I will go farther than that (and open myself up to the heat of a thousand suns), and declare Linux (not just Ubuntu) a flop.
In fact, I thought that Ubuntu actually HAD a chance to FINALLY make Linux palatable enough that maybe, just maybe, it could bootstrap Linux popularity with "the masses". But even some of the Linux fanboi hoards on/. apparently feel that Ubuntu hasn't panned out quite as they hoped...
That's why the vast majority of Linux users have OS X machines. Because they need to actually get shit done.
Face it: Linux in general has had something like FIFTEEN YEARS to get its proverbial shit together, and STILL it's a worthless "lab queen", suitable for ZERO desktops.
Now don't get me wrong; there are a LOT of really great F/OSS projects out there (and OS X wouldn't be the powerhouse that it is without them!!!); but in a overall sense, the OS itself is a bad joke, as is the concept of a F/OSS "Community".
The fact that there are well over 100 Linux distros neatly proves that. Even accounting for the desirability of having certain fundamentally different forks to serve environments with vastly different overall requirements, such as Embedded Linux, anyone in his right mind would have to agree that the amount of Linux distros, plus the insistence by most Linux fanbois of having the Source Code for every stinkin' thing, is effectively dooming Linux to never having major software publisher application or (in most cases) even decent driver support.
If the F/OSS "Community" would stop acting like the bunch of spoiled-ass BRATS that they, for the most part, most assuredly are, and really start ACTING like the great "Kum Bah Ya" brotherhood that they would like everyone to believe is the case, THEN, and ONLY THEN, does Linux have a SNOBOL's chance to gain any REAL "mindshare", and with it, at least the POTENTIAL of "marketshare" numbers that are significantly better than that of AmigaOS.
I'm really NOT trolling, nor trying to start an OS war, honest! But facts are facts, and, as Linux fanbois are THE most rabid (making Apple fanbois look like the voice of reason!), I can already feel the heat of the flames I will receive by daring to point out on/. that King Linus is indeed, NAKED...
(Frankly, I think Windows does more in that regard: you usually have to click through a warning to launch an executable that you've downloaded.)
Actually, that was added in Leopard.
Earlier than that. I think even Jaguar (10.2) warned the first time ANY application was launched. And Tiger (10.4) definitely warns not only when you launch ANY app for the first time, but also when you are DOWNLOADING.
It even warns about.exe files, even though they aren't executable on OS X.
Honest question, why are Apple releasing security updates if there are no security exploits in their software?
Honest answer: Because you are confusing a (theoretical) VULNERABILITY (which ALL OSes have), but which have not been "realized", and an EXPLOIT (which is deliberately malicious code RELEASED IN THE WILD that leverages a VULNERABILITY). The OP and the GP were obviously referring to OS X EXPLOITS circulating in the wild, of which there simply are NONE.
I know it sounds like I'm splitting hairs; but it is a VERY thick "hair"...
A Trojan doesn't count as a vulnerability nor as an exploit; just as user stupidity, from which NO Operating System is safe.
Re:Apple needs much better gameing hardware at a b
on
Apple Eyeing EA?
·
· Score: 1
Apple needs much better gameing hardware at a better price the mac pro is joke and comes with a very week video card for it's price and the video card upgrades are a rip of as well. ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB [Add $200.00] on top of the base NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 512MB at $150.00 makeing it 200+150 = 350 for a 4870 512???.
also the imacs at $1,199.00 and $1,499.00 used to come with a better video card now they come with the week 9400m Also the $1,799.00 needs to have much better then a NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 with 256MB.
The mac pro should be about $1000 less with x2 the ram and better base video.
The mini at $800 should have it's own video card as well with 2-4gb of system ram.
This is a complete non-sequitur to the question as to whether Apple should purchase EA.
And your whining about the Mac Pro (which is decidedly NOT aimed at "gamers") and its list price is just gratuitous Apple-bashing, for Apple-bashing's sake.
Except for the Mac mini growing some sort of ridiculously high-end video card (due to size and cooling constraints), all of your issues can be easily addressed. Plus, you do realize that only about.000005% of the PC gaming market even plays into the "must-have-fastest-hardware" idiocy, don't you?
What if Apple buys EA, ports all current titles, and then kills off the Windows versions of those titles, and does not offer Windows (or Linux) versions of any new titles? This would be similar to what Apple did when they acquired the DAW company, Logic. And Apple, with $20 bil. in the bank and no long-term debt, could easily afford to kiss-off the revenue from the Windows versions of EA titles.
Apple could, in one master stroke, change from the underdog to the top dog, as far as gaming goes.
And with EA's share of the overall gaming market, smaller game developers would soon be falling all over themselves to offer Mac versions of their games, too.
That's exactly the kind of game-changing (pun intended) move that Apple is deservedly famous for...
And who's to say that Apple hasn't been secretly developing a killer game framework, ala DirectX?
Since it was a significant amount of time after OS X 10.0.0 debuted in January 2000, before certain widely-used productivity suites, such as MSOffice (not OS X-native until Nov. 2001), Photoshop and InDesign (both not OS X-native until 2002), Quark XPress (not OS X-native until 2003), in a very big way, the renewed vitality of the Macintosh platform, and by association, the ultimate success of OS X, depended on the ability of "New World" Macs to be able to seamlessly integrate "Classic" MacOS applications and MacOS X applications. Apple pulled this not-so-trivial feat off with pretty stellar results, overall. And to ease the transition even more, although not virtualization, per se, Apple created the Carbon API, which allowed applications to be developed or recompiled to run NATIVELY either in MacOS 8.5 and above, or in MacOS X.
Let's just see if MS can do the same relatively painless transition, which still jettisoning most or all of its compatibility cruft, like Apple (for the most part) neatly has. The Connectix VirtualPC engine was pretty good, but not that stable. Let's see how well it works for XP on Vist, er Windows 7...
Oh, and speaking of seamless transitions, Apple's 68k to PPC, and PPC to Intel transitions were both incredible feats of engineering.
Do you honestly believe that MS can carry off something as seamless as either of those? Of course not. And so they aren't even going to try, apparently.
And before you say "Well, of COURSE; Apple doesn't have to support a GAZILLION motherboards, peripherals, etc."; please keep in mind that nearly every Apple system (except some of the very recent designs) used fairly unique (to the particular model) hardware. In fact, in most Apple designs, the only major IC in common was the CPU. (family). Yes, the overall "universe" is somewhat smaller; but not nearly so small as to preclude many, many problems.
Yes. Definitely. I felt a "disturbance" in the Web... as if a million people saw "big red box" with the lines of code in it and went "I don't know what that says, so I'll just click 'Ok.' and their machines were suddenly p0wned!
I don't want to hear one more word, whining about how "closed" the iPhone OS, SDK, or App Store is. iPhone is now (or soon will be) officially more "open" than Android.
I don't think the server version of OSX can even do it, but nearly every version of Linux can do it. The normal version of OSX at least supports text based ssh logins.
Actually, if you use this FREE Vine server, you can run multiple concurrent ***GUI*** sessions (using computers with VNC clients, like this one, or this one) even with the desktop versions of OS X (since 10.4). The only thing you can't have remotely is sound (which is a VNC restriction).
This is a zero-dollar solution, and it works just fine. I tried it about a week ago using OS X Tiger (10.4).
You calculate the value of a PC by how long it lasts (time and usefulness) compared to the price you paid. I still have a useful 2001 G3. After eight years it comes out cheaper than any PC.
And I still have a very useful and reliable 2001 Sony laptop running Windows 2000.
I agree about buying quality, but Apple doesn't have that market quite cornered....
But you also (conveniently) failed to mention that that Sony laptop probably cost as much or more than an equivalent Mac laptop of the same era.
So what's your point? That, if you pay as much for a "Windows" laptop as you would for a similar Mac laptop, that you MAY get good quality hardware with the "Windows" laptop, too?
No, Ballmer's remarks were based on sub-$1k shitboxes. Not high-end (and therefore price-comparable) "Windows" laptops (like your Sony). Which are in no way comparable, quality-wise, to EITHER the high-end "Windows" laptops (like your Sony), nor to ANY Apple laptop. Period.
You almost make the point that is the most telling in this argument, at least for me. When push comes to shove, I can get my work done on any system. However, as a Mac owner since my first 512k in 85, my conclusion is that I get 7 years of use on average for a Mac and about 3 years of use for a Windows-based PC before replacement. My G5 tower is 5 years old this month and as good as ever. The equation is simple; even if a Mac cost 2x as much as a PC, I'd break even. Now, if you factor in the difference in maintenance due to viruses/malware/etc. the Mac has saved me years of productivity; what's that worth in $ ? I'm looking forward to my next cost-effective investment in a uni-body laptop:-) If you can, "invest" in a Mac; all computers depreciate, but a Mac's value goes to zero more slowly.
I couldn't agree more.
The G5 dualie that I am typing this on will be 4 years old next month, and it has been in operation 24/7/365 since that time without a single problem, hardware or software. Not so much as a noisy fan.
Same thing for my old CRT iMac. Circa 2000. Never a problem. Still in weekly use as a print and scanner server (the print driver for my Samsung ML1210 laser printer and the software for my HP 6300 scanner aren't compatible with OS X 10.4, which I have on my G5 tower, so I have 10.3 (Panther) installed on the iMac).
Speaking of noisy fans, my nearly 15 year-old PowerMac 8500 still boots up and runs, no problems ever; not even a noisy (squealing) fan (although the fan sounds like a blow-dryer on high!). I just stopped using it in 2005, when I got my G5 tower. But I still occasionally boot it up to get to some files I'm too lazy to transfer over to the G5.
Same thing for my circa 2000 clamshell iBook. Works fine, never a problem. Only thing ever replaced was a battery (after 5 years). Still works every time I do use it (which isn't too much anymore, due to it's limited hard drive space).
In fact, all my Macs (Mac 128k (Converted to a Mac Plus), SE, Performa 575, two 6100s, 8500, 9500, iBook, iMac, G5 tower. (no, I'm not wealthy, all of those machines except the G5 tower were either used eBay purchases, or given to me by friends when they upgraded to another Mac)) have worked FLAWLESSLY and malware-free for the entire time I have owned them.
It's really hard to put a price tag on the literally thousands of hours that I have saved using Apple computers. I don't have to mess with the OS, with malware protection, or with other hardware or software annoyances (third-party software and hardware excluded). When I sit down in front of my Mac, it just gets out of the way and let's me do what I want with a minimum of fuss and maintenance.
As I said, it's hard to put a price tag on time saved. It's just one of those things that most Mac owners take for granted.
Oh, and I'm an embedded developer with nearly 30 years of experience; so it isn't like I don't have the expertise to maintain a Windows or Linux system. But who in their right mind would want to? I want my computer to be as close to an "appliance" as it can be. The Macintosh was originally conceived of as "The computer as an appliance".
Would you want to have to make sure the antivirus software was updated on your washing machine? Or would you rather just know it was going to get your clothes clean with minimal fuss and bother?
The old saw (updated) is true: "Macintosh users work WITH their computer. Windows (and Linux) users work ON their computer."
Sadly, this new feature has resulted in a lawsuit by the Professional Screen Navigation Narrators Guild, who are being put out of work by this voice synthesizer technology.
You rock! This is only about the 2nd time a comment on/. has made me truly LOL!
"Here's my point: OLPC can actually CONTRACT with Apple. How do they MAKE "Linux" (whatever THAT is!) perform ON SCHEDULE, TO SPEC, *OR ELSE*?"
That's hard to do when you accept Apple's offer is to do it for free. How can you exactly force Apple to do something for free? If you have a ton of money, you can hire them, but how do you justify them doing that instead of fostering open-source development that you can own in the end? Would OLPC own the ARM port of OSX? Of course not.
First off, learn to use the 'quote' tag, fucktard. It was really challenging trying to sort your ramblings out when they were intertwined with my erudite arguments.
HTML-bashing aside, however, the above shows the conceit of the "F/OSS community" (whatever THAT is!). Here's why: As other people have pointed out, it would be a huge feather in Apple's cap (and a potential significant marketshare-gainer) to be chosen by the OLPC project to provide the OS and included applications-suite. So, even if there weren't the economic "punishments" that come with non-performance on a contract, Apple would not enjoy the bad press associated with not delivering on that most-humanitarian of promises.
Linux already runs on ARM.
So does a version of OS X.
As do a lot of Linux applications.
As do certain KEY OS X applications.
On ARM, on MIPS, on POWER/PowerPC, SPARC and others.
And for OS X, on PowerPC, on x86, and on ARM. Will we be getting to your point soon?
Most of the time, all you need is to recompile the program.
Ya know, it funny; but you seem to be about the only person here that seems to think that. Read this article, if you don't believe me.
This is, you know, the beauty of real Unix-like OSs.
Funny, I seem to remember something about OS X being a CERTIFIED UNIX. Can ANY Linux (whatever THAT is!) distro claim as much? I'd REALLY enjoy you getting to the POINT...
I bet you can find a dozen other companies more experienced in ARM processors than Apple. They just started it the other year.
is running on ARM architectures (from the very simple embedded ones to netbook-class OMAP ones) since like ever.
And yet you provide not ONE single example... Hmmm...
No. But why would you hire Apple when you could just pick one and cultivate it to the stage you want? You can hire Apple just as much you can hire Canonical or Red Hat. If you can pay, you can have some very talented people.
Ok, but you have just "hired" someone who then is responsible for, for WHAT, exactly?
This is why I keep annoyingly saying "Whatever THAT is!" whenever the term "Linux" is used. What exactly IS a "Linux"? It is NOT a simple question. But it SURE ain't JUST the Linux Kernel. But when it comes to LEGAL LIABILITY (which is what matters to organizations such as the OLPC project), WHO CAN BE MADE RESPONSIBLE?
And you mention Red Hat. How is THAT a COST-SAVINGS??? Let me tell you something; when Linux (whatever THAT is!) isn't FREE (as in beer), it loses it's most attractive feature both to the OLPC project, and to a large extent, to most thinking beings. Because who in their right mind wants to mess with the torture that Linu
What meaningful advantages OSX has over Linux for a learning tool?
It's not so much "Linux" (whatever THAT is!); it's Apple.
Here's my point: OLPC can actually CONTRACT with Apple. How do they MAKE "Linux" (whatever THAT is!) perform ON SCHEDULE, TO SPEC, *OR ELSE*?
Second, IT'S NOT JUST THE OS, STUPID! It's the Applications. In order for the OLPC to be USEFUL (to the vast majority of people who are not at home with dev. tools), not only does "Linux" (whatever THAT is!) have to be ported; but also a gazillion other OSS applications.
Therein lies the rub. Who is RESPONSIBLE for porting all of those?
With Apple, OLPC can CONTRACT to have not only the OS ported, but also a browser, mail client, integrated office suite, et CETERA, and they can specify things like WHEN that will happen. How in the blue blazes does someone like OLPC do that with a gazillion OSS projects, a lot of which have a fairly loosely-defined "organizational structure"? By the time they traverse the maze of contacting the maintainers os a gazillion OSS packages, released under a handful of different licenses, and then pay LAWYERS to interpret those licenses and render opinions on whether or not the particular project can be included without legal ramifications, the sun has gone out...
THEN, someone STILL has to get ALL those OSS projects PORTED.
Not so with Apple.
So, I think the REAL question is: What MEANINGFUL advantages does Linux have over OS X?
I'm absolutely NOT advocating an APPLE monoculture here. Developers would be more than welcome to author or port any application that the OLPC X-02 would be capable of running. But ya gotta admit, from a practical standpoint, STARTING with Apple (and its ARM experience, solid, platform-agnostic OS, and application portfolio) sure makes a LOT of sense to the OLPC people.
And besides, none of this PRECLUDES the" F/OSS community" (whatever THAT is!) from offering one, or even a hundred, "Linux" (whatever THAT is!) distros, does it?
Yes, the notion of OS X on an ARM-based OLPC should be laughed right off slashdot.
It's not as if Apple has had ANY success or experience porting their software to (or writing new software for) an ARM architecture. Oh wait.
I mean, it's not as if they have any experience writing software that integrates well across multiple hardware platforms. Oh wait.
I mean, it's not as if they have any experience designing clean & usable interfaces that people generally find easy to learn, and which make more powerful features available to advanced users by building on top of a unix foundation. Oh wait.
You're right. The notion of Mac OS being proted to an XO-2 is just ludicrous. It'd be much better to wait and let Microsoft port XP to the XO-2. They have a long and illustrious track record of releasing compatible, secure, feature-rich operating systems right on schedule.
A better solution in this case is the much simpler one: Linux.
Huh? How does that make it simpler? Someone STILL has to port the Linux apps to ARM, too, don't they?
And it must not be just as simple as flipping a switch in gcc, or everyone else replying to my original post with "It wouldn't be worth it, etc., no apps will be available, etc" is simply incorrect.
Can't have it both ways.
And wouldn't the "no apps" argument apply to EVERY OS, at least at the start?
Actually, I had that thought when I wrote my original post. However, I think that the touchscreens that have been ordered have more to do with the rumored "iTouch(TM)" or "iPad(TM)" product, than they do with OLPC.
Having said that, wouldn't an iPad(TM) make porting OS X to the OLPC X02 quite a bit easier as well?
Do you honestly think it would be MORE work than porting XP to ARM? Or Ubuntu (which I gather has NOT been sucessfully ported to ARM yet). I believe there are embedded Linuces that do run on ARM, but those are not "desktop" distros any more than you claim that the iPod Touch/iPhone version of OS X is. So, what's your point?
I never said that it would just be a matter of downloading the iPod Touch firmware into an OLPC machine and rebooting. But remember this: We're talking about a FUTURE product, not an existing one. If the decision were made to go with OS X, don'tcha think that the OLPC engineers and Apple's could come to some hardware consensus that would make porting OS X a simple(r) task.
Say what you want about Apple and NextStep/Rhapsody/OS X, but I believe that most slashdotters will agree: It is a VERY platform-agnostic OS. After all, versions of OS X already run on at least 3 vastly-different CPU architectures now (PPC G3, PPC G4/G5, x86, ARM10 (IIRC)). Do you really think that Apple isn't up to the task of adding a 4th, 5th, 6th in a reasonably short period of time?
I remember clearly that/. reported that Steve Jobs had originally agreed to license OS X to the OLPC project for free (as in beer), but that the offer was refused.
Since it is a well-known fact that Apple has had OS X working on an ARM architecture in the iPhone and iPod Touch for nearly 2 years now, it would seem a no-brainer at this point for OLPC to take Apple up on their offer.
"I wonder why the Authors' Guild doesn't complain about them?"
Because by law, the blind must have access to TTS, and therefore the authors' guild cannot make money on it. In this case, they see a money making opportunity, and want to capitalize on it at the expense of consumers.
Ok, so suppose I am blind (I am not), and I buy a Kindle specifically because of the rich content I can access through its TTS ability. Do I have a ADA (or some other kind of) lawsuit against Amazon, the Writer's Guild, and/or the Publisher themselves, for deliberately defeating a feature of the device that I, by law (according to you), should have an UNRESTRICTED RIGHT to?
If so, KEWL, because the defendant(s) in an ADA lawsuit are usually on the receiving-end of the knobby stick of "Justice"!
So what would Amazon do in that case? Have some sort of registration program/account preference or on the Kindle that says "I affirm that I am legally blind", so that the publisher's TTS-pref. is automatically overridden, or what?
Without that, I would believe that there is a huge class-action lawsuit a-brewin'...
And with that, the whole idea just falls down; because ENFORCEMENT is nearly impossible. What would the brown-shirts do? Follow behind everyone with a Kindle, to see (hear) if they are having it read a book to them? There are no ISP logs to datamine, no packets to sniff, nothing. Just millions and millions (well, thousands and thousands) of Kindle owners to try and "catch".
Slashdot Mirror
I will go farther than that (and open myself up to the heat of a thousand suns), and declare Linux (not just Ubuntu) a flop.
/. apparently feel that Ubuntu hasn't panned out quite as they hoped...
/. that King Linus is indeed, NAKED...
In fact, I thought that Ubuntu actually HAD a chance to FINALLY make Linux palatable enough that maybe, just maybe, it could bootstrap Linux popularity with "the masses". But even some of the Linux fanboi hoards on
That's why the vast majority of Linux users have OS X machines. Because they need to actually get shit done.
Face it: Linux in general has had something like FIFTEEN YEARS to get its proverbial shit together, and STILL it's a worthless "lab queen", suitable for ZERO desktops.
Now don't get me wrong; there are a LOT of really great F/OSS projects out there (and OS X wouldn't be the powerhouse that it is without them!!!); but in a overall sense, the OS itself is a bad joke, as is the concept of a F/OSS "Community".
The fact that there are well over 100 Linux distros neatly proves that. Even accounting for the desirability of having certain fundamentally different forks to serve environments with vastly different overall requirements, such as Embedded Linux, anyone in his right mind would have to agree that the amount of Linux distros, plus the insistence by most Linux fanbois of having the Source Code for every stinkin' thing, is effectively dooming Linux to never having major software publisher application or (in most cases) even decent driver support.
If the F/OSS "Community" would stop acting like the bunch of spoiled-ass BRATS that they, for the most part, most assuredly are, and really start ACTING like the great "Kum Bah Ya" brotherhood that they would like everyone to believe is the case, THEN, and ONLY THEN, does Linux have a SNOBOL's chance to gain any REAL "mindshare", and with it, at least the POTENTIAL of "marketshare" numbers that are significantly better than that of AmigaOS.
I'm really NOT trolling, nor trying to start an OS war, honest! But facts are facts, and, as Linux fanbois are THE most rabid (making Apple fanbois look like the voice of reason!), I can already feel the heat of the flames I will receive by daring to point out on
No, that would be properly written as Apple HIRES.
POKE -16297,0
(Frankly, I think Windows does more in that regard: you usually have to click through a warning to launch an executable that you've downloaded.)
Actually, that was added in Leopard.
Earlier than that. I think even Jaguar (10.2) warned the first time ANY application was launched. And Tiger (10.4) definitely warns not only when you launch ANY app for the first time, but also when you are DOWNLOADING.
.exe files, even though they aren't executable on OS X.
It even warns about
Who seriously leaves a JTAG enabled and on the board of a production phone?
What real good does it do to lock down the JTAG, when you distribute firmware updates via the tubes?
Wow, look at me! I can perform a Boundary Scan, and I can dump out the (compiled) firmware (which I can also intercept during an OS sync)...
Disabling the JTAG interface (by blowing the Security bit on the Microcontroller, I assume) would do nothing at all to make the system more "secure".
Honest question, why are Apple releasing security updates if there are no security exploits in their software?
Honest answer: Because you are confusing a (theoretical) VULNERABILITY (which ALL OSes have), but which have not been "realized", and an EXPLOIT (which is deliberately malicious code RELEASED IN THE WILD that leverages a VULNERABILITY). The OP and the GP were obviously referring to OS X EXPLOITS circulating in the wild, of which there simply are NONE.
I know it sounds like I'm splitting hairs; but it is a VERY thick "hair"...
Just because there aren't any around
There. Fixed that for you.
A Trojan doesn't count as a vulnerability nor as an exploit; just as user stupidity, from which NO Operating System is safe.
Apple needs much better gameing hardware at a better price the mac pro is joke and comes with a very week video card for it's price and the video card upgrades are a rip of as well. ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB [Add $200.00] on top of the base NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 512MB at $150.00 makeing it 200+150 = 350 for a 4870 512???. also the imacs at $1,199.00 and $1,499.00 used to come with a better video card now they come with the week 9400m Also the $1,799.00 needs to have much better then a NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 with 256MB. The mac pro should be about $1000 less with x2 the ram and better base video. The mini at $800 should have it's own video card as well with 2-4gb of system ram.
This is a complete non-sequitur to the question as to whether Apple should purchase EA.
.000005% of the PC gaming market even plays into the "must-have-fastest-hardware" idiocy, don't you?
And your whining about the Mac Pro (which is decidedly NOT aimed at "gamers") and its list price is just gratuitous Apple-bashing, for Apple-bashing's sake.
Except for the Mac mini growing some sort of ridiculously high-end video card (due to size and cooling constraints), all of your issues can be easily addressed. Plus, you do realize that only about
What if Apple buys EA, ports all current titles, and then kills off the Windows versions of those titles, and does not offer Windows (or Linux) versions of any new titles? This would be similar to what Apple did when they acquired the DAW company, Logic. And Apple, with $20 bil. in the bank and no long-term debt, could easily afford to kiss-off the revenue from the Windows versions of EA titles.
Apple could, in one master stroke, change from the underdog to the top dog, as far as gaming goes.
And with EA's share of the overall gaming market, smaller game developers would soon be falling all over themselves to offer Mac versions of their games, too.
That's exactly the kind of game-changing (pun intended) move that Apple is deservedly famous for...
And who's to say that Apple hasn't been secretly developing a killer game framework, ala DirectX?
Discuss.
Mac OS is a niche market.
That's not only untrue; it's also a non-sequitur.
Since it was a significant amount of time after OS X 10.0.0 debuted in January 2000, before certain widely-used productivity suites, such as MSOffice (not OS X-native until Nov. 2001), Photoshop and InDesign (both not OS X-native until 2002), Quark XPress (not OS X-native until 2003), in a very big way, the renewed vitality of the Macintosh platform, and by association, the ultimate success of OS X, depended on the ability of "New World" Macs to be able to seamlessly integrate "Classic" MacOS applications and MacOS X applications. Apple pulled this not-so-trivial feat off with pretty stellar results, overall. And to ease the transition even more, although not virtualization, per se, Apple created the Carbon API, which allowed applications to be developed or recompiled to run NATIVELY either in MacOS 8.5 and above, or in MacOS X.
Let's just see if MS can do the same relatively painless transition, which still jettisoning most or all of its compatibility cruft, like Apple (for the most part) neatly has. The Connectix VirtualPC engine was pretty good, but not that stable. Let's see how well it works for XP on Vist, er Windows 7...
Oh, and speaking of seamless transitions, Apple's 68k to PPC, and PPC to Intel transitions were both incredible feats of engineering.
Do you honestly believe that MS can carry off something as seamless as either of those? Of course not. And so they aren't even going to try, apparently.
And before you say "Well, of COURSE; Apple doesn't have to support a GAZILLION motherboards, peripherals, etc."; please keep in mind that nearly every Apple system (except some of the very recent designs) used fairly unique (to the particular model) hardware. In fact, in most Apple designs, the only major IC in common was the CPU. (family). Yes, the overall "universe" is somewhat smaller; but not nearly so small as to preclude many, many problems.
Yes. Definitely. I felt a "disturbance" in the Web... as if a million people saw "big red box" with the lines of code in it and went "I don't know what that says, so I'll just click 'Ok.' and their machines were suddenly p0wned!
I JUST saw this!
TRULY LOL!!!!
Oh, and Senator, Love your Sig!
I don't want to hear one more word, whining about how "closed" the iPhone OS, SDK, or App Store is. iPhone is now (or soon will be) officially more "open" than Android.
Does anyone else see this as a BIG (like ActiveX-sized) security hole???
I don't think the server version of OSX can even do it, but nearly every version of Linux can do it. The normal version of OSX at least supports text based ssh logins.
Actually, if you use this FREE Vine server, you can run multiple concurrent ***GUI*** sessions (using computers with VNC clients, like this one, or this one) even with the desktop versions of OS X (since 10.4). The only thing you can't have remotely is sound (which is a VNC restriction).
This is a zero-dollar solution, and it works just fine. I tried it about a week ago using OS X Tiger (10.4).
You calculate the value of a PC by how long it lasts (time and usefulness) compared to the price you paid. I still have a useful 2001 G3. After eight years it comes out cheaper than any PC.
And I still have a very useful and reliable 2001 Sony laptop running Windows 2000. I agree about buying quality, but Apple doesn't have that market quite cornered....
But you also (conveniently) failed to mention that that Sony laptop probably cost as much or more than an equivalent Mac laptop of the same era.
So what's your point? That, if you pay as much for a "Windows" laptop as you would for a similar Mac laptop, that you MAY get good quality hardware with the "Windows" laptop, too?
No, Ballmer's remarks were based on sub-$1k shitboxes. Not high-end (and therefore price-comparable) "Windows" laptops (like your Sony). Which are in no way comparable, quality-wise, to EITHER the high-end "Windows" laptops (like your Sony), nor to ANY Apple laptop. Period.
You almost make the point that is the most telling in this argument, at least for me. When push comes to shove, I can get my work done on any system. However, as a Mac owner since my first 512k in 85, my conclusion is that I get 7 years of use on average for a Mac and about 3 years of use for a Windows-based PC before replacement. My G5 tower is 5 years old this month and as good as ever. The equation is simple; even if a Mac cost 2x as much as a PC, I'd break even. Now, if you factor in the difference in maintenance due to viruses/malware/etc. the Mac has saved me years of productivity; what's that worth in $ ? I'm looking forward to my next cost-effective investment in a uni-body laptop :-) If you can, "invest" in a Mac; all computers depreciate, but a Mac's value goes to zero more slowly.
I couldn't agree more.
The G5 dualie that I am typing this on will be 4 years old next month, and it has been in operation 24/7/365 since that time without a single problem, hardware or software. Not so much as a noisy fan.
Same thing for my old CRT iMac. Circa 2000. Never a problem. Still in weekly use as a print and scanner server (the print driver for my Samsung ML1210 laser printer and the software for my HP 6300 scanner aren't compatible with OS X 10.4, which I have on my G5 tower, so I have 10.3 (Panther) installed on the iMac).
Speaking of noisy fans, my nearly 15 year-old PowerMac 8500 still boots up and runs, no problems ever; not even a noisy (squealing) fan (although the fan sounds like a blow-dryer on high!). I just stopped using it in 2005, when I got my G5 tower. But I still occasionally boot it up to get to some files I'm too lazy to transfer over to the G5.
Same thing for my circa 2000 clamshell iBook. Works fine, never a problem. Only thing ever replaced was a battery (after 5 years). Still works every time I do use it (which isn't too much anymore, due to it's limited hard drive space).
In fact, all my Macs (Mac 128k (Converted to a Mac Plus), SE, Performa 575, two 6100s, 8500, 9500, iBook, iMac, G5 tower. (no, I'm not wealthy, all of those machines except the G5 tower were either used eBay purchases, or given to me by friends when they upgraded to another Mac)) have worked FLAWLESSLY and malware-free for the entire time I have owned them.
It's really hard to put a price tag on the literally thousands of hours that I have saved using Apple computers. I don't have to mess with the OS, with malware protection, or with other hardware or software annoyances (third-party software and hardware excluded). When I sit down in front of my Mac, it just gets out of the way and let's me do what I want with a minimum of fuss and maintenance.
As I said, it's hard to put a price tag on time saved. It's just one of those things that most Mac owners take for granted.
Oh, and I'm an embedded developer with nearly 30 years of experience; so it isn't like I don't have the expertise to maintain a Windows or Linux system. But who in their right mind would want to? I want my computer to be as close to an "appliance" as it can be. The Macintosh was originally conceived of as "The computer as an appliance".
Would you want to have to make sure the antivirus software was updated on your washing machine? Or would you rather just know it was going to get your clothes clean with minimal fuss and bother?
The old saw (updated) is true: "Macintosh users work WITH their computer. Windows (and Linux) users work ON their computer."
Sadly, this new feature has resulted in a lawsuit by the Professional Screen Navigation Narrators Guild, who are being put out of work by this voice synthesizer technology.
You rock! This is only about the 2nd time a comment on /. has made me truly LOL!
Thanx for making my day.
"Here's my point: OLPC can actually CONTRACT with Apple. How do they MAKE "Linux" (whatever THAT is!) perform ON SCHEDULE, TO SPEC, *OR ELSE*?"
That's hard to do when you accept Apple's offer is to do it for free. How can you exactly force Apple to do something for free? If you have a ton of money, you can hire them, but how do you justify them doing that instead of fostering open-source development that you can own in the end? Would OLPC own the ARM port of OSX? Of course not.
First off, learn to use the 'quote' tag, fucktard. It was really challenging trying to sort your ramblings out when they were intertwined with my erudite arguments.
HTML-bashing aside, however, the above shows the conceit of the "F/OSS community" (whatever THAT is!). Here's why: As other people have pointed out, it would be a huge feather in Apple's cap (and a potential significant marketshare-gainer) to be chosen by the OLPC project to provide the OS and included applications-suite. So, even if there weren't the economic "punishments" that come with non-performance on a contract, Apple would not enjoy the bad press associated with not delivering on that most-humanitarian of promises.
Linux already runs on ARM.
So does a version of OS X.
As do a lot of Linux applications.
As do certain KEY OS X applications.
On ARM, on MIPS, on POWER/PowerPC, SPARC and others.
And for OS X, on PowerPC, on x86, and on ARM. Will we be getting to your point soon?
Most of the time, all you need is to recompile the program.
Ya know, it funny; but you seem to be about the only person here that seems to think that. Read this article, if you don't believe me.
This is, you know, the beauty of real Unix-like OSs.
Funny, I seem to remember something about OS X being a CERTIFIED UNIX. Can ANY Linux (whatever THAT is!) distro claim as much? I'd REALLY enjoy you getting to the POINT...
I bet you can find a dozen other companies more experienced in ARM processors than Apple. They just started it the other year.
Of course not. Afterall, Apple has no longstanding ARM experience.
Fucktard.
Linux
Whatever THAT is!
is running on ARM architectures (from the very simple embedded ones to netbook-class OMAP ones) since like ever.
And yet you provide not ONE single example... Hmmm...
No. But why would you hire Apple when you could just pick one and cultivate it to the stage you want? You can hire Apple just as much you can hire Canonical or Red Hat. If you can pay, you can have some very talented people.
Ok, but you have just "hired" someone who then is responsible for, for WHAT, exactly?
This is why I keep annoyingly saying "Whatever THAT is!" whenever the term "Linux" is used. What exactly IS a "Linux"? It is NOT a simple question. But it SURE ain't JUST the Linux Kernel. But when it comes to LEGAL LIABILITY (which is what matters to organizations such as the OLPC project), WHO CAN BE MADE RESPONSIBLE?
And you mention Red Hat. How is THAT a COST-SAVINGS??? Let me tell you something; when Linux (whatever THAT is!) isn't FREE (as in beer), it loses it's most attractive feature both to the OLPC project, and to a large extent, to most thinking beings. Because who in their right mind wants to mess with the torture that Linu
What meaningful advantages OSX has over Linux for a learning tool?
It's not so much "Linux" (whatever THAT is!); it's Apple.
Here's my point: OLPC can actually CONTRACT with Apple. How do they MAKE "Linux" (whatever THAT is!) perform ON SCHEDULE, TO SPEC, *OR ELSE*?
Second, IT'S NOT JUST THE OS, STUPID! It's the Applications. In order for the OLPC to be USEFUL (to the vast majority of people who are not at home with dev. tools), not only does "Linux" (whatever THAT is!) have to be ported; but also a gazillion other OSS applications.
Therein lies the rub. Who is RESPONSIBLE for porting all of those?
With Apple, OLPC can CONTRACT to have not only the OS ported, but also a browser, mail client, integrated office suite, et CETERA, and they can specify things like WHEN that will happen. How in the blue blazes does someone like OLPC do that with a gazillion OSS projects, a lot of which have a fairly loosely-defined "organizational structure"? By the time they traverse the maze of contacting the maintainers os a gazillion OSS packages, released under a handful of different licenses, and then pay LAWYERS to interpret those licenses and render opinions on whether or not the particular project can be included without legal ramifications, the sun has gone out...
THEN, someone STILL has to get ALL those OSS projects PORTED.
Not so with Apple.
So, I think the REAL question is: What MEANINGFUL advantages does Linux have over OS X?
I'm absolutely NOT advocating an APPLE monoculture here. Developers would be more than welcome to author or port any application that the OLPC X-02 would be capable of running. But ya gotta admit, from a practical standpoint, STARTING with Apple (and its ARM experience, solid, platform-agnostic OS, and application portfolio) sure makes a LOT of sense to the OLPC people.
And besides, none of this PRECLUDES the" F/OSS community" (whatever THAT is!) from offering one, or even a hundred, "Linux" (whatever THAT is!) distros, does it?
So, what was your point, again, exactly?
Yes, Apple has a LOT of ARM experience...
Like nearly more than anyone else on the planet.
Including bringing that technology to an educational-market-targeted micro-laptop.
And considering Apple was one of the driving forces behind modern ARM development in the first place, and all...
No, it makes no sense whatsoever for Apple and OS X to be considered for an ARM-based OLPC. No sense at all...~
Yes, the notion of OS X on an ARM-based OLPC should be laughed right off slashdot.
It's not as if Apple has had ANY success or experience porting their software to (or writing new software for) an ARM architecture. Oh wait.
I mean, it's not as if they have any experience writing software that integrates well across multiple hardware platforms. Oh wait.
I mean, it's not as if they have any experience designing clean & usable interfaces that people generally find easy to learn, and which make more powerful features available to advanced users by building on top of a unix foundation. Oh wait.
You're right. The notion of Mac OS being proted to an XO-2 is just ludicrous. It'd be much better to wait and let Microsoft port XP to the XO-2. They have a long and illustrious track record of releasing compatible, secure, feature-rich operating systems right on schedule.
Wow! I couldn't have said it better myself!
A better solution in this case is the much simpler one: Linux.
Huh? How does that make it simpler? Someone STILL has to port the Linux apps to ARM, too, don't they?
And it must not be just as simple as flipping a switch in gcc, or everyone else replying to my original post with "It wouldn't be worth it, etc., no apps will be available, etc" is simply incorrect.
Can't have it both ways.
And wouldn't the "no apps" argument apply to EVERY OS, at least at the start?
Is that a Straw Man I smell burning?
Actually, I had that thought when I wrote my original post. However, I think that the touchscreens that have been ordered have more to do with the rumored "iTouch(TM)" or "iPad(TM)" product, than they do with OLPC. Having said that, wouldn't an iPad(TM) make porting OS X to the OLPC X02 quite a bit easier as well?
Do you honestly think it would be MORE work than porting XP to ARM? Or Ubuntu (which I gather has NOT been sucessfully ported to ARM yet). I believe there are embedded Linuces that do run on ARM, but those are not "desktop" distros any more than you claim that the iPod Touch/iPhone version of OS X is. So, what's your point?
I never said that it would just be a matter of downloading the iPod Touch firmware into an OLPC machine and rebooting. But remember this: We're talking about a FUTURE product, not an existing one. If the decision were made to go with OS X, don'tcha think that the OLPC engineers and Apple's could come to some hardware consensus that would make porting OS X a simple(r) task.
Say what you want about Apple and NextStep/Rhapsody/OS X, but I believe that most slashdotters will agree: It is a VERY platform-agnostic OS. After all, versions of OS X already run on at least 3 vastly-different CPU architectures now (PPC G3, PPC G4/G5, x86, ARM10 (IIRC)). Do you really think that Apple isn't up to the task of adding a 4th, 5th, 6th in a reasonably short period of time?
I remember clearly that /. reported that Steve Jobs had originally agreed to license OS X to the OLPC project for free (as in beer), but that the offer was refused.
Since it is a well-known fact that Apple has had OS X working on an ARM architecture in the iPhone and iPod Touch for nearly 2 years now, it would seem a no-brainer at this point for OLPC to take Apple up on their offer.
"I wonder why the Authors' Guild doesn't complain about them?" Because by law, the blind must have access to TTS, and therefore the authors' guild cannot make money on it. In this case, they see a money making opportunity, and want to capitalize on it at the expense of consumers.
Ok, so suppose I am blind (I am not), and I buy a Kindle specifically because of the rich content I can access through its TTS ability. Do I have a ADA (or some other kind of) lawsuit against Amazon, the Writer's Guild, and/or the Publisher themselves, for deliberately defeating a feature of the device that I, by law (according to you), should have an UNRESTRICTED RIGHT to?
If so, KEWL, because the defendant(s) in an ADA lawsuit are usually on the receiving-end of the knobby stick of "Justice"!
So what would Amazon do in that case? Have some sort of registration program/account preference or on the Kindle that says "I affirm that I am legally blind", so that the publisher's TTS-pref. is automatically overridden, or what?
Without that, I would believe that there is a huge class-action lawsuit a-brewin'...
And with that, the whole idea just falls down; because ENFORCEMENT is nearly impossible. What would the brown-shirts do? Follow behind everyone with a Kindle, to see (hear) if they are having it read a book to them? There are no ISP logs to datamine, no packets to sniff, nothing. Just millions and millions (well, thousands and thousands) of Kindle owners to try and "catch".