Torvalds: Free OS X Is No Threat To Linux 314
jfruh writes "Apple is now offering upgrades to the latest version of OS X for free. When Linux inventor Linus Torvalds was asked whether this threatened Linux (presumably by someone who had only a passing knowledge of all the things 'free' can mean when applied to software) it gave him an opportunity for a passionate defense of open source. Torvalds also says that he'll keep programming until it gets 'not interesting,' which hasn't happened yet." The newest version of OS X may be gratis for Apple hardware buyers, but it's notably far from the original, (literally) un-branded sense of "mavericks."
Linus Ducks Real Issue (Score:5, Funny)
This is a clever ruse on Linus' part. The real issue, which he completely ignores, is the genuine threat to Linux provided by Microsoft's release of a free Windows 8.1 upgrade.
Even if he doesn't want to talk about it, at least publicly, I know he's scared shitless.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The real issue, which he completely ignores, is the genuine threat to Linux provided by Microsoft's release of a free Windows 8.1 upgrade.
ROFLMAO
Only free to users of win 8, who got a raw deal having to use win8. :)
8.1 may not yet be perfect, but its a huge improvement. Right clicking the new start button gives you direct access to control panels, device manager, event viewer, computer management, powershell, add/remove programs, shutdown/restart... I hadn't realized this until a couple days ago as everyon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, yep, did not know that, likely wouldn't have found it. On the upside, with 8.1 being free for 8, I figure within a year 8.0 is going to be rarer than Vista.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to go out of your way to get something without the current Windows, often you just have to remember to ask for it, though granted you will not find this at your GenericBigBuyStore. You always will rarely get any sort of discount.
It can actually be more expensive to leave the OS off because many manufacturers image the hard drive in order to have some test tools in place, so that it is extra work for them to use a blank drive or to erase the computer. Even if they could include no OS at no e
Re:Linus Ducks Real Issue (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Linus Ducks Real Issue (Score:5, Funny)
He tried, it's stuck on Asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
Except nearly every computer comes with a version of windows installed. Sure you can look around for a model that comes bare, or go to the effort to buy online and untick that box for a $20 savings (if you are lucky and your model provides you with any os choice but you typical computer deals in big box stores, and your Dell/HP etc online stores) come with a flavor of windows. Often annoyingly not the one you want: by a mid range desktop and get home premium or whatever they call it now, want ultimate? Ther
I'm an Aspie and I want to get fixed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Try the clown shop. A bright red nose and a tank of helium and a couple of Nitrous Oxide poppers and you should be good to go.
Better living through chemistry (TM).
Re: (Score:2)
It has very little added anyway. A fake start button, different sizes for icons, and updated apps that no one uses. Meanwhile it has screwed up mouse usage for many games.
Whiplash Article (Score:5, Funny)
Come on... (Score:4, Insightful)
Open source (free as in speech), as a different beast entirely, and we are doing very well, TYVM.
Re: (Score:2)
It's free if you own a sufficiently new preceding version of OSX. If your current version is too old, you have to buy an intermediate version, upgrade to that, then upgrade to that again. Odds are, however, that such a machine doesn't meet the system requirements anyway.
The power management changes are genuinely a Big Deal this time around. They've learned a lot from mobile. Be interesting to see if MS tries something similar in 8.2.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On Windows it is a system service off by default that applications can use. On OSX it is a system on by default that applications can pass additional information to. Big big difference.
Re: (Score:3)
It's free if you own a sufficiently new preceding version of OSX. If your current version is too old, you have to buy an intermediate version, upgrade to that, then upgrade to that again. Odds are, however, that such a machine doesn't meet the system requirements anyway.
Actually, no. You must own an Apple branded computer (that's the license requirement), and obviously you must have a Mac that is capable of running 10.9. In that case, it is free. If your current OS is too old to support the app store, it's a bit more difficult to get it, but not impossible. (Basically, ask someone else to download the installer for you and put it on a memory stick).
Re: (Score:2)
They can't. Many of the power improvements that Apple has done break compatibility badly. You have to be willing to force applications to upgrade like Apple does to do what they've done in the same way. Microsoft is going to have to approach the problem via a much more complex and lengthy process.
Re: (Score:3)
Except Apple has done a lot of work to give a conservative default to old apps. Just running on Mavericks gets you App Nap by default [arstechnica.com]. What Apple did was they used system libraries to notify the kernel about the ap
Re: (Score:2)
It is 'free' if you own OSX. Therefore it is a free update. In terms of the number of changes it may be larger, but in actuality it is no different than windows 8.1 or a Service Pack.
It's more like an upgrade from Windows 7 or XP to Windows 8 - it's a complete OS installer, not a mere upgrade, and you can do a clean install [mashable.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly, it's an apples and oranges example.
And the oranges are free... :)
Re: (Score:2)
And that's essentially why it's free, it has extremely minimal improvements over what people already have. Not sure why they actually charge for Lion and such since it's very similar, except that there was probably a built in set of customers prepared to open their wallets for whatever came out of Cupertino.
Wrong Mavericks (Score:5, Informative)
The S is in there for a reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mavericks_(location) [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You are expecting journalists with a passing knowledge of technology to research things before they express opinions?
And why is Apple starting to copy Microsoft on using Locations to name the OS rather than Cats? We haven't run out of cat species have we? I was hoping for Ocelot or something for the next release.
God forbid we get Mac OS Longhorn -- no the animal, not the location!
Re: (Score:2)
I want Mac OS Chupacabra.
Re:Wrong Mavericks (Score:5, Funny)
If you've spent much time on the site, you'd realize that they operate with a very special kind of stupid around here. And by special kind of stupid, I mean about 1,000x the normal human amount.
Yes, but it is free and open source stupidity; so that if you have some special need you can adapt it to your particular use of stupid. Some folks simply use it as is with a pre-existing build that they can cut and paste in replies, others make minor modifications and some fork it into a whole new type of stupidity because they think they have a better way to be stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
Best comment ever in the history of slashdot. Pretty much sums this place up completely.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it was sophomoric. Doesn't take much for some people to get their yucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh Oh. We're going recursive here.....
Re: (Score:3)
https://geonames.usgs.gov/domestic/faqs.htm [usgs.gov]
Free as in mousetrap cheese. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
A couple of points of fact.
1. You can run non-MacOS software on Mac hardware. (E.g. Windows, Linux.)
2. You can run MacOS on non-Apple hardware (though it is a violation of the license agreement).
I take your point, but I think it would be more apt to say "free as in bar mix". Yes, it's figured into the overall bill. Yes, it makes you want more of the product for sale. But it's not really a trap. More of a loss leader.
Free OS X Is No Threat To Linux (Score:4, Informative)
Free OS X Is No Threat To Linux
Since Mavericks only runs on Apple hardware unless you hack the OS, I'd say that's pretty obvious so why get up on a soap box and make noise about it? And just for the record the OS X core components [wikipedia.org] are open source.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since the core components are FOSS, can't anyone simply take it, recompile it on a standard PC and then make it available? Sorta like the Hackintosh project, for PC users who don't wanna buy a Mac?
The open source bits, sure - you can just get them directly from Apple, in fact.
The UI that runs on the top though is not open, and they won't give you the source to that.
You can just install OS X on an appropriately-constructed PC though (i.e., find parts that are common to Macs to minimise driver issues). Apple won't stop you as a home user (no DRM or encryption on the installer except a text file that says "please don't steal OS X"). If you try to make a business out of it though, they might take notice
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't. Some clueless "journalist" interrupted Linus' berating and insulting a kernel developer to ask him about it.
FTFY
Pointless point (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is, most Linux users get interested in installing/using it because they've got (typically older) hardware in front of them that they'd like to make useful without spending more money on it.
The only Mac system users I've encountered who ran Linux were using very old "legacy" Macs that have long since been abandoned by Apple with software updates or support.
So generally, the use-cases for OS X or Linux just don't really cross much.
Not completely true (Score:4, Informative)
I am running xubuntu on a retina because I prefer the Linux environment. There are a lot of comfort points for me in linux that are not present in OSX. I like the terminals, the command line, the mouse handling, the cut/pasting better in linux. I like the easy free software availability. And there are a lot of pain points in OSX.
Granted, sound is still a pain in linux even after all these years, but I like to live in linux better than OSX.
Silly article (Score:4, Insightful)
Free OS X doesn't compete with Linux except on a very limited basis - it's free.
Unless you build a hackintosh and blatantly violate the license you can't even install OS X anywhere except a Mac. It's very distinctly not open source and arguably just as proprietary as Windows. It's free, but only if you purchased the hardware to begin with, and Apple has never been accused of making price competitive hardware by anybody except a fanboy.
You can certainly run Linux on your Mac, but that's a pretty limited subset of people to begin with. Considering the last Mac OS only cost $20 to begin with and you likely didn't have too many people holding out for cost reasons alone. In other words, the people that wanted to have the Mac hardware with Linux almost certainly made that move a while ago. This really doesn't impact much of anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
The core components of OSX are completely open source in the form of the Darwin operating system.
Re: (Score:2)
This is Slashdot. If it's not the GPL, people think the license can and should be ignored.
The GPL doesn't put any restrictions on anyone using the software. At all. None. It hard for a user to "ignore the GPL" even if they wanted to because it doesn't restrict their use of it in any way, at all, ever.
The only caveat is with redistribution rights, which you don't have BY LAW, BY DEFAULT. And in that case the GPL automatically grants you redistribution rights, provided you distribute the source. Otherwise you
desktop (Score:4, Insightful)
When I read about the OS X Maverick's free release...
I didn't think about how it would affect Linux on the desktop at all...thought never crossed my mind...
Linux is just irrelevant to the desktop market. Is that harsh? Not intended to be...I still hate M$ and think Apple is a little fruity...
But srsly...after 8 years on /. reading ridiculous thread after thread debating Debian vs Red Hat or w/e (try Gentoo!)...
The open source world just hasnt' evolved the maturity to make a universal desktop OS **that people use**
It's totally possible...it *will* happen...but Linux destop fanbois need to rethink some shit
Re: (Score:3)
> Linux is just irrelevant to the desktop market.
So is MacOS really. This was true even when it was competing with MS-DOS of all things.
So any "helpful suggestions" will likely be total nonsense.
Computing history is littered with the corpses of companies that conformed to whatever "advice" you care to come up with.
Re: (Score:3)
we should probably just say "The desktop market is irrelevant" right?
that's what always got me, going way back to the olden days...you brought up DOS...I remember when Windows 3.x came out I really didnt' understand what the big deal was...it was just a staging area to run the actual programs you wanted to use...that's what the OS does (heh not saying its easy to make one!)
i love that an Open Source desktop option exists.
Re: (Score:2)
Pity the most heavily used environment isn't open source. If only something like Android existed.
Unless you define desktop ever more narrowly open source is finally doing fine in that space.
Re: (Score:2)
That's really nor fair, Linux is quite mature. Google sells Linux on more shipping CPUs than just about any other OS, they just call it "Android." If Google were to decide that they wanted to seriously make a push for the desktop with Android or Chrome, they probably would. Apple makes a killing selling computers with a rebranded and modded BSD distro, after all.
The reason we don't see Linux everywhe
dream world v 0.001.12.1 (Score:2)
oh boi...didn't mean to fan the flames...maybe you're not...let's see were you're going with this...
fanboi alter!
caught you...
Linux is industry standard on W, Y, & Z...the only thing it doesn't do is X.
Where X = what 99% of computer end users do on a computer
understand this: it's not good enough...it's just not.
Re: (Score:2)
"Regular" Linux and Android are almost entirely distinct, with only the mostly-shared kernel in common. You can install some utilities to get a more Unix-like environment, but most users don't do that. It is probably easier to port a GNU/Linux application to Mac OS X (with the X subsystem) that it is to port it to Android.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah go for it you crazy kids! OpenOffice (libre office?) is de rigeur for college students these days...they use Word too, but OO is always there as they navigate from computer lab, to old laptop, to classmates laptop, to their new macbook they got for xmas
fanbois of Linux sure mean well, but Linux on the desktop (try Gentoo!...) just has all the elements of fanboidom...used to be even *mentioning* a criticism of Linux would get you -1 Troll faster than you can forward an NSFW email...
Linus and pissing matches (Score:4, Insightful)
In my recollection, Linus has never been much for getting worked up in fanbois pissing matches (pertaining to platform "greatness" or market share) What gets him riled up is stupid brain-dead code stupidly done by stupid people for stupid reasons. That stuff he'll take issue with regardless and argue about forever.
Apple hardware only (Score:2)
So you're saying that it won't be free for my Franklin Ace [oldcomputers.net]?
What does the name have to do with anything? (Score:2)
What people have to realize is that... (Score:5, Insightful)
The comments on this thread remind me of heated conversations I had as a 13 year old, when my friends and I couldn't agree on which was better, the Commodore 64, the Apple IIe or the Atari 800. Anyone who's read my previous comments probably knows that I was firmly in the Commodore 64 camp.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I try to keep my hand in all the pots at the same time... I say try, I just can't justify the cost of having enough hardware to be mucking around with iOS, Android and Linux on tablets at the same time.
I should just give in and get me one of those cheap nexus 7 tablets and accept that it won't be a production system in my dirty little hands.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Threat?" (Score:2)
Was this ever even really a concern? Any person running Linux on a Mac is not doing it because of the cost of the OS (which comes included with the hardware anyway). It's cool that Apple is making their upgrades free, but even $30 for previous upgrades is not that expensive if it's something you want or need.
Got the free upgrade, then booted back into linux (Score:2)
If OSX really wants to be a threat to linux, then they need to have apt or rpm repositories of pre-built open source software for OSX. That MIGHT make me think about booting OSX again. Maybe.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt Apple is really bothered about being a threat to Linux.
For the server market, Linux and Windows largely have this tied up. For the enterprise desktop market (excluding pros), Microsoft largely has this tied up. Apple's computers with the exception of the Mac Pro are aimed at the consumer market - those people who have disposable income and are cool with spending an extra $100 or so to get a Mac.
free as in beer, not as in speech (Score:2)
OSX mavericks is free — as in beer; but not free as in speech.
linux is free (as in speech), but may not be free as in beer (since open source companies typically charge for services and not software).
OSX is free (as in beer). but only employs 'free as in speech' to parts of the whole system — they lockdown the engine, and use & contribute to open source — significantly, the darwin kernel is actually open source, and they use open protocols (xml).
either of these is still better than win
Simple... (Score:2)
I'm struggling to comprehend why people are making such a big deal out of Apple's free upgrade. This is no different than what Microsoft has been doing for well over a decade, offering service pack upgrades for free.
I'm convinced that the fundamental motivation behind Mavericks being free was because of the recent release of Windows 8.1. That was billed as a fairly substantial update compared to Mavericks which, at least superficially, hasn't changed a whole lot. Apple wouldn't have come out of this looking
Installing for free is possible anyways (Score:2)
According to our experience every installer version since Leopard upgraded the previous version without checking anything except for Apple hardware. iTunes doesn't care. Our institution eventually paid for OS upgrade licenses once a year, but by that time we already had the latest version installed. It seems to be Apple policy to move users to the latest OS version whether you pay for it or not. Now they are just making it official for the latest upgrade.
Tim Cook managed what Steve Jobs never could... (Score:2)
Wasn't the standard line from Apple that they always wanted to give away updates for free, but shucks, Sarbanes-Oxley prevented them from doing so?
I guess Apple finally found an accountant that could make it happen...
Re:the second dose is free (Score:4, Informative)
...but Apple users had to pay a bundle for the OS that they're upgrading to Maverick from, remember.
Minimum upgrade point is Snow Leopard, which still only costs $30.
I guess "a bundle" has extremely varying values.
Re:the second dose is free (Score:4, Insightful)
> Minimum upgrade point is Snow Leopard, which still only costs $30.
You're forgetting the $600 minimum buy in from whatever Mac hardware allows you to run this OS.
It's not free. It's bundled with expensive hardware.
Some fanboy was really scraping the bottom of the barrel with this particular bit of propaganda. It makes it sound like they've run out of anything meaningful to say. It smacks of desperation.
Re:the second dose is free (Score:4, Interesting)
No, the expensive hardware is bundled with it, not the other way around. You can go to the store and buy a copy with no hardware whatsoever, then install it on some used $200 Macbook from craigslist. I have one six or seven years old that runs it happily.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the expensive hardware is bundled with it, not the other way around. You can go to the store and buy a copy with no hardware whatsoever, then install it on some used $200 Macbook from craigslist. I have one six or seven years old that runs it happily.
Is it free? Because the discussion is the OS isn't really free, regardless of a free upgrade.
No, you paid for those OS's that were NOT bundled with hardware.
Re:the second dose is free (Score:5, Insightful)
Er what? The hardware requirements [apple.com] of Mavericks says that an iMac from 2007 is compatible. As far as MacBooks, late 2008 is the oldest. So six year old desktops and five year old laptops are compatible. It's not six or seven years but it's close. If you haven't noticed, hardware from 5 or 6 years ago has been good enough for most consumers on the PC side. That's one reason people have stopped buying new PCs.
Second, how much does a 5 or 6 year old PC laptop go for? I can tell you it's often less than $200 considering new ones are not much more than that.
Re:the second dose is free (Score:4, Insightful)
No you can't. The hardware requirements of the newer versions of MacOS won't allow for it.
Every so often, those icky "specs" matter.
Plus you are contradicting that common bit of fanboy propaganda regarding "resale value".
So, in other words, your mind is set: it's impossible to present a valid argument where Apple isn't some evil thing.
10.9 is free for any Mac that runs OS X from as far back as Snow Leopard, so that's most of the Intel ones, and the ones that it doesn't include are pushing 6 or more years old.
There's no "expensive previous software requirement" as originally stated by the original commenter - at most, you're out $29 for Snow Leopard, or the same for Lion/ML (depending on whether you upgraded through all three).
The resale argument is also hardly contradicted - show me an equivalent era PC that is worth as much as an equivalent era Mac. They hold their value; this is not "propaganda" - you can look at actual numbers on sites where these sorts of things are tracked (go and look at past ebay auctions, for example). This data isn't just made up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They hold their value because people place move value on them than a simple utility. A PC is for utility. A Mac is a fashion item. The equivalent era Mac is no more capable than the equivalent era PC, considering they're made with the same exact parts.
The same exact parts like... a metal case?
"The same exact parts" is demonstrably untrue - there aren't many metal PCs, and the scant few that do exist (Dell's XPS 15 for example), tend to be expensive.
It's not about the Mac being a "fashion item" (as if owning something with decent aesthetics somehow makes it a lesser utility item). No, Macs hold their value because they are well built and last a long time. Other laptops and desktops with plastic cases and parts just don't have that longevity, and those tha
Re:the second dose is free (Score:4, Informative)
the same exact parts
Like the machined case, best trackpad money can buy, best webcam also, thunderbolt connector? I don't think so.
Re: (Score:2)
I just looked it up and the MBP I’m typing this on was produced in mid-late 2007. I installed Mavericks without any workarounds and it runs just as well as any of the preceding OS versions.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> Minimum upgrade point is Snow Leopard, which still only costs $30.
You're forgetting the $600 minimum buy in from whatever Mac hardware allows you to run this OS.
It's not free. It's bundled with expensive hardware.
The fact that it's a free upgrade kind of implies you already have the hardware.
As for "expensive hardware," I have an '08 Macbook that meets the minimum specs for Mavericks (except that I never upgraded to Snow Leopard) - cost me about an hour of labor for a buddy who owns a pawn shop.
Some fanboy was really scraping the bottom of the barrel with this particular bit of propaganda. It makes it sound like they've run out of anything meaningful to say. It smacks of desperation.
All well and good, but of all the things I could be called, Apple Fanboy definitely isn't one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
You're forgetting the $600 minimum buy in from whatever Mac hardware allows you to run this OS.
If someone is upgrading to Snow Leopard from previous OS X, they already have the hardware. That being said, you can install OS X on a new PC if you have the right compatible hardware. Just don't expect it to be easy or trouble-free or supported.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:the second dose is free (Score:4, Informative)
It's perfectly legal no matter what Apple says. Creating a business to redistribute like Psystar did isn't legal. A hobbyist should have full rights to create a hackintosh.
You're not allowed to copy any software except if the license allows it. Apple's license allows installing it on Apple branded computers. (Often more than one for the paid for versions, depending on the situation. For a free-as-in-free-beer version, it doesn't make a difference). There's also just a very small amount of DRM which checks if the OS is running on Apple hardware. It's easy to get around it, but still enough so that the DMCA catches.
That said, the difference between hobbyists and Psystar is whether Apple cares about it and takes action or not. Psystar not only created a business, but they made very very loud noises claiming that what they were doing was perfectly legal, making it basically impossible for Apple to ignore them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You have a click-through EULA to get past though. Whether that is enforceable depends on the jurisdiction. Unfortunately I live in a jurisdiction where they are enforceable in general.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. . . factors to be considered . . . commercial nature of the use.
Neither a hobbyist of OS X nor my use of Harry Potter is commercial in nature. For a hobbyist researching on OS X operates on different hardware is legitimate fair use. If I hated how JK Rowling chose to end the book, I can critique it with my own interpretation.
Re: (Score:2)
fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. . . factors to be considered . . . commercial nature of the use.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not free. It's bundled with expensive hardware.
No. It's free. It's bundled with expensive hardware. As it so happens, with expensive hardware that is worth the money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Snow Leopard was free for a while last year. By download or by disk. As part of the MobileMe shutdown and transition to iCloud, they were giving away Snow Leopard for free to anyone that filled out the form and asked for it, just in case the lack of Snow Leopard was the reason you weren't migrated to iCloud yet. I managed to snag a couple DVDs of the OS direct from Apple. Of course if you missed it, you're SOL now :-)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adriankingsleyhughes/2012/04/19/upgrade-your-old-mac-to-snow-le
Re: (Score:2)
Snow Leopard was free for a while last year. By download or by disk. As part of the MobileMe shutdown and transition to iCloud, they were giving away Snow Leopard for free to anyone that filled out the form and asked for it, just in case the lack of Snow Leopard was the reason you weren't migrated to iCloud yet. I managed to snag a couple DVDs of the OS direct from Apple. Of course if you missed it, you're SOL now :-)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adriankingsleyhughes/2012/04/19/upgrade-your-old-mac-to-snow-leopard-for-free/
Awesome as that would have been, I didn't get the Macbook until February this year :(
Still, $30 for a full version upgrade isn't breaking the pocketbook.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a time when Apple users did not pay for upgrades and they still never got over 10% market share.
Re: (Score:2)
The answer was fairly obvious. Plainly overpriced hardware, glued together parts (good luck decoupling the monitor on your desktop), plus Steve Jobs quirks like high res black and white screens over low res color screens, or his penchant for fanless computers even if it meant reduced lifetime or melting components, etc.
It's not Free Software (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No they dont.
They release source for a lot of the infrastructure, because it's actually Free Software that they simply adapt to their needs. But a large portion of the OS is not in that class and is never released.
$20 bundle (Score:2)
...compared to free,
Today's caviat is that I admit not knowing how much OS X 10.8 cost off the shelf. Do know that previous versions cost well above that, and when I was looking up 10.4 for a blueberry iMac it cost more than 10.8.
Also, I stick by what I was trying to say: any price > free and thus the whole premise of competition regarding a free upgrade to an OS you paid for (X 10.9 or Win 8.1) to the truly free-of-charge is kind of silly.
Re:How anyone would think it's related to Linux? (Score:5, Interesting)
They only offer UPGRADES for free? Then nothing changed, really. You'd still need to buy a Mac to use it legally. In fact it's kinda stupid OS updates were paid for in the first place.
Yea, the question really wasn't that insightful since OSX and Linux really don't compete for the same user base; it's really a marketing shot at MS as well as a way to get people onto the new OS so as Apple decides to move in certain directions that can be assured much of their user base is on the latest OS.
Oddly enough, Apple has come full circle from its early Apple ][ days when every OS release was free; it wasn't until MacOS came out did they eventually start charging. I forget what release was the first paid update. Of course, many programs were the same way, HyperStudio for example let any user upgrade to the latest version for free. I wonder if Apple is thinking it is better to tie users into the least versions and to your software by giving it away so that you can make money on devices and services; and they're betting that keeping everyone up to date will bind them even tighter into their closed ecosystem.
Re: (Score:2)
They only offer UPGRADES for free? Then nothing changed, really. You'd still need to buy a Mac to use it legally. In fact it's kinda stupid OS updates were paid for in the first place.
I know, right? I've upgraded for free from Windows 3.1, 98, ME, XP, Vista, 7, and 8, not!
Re: (Score:2)
Timothy (Score:4, Informative)
The newest version of OS X may be gratis for Apple hardware buyers, but it's notably far from the original, (literally) un-branded sense of "mavericks."
Good to see that "Timmeh" is just as bone-headed as ever. "Mavericks" is named after the California surf spot not an animal. That's why the default wallpaper and the promo images of the Macs running Mavericks are of a large wave. The keynote introducing Mavericks explained this as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Maveriks is named after a dog, Maverick, that hung out at the surfing spot (It's Maverik's spot). The apostrophe, like many other bits of grammar and style in the country, got dropped off somewhere and is probably panhandling for quarters in San Mateo.
Re: (Score:2)
Price isn't the issue for me. The issue is that with Linux, you can always dig deeper when debugging and hacking. With Windows, OSX, or any other system without full source, the debugging will hit a brick wall at system calls.
Actually, with OS X, you can go below the system call layer [apple.com] (but not down to the device driver layer, as most of those are part of the non-open-source part of the kernel-mode code, and not down to some file systems such as AFP, as the AFP client isn't open-source either). The big problem would be with debugging stuff sufficiently far above the system call layer, such as problems in the Cocoa Framework and AppKit layers.