How Mac OS X is Changing the Mac Community 98
rgraham writes "Derrick Story (O'Reilly Network editor) has written a follow-up article to The New Mac User, titled The Changing Mac Community. He makes some interesting observations about how Mac OS X's Unix underpinnings have greatly 'broadened the landscape' of the Mac community beyond that of typical artists to now include hardcore Unix users and the like." I personally believe this is the single most important component to Apple's continued success for the near future.
well (Score:3, Insightful)
-c
Broadening minds in the existing Mac community too (Score:3, Insightful)
Jobs... er, God knows there's a much steeper learning curve than Apple has acknowledged, especially for users with a home network. Those of us who've never had to think twice about issues like permissions are suddenly paralyzed by folders that refuse to open and files that refuse to launch. There's an entirely different mindset needed, and it isn't exactly included with your CD-ROM and manual.
But that said, the geekier among us are now being exposed to the broader world of *nix. When we upload files to a web server, suddenly all those folder names make sense; we're navigating around in SSH like old pros; we're getting that endorphin rush from doing something especially clever from the command line.
And that's just the beginning. Now we're being introduced to the open source community, and a whole new model for software development... along with the development tools that come free with OS X.
It's not as if every mom 'n' pop Mac user out there is suddenly going to plunk a stuffed Tux on top of their monitor and start coding Perl scripts. But for every one of us who can't resist peeking under the hood, it just got a lot more rewarding.
User base and branding. (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Apple is attracting a whole new set of users from the *nix ranks... This is great for many reasons.
2. Apple needs to work hard to keep the existing user base. A lot of MacOS users are still running OS 7/8/9 and a very happy. Moving to X is a learning curve. Totally different look/feel/operation. While I have gotten used to this, and in many cases I feel the changes are improvements, many people are happy with what they have because it works for them.
The traditional mac faithful feel left out of the change, so much is changing and X really only runs well on G4 hardware with lots of RAM. To the people who don't want a command line OS X does not offer much when you consider the changes that are being forced on them.
Don't get me wrong, Apple was right to make the move, but it is going to painful going for the next couple years getting people through the switch.
Unix for the masses, is a far cry from it is just easier damn it. Granted Apple is changing focus in recent PR, from the strengths of unix to "everything is [still] easier on a mac". While geeks will figure out that MacOS X rocks, the masses still need to be reassured.
Re:I just bought one today (Score:2, Insightful)
They could never have continued the classic MacOS line. The memory managemant sucked donkey balls. You had to preset limits on memory usage on th binaries themselves; it was total crap. So was windows with its crappy GP faults. It seemed that every time you launched another application there was some sort of shared-memory violation.
Many UNIX variants have had memory management right since the 70's, and so has VMS. It seems that Apple and Microsoft ran the only bad systems on the block.
You should never need to recompile kernels daily. Learn to use kernel modules. Easy, easy, easy.
Re:Change the system if you don't like it (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't need a "friend" out of Apple -- or Linus, for that mater -- I need a product that works.
As an aside, I really like the moniker "GNU/Linux" - it warns me of the religion of the writer.
None of your points were helpful or useful. Rhetorical, yes, but academically only. For example, your assertion
- UI science is little more than averaging out the preferences of many potential software users.
begs the question, "So GNOME is the result of a better method than UI science? Or would that be KDE? XFree? MidnightCommander? Emacs?" Come on... GNU isn't all about choice, either, it's a free implementation of a proprietary system that Worked (TM). GNU - which is available on my OS X, BTW, is an awesome acheivement whose time has come. But I won't use a tool for merely philosophical reasons. Nor will I reject it outright. In your world, any choice besides GNU/* is an invalid one.Re:Change the system if you don't like it (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I have an idea. But consider it a matter of perspective. I like trying to see the whole picture.
A minor quibble. Surely any literate person would interpret "Apple is not your friend" as "Don't trust Apple" or perhaps this is too much of a right-brain activity. Perhaps it is all the poetry I am having to read right now :)
I suppose I got lost in predicting possible responses to my post--something I've learned to do while communicating through the internet. But you bring up GNOME, KDE, XFree, MC, and Emacs and I don't think any real UI methodology was used in this case. The only real goal is that the user can customize their interface to the system. You see this prevalent throughout most free software projects. Again, I am not saying that this is a better method...
(Side note...its nice to know that GNU is available on your system. Obviously it was ported by someone. How about that nice Aqua interface? can I port it to my system? Why not?)
GNU is its own system. Its derived from Unix quite a bit of design but I think there is enough new and interesting things added to the system to call it a new system but with compatibility. This is very subjective of course--and all beside the point.
Your point on not using a tool for its philosophy is well taken. I would agree if something really wrong isn't taking place. Its like if all the hammers were owned by one individual and the idea of the hammer was also owned. Then perhaps philosophy might become important. Sure...some will yield "Just give me a damn hammer!" but others might insist "You know, there is something wrong here."
In my world, there are no invalid choices. You must confuse me with some zealot. But if you want to make me into a zealot for sake of argument, of course I might have a problem with that :)Perhaps you might doubt me in this. I don't necessarily subscribe to all of the free software philosophy. For example, I think it is more important for software to be useful than for it to be free. But I think the freedom to use the software anyway you please is a great deal of the value of software. Many people are of the mindset that the only thing that matters is what the software does. But I think it is as important as to how it does it and what you can do with it, legally, under the law. Because I try to be a law abiding man.
(emphasis deleted)
You must really take me as insane. Of course I am for choice and my choice is to insist on certain rights on the software I use. I'm an OS advocate and this is what I advocate about GNU/Linux. Advocating an OS doesn't mean disallowing other people from making the choice for themselves. But rather it means letting other people know why you use the OS you use. In this case...I may have went a little far--openly attacking an alternative OS. You're right...only in this regard.
I wanted to reply to this last since I think it is least important. I use "GNU/Linux" because it makes the most sense to me. MacOS X, I've heard, has a BSD kernal. Do you find yourself usually calling it BSD? I actually read both ways and unlike some people, I don't correct people while they speak :) The only time I really care is when it is ambiguous whether they meant the entire OS or just the kernal.
Anyway...best regards.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple is not perfect. But right now as an "average" computer user (Started on MS-DOS/3.11, Now on a dual Ghz for design/ Art,) Apple is a hell of a lot more appealing than their most visible competitor. I think Bill Gates said it best (in "The Road Ahead") when he said that a corporation (group that wants something) is doomed when the CEO ignores the problems at hand (Think all of us here re: MS). I'm not accusing annyone of ignoring redmond.
Microsoft makes me mad, and I'm too young, too American (And too entwined with LotR style strategizing) and I don't want to wait 10 years for a guilt free/opensource vision of a usable, stable operating system.
My[(1$*(.02))]