Take a Mac User to Lunch 478
A Slashdot reader writes "LinuxWorld is running a story explaining how Mac OS X may help break down the walls for non-Windows operating systems, including Linux."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Take a Mac User to Lunch
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
When you make your mark in the world, watch out for guys with erasers. -- The Wall Street Journal
It's good to break down walls in computing (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It's good to break down walls in computing (Score:2)
Apple...Unix...Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
So now my time is spent working with both OS X/BSD and Linux and im loving every minute of it. Im forced to use Win 2K at work - but hells if I am ever gonna buy a windows box of my own.
OK - the point: (I knew I was getting there) OS X is a great way to get people to migrate into a Unix world. The Apple servers are selling well, and its adding a great deal of Unix exposure...
But for advanced UNIX users? (Score:2, Insightful)
My next computer will either be a Mac or a Sun system. How much hardware is Linux compatible with? Does it use all 128 bits of the processor, or just the first 32?
Can I run OS X software through X? Does XDarwin support gnome? Is the kernel source available, or do I have to wait for apple to support my hardware? Has forte for Java been ported to it?
Most importantly: Does it have an automated package installer like apt-get?
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
The following NEW packages will be installed:
nethack-gnome
0 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 790kB of archives. After unpacking 1831kB will be used.
Get:1 ftp://ftp.us.debian.org stable/main nethack-gnome 3.4.0-3.0woody1 [790kB]
Fetched 790kB in 28s (27.5kB/s)
Selecting previously deselected package nethack-gnome.
(Reading database
Unpacking nethack-gnome (from
Setting up nethack-gnome (3.4.0-3.0woody1)
flame#
If I could have that and M$ Word, nothing could stop me! lol. The Abiword, KWord, and OpenOffice people need to get some sort of grammar check in their projects. I am setting up an winshit NT system in bochs just to run Word. BTW, Ximian Evolution is SO much better than Outlook.
Re:But for advanced UNIX users? (Score:4, Informative)
You can run XDarwin (X server) through Aqua. You can run it rooted or rootless. So you can, if you wish, have X apps and Mac OS X apps running side by side on the desktop. Yes you can run Gnome through it (I dont, but it does work). The kernel (the important part) is exactly as it came from BSD - and thus under the BSD license. It is open, and I have seen non-apple drivers for many devices.
Most importantly: Does it have an automated package installer like apt-get?
Yes, in fact there is...its called fink (find it on sourceforge) and uses the same commands you know and love (dselect, apt-get, etc.)
My personal Linux machines were Debian - so I appreciate your want for the simple-yet-still-raw feel that it has. You can get that to some degree.
I Love being able to run MS Word, Powerpoint and multiple vim, ssh etc sessions on the same screen.
Or just hitting an icon and bumping out of the Mac feel altogether and run rooted in Blackbox.
Ximian Evolution is SO much better than Outlook.
Hell I still use pine cause its better than outlook
Re:But for advanced UNIX users? (Score:2)
Actually, Mac OS X does not use the BSD kernel. It has a BSD "personality" layer sitting atop the Mach kernel.
Re:But for advanced UNIX users? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Apple...Unix...Linux (Score:2)
It still amazes me that UNIX has made it into a Mac (as original equipment!). Does this mean it takes 30 years for a platform to mature until it meets nearly everyone's needs? UNIX for the hardcore kernel junky and Romance novelist alike? Wow.
Give it a go (Score:5, Interesting)
Heh (Score:4, Funny)
The answer is, "This operating system will open up the path for non-MS operating systems."
BZZZZ. What is "Any operating system that ISN'T Microsoft??!?!"
Correct for $400.
Taking a Mac user to lunch... (Score:3, Funny)
OSX is the proof (Score:4, Insightful)
If you can do is with bsd you can do it with linux as well.. (well.. for this particular case that is).
It IS possible... the question is : will it ever happen ? And secondly... do 'we' want it?
Re:OSX is the proof (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't spam the user with options, dialogs, shortcuts and themes. Keep it simple, straightforward and consistent. OS X doesn't even allow you to change the default UI fonts or colours, since it is not necessary at all. Just throw away everything that is not essential, and focus on core functionality instead of gimmicks.
Re:OSX is the proof (Score:2, Insightful)
Or just have 2 'modes'. 1 default user mode that allows little adjustment (and most importantly... doesn't need it). And have an expert mode, which allows you to do whatever you want.
Lot's of people will start screaming otherwise that it is 'dumbed down'. Give the power to those that want the power, but provide a 'simple' setup that Joe average does not want or NEED to change.
Re:OSX is the proof (Score:2)
But designing two totally different interfaces for everything would be a huge pain. It's almost like...
Trying to take advantage of the new XP interface but realizing that people might still use the Classic interface!
--
Oh no, Mr Bill!
Re:OSX is the proof (Score:2)
FWIW Jef Raskin is one of the guys behind the original Macintosh interface. Perhaps more interestingly, he's also a cognitive psychologist - as a result, he has a very different point of view than most UI folk. The book is a bit dry at times, but nonetheless should be required reading for anyone even thinking about designing user interfaces.
Re:OSX is the proof (Score:2)
Not only must I shout out a "Hell Yeah!" to this idea, I wish Apple would loosen up to do the same. They have great themeing, multiple-desktop hooks built in to the OS--lots of hooks actually to do lots and lots of customization. It can't kill them to put an advanced tab on there, with maybe a control panel that lets you switch from all your customizations to the default in a single click. Then part of troubleshooting an app will be "set your Desktop preferences back to 'Default.'"
It doesn't have to be either or, people--a unified, well implemented system is a requirement for a good UI, but it doesn't have to be the only part of it.
Re:OSX is the proof (Score:2)
I generally disagree with multiple distinct modes. The initial mode wears thin quickly, and, then, the user activates advanced mode and exclaims "I have seen the universe, and I understand none of it." A good example would be the normal and expert modes of the fdisk program.
Perhaps a better approach would be to have the same interface with a progressive exposure of options, where nothing get taken away and changes are additive. In a way, tabbed interfaces accomplish this, when implemented well.
Re:OSX is the proof (Score:2)
I think this responsibility lies on Linux distributors as well. Example: on a fully installed Red Hat 7.3 system, GNOME is really a mess at first taking quite a bit of time to clear out the cruft, but on a fully installed Slackware 8.1 system, GNOME is pretty much what it needs to be (and the menus even match the documentation!).
KDE and GNOME are both potentially very clean and intuitive, but their flexibility gives Linux distributors equal power to make it really nice or screw it up (and, rightly, this is in the UNIX tradtition).
Re:OSX is the proof (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think those people were saying that because Linux is based on Unix. They more likely said it because the 2 main variaties of GUI for Linux were probably mostly designed by programmers. OS X was not.
Untill Linux gets some real GUI and design experts and do some real usablity testing and research like Apple does--And not just copy others--Linux will not be on Joe's desktop.
No it isn't... (Score:5, Interesting)
The technology is fine and no one will dispute that. You can build a nice gui over top of any sufficiently good core, which almost all modern OS's offer now. For example, XP's core is the evolution from the NT core, which was heavily inspired by VMS. You can see in the taskmanager particularly signs of the VMS underpinings underneath. VMS by itself is quite similar to Unix systems, so XP itself demonstrates that the UI on top makes the usability difference, and the solid core only helps (by delivering good performance with high stability).
The difference between Mac/Windows and Linux is that a single entity controls the system from top to bottom. Any disagreements as to how to do it are settled inside the company and a single offering is made to the public that is highly integrated, where each part knows *exactly* what to find where when it needs something. For a small example, an application installing on Mac or Win knows exactly how to register itself to show icons and menus in the right spots, whereas in linux, it isn't clear cut. You can probably manage to show up in Gnome and KDE, but there are other options. I love the breadth of choice and how I can pick and choose my favorite component for everything, but it does prevent offering a unified interface to home users.
Also, they distribute easy-to-install binaries. This relates to the previous point in that they *can* do this and not run into any wildly devating configuration that won't run that particular version (i.e. kernel/gcc/glibc versions differ a lot in the linux world). This is also because they don't have the free source ideology as a driving force. Sure, Darwin is open, but it is more of a side note, and what comes out of apple (with MacOSX) is tightly controlled. Source is easy for me to install, but it can take a long time and some people think it difficult. They could care less about the philosohy of Free software, they just want stuff to work easy and quickly.
Finally, these systems don't try to fit into an existing standard. I'm of course referring mainly to ditching X. X is a great and powerful/flexible system. I love X, but current implementations lack a lot of things XP and OSX have in terms of colorspace handling and access to hardware functions. Two clear things that come to mind are true alpha transparency (not copy and blend as all the translucency under X is) and the ability to change resolution and color depth on the fly without the 'slippery desktop'. Sure, extensions could be written to patch over this stuff, but it was more efficient to simply write a new low level graphics system and let X lie on top of it if needed. This is the way to go, it works well with Windows (Exceed) as well as MacOSX(XDarwin). You optionally get all the power of X without the limitations underneath. For linux users and developers, X is 'good enough' and there is no dominating business authority to force developers to do something more advanced.
Linux remains my preferred platform, though I want to try OSX. I like having choices and am a good enough admin to not care about the roughness around the edges, but for a common user to be satisfied, it needs to be consistant no matter where they may go..
Re:No it isn't... (Score:2)
For proof, I give you
So no, we don't need to ditch the X Window System. We just need to have more tightly integrated functionality in the rest of the offering, as you cited in the beginning of your message. It's true: we have way too many different options. KDE or GNOME must die. It doesn't matter which, but one of them has to go away. RPM or DEB must also die. Again, it doesn't matter which. Competing implementations of the same technology on the same platform introduce confusion and let an inferior but unified competitor sneak up the middle and claim the marketshare. This was the downfall of commercial Unix on the desktop (Motif vs. Openlook).
It's time to set aside the "I can do that better" attitude and replace it with a "united we stand" attitude.
Re:No it isn't... (Score:2)
X should be implemented on a higher level for 'legacy support'. Just as the CVS developers have recognized the deficiencies of CVS and developed subversion to replace it, it is time we faced the fact that some core elements of X push the need for retirement. We have seen what works well and what works very badly, as well as what we want to do that we can't with X today.
Network transparency is good, and while X has been good at it, it isn't the best anymore in terms of technology (RDP has shown X up speedwise). X sends drawing primitives over the network. While more efficient than VNC's image methodology, it is less efficient than sending basic widget descriptions over the line, then primitives, then images in that preferred order. Another thing that could help is to integrate a mode of operation that is client/connection state agnostic. By this I mean a network interruption/client crash should leave networked accessed applications running and available for pickup on a resume, like a VNC or Terminal Server session. This opens up a can of worms in rootless operation (how should the user be able to know what is running easily?), but a 'rooted' mode should at least be available, even if rootless worked (rooted mode is useful, which is one of the reasons (along with client state independence) why x0rfbserver enjoys relative popularity despite offering piss-poor network performance....
Re:No it isn't... (Score:2)
RPM or DEB must also die.
The end result of this attitude is an operating system that resembles commercial offerings. One choice, tough luck. I'm sorry, but most of the people who moved to Linux as a workstation alternative moved there precisely to get away from that ideology. Ultimate customization, if you can handle it. If you can't, format the partition and get back to work. If you want "tightly integrated functionality,"[1] then start up an group to do that. You'll end up with a nice, tidy distribution I'm sure -- and the people who like such things will choose to use it. The others will choose to stick with Debian/Redhat/Slack/SuSE/Gentoo or whatever other distribution suits their vision of the best form of an OS.
The notion you have, that is unfortunately a common one, is faulty. You only need to look at some examples of software out there. The Gimp for instance, is pretty much one of a kind. Yes, there are other image manipulation projects here and there, but none of them are close to the Gimp. Yet, compare the Gimp to GNOME, or even KDE. Is it on par with them? I'm not asking you to compare them, since they are completely different softwares, just compare the quality. In my opinion, they are all about the same. They are all pretty sophisticated, well thought out, and very usable. Gimp has the advantage of being The Only One -- according to your theory, it should be lightyears ahead of where it is, but it is not -- or more accurately, GNOME and KDE should be far behind where it is, but they are not.
[1] I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. Personally, my work station is "tightly integrated" because I made it that way from the choices that exist. Not only is it "tightly integrated" with itself, it is "tightly integrated" with the way I think and work -- which to me is a vastly higher priority than whether or not it all works with itself perfectly. No human on earth works in the precise manner I do, expecting them to is ridiculous. Expecting one software integration movement to match all people equally -- is just as ridiculous.
Re:No it isn't... (Score:2)
Re:OSX is the proof (Score:2)
Theoretically you are correct. I think a much more interesting question is, "If you can do it with BSD why hasn't it been done with Linux".
To me, OSX may just be evidence that "Linux on Joe Average's desktop is impossible".
Re:OSX is the proof (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely not. It has nothing to do about the technology and everything to do with the company, or lack thereof. Programming is only a fraction of software development, and the Open Source community is made up of mainly programmers and software testers.
OSX is proof that a proper balance of both Open Source and Proprietary software is required to make a good consumer OS. While Linux has spent years trying to get it right, Apple got it right in a short period of time. Apple has invested millions in market research, usability studies, product design, and more. They would not profit off of this investment had this all gone open source. However, what they did do is base the core OS on the OSS model. This makes sense as there is less room for proprietary innovation, and more room for community investment. It's this balance that allowed OS X to create the first successful Unix on the Desktop.
Mac developers different from Linux ones (Score:4, Interesting)
Linux programmers, on the other hand, come from a development community that has had a 30 year long tradition of calling end users stupid and telling them to go read the fine manual (which usually is anything but fine). There's an attitude that if an end user cannot perform a task that is confusing or ambiguous, it is because they "don't want to learn". Much of the linux development community thinks that HCI is a BS field of study and that usability design principles are sheer nonsense. Unlike in the mac community where deriding unusable software is widely accepted, in the linux community criticizing software usability is scorned by developers. It's referring to as "bitching" or "whining". Users who complain about badly designed interfaces are either told to shut up an code a better one or to "quit whining about what you get for free" or to "Stop spreading FUD about linux being hard-to-use". And finally, linux developers are severely tainted by their command-line heritage. Many interfaces they cook up have command line ways of thinking that just don't work on the desktop. Desktop linux will always crawl miles behind OS X if it's developers can't come out of their shell (pun intended).
Nothing prevents linux from taking over the desktop. Other than its entire developer community.
The first step in solving a problem is to admit that you have one
Re:OSX is the proof (Score:2)
The rest of it should not matter. Drawing a window on the screen should be a matter of telling X or whatever pie-in-the-sky replacement to make a rectangle here, color it, etc... This makes no difference if it's on a PowerPC, Sparc, x86, or 6504.
The abstraction that all these API's give us have a slight performance cost, but we don't have all the issues windows users have - machines crashing cause a sound driver killed the OS or an app writing directly to the video card.
For the 76,432,564,345th time! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're just using Linux, or BSD or whatever, just because you want to destroy Microsoft, many you should re-evalute your belief system. Free Software is about having freedom; the freedom to use your software as you see fit, and the freedom to modify that software to fit your needs. Its not about destroying commericalism, simply because you think they have too much money.
Yes, Microsoft have too much control over the industry, but thats only because the industry has allowed itself to be lead by the nose by them. It is true that Free software provides an alternative to that, and get out clause if you will, and yes, that may altimutly lead to the reduction of Microsoft. That would simply be a secondary, a side effect, if you will.
So yes, take a Macintosh user out to lunch; and then try to get them to understand the issues surrounding the use of Free software.
Destroy microsoft, we win. (Score:2)
Microsoft is alive because they're entrenched. If Microsoft loses it's dominance, it's not going to be immediately to Apple.
It's going to be a slow process, and once MS starts slipping, it's going to be a free-for-all. Apple's corporate legitimacy can bring down the MS barriers, but once they're down, it's going to be time for Linux to truly rise.
Apple can try to become the next MS, but I don't think they can succeed. Not in the current environment. With open source, the entrenched players can stay entrenched a while, but no one else is going to have a chance to become entrenched in the market.
Re:Destroy microsoft, we win. (Score:2)
Now what are Apple doing? They're taking a nice OS with a very nice UNIX core, putting a proprietary GUI on the top, and giving it to the masses. Huzzah. But there's a catch: they're already branching off with their own slightly different standards (like dumping on X-Windows and GNUStep a lot) and putting out loads of products that again make a large incentive for the user to just use Apple products, no alternatives.
If Apple keep their OS open so people can write apps that will be able integrate fully with the OS and Apple's other apps, and if they resist the urge (as they've failed to do for a long time) to patent a lot of their technology where frankly patents shouldn't apply, then I'll hold almost no grudges against them. The same goes for any company in the computer business. It's about slaying a giant and all of the bad practices that go with it, so that we can all have an MS or Apple box in our home or office and not mind too much, because we'll be able to us our box alongside it without a problem.
In that sort of market, the atmosphere of freedom should really be able to flourish, and we should see a lot more freedom in the software market (so long as lazy consumers keep the pessure on legislators not to allow in things like DRM, the DMCA, the EUCD and so on to screw up legal matters and the hardware business).
Re:Destroy microsoft, we win. (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, Apple has every reason to package their own GUI in lieu of X-Windows. For one thing, X-Windows ain't all that great. It's the de facto GUI for most Unices, but that doesn't make it the best choice. Aqua, on the other hand, makes use of technology we should all have been using years ago (Display Postscript), tweaks it (Display PDF), and throws in a lot of stuff that will serve as the springboard for future applications. Aqua is better technically than X-Windows in most every way. IMHO, if it wasn't for the inherent networkability of X-Windows, it would be long dead.
Well, DUH! They are a for profit company. It is their raison d'etre to provide incentive for customers to use Apple products. But you are wrong with your last assertion. There are plenty of alternatives. And Apple makes it easy for you to interoperate. There is hardly anything closed about OS X (aside from the source for Aqua). Open standards abound (those coming in 10.2 emphasized): USB, Firewire, 802.11, ZeroConf, CUPS, NFS, NIS (I have this working), SSH, Apache, etc, etc...
I have personally set up iMacs in a Sun/Solaris lab. They mount /export/home from a Solaris server via NFS and obtain user info from the Solaris NIS server.
The point is, even if Macs were less interoperable - they would still be worth using. There is something uNF! about having an ssh window open on an Apache compile, watching XMMS play a tune, running Ethereal to sniff out problems with your network and laying out a poster in Adobe InDesign (with help from Illustrator and Photoshop) right next to it. I have done this. It has made me a firm believer that OS X is the happy marriage of Unix and a friendly desktop OS.
There is nothing wrong with Linux. But I like OS X a lot more.
Re:For the 76,432,564,345th time! (Score:2)
I use Linux, BSD, or whatever because I want to use the best tools for the job, whether free or commercial. I don't mind paying for software once in a while, though I'll always opt for the free software if it's of equal or better quality.
In the case of OSX, I use it because it's better than Windows, and yes, even Linux for my needs on my desktop. Some of us have got work to do, and we put our productivity needs ahead of our "belief systems".
Oh and in case you were wondering - I use OSX to write free software.
Re:For the 76,432,564,345th time! (Score:5, Insightful)
Darwin IS a Free Software platform.
(Free as in open source, not free as in GNU/totalitarian)
You can run X windows, or any of the apps you like on it. you can configure it as much as you like.
You have the freedom, flexibility and choice you do with linux-- install whatever you wish, however you wish.
Never even use the Aqua UI if you don't want. Plus, on top of all that, you get to run it on those really cool, innovative Mac hardware- IF YOU WANT. If you don't want, run it on x86 Hardware.
Supporting Darwin is supporting FREE SOFTWARE, to the detriment of Microsoft.
There is no such thing as an "Apple Tax". Darwin is Open Source and so it could never be a "Tax" that you have to pay against your will. IF you want to buy apple software too, like the Aqua UI, or
It is disingenuous to compare this to a company that charges people for its software whether they want it, use it or buy it, or not. Apple only charges people who freely choose to buy its software. Calling it an "apple tax" only undermines your creditability.
And the important point is that by charghing for their UI and their software, and by making hardware, Apple is able to fund desktop unix in a way that nobody has been able to for Linux. Rad Hat has done an admirable job-- and most of their work and apple work compliments each other.
The battle is between Free Software (eg. Darwin/Linux/BSD/GNU) and totalitarian software that you have to use whether you want it or not.
Therefore, if you really believe in choice and freedom, you MUST support Apple and Darwin. Doesn't mean you have to buy their software or hardware-- but opposing it is opposing freedom.
The Enemy of my Enemy (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure if Apple and the GNU/Linux community are as compatible as you might think, for the following reasons:
But I imagine that the Apple and free software community will get along for the most part, mostly because the enemy of my enemy is my friend. They both share specifc goals in common including:
However, there is a very large risk with the free software community getting too friendly with Apple and Co. Nobody wants to see one monopoly simply replaced with another. And if Apple managed this position, their monopoly would be much stronger. With the control over the hardware as they do, they'd have no one to publish specifications of the hardware.
In other words, if Apple was in Microsoft's position right now, a free software rebellion couldn't happen. GNU/Linux would simply not exist.
Re:The Enemy of my Enemy (Score:2)
I'm not sure if you intended this to have a positive or negative connotation, or any connotation at all. But in the interest of being fair, Apple came by their intellectual property the hard way: by tucking in and innovating the hell out of the personal computer. Every time Apple sends a cease-and-desist letter to some kid who posted an Aqua theme for windowmanager-you-like on the web, I let out a little cheer, because it means Apple still cares about doing it right.
Nobody wants to see one monopoly simply replaced with another.
I'm not sure you're right about this. I don't want to turn this into a political discussion (I do plenty of that elsewhere on Slashdot), but it seems to me that the most vocal ``free'' software advocates are pushing for just that: to replace the monopoly of commercial software with a monopoly of ``free'' software. When people like RMS say things like, ``software should be free,'' and ``intellectual property patents are bad,'' they're not speaking in specific or limited terms. They're being very general about it. I think the big ``free'' software advocates would love it if commercial software were to disappear in favor of their particular brand of open source software.
That's just my two cents, however.
As for myself, I love monopolies... as long as they're the right monopolies. The problem with the world is simply that we have all the wrong monopolies right now.
Re:The Enemy of my Enemy (Score:4, Insightful)
That would be FUD. My comments aren't FUD. They're just an opinion that differs (strongly) from yours.
Rather, he beleives quite strongly that software should be free.
And I believe, quite strongly, that software is an inanimate object, and as such, cannot be "free" in the sense that RMS uses the word. The very use of the word "free" (in the sense of "having liberty of self-determination") to apply to a thing or idea is deliberately misleading and wrong.
But RMS has defined what he considers free quite explicit.
I could define my butt as something that monkeys fly out of, too, but that wouldn't make it so. Basically what Stallman has done is to take a big word, rich in positive connotation-- freedom-- and twist its meaning to apply it to his particular brand of "you can and can't do this" philosophy. And that's WRONG of him. That's using a word incorrectly. It's not a matter of definitions; it's a matter of correct and incorrect.
If you have a difference of opinion, then you could of course email Stallman himself.
But why would I do that? Stallman is the source of the problem. He's made up his mind. He is lost, gone, as far as I'm concerned. The important people are the impressionable young Slashdot readers who might run across a "software should be free" rant and get the idea that piracy is okay, that copyright and other intellectual property rights are injust, and that it's okay to take software and music and movies without paying for them. Those are the people that I'm concerned with.
Now, let me explain specifically why RMS's ideas are (1) wrong, and (2) bad.
First, know that I make my living by writing and selling software. That is, I write it, and my company sells it. We don't sell support, or training, or services. We sell software, plain and simple. This should tell you something about my point of view.
Now, on to the argument. The following are points on which RMS and I do not see eye-to-eye.
I believe that personal gain is a perfectly legitimate motivation. Just like anything else, too much of it is a bad thing. But to the extent that one's actions don't violate any laws, social norms, or moral or ethical guidelines, acting in one's own best interest is entirely appropriate.
I believe that the creators of computer programs own their creations. This is no different than any other type of creation. If I weave a basket, I own that basket. If I bake some bread, I own that bread. If my friend and I build a house together, we own that house jointly, unless we agree to some other arrangement. And if I write a computer program, I own that program's source code.
I believe that the owner of a computer program has the right to sell it. Specifically, the owner has the right to require everybody who uses the program to give the owner some money in return. In that situation, the owner of the program is entitled to receive that amount of money from every person who uses the program.
I believe that, in the above situation, if a person uses the program without paying the owner, the user is stealing the use of that program from the owner. I believe that this is theft, plain and simple.
I believe that all of the aforementioned things are true in an absolute sense, despite any possible harmful effects that may be attributed to them. The doctrine of personal property naturally implies scarcity and inequity. That doesn't make it any less so. Any discussion of a world in which the doctrine of property does not govern men's affairs moves out of the applied and into the abstract, and so is outside the scope of my interest. In other words, there's a time and place for talking about how things should or could be, but in discussing matters of policy or normative guidelines of behavior, it's far more important to talk about how they are.
And finally, I believe that freedom (speaking of freedom for people, here, not freedom for inanimate objects or ideas) includes, as the Founders said, the rights of "life, liberty, and property." I can't accept any philosophy that opposes property rights but advocates freedom. That just doesn't make sense.
So it should be clear by now that RMS and I couldn't disagree much more than we do. If that were the extent of it, then everything would be fine, and I would simply try to ignore RMS as much as possible.
But that's not the extent of it. The more I read RMS's writings, the more I find that they have moved out of the realm of pure philosophy and into the arena of hard-core propaganda. Consider the first two paragraphs of "Why Software Should Not Have Owners."
Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it easier to copy and modify information. Computers promise to make this easier for all of us. Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives software programs ``owners'', most of whom aim to withhold software's potential benefit from the rest of the public. They would like to be the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we use.
Notice the use of language here. RMS carefully and deliberately establishes, at the very beginning of his essay, an "us-verus-them" situation. He describes owners-- notice his use of quotation marks, a subtle trick to discredit the term-- as being people who "aim to withhold software's potential benefit from the rest of the public." This kind of statement is wildly inaccurate and incomplete. It's also one tiny mustache away from being a great example of Godwin's Law. This is propaganda, plain and simple.
The rest of it carries on in the same vein-- ownership and property rights are inherently evil-- for page after page. Here's a particularly telling example from the same document:
All four practices [of the Software Publisher's Association] resemble those used in the former Soviet Union, where every copying machine had a guard to prevent forbidden copying, and where individuals had to copy information secretly and pass it from hand to hand as ``samizdat''.
RMS is quick to associate the Software Publisher's Association with totalitarianism and oppression. He uses this rhetorical technique time and time again in his writings to cast aspersions on his opponents by associating them with well-known evils. Here he associates the assertion of ownership rights with blasphemy:
The term ``creator'' as applied to authors implicitly compares them to a deity (``the creator''). The term is used by publishers to elevate the authors' moral stature above that of ordinary people, to justify increased copyright power that the publishers can exercise in the name of the authors.
This kind of rhetorical misdirection is found throughout RMS's published writings. When I see an author trying to persuade me emotionally rather than through reason or logic, it makes me suspicious.
So first, I disagree with RMS's ideas. Then, I am personally concerned by the tone and technique of his writings. But the last straw, for me, is what I consider to be the deliberate and calculated misapplication of the words "free" and "freedom."
RMS's definition of the term "free software" is so counter-intuitive and complex that it requires its own web page [gnu.org] to define. It basically boils down like this: "free software," under RMS's definition, is quite thoroughly restricted in its use and distribution.
This is especially true of software like GNU Readline. Readline is a library; programmers are supposed to link the Readline library to their programs and call Readline functions from within their code. Readline is licensed under the GPL, and as such, any software that is linked to it must also be licensed under the GPL. (Note that this is distinctly different from the LGPL, although that license has serious restrictions as well.)
I have personal experience with this. Two years ago I was assigned the task of rewriting a large portion of one of my company's products to remove dependencies on Readline. The details of the GPL had not been sufficiently understood by our company's legal department, and approval had been given to use Readline in our program. Naturally we had no intention of releasing our software under the GPL, so we had no choice but to remove Readline from our program completely. This cost us a deadline, and several weeks of work.
These restrictions are carefully hidden under the banner "free software." Orwell could have taken lessons from RMS's use of newspeak here. "This license seriously restricts what you can and can't do with this program. We will therefore call it 'free.'"
The GPL is a software license, nothing more. And like all licenses, it gives the user of the software certain rights, and spells out certain restrictions. That's all it does. In the case of the GPL, the rights include things like, (in paraphrase) "You have the right to compile and run this software. You have the right to redistribute this software without changing it. You have the right to change this software without redistributing it." And so on. The restrictions are simpler: "You may not redistribute this software under another license."
How software licensed under the GPL is more "free" than other software is lost on me. I get more rights with GPL'd software than I do with some other software, but I get fewer rights than I would with BSD-licensed software. So how is it free?
That's where the doublethink comes in. See, the GPL restricts the rights of the user in order to preserve the "right" of the software itself to be "free."
In order to make that sentence work, you have to twist your definition of the words "right" and "free" so far that they're in danger of breaking. That's not right, and it's my biggest problem with RMS and his group.
This has gone on far too long, so I'll just stop here and sum up.
1. RMS and I do not agree on the basic assumptions of his philosophy.
2. RMS's writings are laced with rhetorical propaganda techniques that simply could not have crept in there by accident. This leads me to wonder why he chooses to resort to these techniques if he truly believes himself to be in the right, and to suspect that we might not know everything about his true agenda.
3. RMS's use of the word "free" to describe GPL-licensed software is deceptive. This blatant use of the word "free" in a misleading way really makes me angry.
All of these things, plus a few I didn't take the time to mention, have led me to hate RMS's beliefs, the GNU organization, and the Free Software Foundation, and to vocally oppose them.
(Now I sit back and watch my karma evaporate.)
MCSE's are a different matter (Score:5, Insightful)
People that have/allow Unix or Linux boxes in thier shops generally are more open to a wide range of technologies and have a good understanding of them.
MCSE's - oy vey. I've seen Macs running on their own separate networks because "they can't do Windows networking" or "Macs can't do DHCP" or "Macs can't ". Hell, there probably isn't a Mac user out there that hasn't heard "I hate Macs". Then you ask if they've ever used one and you get "No." Basically, if they don't know whether or not a Mac can do something or not, it's assumed they can't.
Unix sysadmins seem more open to other technology and generally better knowing how things like networks really function. MCSE's, on the other hand, know what button to push when happens and if that doesn't work, reboot. They don't really have a deep understanding of the underlying technology and generally don't keep up with computing trends. They know how to run a Windows network and "what else do I need to know, thank you" attitude.
Because of MCSE's, I just don't see Apple making inroads into the corporate server room anytime soon.
Re:MCSE's are a different matter (Score:5, Insightful)
I would actually like to respectfully disagree with you, wazzzup. I am an MCSE, work in a 100% Microsoft shop, deal with Dell servers and desktops running W2K all day long, and then go home to my lovely iMac! I have one of the new G4 flat-panel models and can't get enough of it! Infact, I have convinces 2 of my "MCSE" buddies to get them for their home use as well, ESPECIALLY since Microsoft released a native RDP client for OS X last week!
So, I just think that your classification of all MCSE's as mindless drones is a little off...there are bad sysadmins on EVERY platform. Microsoft just tends to make a more "user-friendly" platform, thus leaving itself open to more under-qualified people getting jobs doing admin work.
Not this MCSE (Score:2, Insightful)
One thing you have to take into account is that the 100% Windows shops are not a new thing and have been around long enough to become very closed in their thinking. Where I work we have four people involved in IT support for a total of 300 users. Out of those four people three of them have Macs at home and use them. One, myself, actually brought a Mac from home to use at work. The problem in our case isn't about trying to get the machine considered by the IT folks. It goes higher than that.
The PHB's are the ones who have been listening to our predecessors and marketing sluts for years and who have had this "standardize on Windows" drivel pounded into their heads. Hell it's the only reason I even HAVE my MCSE. Because someone higher up than myself decided I needed one to be effective at my job.
Re:MCSE's are a different matter (Score:3, Interesting)
I can verify this from personal experience. When I started in my current position, I needed a Mac to be able to work seamlessly with several outside designers and print shops. (I also wanted a Mac simply to preserve my own sanity.) I told the sysadmin that I would set it up and maintain it myself and I would get it connected to the NT and Novell servers just fine. My bosses had already approved it and signed the PO. All the sysadmin had to do was give me an IP address and network login.
The guy fought it for TWO MONTHS. "Macs can't do this, Macs can't do that, you don't have the right software, you can just use this P133 that I cobbled together from leftover parts." And the last time he'd even touched a Mac was 1992.
Before the end, we had to have a VP-level meeting simply to get him to do as he was told.
And yes, this is the same sysadmin that I complained about before [slashdot.org].
The only thing needed to destroy windows.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Is to offer Mac OS X on the PC platform. If I could get that quality of a system on my computer, I would instantly switch over. I think a lot of other people would as well. Considering how user friendly, and quality of an interface it is.
Mac could be the OS Monopoly if it only started to port its stuff to the PC Platforms.
Re:The only thing needed to destroy windows.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Mac could be the OS Monopoly if it only started to port its stuff to the PC Platforms.
Apple will not port Mac OS X to non-Apple hardware. There are two obvious reasons:
But then again, why should one system have a monopoly? Some five years ago we had to choose between three (groups of) operating systems that were seriously flawed:
Nowadays we can choose between three pretty good operatings systems: Windows + Cygwin, MacOS X, Linux + KDE or GNOME. If we are lucky enough to maintain this healthy competition, perhaps some day there will be a Linux system my mother can use and a Windows system that I want to use (but I'll probably still use Mac OS X).
Re:The only thing needed to destroy windows.... (Score:2)
Re:The only thing needed to destroy windows.... (Score:2)
I just can't see it happening.
Re:The only thing needed to destroy windows.... (Score:2)
And if you did have OSX (not Darwin) running on PCs it wouldn't be for long as Apple goes bancrupt due to no hardware sales.
Re:The only thing needed to destroy windows.... (Score:2)
What price for Mac OS X PC Edition, then, would be fair to the consumer yet allow Apple to stay in business?
Apple's business model is fairly similar to that of Sun Microsystems: make excellent hardware that appeals to the target customers, where the operating system is the icing on the cake and clinches the deal. Although Sun does have Solaris x86, this OS was marketed specifically as an entry point to UNIX, in general, and for larger Solaris/SPARC (i.e., Solaris x86 doesn't put steak on the dinner table for Sun).
Sun is successful, because their hardware is distinguishable from PCs in a number of functional ways. Apple is successful, because their computers are very good but also beautiful, which can't be said for most PCs. For either of these companies, adopting the PC architecture on a large scale means stooping to the lowest-common-denominator of computing, which really would be bad for the industry as a whole.
This strategy is not elitist for Apple nor Sun. Their efforts keep the computing industry interesting with variety, which serves all of us better in the long run. Nothing would be worse than x86 being the only successful architecture--some of us just don't want to do valuable work on such a mucked-up kludge of a computer.
Re:The only thing needed to destroy windows.... (Score:3, Insightful)
How can that be insightful?
If you have MacOSX on x86, what do you have?
I just don't get it, is there really nobody who grasps that MacOSX/x86 would be as useless as Windows on anything other than x86?
(BTW, Windows/IA64 will fail as badly as Windows/Alpha. If you run Windows you are either a) a PHB which will not try any new platform like IA64 in the first place or b) somebody who needs Win32 apps. (Notice the "32" in Win32) I don't think anybody will pay more to run their apps slower.)
Perspective of an IBMer (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, I'm ready... (Score:5, Funny)
Mac running OS X == great development box (Score:5, Insightful)
Point is, earlier this year - after reading a bunch or articles about how great the new Mac OS is - I decided to go check the Mac out. Let me just say, I was very impressed. I recently replaced my Linux development box with a TiBook. The Aqua user interface is incredibly intuitive, easy on the eyes, and has support for many things that a desktop linux system just doesn't, IMHO.
Anyway, I still use Linux boxes for our servers but I have found the Mac to be the best development environment I've ever used. The UI might take a few days to get comfortable with (coming from the KDE/Gnome or Windows platform), but once you use it for bit, you really start to appreciate it's consistency and beauty.
That said, my interest has been peaked by the new Xserve. Like I said, I do a lot of Java development and the JVM implementation on OS X is nothing short of amazing. Java Swing apps look native and don't feel over-bloated and the speed and efficiency of the JVM for non-UI tasks is also astounding.
The pure java application that I am currently working on runs faster on my TiBook than on the Linux server on which I am also testing it. The process overhead and cpu usage for completing the same tasks are relatively lower on the Mac meaning I can run many more processes at once on the Mac. This is leading me to the conclusion that getting my hands on an Xserve might not be a bad idea before I go ahead and deploy on a Linux box.
I think everyone else should take a serious look at the Xserve as well.
Anyone wanna take me to lunch?
I lhave an iBook and like eating lunch, but ... (Score:2, Funny)
Can travel.
timothy
Okay, Guys (Score:2)
Hey, it's worth a shot :-)
Dilbert (Score:2)
Just migrated my wife from Debian/x86 to an iMac (Score:5, Insightful)
Her: "It so cute!"
Me: "Yeah, but you're used to Linux, and I'm not sure if you'd like a Mac."
Her: "I know, but it's so cute!"
Me: "But you only get one mouse button!"
Her: "It's just too darn cute!"
The iMac commercial where the guy sticks out his tongue and the machine ejects its CD tray clinched the deal - we were bound to get an Apple. Last weekend we finally decided to make a short roadtrip (120 miles to the local dealer) to get her new machine.
I have to admit, Apple did it right. Samba was easy to set up (I haven't bothered with NFS yet, but it's supposed to be equally slick) so she has access to her old Linux home directory, her old email, the MP3/Ogg directory, etc. The interface is just plain beautiful, and I was quite happy to open that terminal window and start playing with sudo. Last night, she just downloaded and installed software by herself for the first time ever ("Hey, that was pretty easy!"), which was something that she was never really interested in on Debian.
Would I personally switch to Mac OS X? Probably not - I'm a big Free Software advocate. Still, her little iMac is the nicest-looking Unix workstation I've ever seen, my wife loves it and its ease of operation, and it took less time to integrate into our LAN than it's taking me to type this. I'm impressed. Congratulations, Apple. You made a Unix workstation that non-geeks can fall in love with.
Re:Just migrated my wife from Debian/x86 to an iMa (Score:2, Informative)
and theres fink, which lets you use debian style package management (including dselect) for the unix stuff. with the rootless hacked version of blackbox and the dock set to autohide, the setup works like it was meant to be like that, except for the visual devide between unix and mac apps (which looks like the visual difference with classic apps running in the os-9 sub system)
thus you get both.
use a fast window manager becasue xfree is slow on os-x. but with a fast window manager (like blackbox) you dont really notice the difference. the actuall apps (like the gimp) will still run at an acceptable speed.
one more difference, cut + paste in unix apps is still first and middle mouse, but you can cut + paste between X and os-x apps. (for example, highlight in xterm and "paste" into mozilla with either the right click menu or ctrl+v) so that inconsistancy is there but still workable since you have the visual cue (the obviously differently decorated windows)
ive found myself running all my apps under the x server and its still nice (xterms, gabber, gimp, remotely running openoffice.org and mozilla from a debian box etc) (remotely running it so i dont have to merge bookmarks) and it works great. turn off sleep if you have ssh session you want to keep active. for some reason sleeping hangs the ssh session and you have to close that term.
all of this is at http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/unix_apps_u
slashdot puts a space in utilities but the link should work.
Re:Just migrated my wife from Debian/x86 to an iMa (Score:2)
Can you blame her? Downloading and installing a program on a mac is just a weeeeeee bit easier than doing so in Linux.
true at my workplace (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead of having a huge percentage of windows users, then a small minority of Mac, Linux, Solaris, and Bsd variants, we decided to 'consolodate' the statistics into "windows users" and "unix users". IT seems fair, because XP, 2000, NT and so on all count as 'windows'.
Now, we have a significant user base that is using unix, so we get more of the system administrator budget for it!
Ummmm... (Score:2)
People are going to use free software or they aren't. The fact that they OS X has UNIX underneath (which they barely know.comprehend/care about) isn't going to compel them to do so. Furthermore, no one in Apple's target audience knows about Open Source or cares about (or could even undertand the concept of) Darwin. Just because they happen to be using OSS tools doesn't mean they know about or care about OSS in general.
Let me say this again: Joe Average user doesn't care about OSS or UNIX. How do I know? They've already shown they're happy to buy computers from closed-source vendors (Apple (OS 9 and half of X) and MS), one of whom has been found in court to be a monopoly. PEOPLE DON'T CARE ABOUT POLITICS WHEN THEY'RE BUYING COMPUTERS! They'll buy it an use it, period.
Besides, openoffice 1.0 also runs on the nine zillion (estimated) existing Windows desktops out there, much better than the OS X DR.
Final random note: I was in CompUSA and saw a couple talking to a rep about the flat-panel iMac. First question out of the customer's mouth, who apparently liked the look of the system: "Does it run XP?" That proves one of two points: 1) the customer doesn't know the difference between Apple and Intel hardware, or Apple and MS operating systems, or 2) the customer *does* know there's a difference but wants XP instead. One last time: PEOPLE a) DON'T KNOW OR b) DON'T CARE. or both.
that would require we let (Score:3, Insightful)
Has nobody learnt a thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, for all its good points, the Mac is a proprietary platform. I see a lot of confusion about this in these forums. People say things like, it's based on Darwin which is open source, so OSX must be an open platform. Wrong. There is a simple test to see if a platform is open or not, namely, can make my own version and then sell it. With a Windows PC, you can get partially there, as you can build your own PC and sell it, but you can't do that for the OS. A Windows PC is semi-open.
Could I make my own Mac? No, I could not, as the hardware is closed. Nobody but Apple may make Macs, or even computers that look like Macs, as the "brand" is one of their most valuable assets. OK, so let's say I tried to clone OS X. Could I? No, I could not. I would get as far as downloading and customising Darwin, and then .... oh, whoops. It seems the rest of OS X is not open. I couldn't even recreate the artwork without getting sued. Yes, I know you can compile Linux apps on MacOS, but you can do that on Windows too. I don't see people telling me to take Windows users out for lunch.
So the Mac is proprietary. It dismays me to see people supporting such a platform. We've all, every one of us, learnt the hard way what happens when a company [microsoft.com] gets control of an important platform. Are people really willing to throw away not only openness of the OS, but also the hardware, merely to get a colour co-ordinated desktop? And for those who believe the 3 platforms could exist in peaceful cooperation, I have bad news: proprietary platforms have a tendancy to get a tight grip, as people get locked into them. Mac apps cannot be easily ported to Linux for instance - the flow is one way only.
In short: has nobody learnt anything from Microsoft? Do we really have to learn the same painful lessons twice, once from Gates, and once from Jobs?
Re:Huh? Am I missing something? (Score:2, Informative)
What happens when you run a large company and want a set of new servers? You look to Dell, Gateway, Apple. Then decide who can give you the better product. Apple is just trying to say "Here, we can sell you a nice UNIX server, with a nice interface on it so anyone can admin it". They seem to be reasonably sucessful doing it as well.
Re:Huh? Am I missing something? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? Am I missing something? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry, but I couldn't let this one go without a reply.
I use a Mac G4 running OS X 10.1.5 on our Windows 2000 network. As a sysadmin, I use XDarwin to connect to our VMS box and administer our DP software. I use VNC to control our optical system server and our Windows 2000 file server. In addition, I use this machine for Web development (we're a small place, I wear a lot of hats). In this capacity, I use ssh in Terminal to work on our Linux Web servers.
I don't use OS X because I can't do CLI; I've been using CLI for years, on Solaris, Linux, AIX, and now BSD (OS X). I held out for a Mac for my job because I don't have the time for my personal machine to crap out because I installed an RPM that broke something or tried to compile source code that bombed because of some arcane dependency. My machine is too important for me to spend all my time making it work. I have too many other machines to worry about.
Besides, since XServer ships with Samba, you actually save time and money using an XServer vis-a-vis a Windows box. I spent hours trying to get Samba working on Red Hat 6.2. It took minutes to set up this machine to work on our Windows 2000 network.
When you buy Apple, you're not just buying good hardware; you're also buying the Apple philosophy: "People want to use their computers productively. Let's make it work so they don't have to." With Macintosh, the machine disappears so you can concentrate on the task at hand. I can't explain it to you; you have to experience it. With a Mac, things work, the way you expect, the first time. And they don't mysteriously break later, leaving you scratching your head. By using Macintosh for my job, I have more time to do my job. The hardware and UI are tools that make me more productive. For the "huge price tag," You get reliability, simplicity, and stability - exactly what any real sysadmin wants in a server.
Re:Huh? Am I missing something? (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh, and for everyone who thinks it isn't worth running OS X on a G3 (there are many), it runs beautifully on my Pismo. Give it a try!
Re:Huh? Am I missing something? (Score:2)
Yes, you forgot to read the article, he goes over costs in great detail.
Re:Huh? Am I missing something? (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple suffers no such obligation and those of us who do happen to fit their target are happy to use their stuff. When I have my IT hat on, I'll recommend Windows, Linux, or Mac depending on whether it's the best tool for that particular job. The number of jobs for which Mac is the best tool just happens to be expanding lately.
Re:Switch? (Score:5, Informative)
For the *average user*:
You can still read and write your Microsoft Office documents.
You can still play your MP3 files.
You can still go to all the same websites with your Internet Explorer.
Those three things alone make it easy for the average user to switch from Windows to Mac.
siri
Re:Switch? (Score:5, Interesting)
Which is why Apple published this handy ``How to Switch to a Mac [apple.com]'' page. Of course, it necessarily has to gloss over burning CDs on the PC, because there are so damn many different ways to do it. All Apple can do is say, ``Read the instructions that came with your PC.''
Of course, if you don't want to use CDs, you can just share your hard drive on your PC and mount it from your Mac over AirPort. Macs and PCs interoperate flawlessly over AirPort, and Mac OS X mounts Windows shares over the network without any third-party software required.
Don't have AirPort? Run an Ethernet cable between PC and Mac (either straight or crossover; the PC probably cares, but the Mac doesn't) and mount your PC's drive that way.
Don't have AirPort or Ethernet or a CD burner? I hear a lot of PCs, for reasons that are beyond me, still don't ship with any of those built in. Amazing! Well, in that case, you can buy or borrow an external FireWire hard drive to move your files over. Initialize it on the PC, copy your files to it, then just plug it right in to your Mac. Poof.
Oh, wait. Your PC probably doesn't have FireWire. That's okay. A USB drive will work just as well, but be prepared to wait a really long time.
Sounds to me like there are plenty of easy ways to move your files to the Mac. And I haven't even mentioned Move2Mac [detto.com] yet. I haven't seen it myself, but it's supposed to take the pain out of getting all your stuff out of the various Windows nooks and crannies and over to your new Mac.
That's kind of the Mac philosophy in a nutshell, with apologies to Larry Wall: there's more than one way to do it, and one of those ways is to just pay somebody else to do it for you.
As for me, is there any program to load a list of music videos? I use media player b/c I can make a playlist of my 600+ music video collection.
So use Windows Media Player for Mac OS X. I haven't used it myself, so I can't say whether it has the specific feature you want, but if that's what you're comfortable with, it's just a download [microsoft.com] away.
Re:Switch? (Score:2)
Furthermore, I don't think Apple is really trying to tell people to ditch their current, brand-spankin'-new PC for a Mac. It's more along the lines of "If you're looking for a new computer, why not make the switch and go Mac?" With that in mind, people have to transfer their files when they buy a new computer regardless of what type it is. The point is that it's no harder to transfer from PC to Mac than from PC to PC. The people who don't know how will have to get help anyway, and any moderately intelligent help will have no trouble either way.
Re:Switch? (Score:3, Insightful)
And I mostly agree with your sentiment that Apple isn't trying to get people to replace new PCs with new Macs... but I'm not 100% sure. If you look at the ads carefully, the theme is mostly the same, and it reads like country music: My PC done me wrong, so I use a Mac now. They talk about blue screens of death, lost papers, and horrible little machines. All true, of course.
I think Apple's trying to pick the low-hanging fruit, but in a slightly different way than they ever have before. With the Switchers campaign, Apple's actively going after PC owners who are already fed up with their computers and who are looking for a way out.
Re:Switch? (Score:2)
Only one thing to keep in mind is that MacOS X can only boot off of a HFS, HFS+, or UFS drive, so keep the drive that came with the Mac as your boot drive. That's no biggie though.
Re:Switch? (Score:2)
Not quite. There's a lot of legacy Mac software out there that requires an HFS or HFS+ filesystem. Just the other day I was reading the ReadMe for Adobe InDesign, and while it works really well under OS X, you have to install it on an HFS or HFS+ partition. It requires resource forks to work properly. Most Mac software is like that.
So while the Mac technically doesn't care, the old apps still do.
Re:Switch? (Score:2)
But the worst offender is the (late, unlamented) Compaq. My company bought a number of Compaq laptops, although I can't recall the model number we chose. The laptop includes an Ethernet port, but no Ethernet NIC. We spent hours trying to figure out why Windows wasn't seeing the network adapter. Finally, only a phone call to Compaq solved the mystery. They included the port, but it's not wired up to anything in the case.
A cheap computer without Ethernet is bad enough. A laptop without Ethernet is truly unbelievable.
Re:Switch? (Score:2)
Re:Switch? (Score:2)
Ah, but they do [apple.com].
Re:Switch? (Score:2)
Re:Switch? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Switch? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Switch? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you speak of the difficult "round mouse", they got rid of it. If you speak of the new "no button" optical, there's only one thing I've seen people have a problem with. IF you violently smack your mouse onto the surface when repositioning it, it might click. Simple solution - be nice to your hardware.
Re:Switch? (Score:2, Informative)
Your current mouse is an USB mouse ? Fine. Then unplug it, plug it into your Mac, and Presto ! You're set up to go with as much mouse buttons as you like. MS even supplies utilities for their mice and keyboards for MacOS.
Re:Switch? (Score:5, Funny)
Which is, of course, no reason at all. This has been beaten to death already, but you can buy any number of mult-button mice for your Mac, even straight [apple.com] from [apple.com] the [apple.com] Apple [apple.com] Store [apple.com].
Re:Switch? (Score:2)
I've never bought a PC where I liked the mouse supplied with it so I always end up replacing it (usually with an M$ mouse of some sort).
Re:they are mostly right (Score:5, Informative)
Re:they are mostly right (Score:2)
Re:Question (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Question (Score:3, Informative)
First of all, as lots of Slashdotters love to point out, Linux isn't UNIX. It's a UNIX-like operating system. Mac OS X, on the other hand, is UNIX all the way to the bone.
But more importantly, it's not a misleading statistic unless you choose to interpret it as such. Apple says they ship more computers with UNIX than any other vendor. (I haven't checked the facts here; I'm giving Apple the benefit of the doubt that this is true on its face.) Hardly anybody, in the grand scheme of things, ships computers with Linux on them. People buy computers with Windows on them and then add Linux, or remove Windows and install Linux. So those can't be counted as computers shipped with UNIX for at least two reasons.
Apple may or may not be correct; I think it's pretty darned likely that they did some homework before making such a bold statement, so I'm going to assume that they're correct. They're definitely not trying to be misleading.
Apple migrated to BSD lust like RISC (Score:5, Insightful)
They quickly moved on to the Apple II on the 6052. That grew the company sereval times. Apple learned.
The less said about the Apple III hardware the better. There were lots of manufacturing problems. Apple learned.
Then came the Lisa. There were lots of marketing problems. Apple learned.
The Mac started as a cute, slightly runky-dink 680x0 machine. They tossed out compatibility. Cost them their entire existing software base. Apple learned.
The original Mac lap-top was an embarrassment. Apple learned.
Then Apple became the leading manufacturer of RISC machines in the world when they went to the 60x hardware architecture. This was accomplished without repeating the previous mistakes. (What Apple learned was purely internal politics that time.)
NeXT failed as a hardware manufacturer but it had great software. It was the NeXTStep... Jobs came back and Apple learned.
Apple did the iMac because Apple had learned: Ugly, beige is boring "office-ware."
Apple did the PowerPC, the colored iBook, the Titanium and the white iBook because Apple had learned.
Apple did the sexy, "fold-out completely open" towers because Apple had learned: Hard to maintain is, uh, hard to maintain.
Apple went to OS X. It could even attempt this because it had SUCCESSFULLY migrated CPU hardware platforms before. It had SUCCESSFULLY migrated form factors (Mac, desk-top, towers, laptop.)
Look at the Newton. Carefully. With time-lines, feature-lists, internal structures and compared with what else was out there and what spun off.
Apple has survived more changes, flops, failures, created more products that are a delight to use, been imitated by more companies regardless of industry, than almost any other company I can think of BECAUSE it DOESN'T listen to its customers UNTIL they start saying "No We don't buy it." (*)
It will soon have shiped more BSD/Darwin (OpenSource) RISC (G3/G4[/G5 soon?]) boxes than the sum total of Unix/Linux boxen out there.
This is a GOOD THING.
Will Apple grow to dominate the desk top?
Get a grip. It doesn't even want to go there.
That may be where the money WAS but growth is flat, the competition is outrageous, Linux is already there, its darn near (as in beer,) carving out its own space and has an enormous developper base.
The OS wars are OVER. Unix is going to win hands down.
Linux runs on EVERYTHING!
Unix is used for every serious, mission critical system.
OS X is locking up the creative market place.
Windows has NEVER migrated to ANY other platform than the x86. Its not for want of trying. They have already failed at it.
The new PC chip architectures (Intel/HPs & AMDs) are already Linux playgrounds. The chip makers are tired of the x86 architecture and want to get on to the next stage. But windows is holding them back.
Windows is extremely vulnerable to security breaches and even more vulnerable to the processing requirements of biometric security data.
The changes M$ themselves are fostering (DRM, and securing their sieve-like OS) are going to be their undoing. Entire countries are rebelling at having to get on and stay on the upgrade tread-mill. The day Linux becomes "good enough" (and OpenOffice is almost there,) M$ sales will start a downward curve faster than the supporting economy.
Remember. Desktop machines are OVERHEAD. Reducing overhead is how M$ got to be where it is today. Its how Linux will get to where its going. Its been happening time and time again. (Read "The Innovator's Dilemma.")
*) That is one thing Jobs and Linus share: The ability to say, "Lets do this because its cool (least I think so!)" And then tweak, fiddle and put in the hours fixing things until they damn well work. If they don't... "Well lets see what we can learn from this."
Re:In the server market? (Score:2, Informative)
Jonas
Re:In the server market? (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple's been making servers [apple-history.com] since 1993 [apple-history.com]. Take a look.
If you didn't see the difference between MacOS X and BSD, do a little research. I'll provide some Apple links.
Apple put a lot of time into harnessing the power of UNIX into a box for Joe Average, and MacOS X Server gives admins the flexibility to do everything they want, without needing to wander through man pages to find that switch.
Re:In the server market? (Score:3, Informative)
That's just one example. You really should check it out.
Re:open source ? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:open source ? (Score:3, Informative)
Because in the past, anyone who wanted to work on Darwin had to supply his patches to Apple, the ISC (Internet Software Consortium) and Apple together founded OpenDarwin.org [opendarwin.org] to improve the way Darwin can develop as a stand-alone OS. The reason is that it's now a lot easier to get commit access. Apple engineers still work together with the general public to guide the project and interesting patches will be merged in Apple's Darwin distribution as well (and yes, reversely, Apple's changes are also merged in the OpenDarwin tree).
Jonas
Re:open source ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Case in point, Steve Jobs doesn't think tape drivers are important. Enough Darwin contributors disagree that there's going to end up being a generalized tape driver for OS X.
In Classic Mac OS land, this never would have happened.
Re:open source ? (Score:5, Informative)
This part is open source. [apple.com]
if it's open source then why isn't it free ?
It is free. [apple.com]
Re:open source ? (Score:2)
Re:Intel boxs still cheaper (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, the OS, GUI, and all of it's apps are included in the price of the server, just like Linux. Major and non-free system upgrades come out every 9 months or so, from $20-$130 dollars which is not generally a major concern for any major server farm. And above and beyond Linux you get an intuitive GUI and great server admin tools.
Re:OS X vs the rest (Score:2, Insightful)
Jonas
Re:OS X vs the rest (Score:2)
Sure, you can quite easily move POSIX apps over to OSX. How about moving cocoa apps to my BSD box?
Apple wants it to be quite easy to move from other unixes to theirs, but once you start using closed Mac apps, you won't be able to easily move back.
Gee, sounds like the way they do things up in Redmond. And I don't mean Lycoris, either.