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."
Come on... (Score:4, Insightful)
Open source (free as in speech), as a different beast entirely, and we are doing very well, TYVM.
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.
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.
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 $20 to begin with and you likely didn't have too many people holding out for cost reasons alone. In other words, the people that wanted to have the Mac hardware with Linux almost certainly made that move a while ago. This really doesn't impact much of anyone.
desktop (Score:4, Insightful)
When I read about the OS X Maverick's free release...
I didn't think about how it would affect Linux on the desktop at all...thought never crossed my mind...
Linux is just irrelevant to the desktop market. Is that harsh? Not intended to be...I still hate M$ 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
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.
Re:the second dose is free (Score:1, 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".
Re:the second dose is free (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.
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: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:Linus Ducks Real Issue (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:the second dose is free (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 that do also tend to hold their value.
Again, like the previous poster, you don't seem to be able to look at the big picture beyond "lol, they are toys for fashionistas". The quality of a product goes beyond the raw specs (which are comparable, with the switch to Intel in 2005/2006) and has to consider the whole package; the physical case the parts are enclosed in, along with other design elements are a large part of why Macs hold their value - especially the laptops.