Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Apple

Apple To Distribute OS X Lion via the Mac App Store 517

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the but-i-miss-dvds dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Apple this Summer is expected to release Mac OS X Lion. As opposed to other OS X releases, however, Lion will also be available for purchase via the Mac App Store, further solidifying Apple's efforts to make the Mac App Store an integral part of the Mac user experience." A lot of questions surrounding this related to the ability to make bootable disks. And also, why don't they just use apt-get? I gotta admit: it makes me nervous getting my OS from an App Store — which is strange considering how many kernels I've downloaded, built and booted over the years.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple To Distribute OS X Lion via the Mac App Store

Comments Filter:
  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Thursday May 05, 2011 @09:33AM (#36034334)

    This is just the latest attempt to promote the Mac app store, but it's also another step toward what's ultimately coming. Mac computers will one day be every bit as closed off as iPhones and iPads, with all software having to come through the Mac app store the same way it has to now with the iPhone/iPad app stores. Everything Apple will then be a walled garden, with Apple as gatekeepers.

    I would like to think that people would howl about this when it happens, of course. But I bet that Apple will sell it as a necessary security measure to protect against viruses and attacks, and that most Mac users (and most members of the public) will be all-too-willing to trade freedom for security. Sadly, it will probably only increase Mac sales--prompting other PC makers to follow suite with their own closed systems.

    I shudder to think that we may one day look back and ask "Hey, remember when you could install whatever software you wanted on your computer without having to jailbreak it or void the warranty?"

    And now, let the flood of "Oh, Apple would never do that" replies begin:

    • by clang_jangle (975789) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @09:42AM (#36034446) Journal
      I think you're probably correct about the direction Apple is headed in. I bought my first Mac in 1987 but their behavior has effectively alienated me the last couple of years, along with the fact that OS X is nearly as buggy as windows now, and plus the Applestore techs were not competent to repair the last Mac I owned (If you have to replace the replacement "logic board" then maybe the problem wasn't ever the "logic board").

      As far as the OS goes, Tiger was the pinnacle -- it's gone downhill since then. I think I knew in my heart this would happen in 2005, the day they issued the Tiger update that eliminated console login.
      • the big problem with doing a motherboard swap is any time you replace one of the MB , CPU/RAM , PSU triad you stand a 20% chance of having to replace either or both of the OTHER parts of the triad.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by clang_jangle (975789)
          As I said, the problem was the only answer they seem to have at the Applestore (at Lennox Mall, Atlanta) is "replace the 'logic board'". And when that "logic board" dies, replace it again. That'll fix it!

          They may have been trying to just patch it up and get rid of me because I was nearly out of warranty and by "fixing it" to work for just a few more weeks they expected I'd be back with cash to spend. Maybe that works on some people, but when it died yet again, this time out of warranty, I just junked it
          • by jo_ham (604554)

            If it fails again it will be a replacement, per Applecare - they'll just swap you out for a new machine. A certain number of identical part replacements simply activates the "lemon" button and the whole machine is marked "suspect". You 'suspect' it was just to get you out of the store so you'd buy a new computer, I 'suspect' it was a tech support person just trying to do their job by fixing your computer. I guess it depends how cynical you are.

      • by cpu6502 (1960974)

        Tiger is which version? 10.4? The last powerPC variant?

      • by cbackas (324088) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @10:47AM (#36035242)

        I don't share you opinions on their direction, which is OK. But I find it curious to say that Tiger was the pinnacle. We're an all-Mac shop, and we have various machines still running Tiger. We also have Leopard and Snow Leopard around. Tiger is easily the worst to work with, its age shows badly.

        And for what it's worth, console login was never removed. Works on all our machines up to and including 10.6.7. Same as it ever was, login as ">console".

    • by bunhed (208100)
      I think that's clearly where they are headed too. Apple was never into 'open' and I'll bet these last 10 years spiking the koolaid with FOSS have grated on their sense of rightness. iTunes was one thing but this app store business... it's all coming home now. I've already moved my world back to linux. OS/X was great for a while though. I'll probably even miss it a little bit, but that's all.
    • by CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @09:45AM (#36034474)

      This is just the latest attempt to promote the Mac app store, but it's also another step toward what's ultimately coming. Mac computers will one day be every bit as closed off as iPhones and iPads, with all software having to come through the Mac app store the same way it has to now with the iPhone/iPad app stores.

      It's also eating their own dog food and getting the OS upgrade over the internet seems like a good thing: less pollution, no waiting, etc. Apps downloaded through the Mac App Store are regular files just like those downloaded from anywhere else. I'm guessing this software update will be just an image stored somewhere on your hard disk. I won't say Apple would never do what you're suggesting but I will say they can't. You can't get the toothpaste back into the tube. If they truly wanted to do what you describe they'd have to replace computers entirely with iOS based devices, I can't see that happening.

      • If they truly wanted to do what you describe they'd have to replace computers entirely with iOS based devices, I can't see that happening.

        Considering the enormous amount of money they have made on iOS and the App Store, I do not see any reason why they could not pursue such a strategy, or perhaps a slightly modified version: iOS for "consumers" (priced at a level that a typical home user can afford) and high powered workstations that are not locked down for "professionals" (which will be priced at a level that consumers are unlikely to pay).

        • by powerlord (28156) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @10:03AM (#36034692) Journal

          Except that a lot of the people that consist of the Apple "Grass Roots" are power users who are likely to balk at such a setup.

          More likely, someone realized that since OS X DVDs do NOT come with a License key, and you can already make an ISO image of them easily using the software built into OS X, why not just sell it through the App Store and let people download and burn their own image?

          It costs less to the Manufacturer. (packaging/shipping costs)
          It cuts the middleman out. (don't need to give Best Buy or other non-apple on-line/retail stores a cut)
          It provides quick availability. (as fast as their servers and your pipe can handle)
          It provides a remote backup for customers. (a + for non-technically savvy customers)

          All in all it seems like wins all around, I'm not sure why Apple WOULDN'T do this.

          • More likely, someone realized that since OS X DVDs do NOT come with a License key, and you can already make an ISO image of them easily using the software built into OS X, why not just sell it through the App Store and let people download and burn their own image?

            Exactly this. The article questioned just how would the poor soul who downloads Lion make a physical copy? Uhh, use the disk imaging utility that comes with every Mac and make an image of it, then burn it to a disk (or back it up to time machine, other backup drive, other computers in your house). I wouldn't be surprised that if you lost your download you would be able to redownload it (not that you can do this with iTunes, but I hear rumors...)

            My older MacBook's cd player stopped working a couple years a

            • Actually, the App Store allows infinite redownloading [apple.com] of apps you've purchased. The iTunes store does not for the simple fact that when Apple negotiated the original music studio contracts, they didn't want it to work that way. I've read that this is one of the things that Apple's trying to update in the contracts, but good luck with that...

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Of course, Apple has made it clear that boxed versions with a disk will also be available as always. The App Store is just another means of distribution. I thought choice was good and more choice better...?

    • Everything Apple will then be a walled garden, with Apple as gatekeepers.

      More likely, Apple will sell two increasingly separated lines of computers: the "consumer" line and the "professional" line, and the professional line will cost many times more and not be locked down like the consumer line. Those who pay the "professional premium" will be allowed to run their own programs without approval from Apple, including compilers and scripting environments, and will of course be able to develop programs for consumer computers (but will naturally have to pay Apple for distribution

      • by powerlord (28156)

        More likely, Apple will sell two increasingly separated lines of computers: the "consumer" line and the "professional" line, and the professional line will cost many times more and not be locked down like the consumer line. Those who pay the "professional premium" will be allowed to run their own programs without approval from Apple, including compilers and scripting environments, and will of course be able to develop programs for consumer computers (but will naturally have to pay Apple for distribution privileges).

        They already do this.
        The Consumer line has names like "iPhone", "iPod", "iPad", "AppleTV".
        The Professional line has names like "iMac", "MacBook", "MacPro".

        The lines have a fair amount of synergy between them, and there has been a push to make the Consumer line more "stand-a-lone" (over-the-air updating exists for AppleTV but is rumored to finally come to the iPhone/iPodTouch/iPad in iOSv5).

    • Much like how the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad would all fail when competing against more open products?

      Techies and slashdot users in particular SUCK at predicting the future, particularly where Apple's concerned.

      I can see a future where it becomes more difficult to shoot yourself in the foot. But removing the option to install software that isn't from the App Store? get fucking real.

      • by MrHanky (141717)

        Having just helped migrating a user from XP to Windows 7, I appreciate openness even more than I did before. No, you can't just buy a new mainboard when the old one is fried, since your OEM version of XP won't run on it. No, you can't use your old corporate install of Office on your new Windows 7 install. You're supposed to pay 100s of dollars for a new license when you upgrade. And no, migrating your own mail from Outlook 2003 to a free -- or commercial -- alternative basically sucks sweaty donkey balls an

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by stewbacca (1033764)

        Techies and slashdot users in particular SUCK at predicting the future, particularly where Apple's concerned.

        That's because they insist on calling Apple gear "fashion accessories" yet they themselves have no sense of fashion to begin with.

    • And now, let the flood of "Oh, Apple would never do that" replies begin:

      Oh, they'd like to. But do you really think they'd get away with it? They got away with it on iOS, because that was a completely new market. So there wasn't a previous version to compare it with. If they cripple an existing product (Mac OS), you bet their users will complain.

    • Apple is definitely looking to strengthen their stranglehold on the OS X environment. This move makes it much harder to run OS X on non-Apple hardware - they'll make sure your system passes Apple genuine validation before you're allowed to download it.

      Now I know that Apple's OS X license agreement says you can only run OS X on Apple hardware, but I also think that's an illegal restriction, and this move will make it nearly impossible to run O X on any hardware except what Apple has decided to allow you to

      • by RMingin (985478)

        I have OSX 10.7 DP4 running on a Gigabyte motherboard and a Core i7 rather nicely. So far any anti-Hackintosh provision is either not added or woefully nonfunctional. Virtualization? Apple has only recently begun allowing OSX virtualization in any form. They still do not offer ANY VM images that I'm aware of.

    • by alen (225700)

      unless apple changes the rules software meant for corporate use will never be sold via the Mac App store. Software is a low margin product for a retailer and a PITA for a developer to sell it to a distributor and retailer who have to take their cut.

      distribution via the Mac App store will give small developers an easier way to sell software

      • by MBGMorden (803437)

        Apple's desktops are already not really geared towards corporate use though. Apple's target market has always been home use, and the creative types working on films and other such artistic pursuits (ie, the type of environment where there usually isn't a formal IT department, and if there is, it's not your standard corporate setup).

        Just about anybody running payroll, crunching spreadsheets, and doing all the other mundane stuff associated with plain old business computing, is doing it on a PC. I think a b

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Ephemeriis (315124)

      It isn't just Apple doing this - Microsoft is rolling out an app store of their own, BlackBerry has an app store, Google's got an Android app store...

      And, what you've failed to realize, is that most people think this is a good thing.

      No shopping around. Don't have to go out to the store. No discs to keep track of. Just click a button and your software appears.

      Sure, I want to be able to install my own software without having to jailbreak/hack/crack/whatever my devices... But I'm in the minority these days

      • by MBGMorden (803437) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @10:14AM (#36034806)

        I don't think anyone is claiming that app-stores in general are a bad thing. It's just that Apple has in the past proven that they are more than willing to set up a platform so that their app-store is the ONLY method for getting software on the device. The other players you mention have not done that.

        Consider it like a kitchen knife. I use kitchen knives all the time - they're wonderful tools with a lot of utility. If Wolfgang Puck asks to borrow one I wouldn't regard that with a bit of suspicion. If Charles Manson asked for one though, there's going to be an issue.

        Apple has already destroyed my trust in them. The locked down situation on their mobile devices isn't a "What if", a "You know, they might . . .", or any other situation. It's real, it's here. They did it. I don't trust them anymore. End of story.

      • And, what you've failed to realize, is that most people think this is a good thing.

        No shopping around. Don't have to go out to the store. No discs to keep track of. Just click a button and your software appears.

        Funny how this is generally considered a good thing with Steam, but the Apple-haters will be out in full force denouncing this (proven successful with Steam) strategy.

      • It isn't just Apple doing this - Microsoft is rolling out an app store of their own, BlackBerry has an app store, Google's got an Android app store...

        And Ubuntu has an app store, Red Hat has an app store, OpenSuse has an app store, Debian has an app store... It's called the repositories. And around here those are thought of as a good thing too.

    • ...because if MS have are their usual selves, they'll be planning to duplicate the exact same scheme for Windows 8 and beyond

      • by KlaymenDK (713149)

        ...which would hurt much less!

        On the Apple side, the theory seems to be that you can't have their sw without their hw.

        On the MS side, that would mean you can't have their sw without ... what, exactly? It's nigh-on impossible to shut down the "IBM PC clone" platform, for which many of us would choose a *nix over Windows, anyhow. So we're looking at something akin to the lock-down that's going on on the Playstation platform (which seems to be somewhat ineffective, but shhh).

      • Then people would stick with Windows 7 forever.

        Microsoft have a history of being evil, but they have never actually stopped people running any software they want on their PCs. In fact, that's a lot of the problem with Windows.

    • by thoromyr (673646)

      I don't think Apple would do it, but I sure wouldn't say never. At the least, developers will need a computer to actually develop on and Apple wants them to use one of /their/ computers to do so and pretty much by definition a development system can't be locked down against unapproved software. So I doubt they will entirely do away with "open" systems. On the other hand, they might very well market a "home computer" that was effectively locked down.

    • by Jahava (946858) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @10:14AM (#36034804)

      This is just the latest attempt to promote the Mac app store, but it's also another step toward what's ultimately coming. Mac computers will one day be every bit as closed off as iPhones and iPads, with all software having to come through the Mac app store the same way it has to now with the iPhone/iPad app stores. Everything Apple will then be a walled garden, with Apple as gatekeepers.

      I would like to think that people would howl about this when it happens, of course. But I bet that Apple will sell it as a necessary security measure to protect against viruses and attacks, and that most Mac users (and most members of the public) will be all-too-willing to trade freedom for security. Sadly, it will probably only increase Mac sales--prompting other PC makers to follow suite with their own closed systems.

      I shudder to think that we may one day look back and ask "Hey, remember when you could install whatever software you wanted on your computer without having to jailbreak it or void the warranty?"

      And now, let the flood of "Oh, Apple would never do that" replies begin:

      So here's my question: is it really so bad?

      So sure, Apple is the gatekeeper between the software world and their desktop devices. The App Store is that gate. Apple works diligently to prevent malicious code from entering the App Store, push out software updates, etc. Their system is no longer open / free, and that sucks. Fortunately, we have Linux, FreeBSD, Windows (although I suspect MS will follow in Apple's footsteps), and a host of other operating systems to turn to if we want software freedom, console login, etc.

      If Apple closed off their devices, I would still not rule them out. Obviously I wouldn't use them as a hacking platform, but if Apple allows FOSS into their App Store, I don't see how even my daily usage of their systems would change much. Apple systems would become less suitable for some niche things, like debugging, emulation, penetration testing, etc., but most of the time that's not what people use Apple for.

      The issue comes when / if Apple starts preventing legitimate software from entering their App Store. If Apple makes the App Store the only gateway into their devices, you can bet that there will be a suit of lawsuits from whatever company gets barred, the EFF, etc.; if Apple loses these, then their platform will become open "enough" again. If they win, then that is the day I stop using Apple products, as they are no longer free and flexible enough for my tastes.

      And even then, while Apple systems may not meet my tastes as a developer, the App Store gateway is a perfect model for my parents, grandparents, cousins, and siblings. The less maintenance they have to do, including software vetting and updates, the better.

      This is a good thing; Apple is defining its market, and through this move it will be far more suitable for the 95% of the population that only ever wanted to use a computer as an appliance.

      • Yes, Apple would become less suitable for niche things... like looking at porn, downloading anything from artists like Trent Reznor whom they blocked on the App Store just because his app accessed the SAME content as the browser. And you know, NIN has naughty lyrics. I need Friar Monk Jobs slapping my little willy with his digital ruler for possibly looking at nude people on my phone or computer.

        What'd he say? If you want to watch port, get an Android? Imagine if he seriously said, if you want to watch p

    • For years people have complain or wondered why the Apple Software Update does not update third part apps. Well the reason is simple, apple does not have the right to distribute those or manage fees for non-free updates. So now they created a unified update mechanism and all the henny penny's are abjectly whining about a walled garden.

      Personally what I want is a wallwd garden I canuse for 90% of my enterprise apps. Then for the ones that I am less dependent on I can use some feeble error prone mechanism l

      • by jedidiah (1196)

        Apple hasn't created a unified update mechanism.

        They have created a fascist gatekeeper system.

        It's not the same thing.

        Leave it to the fanboys to misunderstand the important details.

    • I would tend to agree with you but it seems likely that Father Steve is not going to run Apple for several more decades. I wonder how much of this "closing" comes from his drive and if this culture is going to stay or be abandoned as he ultimately leaves the direction of the company to someone else. Time will tell.
  • Bootable (Score:5, Insightful)

    by shitzu (931108) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @09:36AM (#36034372)

    "A lot of questions surrounding this related to the ability to make bootable disks."

    You should really try a mac sometimes.

    • I'm curious as well. I always have done a clean install instead of an upgrade when I have upgraded the OS on my macbook pro. It gives me a chance to clean up my mac and to fix the inevitable fragmentation of the drive.

      I wasn't planning on upgrading snow leopard. I was planning on doing a fresh install of Lion.

      • Another option is to remove the optical drive in the MBP and install a second hard drive. Do a fresh install there and tell it to look on the other drive for all your apps, documents and settings. It worked well for me.

        Remember to add the "old" drive to the exclusions list for Spotlight and Time Machine, and unmount it on boot. Use it a week or two this way so you can make absolutely sure you aren't using anything on the old drive. Eventually you can pull the plug so to speak and use it as a seconday backu
    • by shitzu (931108)

      Just to elaborate a bit: during the years i have installed hundreds (if not thousands) of instances of Windows, Linux as well as OSX. The amount of questions i have had related to the ability to make bootable disks on OSX vs Linux and Win is comparable to the relative national debt of Vatican vs USA

    • Re:Bootable (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 0100010001010011 (652467) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @09:41AM (#36034434)

      I wouldn't be surprised if the "retail" version was just a USB jump drive. The MacBook Air doesn't have an optical drive. I removed the Optical drive from my MacBook Pro so I could have 2 hard drives. Spinning media has an expiration date that is quickly approaching.

    • Re:Bootable (Score:5, Informative)

      by stewbacca (1033764) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @10:39AM (#36035146)

      No kidding. Not only does Apple NOT prohibit disk imaging, they include the software to do so with every Mac and provide directions on how to do it:

      http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?path=DiskUtility/10.5/en/duh3.html [apple.com]

      As usual, a FUDdy claim about Macs is easily squashed with a tiny amount of exposure to the platform and a google search.

  • by Shivetya (243324) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @09:37AM (#36034386) Homepage Journal

    The day they require app installation for third party products to go through the "App Store" is the day I stop buying Apple computers. I don't care about the restriction on the iPad, that was there when I bought it. If anything all the App Store has proved to me is that its nearly impossible to separate good programs from bad ones because it costs nothing to get them on the store. By that I mean, to have a successful product in the retail environment today means being quality enough or a well enough known group to get stores to stock your products. With the App Store there is such a small barrier to entry it just becomes a cluttered mess.

    Back to the story, I don't care where I get OS versions/updates. Whats so different from an App Store than downloading from a corporate website (like you do with Windows Service Packs which is what Lion feels to me - just like Snow Leopard was before it... etc)

    • The day they require app installation for third party products to go through the "App Store" is the day I stop buying Apple computers.

      And since they've repeated stated they won't be doing such a thing, you won't have to worry. They have nothing to gain by lying about it.

    • by ivucica (1001089)

      Whats so different from an App Store than downloading from a corporate website

      Centralized autoupdate for all apps bought off the store. A bit of quality checking.

      (like you do with Windows Service Packs which is what Lion feels to me - just like Snow Leopard was before it... etc)

      Service packs, yep. Small incremental improvements. However, Lion will for me be a step back, UI-wise, as no service pack could be. What they're doing with buttons, with tabs, with scrollbars makes me think that Snow Leopard will be the pinnacle of the UI design. Maybe in a year or two I'll disagree with myself and I'll like it. Let's wait and see. There are only a few announced Lion things that I want in Snow Leopard, such

    • nearly impossible to separate good programs from bad ones because it costs nothing to get them on the store

      And by "nothing," I assume you mean $100/year.

      (Yes, I did read the rest--you mean that anyone who submits will be accepted, unlike a physical store where they'd have to have some interest in stocking your product. I understand this sentiment, although Apple tries not to accept apps that crash, rely on outdated APIs, do any user--un-friendly activities, look bad, otherwise violate any of the Store guidelines. Not as stringent as a physical store, but perhaps better for the average user than finding something

  • Apt-get??? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by goombah99 (560566)

    Why is apt-get significantly different than the app-store? Plus the app-store handles the paid transaction which apt-get is not intended for.

    • Re:Apt-get??? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by creepynut (933825) <[ac.nworbyddet] [ta] [)todhsals(yddet]> on Thursday May 05, 2011 @09:50AM (#36034532) Homepage

      The difference is that package managers like apt, yum, etc let you specify your own sources. Apple's App Stores do not allow this. Without jailbreaking, the iOS devices can only get apps from Apple.

      If I install Ubuntu and want to get the latest and greatest from vendor X they can just give me an installer which adds themselves to my apt sources. I think Adobe does this, but it's been a few years since I've used Linux and my primary desktop.

      I've been primarily an Apple user, but if Mac ever goes closed like iOS does I'll be back on Linux in a split second.

      • by goombah99 (560566)

        I use apt-get on my macs and linux boxes. It is one method among many I use. In my experience it is chaos. I much prefer installing canned stand alone apps on my mac. I use apt-get to get ones that are more widespread projects like scipy and so forth that cant be as easily encapsulated into apps. and even there many times I've had to give up on apt-get from fink or mac ports and install some pre-built tar ball or other customized installer.

        I don't want to see apt-get go away. But for encapsulated app

        • Re:Apt-get??? (Score:4, Informative)

          by jcupitt65 (68879) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @12:41PM (#36036664)

          MacPorts and Fink are more trouble than they are worth, usually. They just don't have enough package maintainers, sadly, and their policy of constant updates also means constant breakages. I've switched to jhbuild for making .app bundles.

          Debian and Ubuntu are in a totally different class. Their repositories are just wonderful -- huge choice, expertly packaged, thoroughly tested -- and have saved me days and days of thankless tinkering.

          Here's hoping OS X and Win get something as good in less than 5 years. You never know.

      • by The Moof (859402)
        Since OSX is somewhat based on FreeBSD, wouldn't pkg_add [freebsd.org] be more suitable?
      • You mean like Fink [finkproject.org] and MacPorts [macports.org]

    • by bsDaemon (87307)

      Because people really want to use Ubuntu with a Rolls Royce sticker price on it so that they can pretend that they are both trendy and wealthy. At least, that is my assumption. It's the only one that makes sense in this context.

      • by omnichad (1198475)

        Some people want the support of major commercial software (Flash, Silverlight, Microsoft Office, Adobe Creative Suite, Final Cut Studio) while still having a powerful terminal that runs familiar commands underneath. Not even Ubuntu with Wine gives me that

  • With the advent of App Store for OS X and problems getting GPL software in app stores (how to distribute source?), what is needed is an open source app store.

    Can someone port Synaptic (or any other repository-based system) to OS X and Windows? The benefits are huge and should be obvious.

    I'm not a programmer, but wouldn't mind paying a token sum to get a free app store for OS X.

    • by CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) on Thursday May 05, 2011 @09:59AM (#36034660)

      With the advent of App Store for OS X and problems getting GPL software in app stores (how to distribute source?), what is needed is an open source app store.

      Can someone port Synaptic (or any other repository-based system) to OS X and Windows? The benefits are huge and should be obvious.

      I'm not a programmer, but wouldn't mind paying a token sum to get a free app store for OS X.

      You've already got 3 repository type systems for OSX : Fink [finkproject.org], MacPorts [macports.org] and Homebrew [github.com].

      • Any of them have a GUI that will allow installation and removal of apps? Something that's even close to as polished as Mac App Store or Synaptic?

        It sounds stupid, but a central repository for Mac GPL apps can really spread interest in GPL code and it's advantages in the Mac ecosystem.

        For instance, free automatic updates that will fix a security fix in a library that is shared by many GPL apps without having to update all the apps.

    • by frinkster (149158)

      With the advent of App Store for OS X and problems getting GPL software in app stores (how to distribute source?), what is needed is an open source app store.

      The only issue with the Apple App Store and the GPL is that the App Store requires you to agree to not distribute the binary beyond the 5 computers (at a time) on which you are allowed to install the application. The App Store page for any particular application shows the publisher and the publisher's URL. If you want to distribute the source, just put it on the linked web site. How is that a problem?

    • by jonwil (467024)

      On Windows, what you are asking for is what CoApp is intended to provide.

      Its intended to be a system for installing open source software and libraries on Windows. Its intended to handle dependancies and libraries including the infamous "dll hell".

  • Should the editors refrain from posting their opinion in TFS?

    Remain neutral, guys, despite your sentiments, else I would relegate this to 'yet just another blog site'. If you must, post a pro- and a con-, but really it shouldn't be your pro or your con. Post a comment in the discussion instead, and we won't mod you redundant.

  • I bought a SATA DVD-R for about $20 so I could install Windows 7 from disc. Prior to that I'd been using a 4x IDE CD-ROM drive from 1997 (the kind with a headphone jack, back, forward, play and stop buttons in addition to the standard eject button on the front) that came out of some off the shelf PC at a big box store. I'm not even sure I have a floppy drive in my junk box any more.

    I have no beef with getting rid of physical media wherever possible. As long as future computers can boot from an onboa

  • by alispguru (72689) <baneNO@SPAMgst.com> on Thursday May 05, 2011 @11:05AM (#36035446) Journal
    ... saying Lion would be available only through the App Store?

    No, there wasn't.

    Stop hyperventiating, folks.

We are experiencing system trouble -- do not adjust your terminal.

Working...