Jobs Offers Free Mac OS X For $100 Laptops 1053
bonch writes "Steve Jobs offered Mac OS X free of charge to the $100 laptop effort by the One Laptop Per Child project. However, his offer was declined because the project was looking for a 100% open source solution. The laptops will now be running on Red Hat Linux on AMD chips."
Sometimes it's tough (Score:3, Insightful)
However, his offer was declined because the project was looking for a 100% open source solution. The laptops will now be running on Red Hat Linux on AMD chips.
Sometimes it's tough to stick to your principles. However, in the long run it is always better not to compromise on your beliefs.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sometimes it's tough (Score:3, Insightful)
I say they should reconsider taking the Mac OS X. Those users who want to tinker will be able to download Linux anyway. (GUESS WHAT, LINUX IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE FREE. Mac OS X is not.)
Re:Sometimes it's tough (Score:5, Insightful)
You should not dismiss the concept of Open Source software as a "silly doctrinaire reason". The economic impact of adopting proprietary software could be enormous and long-lasting. It's critical that this technology be sustainable in the long term without dependence on a single foreign entity.
Apple could easily be gone in ten years, but there will be a continuity of Open Source software until the next ice age.
Re:Sometimes it's tough (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been a Linux user for roughly 7-8 yrs, not an old-timer by any means, but I've hit most of the distros, many when they were still in their infancy (RedHat, Mandr[ake/iva], etc.). I've installed Ubuntu for my sister-in-law and many developers at my company use it. But personally (when I'm not posting from my XP SP2 ThinkPad), I'm on a Mac. I just don't have to spend as much time "messing" with things. And that's the fact of the matter.
Flame away.
Re:Sometimes it's tough (Score:5, Insightful)
This fallacy that you cite is at the heart of the whole problem. You know, my daughter is nine, and she's grown up in an all-Linux household. She knows her way around several distos (we have multiple computers) and routinely runs live Linux CDs as well. She uses the whole machine (albeit with a heavy focus on games and educational software), right down to toying with the Python command line occasionally. Mind you, she's still able to use the Windows computers at school, which she sees as almost-acceptable substitutes (she's been heard to complain to the teachers that the computers at school crash, however, stating "They're not supposed to do that.", and expresses disdain for the lack of games that come with a Windows system. OK, I'm proud.). Mind you again, she didn't come to this expertise through having Linux drilled into her head. She just picked it up the way kids pick up anything else, by watching mom and dad. We had Windows on dual-boot on one machine for a long time (it came with one machine which somebody threw away and I brought home and fixed), but she picked Linux over it. I finally deleted Windows when nobody in the household had started it for a year.
What's our secret? Simply that "It's too hard." are words, more than the seven words you can't say on television, that never pass the lips of her mother and I. It turns out that people have a damn-near-infinite capacity to learn if you simply give them the tools to use, the manuals to read, and don't make a federal case about how hard it is!!!!
But thank you so much for doing your part to make this world a dumber place. Thank you for spreading the proprietary party-line that we are too stupid to understand computers, and hence are better off being enslaved by those who know the secret. Thank you for discouraging tomorrow's Einstein before he ever got started. Keep on spreading that FUD!!!
biggest mistake ever (Score:4, Insightful)
Give them a laptop the kinds can more easily use to accomplish their task.
I am an avid Linux user.. But i sure hte hell wouldn't expect most kids to figure out how to configure or install some applications at this point in Linux's development.
Do not underestimate kids. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, Mac OS X is a great OS that just works. Sure its a real steal at no cost. But for kids, the cost of the OS doesnt matter. The fact that it just works is good. But what they really want to do is get into the internals and rip it apart to see what makes it tick. What better candidate than something that's open source? They dont have deadlines to meet. They are not bothered by customers who inist on their documents being in the MS Office format. For kids, it's about the concepts. If it doesn't work, they'll try for some time to see why. They will ask you why it doesn't work. They will try to fix it. If they can't they will ask you. They will listen while you tell them what's wrong. If you can fix it, they will watch you doing it very carefully, trying to understand what you are doing and asking 100 questions in the process. If you can't fix it, they forget about it and move to something else.
Do not underestimate the kids' thirst for knowledge and their ability to acquire it
Re:Do not underestimate kids. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Do not underestimate kids. (Score:5, Insightful)
not really.... (Score:5, Insightful)
With kids, what I've seen is that their imagination plays a MAJOR role in what they do. So, something even as limited as paintbrush is good enough to them. The ones who want to learn more about drawing will do so. They will come to you with questions. You show them how to do what they want and they will remember because that is what they are interested in.
Same with word processors. They will play with font sizes and bold, italics and underline fonts and will explore every button on the word processor to see what it does. They'll use character and line formatting to write "their story". Maybe a few figures here and there. it won't be structured and it won't need a table of contents - and openoffice is more than capable for those needs. They are also not bothered by it's sluggishness...to them...that's the way it works...no complaints.
Its the same with something like inkscape...as long as they can print their pictures or save them to work on them again, they're happy.
And yes, I do know what you're talking about and when stuff goes wrong, they will wait for you to fix it and then they're happy to get back to what they were doing. One thing with Linux stuff...you generally only have to fix it once. Once it works, it works well. That suits kids perfectly.
Re:biggest mistake ever (Score:4, Insightful)
Look, they can still install a Linux distro, if that's what they want to do, even if OS X comes preinstalled. Those who want to tinker with their operating system will undoubtedly do just that. Those who want to tinker with other stuff--Wikipedia, email to the developed world, whatever--they probably won't want to uninstall OS X, and as far as they're concerned, they'll be the better for it.
free? (Score:5, Funny)
open chipset? no
open OS? of course! We have principles.
Re:free? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:free? (Score:3, Insightful)
(or they could just admit that the whole thing is a giant pile of vapourware and has only gotten any attention because it has the MIT name associated with it -- just like everything else the Media Center "produces")
Re:free? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:free? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:free? (Score:3, Informative)
Red Hat is already a workable general purpose operating system, but that is besides the point. MIT is not looking for a general purpose operating system, they are looking for a specialized, device specific OS that is open source. Despite all the Mac fanboy protestations, going with OS X would have been a step backwards.
Re:free? (Score:5, Insightful)
but why? That doesn't make much sense in the context of this project. if the goal is to help people - why put this software ideology and zealotry ahead of the wants or needs of users?
Despite all the Mac fanboy protestations, going with OS X would have been a step backwards.
What the hell does this have to do with "Mac fanboys"? It seems that it is the Open Source fanboys who are damaging this idea by excluding helpful tools, based on their narrow ideology and zealotry. OS X has many advantages. Linux has many advantages. They are not mutually exclusive, if it were not for this ridiculous thinking. Why not allow people to choose? Do poor people have to have their decisions made for them, unlike the lucky wealthy people? Do we know what's best for them? Imperial hubris.
If your plan is to indoctrinate the developing nations and poorer people through software - then you would be better off not bothering.
Hardware Requirements?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hardware Requirements?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hardware Requirements?! (Score:3, Insightful)
I didn't say it would be a "incredibly stripped down" version of OS X that wouldn't resemble OS X.
I said it would be a version of OS X targeted for this platform and program. In other words, all the comments like "OMG, I heard some of OS X's special fancy graphic effects are slow on an iBook, so, OMG, how would it run on a $100 laptop?!??!?!??!!11111one" are completely irrelevant, because the 3D graphic effects aren't what's important. It would most certainly resemble OS X, and would in fact be OS X, and
Re:Hardware Requirements?! (Score:3, Informative)
I just recently upgraded to a 500MHz G3 laptop from a 300 MHz G3 laptop. Both run OS X (10.4 now, 10.3 then). Both run great, and while the G3 300 required XPostFacto to get 10.3 loaded, it didn't require any great 'coercion'. You really should check your facts before posting.
(tig)
Re:Hardware Requirements?! (Score:5, Insightful)
I have (currently) OS X 10.4.3 installed on a 400MHz iMac G3 (original graphite DV model). The actual specs are 400MHz/1GB RAM/7200RPM disk (120GB, for no reason at all). It runs Tiger just fine, and it's actually faster with Tiger than it was with Panther. Sure, it's not always quite as smooth as OS9, but it does it all in stride, and does a lot more than OS9 would allow me to do on it.
OS X has some neat tricks for older machines, including disabling the 3D effects when the machine can't handle it (this one definitely can't, it's an 8MB ATI Rage Pro). There's no interaction required to disable them, it just doesnt do it. Sure, it doesn't look as good as on my powerbook or my roommate's Dual 2.5GHz G5, but it does just fine for email, browsing, and streaming iTunes music to our Airport Express.
OS X could be made to run just fine on whatever machines they throw at it, I think.
Redhat? Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see any reason why they couldn't take a nice bare-essentials distro, and build to it from the ground up. I've set up Slack boxes to work rather pain-free for computer illiterate users. No worrying about having to use bundled crap.
Oh well, I'm biased. Grain of salt ;)
Sensible Choice (Score:4, Insightful)
By choosing Red Hat not only do they have a free OS and practically guaranteed free upgrades, they'll also have a huge selection of free software to get maximum use out of the laptops.
Next up for MIT - the $100 iPod Project (Score:3, Funny)
No to OSX but with a wave to Windows? (Score:5, Insightful)
Be afraid, be very afraid..
And Mr. Negroponte, after meeting with Mr. Gates, now says, "The machine will run anything, including Windows."
MS might be planing a way to ursurp all those laptops after they've been distributed. Hope Jobs does the same.
I love the justification... (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, with that argument, why not just hand them a pile of dogshit?
That's the most useless justification for staying with Red Hat Linux as I've ever heard.
Further, it's not as if Red Hat-proper is "free". You can bet your bottom dollar that Red Hat is seeing dollar signs out of this deal. Big dollar signs.
Sure, Jobs may have been in it partly for ulterior reasons as well - I'm not going to pretend to know what he's thinking - but considering that the entire core of Mac OS X is open source, and what's not open source is a very polished, easy to use, major-vendor-supported OS with amazing language and multilingual support, revolutionary accessibility support, including the first commercial OS to include a free full-fledged spoken interface, and so on, I think that rejecting it out-of-hand on the basis of wanting to be "100%" open source is a little bit short-signted and foolish, when one steps back and looks at the big picture.
I literally can't believe MIT rejected this offer.
(And no, there wouldn't be concerns with system requirements. Apple would have engineered a targeted version of Mac OS X specifically for this program.)
Re:I love the justification... (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably their payoff would be cohorts of students who were weaned on RH Linux moving into the business world, in countries where the IT infrastructure is minimal or based on pirated software. Instead of the usual dilemma of lock in to MS these countries face when they want to go legit, they'll be free to choose Linux if they want. MS will have to fight for the market instead of having it fall in their laps as it does now due to lack of support or familiarity with anything else.
Re:I love the justification... (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, they are CONTRIBUTING $$$ to this project
You can say this with such surety?
Please explain.
Dear Steve, (Score:4, Insightful)
Making it easier for us to contact your company with such proposals would be nice also.
Apple-Intel Implications (Score:5, Interesting)
I admire both sides (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple, for offering up their hard work for free for a great idea. Apple wants people to be able to have a good, modern system for people to work with that is easy to learn and use.
Thank you, Apple.
I also admire the laptop project for turning them down. The point of a computer is not just to "do things" - it's to learn that things can be done. It wasn't pocket calculators that changed the world, it was readily-available, general-purpose, programmable computers.
Having a tool you can study and modify in great depth is a wonderful thing. It's not just a tinker-toy set, it's a tinker-toy set and ready-made large-scale projects *in that set* for you to study and alter/improve upon.
This is the same thing that brought about "hacker boom" of the TRS 80, of the Apple ][, and, yes, even early DOS - except this is larger scale, more sophisticated, and more flexible.
The $100 laptop is not about writing school reports, it's not about web logs, and it's not about accounting software. It's "here's what you can do, here's the tools to do it, and here's how it can be done - come join us."
That is the ultimate goal of Free software, and it can not be accomplished using Mac OS X, no matter how excellent a system OS X is.
Well Thank God! (Score:5, Funny)
My Main Beef... (Score:4, Informative)
Real story here: Licensing OS X (Score:4, Interesting)
Steve Jobs proposed an arrangement under which Apple would allow computers other than its own to run Mac OS X.
Just this summer, Apple VP Phil Schiller was telling the media, "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac."
Now, this is a long way from selling boxed copies of OS X for installation on whitebox PCs, much less a bundling agreement with Dell...but still, it's a significant development. What other devious schemes might Steve Jobs have for OSX86?
Re:What? (Score:4, Funny)
Yes!
Red Hat sucks
No!
The parent is missing the point. (Score:5, Informative)
That THEY can tinker with.You are assuming that these laptops will be just like any other personal computer you or I know. What they will probably be is a "virtual book" which has an easy way to write documents, surf the web, and use built in educational programs:
He said the child could use the laptop like a text book. [bbc.co.uk]
As in an appliance, not a full laptop. So that means that Jobs probably offered to have OSX at the core of this appliance and the project people said "its easy for us to make a limited purpose box with Linux because WE can tinker with it." As in the development libraries for the visual stuff is open. Plus they are not going to ship the laptops in single pieces, so there will be extreme nerdiness involved to get them to work:
The device will probably be exported as a kit of parts to be assembled locally to keep costs down. [bbc.co.uk]
So its not like the project leaders turned down $100 iBooks for the kids.
But hey, don't let my making sense get in the way of your Linux bashing party.
Re:Why these laptop designers are idiots (Score:4, Insightful)
Right, like these apps would run usably on these hundred bucks configs.
XCode/GCC ships free with OS X, and these kids could have been designing the next great Cocoa apps. Cocoa simply whips the butt of everything
Narrowminded. You say we shoudln't "force" linux and linux dev tools on them. Instead we should force cocoa on them ? Nice.
kids will be taught the wrong ways to do things instead of the right ways
Ok, so your argument is that the osx way is right and the linux way is wrong. Not much to even begin with.
kids who would actually be interested in Linux and 100% open source would just wipe OS X off the laptop and install Linux
Actually this is the only argument that makes some sense.
everybody is a goddamned operating systems kernel engineer instead of a user who wants to get some fucking computer work done
Well, linux users' majority doesn't even know what the kernel is. They still manage fairly well. You telling that linux usage is all about code hacking then you're only fudding here.
to feel good about their software freedom
Actually, telling and informing people in their early computer years about alternatives to MS and Apple is Not A Bad Thing. Teaching them to think outside of the MS and Windows frame actually could lead to some real benefits on the genral OS evolution.
Re:Meh, depends on how you look at things. (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure who's trolling here. I do know you're wrong on a fair few points...
Your point being ... what, exactly ? You *are* aware that the kernel in OS X is open-source, aren't you ? That all the source code is there, available for anyone to hack on ?
Ah, I see, you're *not* aware that it's an open source kernel (google for 'Darwin OS X') at the heart of the mac ? I guess that makes this point moot too...
I can't see how that's an argument in favour/against either. With either solution they can reformat the drive and install whatever they want ...
*cough*, *choke*, *gurgling death rattle*. You *have* to be kidding. I've used WxWindows for cross-platform apps, and Cocoa blows it away! I've been coding for the last 25 years, and the Mac (and I only started using them a year ago!) is by far the best platform I've ever coded on.
You are also aware the standard compiler is gcc on the mac, right ? I only ask because you didn't seem to know that Darwin was OSS...
Er, I don't think there's anything to compare to the iLife suite on Linux. You're aware that people really make entire movies using Macs, right ? Really. The creative tools are second-to-none. And of course, it runs all the stuff that Linux runs because that's all OSS...
Well, that's a matter of opinion. I think the Mac way works, but I'd not go so far as to label it the 'right' way. I think it's *a* right way.
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're kidding right? (Score:3, Insightful)
I can hardly stand OS X on an older G4 with 256 megs of RAM.
Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)
In order for us to more easily identify you in future, would you kindly append your Apple Fan Club membership # to your sig? This will allow for more timely notification of prizes and special offers.
Thank you again.
Sincererly,
Ms A. Shill
Apple Marketing Ventures
Red Hat wasn't always bad. (Score:5, Interesting)
As time has gone on, there have been many improvements that they have failed to adopt. Dropping support for RPM in favour of APT is one such improvement that they didn't make. The whole GCC 2.96 debacle sure didn't help their reputation amongst developers.
Either way, you are correct, Red Hat is not the way to go. Mac OS X, especially free, would have been the best possible choice. Not considering that, Kubuntu would have been the second best option. It'd offer a solid, coherent KDE system, built upon the power of Debian.
Re:Red Hat wasn't always bad. (Score:3, Insightful)
Would that choice not depend on what the primary uses that this $100 machine were to be used for? Also would that include the iLife programs and would there be enough RAM to run those? Certainly for e-mail and web surfing OSX would likely work quite well. OSX set up as a limited user is very easy to use by almost anybody. If the $100 hardware were certified by Apple to truly work with OSX for the intended uses, the rejection of the o
Re:Red Hat wasn't always bad. (Score:5, Informative)
Apt is not and never has been an alternative to Rpm.
Apt is a sophisticated front end for the packaging system, be it Rpm or Deb. The basic front ends are
Yum is another front end. The Fedora Project went with Yum, after spending some time with Apt as an option.
RedHat still prefers up2date, but you can still install apt or yum at your option.
Re:Red Hat wasn't always bad. (Score:3, Interesting)
I like how you portray old Redhat in a good manner, and then talk about the equally old GCC2.96 problem to detract from the MODERN version.
Either way, you are incorrect. Almost any Linux distro you could get would be a great choice these days, and one that has commercial might put into its deployment can't be purely bad. As for OS X,
Re:Red Hat wasn't always bad. (Score:3, Interesting)
Not only that, KDE has superior support for internationalization. That will be a real benefit when getting these laptops to children in Asia and Africa, for instance. Such children may not know English, and thus will need to rely on the excellent translations pro
Re:The real strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's what it's really all about in the end. If they adopted OSX, there would be massive vendor lock-in all over the world. Not to mention, they would be dependent on Apple for support due to Closed-source api's. With a free (libre) solution there would be none of this trouble. Not to mention localization possibilities.... This is essentially an empty offer, since they'd have to be nuts to accept it.
Closed-source APIs? (Score:4, Interesting)
If you think about it, GNUStep running on Darwin is already damn close to replicating OS X with Free Software. Sure, there's a few things missing (notably, Core*), but if OS X started getting really widespread adoption like this, those holes would be patched up quick.
Re:Looking for OSSOS? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your understanding of the word `free` in this context.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Looking for OSSOS? (Score:3, Insightful)
I shared with him that quote from Civ IV "The bureuacracy is expanding to support the needs of an expanding bureaucracy" but the point seemed to elude him. Possibly he focuses on the results, rather than the ethical vacuum existing within the Beltway.
At any rate, among the problems with the opaque OS X binary is that people can't learn
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Silly? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Silly? (Score:5, Insightful)
That tells me that this project is doomed right now. The supposed recipients of these computers don't want something to tinker with, but a computer they can actually USE to COMMUNICATE and learn stuff that has nothing whatsoever to do with computers as such. This is like giving a telephone to someone, but requiring that they first learn the laws of electricity before they can use it to call their friends. To use a gas driven water pump for irrigating a field, it is not neccessary to learn the details of how an internal combustion engine works. To use a computer tool, it should not be required to be able to "tinker" with it. With OSX a knowledgeable person CAN tinker with it, but 99% of those computers will NOT be tinkered with by their users. Because Linux is designed by tinkerers for tinkerers, it will never be a general use computer by the unwashed, non-technical masses.
It seems that people around here immediately ascribe the worst motives to any large company that wants to help even a tiny bit in making this a better world.
Re:Silly? (Score:3, Interesting)
Saying all users don't want to tinker is as dumb as saying that all users do want to tinker.
Being able to tinker with a device does not mean the device is not useful. If, using your example, a kid gets a cheap water pump and wants to modify it an any way - the addition of an internal purification filter (or whatever... I don't know enough about pumps to think of anything clever) for exampl
Re:Silly? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because Linux is designed by tinkerers for tinkerers, it will n
Re:Silly? (Score:4, Informative)
XMMS (MP3, CD Music, and MPEG), FTP client, Dillo web browser, links web browser, FireFox, spreadsheet, Sylpheed email, spellcheck (US English), a word-processor (FLwriter), three editors (Beaver, Vim, and Nano [Pico clone]), graphics editing and viewing (Xpaint, and xzgv), Xpdf (PDF Viewer), emelFM (file manager), Naim (AIM, ICQ, IRC), VNCviwer, Rdesktop, SSH/SCP server and client, DHCP client, PPP, PPPoE (ADSL), a web server, calculator, generic and GhostScript printer support, NFS, Fluxbox window manager, games, system monitoring apps, a host of command line tools, USB support, and pcmcia support, some wireless support.
Too bad no emacs... that probably would've tripled the size ;)
Re:Silly? (Score:3, Funny)
Seriously. When I run Unbuntu I am constantly trying to figure out how my Kernel allocates memory to my programs. A computer made by MIT researchers and backed by millions of dollars I think is the definition of failure. Those dumbasses at MIT are probably going to require that everyone compile their
Re:Silly? (Score:3, Insightful)
An analogy would be someone like Netgear who choose Linux to power their ADSL model. I expect they want to tinker with it quite a bit too but it doesn't mean
Re:Silly? (Score:5, Informative)
In what ways can you tinker with Linux that you cannot tinker with OS X? In fact, OS X gives you far more to tinker with because not only do you have the keys to the kernel and the BSD layer and X11, but also to everything that Apple provides. That answer makes no sense whatsoever."
Well I can't tinker with:
quartz, iwork, iphoto, itunes, airport extreme, spotlight, quicktime, isync, ical,imovie, apple's mail, safari (but you can tinker with safari's rendering engine), ichatAV, garage band, idvd, all the pro applications, and much much more.
Of course by tinker I mean:
-look at the source code
-make modifications to the source code
-distribute the code along with my changes without the possibility of getting sued.
Apple will not allow any of this.
Re:Silly? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Silly? (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is that OS X is a unix-based system, shipped with an X implementation AND a load of (closed source) other stuff. All you're doing by not using OS X is removing the 'other stuff'. Look at darwin-ports for the equivalent to apt-get...
The Mac UI is streets ahead of linux and windows in terms of useability (IMHO, but hell, I'm writing this!), it's been designed with thought for how to make things simple, rather than just available. I think it's a shame that they won't get access to it...
My personal opinion is that RH put $2M into the project, and don't want someone else's OS running the show, put real or implied pressure on the project heads, and OS X is turned down... The losers are the end-users, in this case...
Simon
Re:Silly? (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you running OS X on a $100 laptop? There are a lot of tweaks and GUI candy that I can turn off on a GNU/Linux install. Since Quartz is not open source I cannot tweak it to run really well on a $100 laptop. From a MIT researcher perspective I would go with GNU/Linux so that I would have the control to disable extra Quartz or program components. Do I need a music jukebox that can connect to a music store selling $1 DRM laden music tracks in a third wo
Re:Silly? (Score:5, Insightful)
Assuming the offer of OSX was going to include a free copy of xcode (which seems reasonable), I don't see where the major difference is. Was the well-documented but closed source nature of Aqua really the deal-breaker? And more importantly, is it really fair to assume that all of the impoverished masses of the world are willing to trade Aqua for an inferior performing, but open source alternative?
Why not offer both, and let the end users decide which they'd rather have? Unless, of course, this isn't really about freedom.
Zealotry? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Silly? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Silly? (Score:5, Insightful)
Software freedom isn't silly. (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't it seem like pro-proprietary software zealotry to think that refusing an opportunity to lose one's software freedom is pitched as "zealotry"? No, framing this issue as zealotry won't help you understand what is really going on.
Ease of use is not freedom. Ease of use is a subjective assessment (everything is probably roughly equally hard to learn when you have no experience with computers) that doesn't address educational goals to the degree software freedom does. Any software can be made easier to use and people don't need to rely on proprietors to do it for us. We can and should do it for ourselves and share the results with people (particularly those who will share their improvements with us). This is part of the spirit that got us the free software OSes we enjoy today.
What Apple is offering here is a gratis opportunity to put on some handcuffs and choose between a set of masters. Some of MacOS X is free software but not all of it. Why subject the kids to a computer they can't control completely? Why help them grow an addiction to proprietary software that will be hard to break? I realize that /. readers tend to think this way only of Microsoft, but Apple is offering a comparable deal here: no software freedom, more like "the first bite is free".
For more on this, I recommend reading Why schools should use exclusively free software [gnu.org].
Re:Software freedom isn't silly. (Score:3, Insightful)
Running the software for any reason is only a part of software freedom. In fact, it's the first part of the Free Software definition [gnu.org]. It's the part that is supplied by just about all programs (but some programs even cut this off after a certain amount of time). What you don't get is the freedom to inspect the program, to learn how it works, or to share copies of the program, to help your neighbors, or to modify the program, to make the program suit your needs. In short, you miss out on all of the other
Re:Silly? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually OSX works great on computers with a third of the power of a Mac Mini. Tiger is more than fine on my wife's 500Mhz iBook with just 300 megs of RAM. And I saw a guy in the Apple Store today with a Wall Street edition Powerbook (read: under 300 MHz) and the tech was stunned to see how responsive and usable Tiger is on it.
So, aside from making assumptions and being misinformed, what was your point again?
Re:Silly? (Score:5, Funny)
Ignore the research, it's only research (Score:5, Informative)
The edges of the screen are prime real estate and are easy targets to hit because the mouse pointer is constrained by the screen; effectively the menu bar is infinite in height. In order to hit a menu bar at the top of a window, you need to decelerate and hit a target that is fairly small. You need to do precision control in two dimensions instead of only one.
I think one of the reason Windows users are always complaining that using the mouse is slower than the keyboard is because putting the menu at the top of the window makes the mouse slower to use than if it were at the top of the screen.
Bruce Tognazinni devotes an entire chapter--27--of "Tog on Interface," (1992, Addison-Wesley) to this very topic. He cites four or five pieces of research.
But, never mind. It's only research. Tognazinni wrote--in 1990!--"People for years have been explaining to me that in this era of giant screen monitors, we just have to do something about those menu bars way up there at the top of the screen; that menu bars should be attached to windows, or pop up beneath the cursor or something. Anything, just so they aren't up at the top of the screen any more." And I am sure people will be doing it fifteen years from now, too.
Re:Ignore the research, it's only research (Score:3, Interesting)
Bzzt. Wrong!
If that's not enough, what about the fact that one window seems to be 'hovering' a little 'higher' than the rest of the windows (casting a shadow double the size of unfocussed windows).
Bzzt. Wrong again! Thanks for playing.
I really don't see how anyone who's used OS X for more than 5 minutes could have trouble telling which window has focus.
Then I guess y
Re:Ignore the research, it's only research (Score:3, Informative)
While we're talking about similarities, Xfce's design is actually heavily influenced by CDE, not the Mac. Granted, with successive 4.x releases, we've moved away from that heritage, but you can still see the CDEish roots.
Re:The Mac Demographic (Re:OS X easy to use -- wh. (Score:3, Funny)
Or anybody using KDE...
--
Evan
Re:The Mac Demographic (Re:OS X easy to use -- wh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Way to sidestep the global marketing brainwashed groupthink and reject the use of sex to sell products! You certainly are creative and revolutionary. Well done.
Re:OS X easy to use -- what are people smoking? (Score:5, Interesting)
Which was great when we had 9" monitors. Whether it is such a good idea when you have a 30" display, or multiple 20"+ displays is an arguable point. Saying you can just "fling your mouse" when the target is actually several feet away is really dubious.
Being the cynic that I am, I tend not to think that Apple had done research proving a fixed menu bar is the best for large displays. Instead they keep it around because it's a Mac visual trademark that distinguishes them from the competition.
Re:OS X easy to use -- what are people smoking? (Score:3, Insightful)
And you can't just "fling your mouse" anyway, because you have to pick which menu you want, so once you've flung
Re:good! (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, how about kids who are actually using the notebooks to get their homework done... and not needing to FIX their linux installs at all!
But the blondes!? (Score:5, Funny)
It's that attitude that's keeping the bimbos out of the computer dating sites you know!
Re:Free publicity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Free publicity -- What? (Score:5, Insightful)
He didn't say it wasn't publicity. He said it wasn't FREE publicity.
Red Hat is not getting free publicity. They are buying publicity for two million dollars. That's pretty fucking far from free.
Then again, Red Hat has been stretching the definition of "free" in a lot of ways over the last couple years, heh.
Re:Free publicity -- What? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Free publicity -- What? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Free publicity -- What? (Score:4, Insightful)
You'll notice that you said some people in corporations. The official stance of the corporation however is not to give everyone a warm fuzzy feeling inside. The only purpose that a corporation has is to make profit. Yes many individuals want to create a better world. Some of those individuals work in corporations. Those individuals should be commended for their forward thinking views.
The corporation would be pissed if it participated in any community service that did not receive any attention, publicity, mind share, or free advertising. The bricks and stones of a corporation headquarters don't shine a little brighter when it has helped another person.
Re:Free publicity (Score:4, Insightful)
The entire project is purely a publicity mill for the involved parties.
A publicity mill, certainly, but what leads you to believe that it is "purely" a publicity mill? Are people only allowed to do good things if there is absolutely zero benefit to themselves?
At some point, cynicism becomes just another form of stupidity.
Re: apple has wanted to do this since 1979 (Score:5, Informative)
just to set the record straight -- donating computers to kids and schools
has long been part of steve jobs' mission -- he personally offered to donate
a hundred thousand computers to every school in america back in 1979...
http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/comphist
(exerpt from Smithsonian Interview with Steve Jobs)
SJ: There were two kinds of customers. There were the educational aspects of Apple and then there were sort of the non-educational. On the non-educational side, Apple was two things. One, it was the first "lifestyle" computer and, secondly, it's hard to remember how bad it was in the early 1980's. With IBM taking over the world with the PC, with DOS out there; it was far worse than the Apple II. They tried to copy the Apple II and they had done a pretty bad job. You needed to know a lot. Things were kind of slipping backwards. You saw the 1984 commercial. Macintosh was basically this relatively small company in Cupertino, California, taking on the goliath, IBM, and saying "Wait a minute, your way is wrong. This is not the way we want computers to go. This is not the legacy we want to leave. This is not what we want our kids to be learning. This is wrong and we are going to show you the right way to do it and here it is. It's called Macintosh and it is so much better. It's going to beat you and you're going to do it."
And that's what Apple stood for. That was one of the things. The other thing was a little bit further back in time. One of the things that built Apple II's was schools buying Apple II's; but even so there was about only 10% of the schools that even had one computer in them in 1979 I think it was. When I grew up I was lucky because I was in Silicon Valley. When I was ten or eleven I saw my first computer. It was down at NASA Ames (Research Center). I didn't see the computer, I saw a terminal and it was theoretically a computer on the other end of the wire. I fell in love with it. I saw my first desktop computer at Hewlett-Packard which was called the 9100A. It was the first desktop in the world. It ran BASIC and APL I think. I fell in love with it. And I thought, looking at these statistics in 1979, I thought if there was just one computer in every school, some of the kids would find it. It will change their life.
We saw the rate at which this was happening and the rate at which the school bureaucracies were deciding to buy a computer for the school and it was real slow. We realized that a whole generation of kids was going to go through the school before they even got their first computer so we thought the kids can't wait. We wanted to donate a computer to every school in America. It turns out that there are about a hundred thousand schools in America, about ten thousand high schools, about ninety thousand K through 8. We couldn't afford that as a company. But we studied the law and it turned out that there was a law already on the books, a national law that said that if you donated a piece of scientific instrumentation or computer to a university for educational and research purposes you can take an extra tax deduction. That basically means you don't make any money, you loose some but you don't loose too much. You loose about ten percent. We thought that if we could apply that law, enhance it a little bit to extend it down to Kthrough 8 and remove the research requirements so it was just educational, then we could give a hundred thousand computers away, one to each school in America and it would cost our company ten million dollars which was a lot of money to us at that time but it was less than a hundred million dollars if we didn't have that. We decided that we were willing to do that.
It was one of the most incredible things I've ever done. We found our local representative, Pete Stark over in East Bay and Pete and a few of us sat down an we wrote a bill. We literally drafted a bill to make these changes. We said "If this law changes
Re:But they don't go for it... (Score:3, Funny)
How bout that summary for this article that points out that THEY DIDN'T GO FOR IT and hey, what's this, a post about how THEY DIDN'T GO FOR IT. Who to believe? My world is torn asunder.
Next you'll see people cutting and pasting without attribution! Heavens to betsey.
Re:corporate charity == GOOD (Score:3, Insightful)
We want to educate these children, not torture them with litigation and incompatibilties.
Re:Are these "$100" laptops going to be online? (Score:3, Informative)
My cynical side thinks that this might be a nice gesture, but not much more than that
FTFA:
Re:In other news... (Score:3)
Re:Stupid Ideological Fools (Score:4, Insightful)
The decision to stick with open source is not a matter of ideology. The whole point of this exercise is to come up with a computer that can be provided to developing nations without "strings attached". That's why they're working so hard on the hardware to get the price down to $100. They're not trying to start a charity to give away computers --- if they were, they could easily use second-hand computers, or donated machines. Using OS X means depending on the charity of Apple. What happens if Apple decides to withdraw support for the program? What happens when new versions of the OS come out --- will Apple provide those for free? Using an OS that isn't tied to a corporation is the only way to deliver these machines the way they want to deliver them.
Re:How about food to those famine victims first? (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me tell you a story. There are dams in parts of Bangladesh that are designed to keep out flood waters. Ever year, the government spends money repairi
Re:Why not for US students... (Score:3, Informative)