That is true. However, all of the components are there -- on OS X
For OS X and Windows the components are only there if you are ignoring other software installation methods and locations, such as installation from a Web page, arguably the most common use case.
Ubuntu easily allows third-party repositories, but it's unlikely Canonical will support any of them.
Well, sort of. They easily allow third party repositories that are appropriate for free software, but not so much for commercial payware. They do a good enough job for the level of usability expected by Linux users in general, but maybe not so much for OS X users. For example, if you install software from a Web page or CD there is no easy way to automatically add a repository for updates to that software without running an arbitrary binary or following a series of instructions to do so manually.
It can't be that hard to allow the files to come from an arbitrary URL, can it?
That depends upon if you care about security I suppose. OS X and Vista have signing frameworks, but they are not used so much by third party developers, something they would have to correct somehow.
On some level, yes -- although it's worth mentioning, Apple does this with the App Store.
Its true, but it is debatable if that model scales. A more reasonable alternative is to open u the verification process to third parties via subscribable feeds as well, but then that's a lot of work to code and get participation in.
The frustrating thing is, decent package managers already exist. Why not just write a frontend for them?
I's argue that most package managers these days don't have very good usability for the average user. They work well for FOSS software, less well for commercial freeware, and pretty terribly for commercial payware. Even on Linux you'll not most all pay software comes via a stand alone binary installer.
Apple has some distinct advantages with their "software is a folder" model, but it also means a lot more work to adapt package managers to work well with that style of software. OpenStep could certainly be extended to handle it, but it simply hasn't been done. I know that both myself and others have suggested it to Apple and proper package management is something desired by both power users and old school UNIX guys inside Apple. It's just not quite as straightforward as you seem to imply, once you look at the details of the situation.
So how easy is it to install MySQL 5+ and PHP 5+? That seems like a sane enough expectation, right? Not actually asking out of curiosity. It's actually really annoying and tedious.
Umm, OS X on my laptop shipped with PHP 5.2.x (although the man page is out of date). My version of MySQL is at 5.1.x and I installed it by double clicking the.pkg file I downloaded and clicking through the prompts. I'm not sure what kind of problems you had, but I certainly did not seem to have much of a problem. It has worked fine for my light testing and dev. Are you, by any chance, running an old version of OS X?
Can anyone give me a good reason Apple can't simply open up Software Update to third party developers, and end that debate? For that matter, would it be terribly difficult for Microsoft to open up Microsoft Update?
First, to be clear, updating is only one of the functions of a package manager. Usually they also handle discovery, installation, and uninstallation as well. Ideally, they would also handle software registration and other universal functions.
Apple and MS could allow third parties to update software through updater, but currently they would have to host all that data and pay for the bandwidth. Additionally, they would have to perform some level of testing and security auditing lest they be blamed for malware or misconfigurations. Ideally, both companies would greatly expand their offerings to have a more full fledged package manager that can handle multiple repositories, application signing, installation/uninstallation etc.
It would mean the user has to stop and wait for an automated download and install process to run their programs for the first time. In order to maintain compatibility with existing software IE must be installed.
I think you're missing the point of how bundling is perceived by the law. If MS installed software to auto-download IE, that would still be illegal. OEMs aren't going to ship without a browser or HTML engine though, so the normal user would not likely see much difference excepting which browser and HTM engine is pre-installed. Any remedy from the EU is going to be intended to change the situation MS has created where IE is required, or it has failed. The point is to restore the market to a state where IE is competing on its merits, not on the fact that it is a de facto standard or pre-installed. That includes providing incentive for both Web developers and application developers to no longer depend upon IE being there but to write for standards instead and use whatever is there.
Ask the Wine community why they are implementing an IE replacement in Wine. Many programs depend on having IE and its API around to render HTML documents.
Actually, they depend upon an HTML engine answering their calls to the APIs. It is entirely possible for the EU to require MS to abstract those APIs and allow plug-in HTML engines to respond. The EU could require this in all future versions of MS along with some degree of standards compliance from IE itself.
Steam and WoW are two such titles for those who don't think its significant or wide spread.
One test of a proper remedy might be Steam and WoW. When updating their applications to use the next versions of Windows/IE, is there anything that causes users to use IE specifically, instead of Opera, Firefox, or Chrome? Is their anything about the way those developers code the next versions that would lead users to install IE specifically not because of better features but because it has been the de facto standard so long and because it is made by MS? If so, the remedy is failing.
The alternative is to have broken applications.
Hopefully, the EU will implement a remedy that specifically prevents that from being the case going forward.
I wonder, what would un-bundling REALLY mean? Just that its easier to remove or that Microsoft OS' come with no browser?
Well, literally it would mean Windows ships without IE to OEMs. That's not to say that this is the remedy the EU will choose. It is just one of their options and by itself, certainly not enough to remedy the broken market.
Now that would be a fun one for new users...
The EU's remedies will likely affect only MS, not OEMs. If you're technical enough that you're building a computer and installing Windows yourself, you're probably technical enough to download and install a browser too. If you're a normal person you buy a computer with software, OS, and hardware pre-configured by an OEM and you'll almost certainly already have a browser installed by the OEM... maybe just not IE.
Stupid people (sorry, inexperienced people) running [Another OS/Another Browser] will do the same stupid (sorry, inexperienced) things they do now.
I'd go further in my argument than you do. Without a monoculture users may take the same action in the same circumstances, but will gravitate to technology that presents them with better situations and better handles those actions (makes them do what the user intended not what a third party wants). For example, this exploit relies upon an executable masquerading as an MSWord file. The fact that Windows presents the file in such a way as it is not differentiated from a Word file or even from trusted executable files is a failing of the OS. In a competitive market, MS would fix this problem in Windows or lose market share to people who did fix it. Is there no way the OS can distinguish executables from non executables, like maybe adding a non-changeable flag to the icons? What about checking to see if the executable is signed and verifying that signature or running it in a sandbox by default? These are perfectly doable solutions if competition were driving OS makers to significantly invest in real improvements.
It's not that difficult. I can turn your shiny Linux box into a bot zombie by sending you a Perl script in a tarfile with the execute bit set and asking you to extract and run it.
Trojans are a serious concern, but still a small portion of the problem today. Most exploits, by number of infections, are via automated worms with no user interaction.
Don't underestimate the power of simple social engineering or the tendency of users to do dumb things. And don't overestimate the alleged technological superiority of your OS.
The interesting thing about non-Windows OS's is they adapt to threats. Right now trojans are not a problem for the average Linux user, but in a few high security environments they are a concern. Those environments use technologies like SELinux to mitigate the risks and make social engineering a lot harder indeed. If trojans are ever a threat to the average Linux user, these technologies will be ubiquitously employed helping to defeat said threat. That's the thing about not being a monopolist. You have serious motivation to fix your users problems and if you don't someone else will.
Neither you nor your data are the target.
This has never been completely true, but it is becoming less and less so. More malware is starting to collect passwords to online accounts, banking info, and credit card numbers.
And then the exploits will occur with the browser that most people are using. Face it: there are bugs in every piece of software out there, and it's just a matter of time before someone finds and exploits them.
So a more diverse set of browsers in use leads to fewer people being exploited. Sounds like something worth encouraging. And while we're at it, how can we encourage vendors to make their browsers more secure and generally better. If only there were some way to motivate developers using common human motivations. I know, we could have them compete with each other on a level playing field in a fee market and the best browser will gain the most market share, so they will all work extra hard to make theirs the best. It's brilliant!
What the law already mandates this? Well, better yet. What one company is breaking the law and preventing competition and thus removing the motivation for much improvement and lowering the bar for everyone? Surely the courts will act quickly and decisively to stop this criminal behavior.
Serious question. When they could use Debian instead, and given these problems, why does anyone use Apple servers?
If you're a sysadmin, I imagine it is because you need one of the few bits Apple does better right now (like CalDAV) or some Apple specific technology to support Mac clients (Spotlight Server).
If you're not a sysadmin, because you're looking for an easy to admin server that you don't need any real skills to get configured and keep running.
Sure we do, a bunch of them. That's kind of the problem.
Anything you really want to actually work with, you have to maintain yourself
That's a bit of an overstatement. Anything you want a cutting edge version of you'd do well to install and maintain yourself outside of Apple's update path, but for most people just using the Apple installed versions is fine.
And there aren't Linux viruses(and hardly Windows anymore) because people don't share executables and disks like they did in the 90s.
Actually there have been recent instances with thumb drives, mp3 players, and even CDs and DVDs burned and shipped with viruses.
Now when the malware gets access to your software it already has root and couldn't care less about infecting your binaries. It will send more trojans and keep spreading that way.
Yeah, worms are certainly prolific, although the most prolific ones (by number of infections) don't use trojans but use exploits with no user interaction component.
Trojan - malware poses as something it is not and is run by the user, sometimes unintentionally.
Virus - malware that infects other software and spreads when that software is run.
Worm - malware that spreads itself automatically without the user explicitly running it.
When I think of a "virus", well, that's just malicious code, it's something designed to do some form of damage. It's malware-- software that's up to no good. That doesn't describe the delivery method.
Viruses have always had specific characteristics to distinguish them from other malware. People who did not know anything about malware, however, often use the terms malware and virus interchangeably, largely due to poor distinction in media. Virus absolutely implies the method of delivery. It is likening code to a biological organism that behaves the same way. Calling this a virus is like calling a generic toxin a virus in biology.
I can see how folks want to draw a distinction based on the severity of the exploit
It's just another instance of regulations of consumer products. It does generally sound good, but what about regulation of other parts of the phone?
We already have tons of regulations about other parts of the the phone from the standard phone jack to 911 capabilities to FCC allowed frequencies. It seems to be helping.
I see no reason why I can't make a phone that uses whatever charger I want (presuming I'm a cell phone company).
It's that parenthetical that makes me disagree with you. As an individual you have the natural right to make any kind of phone you want. You could even argue that as a small business you can apply those individual rights... provided you don't take advantage of any of the benefits the government confers to small businesses. As a corporation, however, you have no rights beyond what are granted by the government for the good of the people. As a corporation, if you're not benefitting the people when we see fit to regulate you, what incentive to we have to allow you patents, trademarks or copyrights? What incentive do we even have to have the police investigate if people break into your office and take your corporation's possessions? How does spending those tax dollars and inconveniencing citizens help us at all?
Next, let's regulate how much bandwidth any given individual can use at any given period of time.
You see, there you're touching upon individual rights. As a person, you have unalienable, natural rights the government is restricted from messing with. Businesses, especially corporations, however, are not individuals (no matter if they manage to get laws granting them some similar rights).
Or, more similar to this case, let's limit the amount of bandwidth a company can *give* so that it levels the playing field, creates more competition, etc. That way, small company can offer just as good an offer as big company! Better competition!
I think you've completely failed to understand how competition is beneficial and why it is often touted as important to the economy.
All we need is the EU to regulate that, and boom!
In principal, there is no reason the EU should not regulate how much bandwidth a company can offer, assuming they see benefit to society in so doing. I just don't see such benefit and I doubt they do either.
Because we have seen how effective the EU is at stuff like that (like... regulating browser packaging?)
Actually, the EU's competition laws have done a great deal of good in recent years and is a heck of a lot nicer to get a cell phone and plan there than in the states. Your comment about regulating "browser packaging" however makes me lose what little confidence I had in your ability to understand economics or law. The EU has never regulated browser packaging nor proposed to do so. The EU is prosecuting a criminal where as part of the punishment that criminal may or may not be ordered to change how it packages its browser. That's "browser packaging" regulation in the same way that sending a thief to prison is "housing regulations".
I want to see a provision in the stimulus package... that forces states to pay back the money they receive from the Federal government, and puts a harsh salary and compensation cap on politicians in those states who elect to take Federal bailout funds.
Your idea is interesting, but where do the tax dollars being spent by the federal government come from? Which states pay out more than they get back and which pay out less? If you haven't noticed, it is the states like New York and California that have been subsidizing the rest of the country for decades. I think actually enforced salary caps on the executives of companies that take bailout funds makes a lot more sense than that of politicians, although salary caps for politicians in general seem reasonable (just not in response to the stimulus bill).
The likes of California and New York clearly have no concept of what it means to "spend less," and current taxpayers are fleeing by the tens of thousands, causing them to create asinine taxes like the one in TFA and causing even more people and companies to head to more tax-friendly states.
I live in Michigan. We're getting as much or more bailout money than any other state. We're losing people at the fastest rate in the country. We have been lowering spending to the point of just letting criminals go because we can't afford to house them and letting roads become impassable because we can't afford to plow them. The problem here is not runaway state spending. In fact our more expensive unemployment programs are one of the few things that have saved us from total collapse.
A government should be forced to plan its finances like a responsible household, taking into consideration risk, debt and spending just like the rest of us have to in reality land. After all, it's our money they're spending. Why is this so hard to comprehend?
Partly because government finances don't work the same as household finances and partly because you're mistaking the economic problem.
First, the US borrowing money from foreign powers is different than a household borrowing money from the bank. To some extent we literally can create wealth through borrowing because it is the perception of wealth that provides the true value of our currency. We're getting to the point where such borrowing is very dangerous though and we need to find other ways.
Second, you seem to think the US economic problems are the result of too little wealth, as if the household had spent all their money. That's not the case. Mostly we invest money in different segments of our society. The problem with the US is rapid and unpredictable changes in the value of our investments leading to long term collapse. This is caused, not because we don't have enough wealth, or even less wealth than before the collapse, but because of the distribution of that money. Right now, one member of the family has all the money and none of the others can invest in ways to make money because they have no opportunity. As a result, whether or not those other members of the family can buy lunch depends upon unrealistic debt, stealing money from the rich family member's wallet, and gifts of money from that family member (sometimes given under threat).
Research wealth disparity now and during the great depression and economic models that surround it.
So, all in all, this just MIGHT help their local economy.
Helping local economies is about finding efficiencies and creating value where there wasn't previously.
I sort of agree. I think it is more about motivating increased efficiency, rather than forcing it. So a law that taxes bandwidth would add to the cost of excessive bandwidth use motivating people to use less (in many ways) and saving ISPs money. Things that might save end users money could include things like switching OS's to something less easily compromised so they don't have to go get their PC cleaned all the time. It could include switching internet browsers to one that can use technologies that don't waste as much bandwidth. Maybe it would not do either, but they are potential benefits that increase true efficiency.
And I pay less than $7 per month on Virgin Mobile, because I use a land line when I'm not trying to arrange a ride.
It's interesting. The number of people with a land line is steadily dropping every year. I don't think the trend towards cell phones and away from land lines is going to be reversing.
Satellite radio has the convenience advantage that there's no "game" to play. You buy the radio and the connection kit, and then the plan costs $12.99 per month.
More and more cars are coming with input jacks and other hookup options. More and more people are buying internet capable phones. I think the trend is clear. Fewer people in future will be wanting a separate subscription for satellite radio when their existing devices will provide the same functionality for free with more flexibility and more options.
I'm not arguing that you should go with the trend, mind you, just that it seems to be what is happening now and likely to continue.
The first part of this statement is a well-established fact (15% more), the second is highly-controversial(better reliability and support). On reliability, I'll just say "no". I've seen nothing to convince me Apple has significantly lower hardware failure rates than other boutique vendors.
Okay. So every study I've seen including those from independent reviewing companies says otherwise. Upon what are you basing your assessments of reliability?
"Support" is highly subjective and it depends on what kind of support you need.
True, which is why it is important to rely upon objective studies of it rather than trying to find justification for prejudiced beliefs. You rely upon easily verified facts and numbers from support data.
My colleague...
I'm not interested in anecdotes. Everyone has them. Rational people base their evaluations on data.
I suspect your studies specifically excluded other boutique vendors and compared Apple to Dell, Acer, or Sony.
First, Alienware is a division of Dell these days. Second, why would you make such an assumption? Consumer Reports usually covers about 10 brands in their big studies (with Alienware being included in Dell's numbers for a few years now).
The real issue is support for Windows. There isn't much of an "escalation path" to get you from an OEM to Microsoft with an issue, you have to handle this ad hoc. And the OEM will tend to blame MS and MS will blame the OEM.
That doesn't have anything to do with hardware failure numbers or the dozens of other criteria in the average study. In the Consumer REports study every year, for example, software including the OS counts as one of the ten criteria, not nearly enough to affect their numbers one way or another.
This is the real advantage of Apple: Single-vendor support if you stay in the sandbox.
I agree that can be an advantage, but you certainly haven't shown that is Apple's only advantage.
The real issue here is the software, not the hardware.
Apple has handily won on hardware reliability in every study I've read for years, from a variety of sources. Can you find any where they don't win? I still don't see why you would think Apple's hardware reliability is not better based upon any of the data I've seen.
Here's a question: If you take money from person A and give it to person B, have you stimulated anything ? Person B will have more to spend, admittedly, but person A will have less. The net effect on the economy is null.
Actually, the main cause of the great depression and a big factor in the current economic problem is not that we don't have enough wealth, but the disparity of distribution. 50% of the wealth is in the hands of a few percent of the populace. 50% of the populace has a net wealth of zero as a group. When half the population has no wealth and no realistic prospect of having wealth, who are banks supposed to be loaning money to? They have been loaning money to that 50% despite economists knowing there was little or no chance of it being paid back without federal aid. That can go on only so long before foreclosures start redistributing the wealth radically back to the top in the form of seized homes and assets and exorbitant interest on short term loans. Worse yet, wealth is destroyed in the process, not just transferred. Houses become unoccupied and fall into disrepair losing value and the lack of home ownership drives the value of housing down. It is the rapid and unpredictable changes more than overall returns that causes a depression. Even during the depression the average return on stock investments was positive... it was just unpredictable and erratic.
Of course the economic stimulus package is not a solution only a short term band-aid. It is designed to halt the spiraling collapse where lack of funds and frightened investors make the problem worse. It is not a long term solution by itself. The real trick is to change long term tax policies to shift more of the tax burden to the top to stop the wealth from continuing to consolidate and increasing socialist programs such that there is more upward mobility for those on the bottom to move up. Currently those at the top are paying less of their income as taxes than those in the middle and huge amounts of foreign debt are being incurred. Neither is sustainable and both lead to just this kind of instability and collapse.
"the idea here is that MS is forcing one product on everyone who buys a computer (bundled price) then charging a second price to get a different version"
Yeah, and Vista Ultimate costs more than Vista Home Basic too!
That's actually fine. It's just using monopoly influence to make you buy both the product you want and a second product you have no intention of using that is criminal.
I bought a Prius two years ago. There were eight option packages available. We wanted some of some, some of another, let's say for sake of example, option 1, GPS, 2, leather seats, 3 touring wheels. You can have 1, 1+2, or 1+2+3. You want 1+3? Not happening. Explain to me the difference here.
Tying only undermines the free market if the seller has monopoly influence in one of the markets. Toyota does not have a monopoly on cars or GPS or seats or steering wheels. You can look at the Prius and the Altima and the Sonata and if Toyota doesn't sell the combination you want, you can buy from the competition.
Now if one company had cornered the market on GPS systems, they'd still be in the clear legally speaking, unless they forced Toyota to include their brand of seats in order to get the GPS (which they have a monopoly on) or if they ordered Toyota to only include version of their GPS, but one without support for certain features in order to get two GPS sales per car sale. In such a situation, even if Toyota is unwilling to sue the GPS maker for fear of retaliation the end user can still sue on their own since it is hurting them.
Maybe my answer was too long. Toyota is not a monopolist in any pertinent market. Microsoft is.
I can't believe no one else is talking about this. The iPhone App Store is anti-competitive... Apple has already abused it's monopoly position by not allowing certain apps that compete with their offerings.
You see, this is the Achilles' heel of your argument. Both legally and economically monopolies are defined by markets. You reference Apple's monopoly, but in terms of economics and law, they don't actually have a monopoly (they are close with ipods though I don't think that applies to this discussion). This article is about Apple Store clones popping up to provide similar functionality for all the competing phones on the market. The fact that such competition exists negates the premise of Apple having a monopoly. If they were to gain monopoly influence on the cellphone or even smartphone market, then yes, absolutely it would be an issue.
Remember, bundling is not illegal. You can sell a package of shampoo and body wash without any problems, right up until you gain monopoly influence on one of those two markets. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on smartphones. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on smartphone apps. Thus, tying their smartphone to their app store is clearly not falling afoul of normal antitrust laws.
This is dramatically different than their Music store/ipod model because you can buy music from anywhere so long as it is DRM-Free.
Actually, the Apple specific DRM and tying to the iTunes store is plenty to convict Apple of antitrust abuse... provided they have monopoly influence to abuse. Right now the EU seems to have leaned towards Apple not having such influence in their investigations largely because of the media playing cell phone trend.
This is not the case with the App Store. Buy from Apple or not at all.
Yeah it is serious lock in and something a purchaser should consider. It's probably the second thing (after price) dissuading me from choosing Apple as the provider of my next smartphone. That said, it is no more anti-competitive than all the other items sold exclusively through cell phones like crazily expensive wallpaper and ringtones. In order for antitrust laws to apply their needs to be a trust. There are other consumer protection laws in various jurisdictions, but nothing universal that make for a large issue.
I think the previous poster was trolling. If not, then they are just engaging in wishful thinking if they believe Apple can drop prices hundreds or thousands of dollars and make it up in volume.
Show me another machine with the specs of the MBP that is as thin and cool.
This is exactly what starts yet another in the unstoppable chain of price and feature comparisons between Apple and other vendors and it is pointless in the extreme. No one here is going to do a comprehensive look or be able to find machines that are truly comparable not only in bullet point features but in hardware reliability, included support, and integration all of which are important to the value of the end product.
There have been studies performed on this topic already. I wish I had a good one handy. The best was the Consumer Reports one, but you need a subscription. In any case, the verdict is in. Macs cost more than the average PC by about 15%, which is to say about the same amount as other "premium" vendors like Sony, but Apple manages to win on reliability and support every year by a significant margin. (It's up to the individual to decide if that is worth it to them and hey, props to Dell for the massive improvements to their laptop reliability in the last year.) Apple undercuts other vendors a little bit on the low end and overcharges a bit more on the high end and on upgrade parts.
Now people need to get over it. Whether you are a fanboy or a hater, just give it up. Digging up prices and stats online, once is useless. You can't get a large enough sample size to be useful, you can't properly compare features that don't show up in the marketing literature, and your results will vary widely based upon when in the release cycles you make the comparison.
Please never, ever, ever, ever again ask someone to show you another machine that compares to MacFoo from Apple. It just leads to another long, pointless thread.
I don't buy that. If I buy a new PC with Windows on it and immediately switch to Linux, is Microsoft required to refund me the cost of Vista?
In many jurisdictions, the OEM you bought it from is required to as a result of the copyright laws MS is using to enforce their EULAs. It has gone to court several times now in several countries. Some OEMs have policies against it or designed to discourage it (requiring a fee or return of the whole system), but none have won in court yet.
Anybody upset that they can't buy a MacBook with an older version of OS X?
Not really because older versions of OS X are slower and less featureful versions. With Vista versus XP you have a slower version and one with certain "features" designed to make it harder for me to do things and make MS money in the process.
Of course legally the real difference is MS has monopoly influence in the market (desktop OS's) whereas Apple is only one of many sellers of desktop computer systems and laptops. With Apple a user has a viable option, whereas for OEMs buying an OS to put on computers they sell they generally have only one viable option and with that power comes requirements as to how it is used. If an end user can show MS unlawfully used that influence in a criminal way that is costing the end user of the system money, then they have a case.
Slashdot Mirror
That is true. However, all of the components are there -- on OS X
For OS X and Windows the components are only there if you are ignoring other software installation methods and locations, such as installation from a Web page, arguably the most common use case.
Ubuntu easily allows third-party repositories, but it's unlikely Canonical will support any of them.
Well, sort of. They easily allow third party repositories that are appropriate for free software, but not so much for commercial payware. They do a good enough job for the level of usability expected by Linux users in general, but maybe not so much for OS X users. For example, if you install software from a Web page or CD there is no easy way to automatically add a repository for updates to that software without running an arbitrary binary or following a series of instructions to do so manually.
It can't be that hard to allow the files to come from an arbitrary URL, can it?
That depends upon if you care about security I suppose. OS X and Vista have signing frameworks, but they are not used so much by third party developers, something they would have to correct somehow.
On some level, yes -- although it's worth mentioning, Apple does this with the App Store.
Its true, but it is debatable if that model scales. A more reasonable alternative is to open u the verification process to third parties via subscribable feeds as well, but then that's a lot of work to code and get participation in.
The frustrating thing is, decent package managers already exist. Why not just write a frontend for them?
I's argue that most package managers these days don't have very good usability for the average user. They work well for FOSS software, less well for commercial freeware, and pretty terribly for commercial payware. Even on Linux you'll not most all pay software comes via a stand alone binary installer.
Apple has some distinct advantages with their "software is a folder" model, but it also means a lot more work to adapt package managers to work well with that style of software. OpenStep could certainly be extended to handle it, but it simply hasn't been done. I know that both myself and others have suggested it to Apple and proper package management is something desired by both power users and old school UNIX guys inside Apple. It's just not quite as straightforward as you seem to imply, once you look at the details of the situation.
So how easy is it to install MySQL 5+ and PHP 5+? That seems like a sane enough expectation, right? Not actually asking out of curiosity. It's actually really annoying and tedious.
Umm, OS X on my laptop shipped with PHP 5.2.x (although the man page is out of date). My version of MySQL is at 5.1.x and I installed it by double clicking the .pkg file I downloaded and clicking through the prompts. I'm not sure what kind of problems you had, but I certainly did not seem to have much of a problem. It has worked fine for my light testing and dev. Are you, by any chance, running an old version of OS X?
Can anyone give me a good reason Apple can't simply open up Software Update to third party developers, and end that debate? For that matter, would it be terribly difficult for Microsoft to open up Microsoft Update?
First, to be clear, updating is only one of the functions of a package manager. Usually they also handle discovery, installation, and uninstallation as well. Ideally, they would also handle software registration and other universal functions.
Apple and MS could allow third parties to update software through updater, but currently they would have to host all that data and pay for the bandwidth. Additionally, they would have to perform some level of testing and security auditing lest they be blamed for malware or misconfigurations. Ideally, both companies would greatly expand their offerings to have a more full fledged package manager that can handle multiple repositories, application signing, installation/uninstallation etc.
It would mean the user has to stop and wait for an automated download and install process to run their programs for the first time. In order to maintain compatibility with existing software IE must be installed.
I think you're missing the point of how bundling is perceived by the law. If MS installed software to auto-download IE, that would still be illegal. OEMs aren't going to ship without a browser or HTML engine though, so the normal user would not likely see much difference excepting which browser and HTM engine is pre-installed. Any remedy from the EU is going to be intended to change the situation MS has created where IE is required, or it has failed. The point is to restore the market to a state where IE is competing on its merits, not on the fact that it is a de facto standard or pre-installed. That includes providing incentive for both Web developers and application developers to no longer depend upon IE being there but to write for standards instead and use whatever is there.
Ask the Wine community why they are implementing an IE replacement in Wine. Many programs depend on having IE and its API around to render HTML documents.
Actually, they depend upon an HTML engine answering their calls to the APIs. It is entirely possible for the EU to require MS to abstract those APIs and allow plug-in HTML engines to respond. The EU could require this in all future versions of MS along with some degree of standards compliance from IE itself.
Steam and WoW are two such titles for those who don't think its significant or wide spread.
One test of a proper remedy might be Steam and WoW. When updating their applications to use the next versions of Windows/IE, is there anything that causes users to use IE specifically, instead of Opera, Firefox, or Chrome? Is their anything about the way those developers code the next versions that would lead users to install IE specifically not because of better features but because it has been the de facto standard so long and because it is made by MS? If so, the remedy is failing.
The alternative is to have broken applications.
Hopefully, the EU will implement a remedy that specifically prevents that from being the case going forward.
I wonder, what would un-bundling REALLY mean? Just that its easier to remove or that Microsoft OS' come with no browser?
Well, literally it would mean Windows ships without IE to OEMs. That's not to say that this is the remedy the EU will choose. It is just one of their options and by itself, certainly not enough to remedy the broken market.
Now that would be a fun one for new users...
The EU's remedies will likely affect only MS, not OEMs. If you're technical enough that you're building a computer and installing Windows yourself, you're probably technical enough to download and install a browser too. If you're a normal person you buy a computer with software, OS, and hardware pre-configured by an OEM and you'll almost certainly already have a browser installed by the OEM... maybe just not IE.
Stupid people (sorry, inexperienced people) running [Another OS/Another Browser] will do the same stupid (sorry, inexperienced) things they do now.
I'd go further in my argument than you do. Without a monoculture users may take the same action in the same circumstances, but will gravitate to technology that presents them with better situations and better handles those actions (makes them do what the user intended not what a third party wants). For example, this exploit relies upon an executable masquerading as an MSWord file. The fact that Windows presents the file in such a way as it is not differentiated from a Word file or even from trusted executable files is a failing of the OS. In a competitive market, MS would fix this problem in Windows or lose market share to people who did fix it. Is there no way the OS can distinguish executables from non executables, like maybe adding a non-changeable flag to the icons? What about checking to see if the executable is signed and verifying that signature or running it in a sandbox by default? These are perfectly doable solutions if competition were driving OS makers to significantly invest in real improvements.
It's not that difficult. I can turn your shiny Linux box into a bot zombie by sending you a Perl script in a tarfile with the execute bit set and asking you to extract and run it.
Trojans are a serious concern, but still a small portion of the problem today. Most exploits, by number of infections, are via automated worms with no user interaction.
Don't underestimate the power of simple social engineering or the tendency of users to do dumb things. And don't overestimate the alleged technological superiority of your OS.
The interesting thing about non-Windows OS's is they adapt to threats. Right now trojans are not a problem for the average Linux user, but in a few high security environments they are a concern. Those environments use technologies like SELinux to mitigate the risks and make social engineering a lot harder indeed. If trojans are ever a threat to the average Linux user, these technologies will be ubiquitously employed helping to defeat said threat. That's the thing about not being a monopolist. You have serious motivation to fix your users problems and if you don't someone else will.
Neither you nor your data are the target.
This has never been completely true, but it is becoming less and less so. More malware is starting to collect passwords to online accounts, banking info, and credit card numbers.
And then the exploits will occur with the browser that most people are using. Face it: there are bugs in every piece of software out there, and it's just a matter of time before someone finds and exploits them.
So a more diverse set of browsers in use leads to fewer people being exploited. Sounds like something worth encouraging. And while we're at it, how can we encourage vendors to make their browsers more secure and generally better. If only there were some way to motivate developers using common human motivations. I know, we could have them compete with each other on a level playing field in a fee market and the best browser will gain the most market share, so they will all work extra hard to make theirs the best. It's brilliant!
What the law already mandates this? Well, better yet. What one company is breaking the law and preventing competition and thus removing the motivation for much improvement and lowering the bar for everyone? Surely the courts will act quickly and decisively to stop this criminal behavior.
Serious question. When they could use Debian instead, and given these problems, why does anyone use Apple servers?
If you're a sysadmin, I imagine it is because you need one of the few bits Apple does better right now (like CalDAV) or some Apple specific technology to support Mac clients (Spotlight Server).
If you're not a sysadmin, because you're looking for an easy to admin server that you don't need any real skills to get configured and keep running.
We don't exactly have "package managers" in OS X.
Sure we do, a bunch of them. That's kind of the problem.
Anything you really want to actually work with, you have to maintain yourself
That's a bit of an overstatement. Anything you want a cutting edge version of you'd do well to install and maintain yourself outside of Apple's update path, but for most people just using the Apple installed versions is fine.
And there aren't Linux viruses(and hardly Windows anymore) because people don't share executables and disks like they did in the 90s.
Actually there have been recent instances with thumb drives, mp3 players, and even CDs and DVDs burned and shipped with viruses.
Now when the malware gets access to your software it already has root and couldn't care less about infecting your binaries. It will send more trojans and keep spreading that way.
Yeah, worms are certainly prolific, although the most prolific ones (by number of infections) don't use trojans but use exploits with no user interaction component.
When I think of a "virus", well, that's just malicious code, it's something designed to do some form of damage. It's malware-- software that's up to no good. That doesn't describe the delivery method.
Viruses have always had specific characteristics to distinguish them from other malware. People who did not know anything about malware, however, often use the terms malware and virus interchangeably, largely due to poor distinction in media. Virus absolutely implies the method of delivery. It is likening code to a biological organism that behaves the same way. Calling this a virus is like calling a generic toxin a virus in biology.
I can see how folks want to draw a distinction based on the severity of the exploit
That has nothing to do with it.
It's just another instance of regulations of consumer products. It does generally sound good, but what about regulation of other parts of the phone?
We already have tons of regulations about other parts of the the phone from the standard phone jack to 911 capabilities to FCC allowed frequencies. It seems to be helping.
I see no reason why I can't make a phone that uses whatever charger I want (presuming I'm a cell phone company).
It's that parenthetical that makes me disagree with you. As an individual you have the natural right to make any kind of phone you want. You could even argue that as a small business you can apply those individual rights... provided you don't take advantage of any of the benefits the government confers to small businesses. As a corporation, however, you have no rights beyond what are granted by the government for the good of the people. As a corporation, if you're not benefitting the people when we see fit to regulate you, what incentive to we have to allow you patents, trademarks or copyrights? What incentive do we even have to have the police investigate if people break into your office and take your corporation's possessions? How does spending those tax dollars and inconveniencing citizens help us at all?
Next, let's regulate how much bandwidth any given individual can use at any given period of time.
You see, there you're touching upon individual rights. As a person, you have unalienable, natural rights the government is restricted from messing with. Businesses, especially corporations, however, are not individuals (no matter if they manage to get laws granting them some similar rights).
Or, more similar to this case, let's limit the amount of bandwidth a company can *give* so that it levels the playing field, creates more competition, etc. That way, small company can offer just as good an offer as big company! Better competition!
I think you've completely failed to understand how competition is beneficial and why it is often touted as important to the economy.
All we need is the EU to regulate that, and boom!
In principal, there is no reason the EU should not regulate how much bandwidth a company can offer, assuming they see benefit to society in so doing. I just don't see such benefit and I doubt they do either.
Because we have seen how effective the EU is at stuff like that (like... regulating browser packaging?)
Actually, the EU's competition laws have done a great deal of good in recent years and is a heck of a lot nicer to get a cell phone and plan there than in the states. Your comment about regulating "browser packaging" however makes me lose what little confidence I had in your ability to understand economics or law. The EU has never regulated browser packaging nor proposed to do so. The EU is prosecuting a criminal where as part of the punishment that criminal may or may not be ordered to change how it packages its browser. That's "browser packaging" regulation in the same way that sending a thief to prison is "housing regulations".
Last I knew, Massachusetts is the only state that actually has a declining population.
In 2008, Massachusetts did not have a declining population. Rhode Island and Michigan were the two that did.
I want to see a provision in the stimulus package... that forces states to pay back the money they receive from the Federal government, and puts a harsh salary and compensation cap on politicians in those states who elect to take Federal bailout funds.
Your idea is interesting, but where do the tax dollars being spent by the federal government come from? Which states pay out more than they get back and which pay out less? If you haven't noticed, it is the states like New York and California that have been subsidizing the rest of the country for decades. I think actually enforced salary caps on the executives of companies that take bailout funds makes a lot more sense than that of politicians, although salary caps for politicians in general seem reasonable (just not in response to the stimulus bill).
The likes of California and New York clearly have no concept of what it means to "spend less," and current taxpayers are fleeing by the tens of thousands, causing them to create asinine taxes like the one in TFA and causing even more people and companies to head to more tax-friendly states.
I live in Michigan. We're getting as much or more bailout money than any other state. We're losing people at the fastest rate in the country. We have been lowering spending to the point of just letting criminals go because we can't afford to house them and letting roads become impassable because we can't afford to plow them. The problem here is not runaway state spending. In fact our more expensive unemployment programs are one of the few things that have saved us from total collapse.
A government should be forced to plan its finances like a responsible household, taking into consideration risk, debt and spending just like the rest of us have to in reality land. After all, it's our money they're spending. Why is this so hard to comprehend?
Partly because government finances don't work the same as household finances and partly because you're mistaking the economic problem.
First, the US borrowing money from foreign powers is different than a household borrowing money from the bank. To some extent we literally can create wealth through borrowing because it is the perception of wealth that provides the true value of our currency. We're getting to the point where such borrowing is very dangerous though and we need to find other ways.
Second, you seem to think the US economic problems are the result of too little wealth, as if the household had spent all their money. That's not the case. Mostly we invest money in different segments of our society. The problem with the US is rapid and unpredictable changes in the value of our investments leading to long term collapse. This is caused, not because we don't have enough wealth, or even less wealth than before the collapse, but because of the distribution of that money. Right now, one member of the family has all the money and none of the others can invest in ways to make money because they have no opportunity. As a result, whether or not those other members of the family can buy lunch depends upon unrealistic debt, stealing money from the rich family member's wallet, and gifts of money from that family member (sometimes given under threat).
Research wealth disparity now and during the great depression and economic models that surround it.
So, all in all, this just MIGHT help their local economy.
Helping local economies is about finding efficiencies and creating value where there wasn't previously.
I sort of agree. I think it is more about motivating increased efficiency, rather than forcing it. So a law that taxes bandwidth would add to the cost of excessive bandwidth use motivating people to use less (in many ways) and saving ISPs money. Things that might save end users money could include things like switching OS's to something less easily compromised so they don't have to go get their PC cleaned all the time. It could include switching internet browsers to one that can use technologies that don't waste as much bandwidth. Maybe it would not do either, but they are potential benefits that increase true efficiency.
I pay 45$ a month
And I pay less than $7 per month on Virgin Mobile, because I use a land line when I'm not trying to arrange a ride.
It's interesting. The number of people with a land line is steadily dropping every year. I don't think the trend towards cell phones and away from land lines is going to be reversing.
Satellite radio has the convenience advantage that there's no "game" to play. You buy the radio and the connection kit, and then the plan costs $12.99 per month.
More and more cars are coming with input jacks and other hookup options. More and more people are buying internet capable phones. I think the trend is clear. Fewer people in future will be wanting a separate subscription for satellite radio when their existing devices will provide the same functionality for free with more flexibility and more options.
I'm not arguing that you should go with the trend, mind you, just that it seems to be what is happening now and likely to continue.
The first part of this statement is a well-established fact (15% more), the second is highly-controversial(better reliability and support). On reliability, I'll just say "no". I've seen nothing to convince me Apple has significantly lower hardware failure rates than other boutique vendors.
Okay. So every study I've seen including those from independent reviewing companies says otherwise. Upon what are you basing your assessments of reliability?
"Support" is highly subjective and it depends on what kind of support you need.
True, which is why it is important to rely upon objective studies of it rather than trying to find justification for prejudiced beliefs. You rely upon easily verified facts and numbers from support data.
My colleague...
I'm not interested in anecdotes. Everyone has them. Rational people base their evaluations on data.
I suspect your studies specifically excluded other boutique vendors and compared Apple to Dell, Acer, or Sony.
First, Alienware is a division of Dell these days. Second, why would you make such an assumption? Consumer Reports usually covers about 10 brands in their big studies (with Alienware being included in Dell's numbers for a few years now).
The real issue is support for Windows. There isn't much of an "escalation path" to get you from an OEM to Microsoft with an issue, you have to handle this ad hoc. And the OEM will tend to blame MS and MS will blame the OEM.
That doesn't have anything to do with hardware failure numbers or the dozens of other criteria in the average study. In the Consumer REports study every year, for example, software including the OS counts as one of the ten criteria, not nearly enough to affect their numbers one way or another.
This is the real advantage of Apple: Single-vendor support if you stay in the sandbox.
I agree that can be an advantage, but you certainly haven't shown that is Apple's only advantage.
The real issue here is the software, not the hardware.
Apple has handily won on hardware reliability in every study I've read for years, from a variety of sources. Can you find any where they don't win? I still don't see why you would think Apple's hardware reliability is not better based upon any of the data I've seen.
Here's a question: If you take money from person A and give it to person B, have you stimulated anything ? Person B will have more to spend, admittedly, but person A will have less. The net effect on the economy is null.
Actually, the main cause of the great depression and a big factor in the current economic problem is not that we don't have enough wealth, but the disparity of distribution. 50% of the wealth is in the hands of a few percent of the populace. 50% of the populace has a net wealth of zero as a group. When half the population has no wealth and no realistic prospect of having wealth, who are banks supposed to be loaning money to? They have been loaning money to that 50% despite economists knowing there was little or no chance of it being paid back without federal aid. That can go on only so long before foreclosures start redistributing the wealth radically back to the top in the form of seized homes and assets and exorbitant interest on short term loans. Worse yet, wealth is destroyed in the process, not just transferred. Houses become unoccupied and fall into disrepair losing value and the lack of home ownership drives the value of housing down. It is the rapid and unpredictable changes more than overall returns that causes a depression. Even during the depression the average return on stock investments was positive... it was just unpredictable and erratic.
Of course the economic stimulus package is not a solution only a short term band-aid. It is designed to halt the spiraling collapse where lack of funds and frightened investors make the problem worse. It is not a long term solution by itself. The real trick is to change long term tax policies to shift more of the tax burden to the top to stop the wealth from continuing to consolidate and increasing socialist programs such that there is more upward mobility for those on the bottom to move up. Currently those at the top are paying less of their income as taxes than those in the middle and huge amounts of foreign debt are being incurred. Neither is sustainable and both lead to just this kind of instability and collapse.
"the idea here is that MS is forcing one product on everyone who buys a computer (bundled price) then charging a second price to get a different version"
Yeah, and Vista Ultimate costs more than Vista Home Basic too!
That's actually fine. It's just using monopoly influence to make you buy both the product you want and a second product you have no intention of using that is criminal.
I bought a Prius two years ago. There were eight option packages available. We wanted some of some, some of another, let's say for sake of example, option 1, GPS, 2, leather seats, 3 touring wheels. You can have 1, 1+2, or 1+2+3. You want 1+3? Not happening. Explain to me the difference here.
Tying only undermines the free market if the seller has monopoly influence in one of the markets. Toyota does not have a monopoly on cars or GPS or seats or steering wheels. You can look at the Prius and the Altima and the Sonata and if Toyota doesn't sell the combination you want, you can buy from the competition.
Now if one company had cornered the market on GPS systems, they'd still be in the clear legally speaking, unless they forced Toyota to include their brand of seats in order to get the GPS (which they have a monopoly on) or if they ordered Toyota to only include version of their GPS, but one without support for certain features in order to get two GPS sales per car sale. In such a situation, even if Toyota is unwilling to sue the GPS maker for fear of retaliation the end user can still sue on their own since it is hurting them.
Maybe my answer was too long. Toyota is not a monopolist in any pertinent market. Microsoft is.
I can't believe no one else is talking about this. The iPhone App Store is anti-competitive... Apple has already abused it's monopoly position by not allowing certain apps that compete with their offerings.
You see, this is the Achilles' heel of your argument. Both legally and economically monopolies are defined by markets. You reference Apple's monopoly, but in terms of economics and law, they don't actually have a monopoly (they are close with ipods though I don't think that applies to this discussion). This article is about Apple Store clones popping up to provide similar functionality for all the competing phones on the market. The fact that such competition exists negates the premise of Apple having a monopoly. If they were to gain monopoly influence on the cellphone or even smartphone market, then yes, absolutely it would be an issue.
Remember, bundling is not illegal. You can sell a package of shampoo and body wash without any problems, right up until you gain monopoly influence on one of those two markets. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on smartphones. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on smartphone apps. Thus, tying their smartphone to their app store is clearly not falling afoul of normal antitrust laws.
This is dramatically different than their Music store/ipod model because you can buy music from anywhere so long as it is DRM-Free.
Actually, the Apple specific DRM and tying to the iTunes store is plenty to convict Apple of antitrust abuse... provided they have monopoly influence to abuse. Right now the EU seems to have leaned towards Apple not having such influence in their investigations largely because of the media playing cell phone trend.
This is not the case with the App Store. Buy from Apple or not at all.
Yeah it is serious lock in and something a purchaser should consider. It's probably the second thing (after price) dissuading me from choosing Apple as the provider of my next smartphone. That said, it is no more anti-competitive than all the other items sold exclusively through cell phones like crazily expensive wallpaper and ringtones. In order for antitrust laws to apply their needs to be a trust. There are other consumer protection laws in various jurisdictions, but nothing universal that make for a large issue.
I think the previous poster was trolling. If not, then they are just engaging in wishful thinking if they believe Apple can drop prices hundreds or thousands of dollars and make it up in volume.
Show me another machine with the specs of the MBP that is as thin and cool.
This is exactly what starts yet another in the unstoppable chain of price and feature comparisons between Apple and other vendors and it is pointless in the extreme. No one here is going to do a comprehensive look or be able to find machines that are truly comparable not only in bullet point features but in hardware reliability, included support, and integration all of which are important to the value of the end product.
There have been studies performed on this topic already. I wish I had a good one handy. The best was the Consumer Reports one, but you need a subscription. In any case, the verdict is in. Macs cost more than the average PC by about 15%, which is to say about the same amount as other "premium" vendors like Sony, but Apple manages to win on reliability and support every year by a significant margin. (It's up to the individual to decide if that is worth it to them and hey, props to Dell for the massive improvements to their laptop reliability in the last year.) Apple undercuts other vendors a little bit on the low end and overcharges a bit more on the high end and on upgrade parts.
Now people need to get over it. Whether you are a fanboy or a hater, just give it up. Digging up prices and stats online, once is useless. You can't get a large enough sample size to be useful, you can't properly compare features that don't show up in the marketing literature, and your results will vary widely based upon when in the release cycles you make the comparison.
Please never, ever, ever, ever again ask someone to show you another machine that compares to MacFoo from Apple. It just leads to another long, pointless thread.
I don't buy that. If I buy a new PC with Windows on it and immediately switch to Linux, is Microsoft required to refund me the cost of Vista?
In many jurisdictions, the OEM you bought it from is required to as a result of the copyright laws MS is using to enforce their EULAs. It has gone to court several times now in several countries. Some OEMs have policies against it or designed to discourage it (requiring a fee or return of the whole system), but none have won in court yet.
Anybody upset that they can't buy a MacBook with an older version of OS X?
Not really because older versions of OS X are slower and less featureful versions. With Vista versus XP you have a slower version and one with certain "features" designed to make it harder for me to do things and make MS money in the process.
Of course legally the real difference is MS has monopoly influence in the market (desktop OS's) whereas Apple is only one of many sellers of desktop computer systems and laptops. With Apple a user has a viable option, whereas for OEMs buying an OS to put on computers they sell they generally have only one viable option and with that power comes requirements as to how it is used. If an end user can show MS unlawfully used that influence in a criminal way that is costing the end user of the system money, then they have a case.