possibly dominate the Office apps business. Just thought you'd like to know.
I check compatibility with hardware before a Linux installation as well, and it works most of the time. Every so often, it just takes some fudging to get things working whereas setting up Windows has always just worked. Of course I never check hardware compatibility when installing Windows because everything supports Windows.
I agree that any Windows installation isn't complete until you have:
Set up a non-admin account.
Installed a 3rd-party browser.
Removed all references to Internet Explorer.
Installed anti-virus software.
Installed spyware software.
But all of these things are just tightening the security of the computer, and a Linux computer does not take exception to this. You have to compare like to like. I.E. It isn't fair to compare a Windows installation which includes all of the above with a Linux installation where you stop the stopwatch when you get to a usable desktop. Any system admin worth their salt will know they have to set up their services correctly, etc in order to secure Linux.
All in all, it definitely won't take anywhere near an hour to set up Windows after installation if you know what you doing. The same can be said for Linux. So let's make sure we're comparing the two on equal terms.
Interesting times are these. Apple is in a position where virtually anything could happen. It's a very distinct crossroads. They can simply move their product line to Intel and change nothing else, continuing to be Apple as we all know, or perhaps we'll see some very interesting transformations within the near future. It will be very interesting to see how the new Intel-powered Macs will be priced.
I can tell you really want to believe that Linux is easier to install, so hopefully this snapping back to reality doesn't shock you too badly. I don't use Windows, and I have never even owned any computers which have run Windows, but I have installed Windows dozens of times (for neighbors, family, yada yada) and I have never had a single problem with the installation or getting any of their hardware to work. Ever.
On the other hand, I've also installed many distros of Linux dozens of times. It has gotten progressively easier to install as the years go by, but I still get problems with some hardware. Please, there is plenty of dirt you could dig up about Windows, but there's no need to make stuff up so that Linux appears to trump Windows in every way. There is room for improvement.
I'm not sure how the recent Apple/Intel deal solved your problem. Linux already has excellent support for PowerPC processors and many people (myself included) already dual-boot Mac OS X and Linux. The only difference is future Apple computers will use Intel processors...
Your second point is very important. I'm not exactly sure why, but there exists an idea that the Mac OS X kernel is the best there is. Perhaps it's because OS X costs more or maybe it's just Apple marketing. Let me just say that I use Mac OS X a lot and I use Linux a little, but every technical review of the Darwin kernel I've seen has shown significant problems, especially with memory and process management.
Sorry, I'm not one to save links and stuff so I can't back this up with a link, but I'm sure Google can help you out if you really want to know.
You never said it, but it would have to be the case if Apple is to become a "software company." Unless you're trying to suggest that Steve's business plan is dropping Apple's hardware and only developing software for their PPC computers which they don't make anymore.
Again, it's unlikely Steven has confided his business model to you. Steven has never publicly declared anything about what you're suggesting. This is all speculation on your part.
You miss a very important factor, let's call it the "in direct competition with Microsoft" factor. You seem to think that quadrupling software sales will occur for free, but if history has taught us anything, it's this: If you come out as a direct competitor to Microsoft, Microsoft will be willing to spend its fortune to either buy you or kill you.
Do you think this situation is unique? Do you think there has been no other competitors which have gone up against Microsoft and died doing so, even though they may have had a better product? NeXT is the classic example, but it certainly isn't the only example. What makes you think Apple would be any different? Quite honestly, the only reason Apple has survived to this day is because it never was in direct competition with Microsoft due to the architecture gap.
If Apple drops their hardware and becomes a real software company, they will have to support x86. If they support x86 commodity hardware, Microsoft will make sure Apple ends up just like Sun, and it wouldn't be very hard to arrange either.
I think you are missing the point. People don't claim that Apple is a hardware company because "duh they sell hardware." They claim Apple is a hardware company because their entire business model is focused around their hardware and indeed if you would have looked at a financial report, you would see hardware is their livelihood. Mac OS X doesn't even have any copy protection. That suggests they're more into making sure their software doesn't frustrate users instead of making sure every possible person has payed for Mac OS X.
The issue of whether Apple can change their business model to software is debatable, but they certainly aren't there now. Personally, I look at all the failed attempts to dethrone Microsoft over the years by competing directly with them, and it just has never worked. If anyone can do it, it would probably be Apple, but I still doubt it.
So what you actually meant to say is that the iPod is under-featured (for you). Conceivably, someone might be willing to pay less money, especially if any or some of the additional features didn't appeal to them. That trade-off decision belongs to each buyer, and while it's very clear that you feel the extra features are worth 30 bucks, others may not agree.
No, I don't have an iPod Shuffle -- I just like people to say what they mean and abstain from presenting their personal opinions as fact.
Actually, the GP made no reference to Apple except to say why they don't implement OGG vorbis in their players which was in reply to the his parent. I don't know whether the GP even uses any Apple products, but I certainly agree with how ridiculous OGG vorbis evangelists are.
OGG vorbis is just another format that just happens to have very little support. If you insist on encoding all your music using OGG vorbis, you need to realize you are included in a very very small minority; one perceivably so small that big companies don't see a need to bother with it despite it being Free. While it may be a good format technically, it's hard to be sympathetic that your choice of music players is so limited when you were the one who ripped your music. Sorry.
I very much doubt the "/. crowd" care very much about OGG support. I know there are at least a few who care a lot and are very vocal about it, but I bet it's a very small percentage of us who would actually take OGG support into consideration when buying a player.
I mean, the idea behind OGG behind Free is great and all, and I think it's great that it's being used by a lot of commercial games and stuff, but it just isn't a concern for me when it comes to actually listening to music on a player. I'd much rather just rip to mp3 and listen to my music on the music player that I actually want, which probably wouldn't be an iRiver -- I just haven't read very many glowing (or even positive) reviews for iRiver players.
Considering all three OSes send it to a trash can, why is the extra button needed on the mac?
Just from skimming through your comments, it's very apparent to me that you are evaluating Mac OS X as if the Windows/Linux user interface is already the best. For example, the above quote (and many others) can be translated into: "Why doesn't Mac OS X work like I expected it to!?" The answer is simple: Mac OS X, unlike Linux, doesn't have an interface that is cloned from Windows. It's a totally different experience, and if you want to be successful in "figuring it out," you're going to have to accept that there are different ways of doing things, and that doesn't make it inherently bad.
It doesn't make it inherently good either, but the attitude that "it doesn't work like what I'm used to so it must be wrong" is counter-productive. Make sense?
Slashdot Mirror
NUStep is the future of Free desktops because everyone agrees Mac OS X is the best desktop there is to buy at the moment. Why is GNUStep then the future? Because GNUStep is a copy of OpenStep, OpenStep is the open version of NextStep and NextStep is the basis for OS X (it's called Cocoa now).
What I'm saying is, GNUStep is almost the same as the thing Mac OS X is built with!
I stopped reading right here. It doesn't sound like the parent knows very much about what he is talking about. Mac OS X certainly isn't "built with Cocoa." You may consider Cocoa to be a NeXTStep implementation integrated into the system. Furthermore, Cocoa and GNUStep are merely application development frameworks and have less to do with the workings of the system.
That's funny. The things you call lousy are both just a matter of your own opinion. It's just the difference between how classic Mac OS worked and how X11 display managers do it today. If you like the X11 approach, then by all means stay on Linux. If, on the other hand, you want to switch then you need to realize that the Mac OS interface is different and that doesn't make it inherently bad.
What a ridiculous thing to say. Mac OS X is not Linux, nor is it trying to be. In Mac OS, a middle-click has never pasted so no Mac users expect it to. If you are switching to OS X with expectations that it should automatically be configured to how your previous operating system works, then you are obviously setting yourself up to be disappointed, as if you want the transition to be more rocky than it probably was.
In short, if you want the OS X interface to work more like Linux, you'll obviously have to do some customizing... I don't know why you didn't expect that.
So to sum it up, Windows really is superior to Linux because "everyone" uses it. Interesting point of view...
One of Microsoft's favorite techniques is to price their product(s) below all the competition and wait until they have won (i.e. the competition folds), and then they put the prices at whatever they want. They can do this over and over again every time a new competitor emerges.
I believe this is the most important reason Microsoft fears Linux. They realize that they will never be able to price Windows below Free. I'm a Mac user, but I see no possibility that the likes of Apple or anyone with an operating system they hope to make money on will ever have any hope of replacing Microsoft. I have hope that Linux will eventually do this, however.
You're quite insane if you think Microsoft will sacrifice their operating system monopoly in order to possibly dominate the Office apps business. Just thought you'd like to know.
There are still TONS.
I agree that any Windows installation isn't complete until you have:
- Set up a non-admin account.
- Installed a 3rd-party browser.
- Removed all references to Internet Explorer.
- Installed anti-virus software.
- Installed spyware software.
But all of these things are just tightening the security of the computer, and a Linux computer does not take exception to this. You have to compare like to like. I.E. It isn't fair to compare a Windows installation which includes all of the above with a Linux installation where you stop the stopwatch when you get to a usable desktop. Any system admin worth their salt will know they have to set up their services correctly, etc in order to secure Linux.All in all, it definitely won't take anywhere near an hour to set up Windows after installation if you know what you doing. The same can be said for Linux. So let's make sure we're comparing the two on equal terms.
Interesting times are these. Apple is in a position where virtually anything could happen. It's a very distinct crossroads. They can simply move their product line to Intel and change nothing else, continuing to be Apple as we all know, or perhaps we'll see some very interesting transformations within the near future. It will be very interesting to see how the new Intel-powered Macs will be priced.
I can tell you really want to believe that Linux is easier to install, so hopefully this snapping back to reality doesn't shock you too badly. I don't use Windows, and I have never even owned any computers which have run Windows, but I have installed Windows dozens of times (for neighbors, family, yada yada) and I have never had a single problem with the installation or getting any of their hardware to work. Ever.
On the other hand, I've also installed many distros of Linux dozens of times. It has gotten progressively easier to install as the years go by, but I still get problems with some hardware. Please, there is plenty of dirt you could dig up about Windows, but there's no need to make stuff up so that Linux appears to trump Windows in every way. There is room for improvement.
Err, seems to use SATA drives just fine. Maybe that's just me.
Not only that, but I have a few old video cards that still work just fine. I think my GP is a little confused...
I'm not sure how the recent Apple/Intel deal solved your problem. Linux already has excellent support for PowerPC processors and many people (myself included) already dual-boot Mac OS X and Linux. The only difference is future Apple computers will use Intel processors...
Wow! There is one private computer company (consultant) for every 0.5 persons on this earth. I swear, I learn something new every day on Slashdot!
Your second point is very important. I'm not exactly sure why, but there exists an idea that the Mac OS X kernel is the best there is. Perhaps it's because OS X costs more or maybe it's just Apple marketing. Let me just say that I use Mac OS X a lot and I use Linux a little, but every technical review of the Darwin kernel I've seen has shown significant problems, especially with memory and process management.
Sorry, I'm not one to save links and stuff so I can't back this up with a link, but I'm sure Google can help you out if you really want to know.
You never said it, but it would have to be the case if Apple is to become a "software company." Unless you're trying to suggest that Steve's business plan is dropping Apple's hardware and only developing software for their PPC computers which they don't make anymore.
Again, it's unlikely Steven has confided his business model to you. Steven has never publicly declared anything about what you're suggesting. This is all speculation on your part.
You miss a very important factor, let's call it the "in direct competition with Microsoft" factor. You seem to think that quadrupling software sales will occur for free, but if history has taught us anything, it's this: If you come out as a direct competitor to Microsoft, Microsoft will be willing to spend its fortune to either buy you or kill you.
Do you think this situation is unique? Do you think there has been no other competitors which have gone up against Microsoft and died doing so, even though they may have had a better product? NeXT is the classic example, but it certainly isn't the only example. What makes you think Apple would be any different? Quite honestly, the only reason Apple has survived to this day is because it never was in direct competition with Microsoft due to the architecture gap.
If Apple drops their hardware and becomes a real software company, they will have to support x86. If they support x86 commodity hardware, Microsoft will make sure Apple ends up just like Sun, and it wouldn't be very hard to arrange either.
Trust Steve? What are you talking about!? I don't recall Steve ever saying that Mac OS X will run on stock x86 hardware.
I think you are missing the point. People don't claim that Apple is a hardware company because "duh they sell hardware." They claim Apple is a hardware company because their entire business model is focused around their hardware and indeed if you would have looked at a financial report, you would see hardware is their livelihood. Mac OS X doesn't even have any copy protection. That suggests they're more into making sure their software doesn't frustrate users instead of making sure every possible person has payed for Mac OS X.
The issue of whether Apple can change their business model to software is debatable, but they certainly aren't there now. Personally, I look at all the failed attempts to dethrone Microsoft over the years by competing directly with them, and it just has never worked. If anyone can do it, it would probably be Apple, but I still doubt it.
You conveniently evaded the point, but I don't see an intelligent conversation coming out of this so have a good life.
So what you actually meant to say is that the iPod is under-featured (for you). Conceivably, someone might be willing to pay less money, especially if any or some of the additional features didn't appeal to them. That trade-off decision belongs to each buyer, and while it's very clear that you feel the extra features are worth 30 bucks, others may not agree.
No, I don't have an iPod Shuffle -- I just like people to say what they mean and abstain from presenting their personal opinions as fact.
Actually, the GP made no reference to Apple except to say why they don't implement OGG vorbis in their players which was in reply to the his parent. I don't know whether the GP even uses any Apple products, but I certainly agree with how ridiculous OGG vorbis evangelists are.
OGG vorbis is just another format that just happens to have very little support. If you insist on encoding all your music using OGG vorbis, you need to realize you are included in a very very small minority; one perceivably so small that big companies don't see a need to bother with it despite it being Free. While it may be a good format technically, it's hard to be sympathetic that your choice of music players is so limited when you were the one who ripped your music. Sorry.
If Apple's players are overpriced and iRiver's players are more expensive than Apple's...
I very much doubt the "/. crowd" care very much about OGG support. I know there are at least a few who care a lot and are very vocal about it, but I bet it's a very small percentage of us who would actually take OGG support into consideration when buying a player.
I mean, the idea behind OGG behind Free is great and all, and I think it's great that it's being used by a lot of commercial games and stuff, but it just isn't a concern for me when it comes to actually listening to music on a player. I'd much rather just rip to mp3 and listen to my music on the music player that I actually want, which probably wouldn't be an iRiver -- I just haven't read very many glowing (or even positive) reviews for iRiver players.
It doesn't make it inherently good either, but the attitude that "it doesn't work like what I'm used to so it must be wrong" is counter-productive. Make sense?