Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Linux Promises, Apple Delivers

CmdrTaco posted more than 13 years ago | from the oh-essex-oh-my dept.

Apple 638

Anonymous Mac OS X Coward writes "This is a pretty strong article talking about Apple's delivery of *nix to the common man, something Linux has been touting for a while. It has good points, like apple actually tries to make the OS user friendly while linux sees this as a side project." Valid points. I need to get a copy of OSX. I'm really curious if it truly can be the common persons *nix. Sure looks like it could be, but I still don't know.

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#346867)

Why is it so important to get unix onto everyones desktop? As long as linux is available why should I care if anyone but me is using it?

Re:closed hardware (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#346868)

It will support ALL Macs shipped in the last 4 years which is about 50% of the installed user base. It only supports 7 machine types because there are only 7 machine types in the last 4 years. Mac hardware has most of the same features as an x86 box (PC cards, PCI slots, USB, Firewire) especially if you remove legacy ports (like Intel and M$ want to do).

OS X leaves a lot to be desired. (2)

Wakko Warner (324) | more than 13 years ago | (#346873)

Word has it that it will ship without the ability to write CD-Rs, and without the ability to play or record DVDs. This is a GIANT step backward for Apple, who have been touting their DVD authoring capabilities for months.

- A.P.

* CmdrTaco is an idiot.

Lame article, invalid points (1)

Johann (4817) | more than 13 years ago | (#346942)

These tasks take a deep understanding of how Unix works plus the willingness to dig through pages and pages of obscure documentation, and then you have to munge some text files to get things working properly.

Please. When's the last time you installed a Linux distribution? 1995?

Instead of requiring you to screw around with a bunch of text files and hope you got your settings right, Mac OS X simply works.

Munging text files is the only way to make sure they work. Microsoft used the same arguments for the Winblows 95 registry. No more config files to edit. The all-encompassing registry 'will do it' (tm). Windows 'simply works' (tm).

...amazing graphics layer, a solid user interface, outstanding Macintosh compatibility, and brain-dead-simple installation. These are things that are still just a glint in Linux's proverbial eye.

And just like all Macs before it, no one will write any software for OS X.
"In the land of the brave and the free, we defend our freedom with the GNU GPL."

Re:closed hardware (1)

spicyjeff (6305) | more than 13 years ago | (#346954)

OS X runs supported on every Apple machine released since 1997. This means any machine Apple shipped with a G3 or G4 processor (or 2) will run OS X out of the box. It can be made to run on older machines, although unsupported of course. This is a good move because they don't weigh themselves down by going to far into the past but use the freedom of newer machines to innovate.

MS Hypers (2)

Ektanoor (9949) | more than 13 years ago | (#346963)

This poster is neither an OS X fan or Linux supporter. he is just in the line of "who rules, who suxx". And it is interesting to see /. going on it. Does this means that we finally get some peace from the Linux Hyper "Cry-Lowd" command?

I wonder when Linux Torvalds, Alan Cox or anyone on the top Linux development promised to make it "easy-for-the-masses". If anyone cared at least to read interviews, then he knows that Linus position is crystal clear - develop the server side. However he doesn't mess with anyone who wants to make it "user-friendly". Well there are several distros trying to do it and its THEIR right to do it, and let's hope they get successful on this. But it's the distros, stupid...

Now it is amazing to see that someone comes up with the eternaly promised OS X and suddenly we, the Linux community, are not only "failing" in some nebulous promess. No. We are failing because an OS that till now didn't make the highway looks much better than Linux. I can't say it's worse or better. Because I have never seen it, and also because this OS is much more overhyped than any .NET initiative. Maybe that thing is real cool, real effective and real good. OS/2 is also one of the best OSes ever made you know?

Besides we take this articleand what we see?

"When the Linux hype hit its height about a year ago, there were predictions that it was going to take market share from every operating system out there, including from the Mac but especially from Windows."

Ok that's cool, that's real great... Well I know that we are after MS. And we do are after MS. And we are going to hunt Redmonds birdies as far as we can. But that's an historical problem made of tons of people who were dropped out of the MS boat and found refuge on Linux world.

There were also risks that we could take some Sun or BSD piece of the market but really that was not in our plans to take over the world... However "including the Mac"??? Who knows Mac users, perfectly understands that these are the ones in the end of the line. A Mac user will more probably to turn to Windows and barely will ever risk to enter our world. Because, apart of the good looking desktops "a-la Mac", everything else is a Mac user worst nightmare.

Pet Peeve: Journalists and Pundits (2)

jagapen (11417) | more than 13 years ago | (#346965)

I hate it when these sensationalist bastards over-hype something they don't even understand, then rip it down when it doesn't live up to the hype. Just read this lousy little piece-of-crap editoral linked here. Just who decided that Linux was going to take over the desktop, and hyped that claim? Oh, that's right-- the self-serving journalists and clueless industry pundits. And now that Linux has failed to take over the desktop, they get to gloat about it. WTF?!

Look, you bastards, just because some hackers work on GNOME or KDE, doesn't mean all of us even want to turn Linux into a desktop OS. Some of us appreciate it for its virtues, like complete control by the administrator (yes, administrator), stability, and transparency, and also appreciate other operating systems for their easy-for-clueless-Joe-User qualities. We're not all behind the 'castrated-Linux' desktop idea you so firmly latched onto last year, alright?!

Gah! I can't stand smug bastard pundits like this Reynolds guy, especially when they're only smugly ripping down a strawman.

Apples Legacy (2)

Ravenscall (12240) | more than 13 years ago | (#346972)

Well, the legacy of Apple is being user friendly. Look at applesoft Basic. You could teach it to children and they could actually write viable programs. Then the Macintosh. One mouse button. Icons. A (somewhat) intuitive file structure. All this when PCs were still command line as a standard. Can they make *Nix user friendly? Perhaps. Will OSX be friendly out of the box? Probably not, at least not for a standard end user. I think they can do it, but it will still take a little while, maybe in two or three years they will have it truly userfriendly.

Exaggeration? Or mistake? (2)

Bearpaw (13080) | more than 13 years ago | (#346974)

Even if you were limiting yourself to buying new hardware to put it on, you can get a system that'll run it for $900 (plus some piddling amount for a little extra memory). If you were willing to buy used hardware, you could go much cheaper than that.

Am I an Apple user? Nope, but I will be. I've got a new iMac sitting on my desk and my copy of OS X is on the way.

Re:Lame article, invalid points (2)

Bearpaw (13080) | more than 13 years ago | (#346975)

You had some reasonable points, but ...

And just like all Macs before it, no one will write any software for OS X.

When was the last time you checked out what software was available for Macs? 1995? l

Maybe a stupid question... (1)

egregious (16118) | more than 13 years ago | (#346993)

But what counts as the "orginonal" PowerBook G3? I've got a pre-USB PowerBook with a G3 (commonly refered to as a "Wall Street" model). Anybody have any idea if OS X is going to work on my laptop or shall I just continue with LinuxPPC alone?

Re:Linux truly delievers to the common man (1)

TWR (16835) | more than 13 years ago | (#346994)

OK, troll-boy, half of the people on this planet have never even used a phone. Computers don't even enter into it. Your math is as defective as you are.

As for the probably 20% of the planet's population who actually have stable phone, water, and power, they could probably get by with OS X on an $800 iMac. For 3 grand, they could buy a dual processor G4 with a flat-panel screen.


Re:It's too bad Apple is an Evil Corporation (TM) (2)

TWR (16835) | more than 13 years ago | (#346995)

This means that despite the fact that MacOS X is probably the best user-oriented *nix we'll ever see, it will never gain the kind of marketshare that the major Linux Distros currently occupy.

If you can get reliable market share numbers for some "major Linux Distros", I'd gladly take this as a bet.

By the end of the year, Apple will likely have shipped more *NIX than any company except Sun.

Besides, what counts is boxes IN USE. People who get RedHat to dink around but don't use it shouldn't count.


Re:I think so (2)

nyet (19118) | more than 13 years ago | (#347009)

Do you even KNOW what a PPC processor is? It is no great leap to go from 68k to PPC.. their cores are very similar, as are the compilers.

Not only that, but porting a WELL DESIGNED OS is not a terribly difficult task. Just because Microsoft is incapable of doing it doesn't make Apple that wonderful.

What about a Lear Jet for the common man? (3)

nyet (19118) | more than 13 years ago | (#347010)

I can't be bothered to go through the effort of learning to properly fly a jet aircraft. Why don't they make airplanes easier to fly? I would love for my mentally challenged cousin (he has an I.Q. of 47) to feel the exhilaration of flying, but IT'S JUST TOO HARD!

What is up with the Lear Jet designers??? Can't they make the damn things easier for the average person to fly?

Re:$$$ Darwin $$$ (1)

SONET (20808) | more than 13 years ago | (#347016)

requirements are a bit steep (128k ram if you want to run os-x with classic)

Damn! 128k is steep! My Altair just isn't going to cut it I guess. Bummer. ;)

BTW Have you checked into RAM prices lately? Under $40 US for 128MB PC133, about $60 for name-brand stuff. 128MB is by no means out of reach these days.


Support for applications silly (1)

bliss (21836) | more than 13 years ago | (#347018)

Not everyone can write (or has enough hours in the day) to write everything that they need to have on a particular OS. That's the one reason I switched from dos/win3.11 for linux was the application support and support for legacy hardware and minimal sys requirements.

Re:Lame article, invalid points (1)

sabat (23293) | more than 13 years ago | (#347020)

> Please. When's the last time you installed a
> Linux distribution? 1995?

You're absolutely right here.

> Munging text files is the only way to make sure
> they work. Microsoft used the same arguments
> for the Winblows 95 registry. No more config
> files to edit. The all-encompassing
> registry 'will do it' (tm). Windows 'simply
> works' (tm).

That is a cop-out. If you have to screw with configuration files, it means the technology is not sufficiently advanced enough to take care of itself. You're mooting your own (good) point! When was the last time you were forced to hand-configure X, or edit the source code for a SCSI driver?

> And just like all Macs before it, no one will
> write any software for OS X.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it's not good technology. Using your logic, Windows would be the superior platform here.

I think this article is simply kicking us in the ass to motivate us, and I think we deserve it. We should take Apple as an example of good attempts to produce a modern computing system -- and then we should out-do what Apple has done.

The Main Point: The Interface IS The Computer (4)

sabat (23293) | more than 13 years ago | (#347021)

They point here is that we nerds treat the interface as an after-thought. We need to grasp this fundamental truth: The Interface *is* the Computer!

Windows' success shows how even a lame-assed imitation of a good interface will work. We need to do better -- better than KDE has done, better than Gnome is so far, and god knows, better than Windows. There are too many details! Too much technical knowledge required! We can do so much better.

Re:Common? (2)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 13 years ago | (#347024)

If a bunch of wankers from across the globe can make an OS that supports so much stuff (two bunches, if you include Linux as well as BSD) certainly Apple can do something similar.

CoS has nothing to do with John Travolta. It's the Cult of Steve.

My bad (2)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 13 years ago | (#347025)

You actually can buy an iMac for $900. You still don't get a LOT for your money, but that's actually not bad.

Still... Compare the $1200 machine. I think my points are still valid.

More dumb ass moderators (4)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 13 years ago | (#347027)

No, the above comment was not flamebait. But it was an exaggeration.

For about $1200, you can get a wicked fast x86 machine, nice big (huge?) hard drive, 17" monitor, enough RAM, and even a decent 3d-video card.

Can you even buy an iMac for that much? Assuming you can, you have to live with: slower proc (yes, G4 faster at equivalent proc speeds, but at the $1200 price I mentioned, you should be able to get a 900 mHz x86. The iMac has what, a 450 or so? The extra cycles on the x86 are making up for the inherent problems in the processor). You also get: no expandability, a dinky screen, smaller drive(s). etc.

The reason I dropped the Mac after about twelve years of allegiance was the impossibility of buying high speed hardware. I just don't make enough money.

So, moderators, look at the comment, and see hyperbole. Not a troll.

Re:OS X leaves a lot to be desired. (2)

mad_ian (28771) | more than 13 years ago | (#347032)

Apple had to make some choices...
Actually, Apple released a press release yesterday. ~CD writing will be available in April, as an update (frre of course).
~CD writing (many of us think) IS possible, as it actually requires drivers for the programme (Toast), and Toast 5 works in OS X and will (probably) burn. What DOESN'T work is iTunes/iDVD burning, and Drag-n-Drop burning from the OS.
~DVD capabilities will be available this summer, again, as a donwload, again, free.
~Apple chose to put the more advanced DVD/CD authoring capabilities into the current OS 9.1, and wait on putting them into OSX, in order to give the most people what they need NOW. Most of the early adopters of OSX (of which I'm one) don't particularly care, since we understand that this is a 1.0 release, and we've ALWAYS known there would be some missing componants, and we'd have to upgrade thru the summer.
~I don't know of any other operating system that, out of the box, has had the ability to burn CDs drag-n-drop style. the Mac OS has been for at least 3 years. We just have to wait a month to do it in OSX.


Re:OS X leaves a lot to be desired. (1)

MochaMan (30021) | more than 13 years ago | (#347041)

While MacOS X will not ship with iTunes, neither did MacOS 9.1. iTunes CD burning will be functional in the final version, as stated on Apple's web site. Perhaps the reason for the confusion over this is a CNet article based on leaked pre-release copies that didn't include CD burning.

Apple has publicly stated that their DVD burning software (iDVD) will not ship with MacOS X, but will be available soon enough. This is probably not a huge problem, since very, very few Macs actually have DVD burners. Since MacOS X ships with MacOS 9.1 (for the Classic environment), users can simply go to the System Disk control panel and choose to re-boot into pure MacOS 9.1 (ie. not OSX classic mode, but actual 9.1), and use it there.

Re:$$$ Darwin $$$ (1)

mcwop (31034) | more than 13 years ago | (#347044)

OS X PB runs pretty well on my far less than $3500 Powerbook running at 333mhz with 128MB RAM. You can run it on a low end iMac too (you would have to spring $50 extra to bring the RAM up from 64MB). Nevertheless, for $1000 you have a decent system running a UNIX varient. With a whole lot of software present and future to choose from.

The *nix's not for the common man? (1)

Quebec (35169) | more than 13 years ago | (#347052)

At Apple they probably started writing that marketing paper a couple of years ago because actually the easiest/fastest/troubleless way to install an OS on a PC is with Mandrake 7.2. (not on a mac but mac are not for the common man, it's for the common rich man)

Does Linux really need to be user friendly? (4)

bskin (35954) | more than 13 years ago | (#347054)

I've always wondered about these attempts to deliver linux to the common man. What i've always found appealing about the unix design is that it doesn't dumb things down in an attempt to be more 'user friendly'. The command line is a beautiful thing, but it doesn't mean my mother should be exposed to it. Personally, i've always seen true user friendliness as a sacrifice to power. I would rather have a high learning curve but more power than an OS that's easy to use, but offers me less power.

In short, marketing UNIX to my mother would be a mistake. She neither wants nor needs most of the benefits that it provides. She has a hard enough time using Windows. I see no problem in having different operating systems aimed at different audiences, rather than having one OS that tries to do everything. Why exactly does linux *want* world domination? The entire UNIX philosophy is that it's better to have things be the best at what they do, rather than trying to do everything.

ObHolyWarFodder: I suspect that emacs users may disagree with this. =P

Re:Apples Legacy (1)

kwerle (39371) | more than 13 years ago | (#347060)

It will be friendly out of the box. It won't be much Unix out of the box. Take it for a spin...

Re:Linux promises, NeXT delivers... (1)

kwerle (39371) | more than 13 years ago | (#347061)

He didn't say it was a success, jackass, he said it rocked.

Re:Easy for him to say... (1)

kwerle (39371) | more than 13 years ago | (#347062)

As is true with most unixen, the makefiles need a little tweaking. But it has all the [open?]bsd stuff.

Re:Common? (1)

kwerle (39371) | more than 13 years ago | (#347063)

You'll need to up the memory for OSX, but do you think this is 'common man price' enough? (from their store page)

PowerPC G3
512K L2 cache
(at 160MHz)

10GB Ultra ATA drive
RAGE 128 Pro w/ 8MB
10/100BASE-T Ethernet
56K internal modem
15-inch display
Two USB ports
Two FireWire ports

Re:$$$ Darwin $$$ (2)

kwerle (39371) | more than 13 years ago | (#347067)

Please. Yeah, that's the most expensive box you can buy from Apple right now. Note that you can buy a DUAL CPU box for $2500 (533Mhz G4's). Yeah, you can build an intel box for less, but it's nice to see a Unix vendor :-) ship a VERY nice dual CPU box for that amount. Note also that you can buy a bitchin' cool laptop for $2600.

OK, enough commercial. Sorry.

A buyer (1)

ljavelin (41345) | more than 13 years ago | (#347073)

Apple has me sold. With one of the most impressive laptops, and a pretty Unix-based OS, how could I say no?

The Vaio's are nice, but this new combo of hardware/software rocks. And in the end, if OS X becomes crummy, I can -still- run Linux on the hardware. I always hated the x86 platform with all its baggage.

Sign me up.

Re:Linux truly delievers to the common man (1)

tapiwa (52055) | more than 13 years ago | (#347086)

I am from the third world, and I am surprised at some of the comments people make about the third world.

The lower you bring down the price of computing, the better. A lot of people are still running 386, 486 and P1 machines, even in businesses.

The reason is because it is just too expensive to upgrade... In the west, you junk a 10 yr old car... in the 3rd world, a lot of people rely on 20+ year old vehicles as their main mode of transportation. Only when there is no hope for it is it 'retired'. Even then it is cannibalised in order to patch up another one!

Necessity does maketh an environmentally friendly man!

The buy-trash-buy-trash-buy cycle is not as short as it is in the west.

I for one am a believer that linux companies should target the third world both as a market , and a source of relatively cheap hardworking talent.

I am working on a project to have companies donate PCs to schools, and colleges in southern Africa. (contact me if you want to help).

Cheap PCs + free software will equal opportunities for many youngsters whose alternative is crime/sweatshops/agriculture.

Re:OS X leaves a lot to be desired. (3)

bnenning (58349) | more than 13 years ago | (#347097)

True, but Apple has said CD-R and DVD support will be added in an update in a few months. There's no reason to hold up the entire OS because a few features aren't ready yet.

Re:Linux truly delievers to the common man (1)

Zoop (59907) | more than 13 years ago | (#347099)

How many residents of third world countries can afford a $500 computer and the $1200 in replacement parts that will be required in the first year? Or have a good internet connection to get Linux help? Or can afford the Microsoft Tax?

Games, and Drivers (2)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 13 years ago | (#347114)

I want to play my favorite games on my platform of Choice, be it whether Windows, Linux, or BeOS.

Without games, an desktop OS will never reach mass popularity.

I agree with the article. Linux does take a long time to setup -- I don't have 3 days to read man pages and HOWTO's just to setup a desktop (For firewalls and servers, I *will* take the time for that.) I use Win2K at home, because it is "good enough" for development, quick to setup, and gaming.

Under windows it is painless to upgrade your driver to a newer version. i.e. nVidia 6.31 to 6.50, etc.

Does anyone have a link to that article where it showed that Window's strengths were Linux's weaknesses, and Linux's strengths were Window's weaknesses.

As Linux becomes more user-friendly, consistent, and easier to use, that is good thing for everyone.

Re:Is this a surprise? (1)

blazerw11 (68928) | more than 13 years ago | (#347116)

Hi, how ya doin'?
Just lookin' at your reply to the previous comment. It really looked like the quote to which you responded was about old Mac OSes, not OS X. Just a little FYI.
Have a great day and don't forget to try to understand the words you read. It really helps.

MacOSX is NOT Free Software. (1)

burtonator (70115) | more than 13 years ago | (#347118)

For starters. Don't buy from Apple. They have very questionable business practices. Think different indeed. Don't give them any more $. I don't want to be sued.

That said. MacOSX is NOT Free Software. It does not matter. We still have a lot of work to do. It is also not Open Source. In this regard the most important thing is the community.

Why is KDE doing better than GNOME? Community. They have done a good job of not being corrupted as GNOME did with their Eazel/Helix cooperation.

$$$ Darwin $$$ (1)

selectspec (74651) | more than 13 years ago | (#347122)

Too bad you'll have to fork over $3500 for a 750Mhz CPU system to use it.

Re:Linux truly delievers to the common man (1)

barneyfoo (80862) | more than 13 years ago | (#347126)

How many residents of third world countries can afford a $1500 computer?

Simple math tells me: alot more than could afford a $3,000 apple computer. And Im guessing, based on a bell curve distribution, about 5000% more people.

Re:Easy for him to say... (1)

Ingerod (82705) | more than 13 years ago | (#347133)

I'm booting Mac OS X Release Candidate, Mac OS 9.1 and Suse Linux as we speak, so yes, multi-booting is possible (at least using two disks).

Yes and no... (2)

Ingerod (82705) | more than 13 years ago | (#347134)

I've used all previous versions of Mac OS X from OpenStep through Rhapsody, the DPs and PB, and I got the Release Canditate the other day.

Yes, installation, configuration and the interface in general is infinitely more usable than for any other *NIX out there. Fair enough, it's not as tweakable as Gnome for example, but it just works!

On the other hand, it's still fairly far away from Mac OS 9, despite the flashy surface. The days of happily creating folders all over the place is gone. I guess Mac support people will get their hands full as soon as "normal" users get their paws on it :) I'm just about to switch over to using it as my primary OS (from Win2K), despite the rough edges. Who else?

And yes, I just willingly gave up the opportunity of 1st post...

Re:Common? (2)

technomancerX (86975) | more than 13 years ago | (#347140)

But then they'd have to support a vast array of hardware. Hell, they don't even have full hardware support for the 7 Mac models it does support, much less being able to cover the thousands of possible PC configurations out there.


closed hardware (4)

technomancerX (86975) | more than 13 years ago | (#347141)

You know, I would be much more impressed and feel he has a more valid point about ease of install/configuration IF OS X wasn't built to run on a closed hardware platform. Linux can be that easy to install and confgure as well... when you only have to support a handfull of machine configurations... and I do mean a handfull.. I count 7 supported machine types on Apple's website... and five of those are either laptops or iMacs, which means almost NO variation in hardware...

OS X looks great, but spare me this guy's crap


Re:OS X leaves a lot to be desired. (5)

iso (87585) | more than 13 years ago | (#347143)

i know you're trolling, but for the benefit of the rest of the slashdot community who may not be following MacOS X too closely, let me correct you. sure you could look at it as Apple shipping an "incomplete" OS, but i look at it this way:

Apple has touted these features, all of which are still available on thier latest consumer operating system MacOS 9.1. meanwhile they're quietly (only a small press release!) releasing their next-generation operating system, that while free of any major bugs, doesn't have all the bells and whistles of 3rd party applications. the important part? they're bundling the a complete development environment (Project Builder, Interface Builder, GNU utilities + more) with every single copy of OS X!

the features you mention are nice, but they're also not core OS features, they're independant applications. the important part is that they're making it easy for anybody to start developing apps (especially 100% native "Cocoa" apps) for this new operating system!

Jobs has said many times that the OS X release will resemble a bell curve: a small number of applications ported and available at release time, a larger number in the summer, and then tailing off in the Fall while the straglers port their apps.

the major consumer release of OS X is obviously this summer, at Macworld New York. that's the time when many 3rd parties will be shipping their applications, and long after the Apple "killer apps" you've mentioned have been ported (DVD burning, DVD playing and CD-RW burning through iTunes are promised in the next two months). right now it's a chance for developers of all levels (even the casual developer) to start writting applications for OS X with the final and set-in-stone API. that's what this release of OS X is all about, and that's why Apple is doing the right thing by releasing on March 24th. if the "killer apps" you need aren't supported, wait 'til summer!

of course a lot of this "argument" that OS X isn't complete is moot as you can run almost all of your current apps through the "classic" layer anyhow. it's not like you're dead in the water with no way to run any of your existing software!

- j

"News" vs. "Opinion" (1)

BobGregg (89162) | more than 13 years ago | (#347148)

> This is a pretty strong article talking about Apple's delivery of *nix to the common man,

Er... given the slogan of Slashdot to present "News for Nerds", I'd think they would at least provide *some* sort of basis for differentiating their "news" stories from their "opinion" stories. This wasn't an "article", it was an editorial opinion, with no factual statements per se, and frankly no new information either. Why is this story on the front page? From the fact that the word "opinion" is in the URL itself [] , you'd think somebody would recognize and acknowledge this...

Wait, this just in: Powersauce is full of apple-y goodness! Nobody else concentrates the power of apples in bar form! Back to you Dave...

Common? (1)

Dr. MerkwŁrdigliebe (90125) | more than 13 years ago | (#347150)

I'm not sure one could describe an Apple user as "common man". Last I checked, those Macs weren't cheap ;-) If only Apple would finally make an x86 version of its OS, then Linux would really have some competition in the user-friendly *nix arena.

The UI experience (5)

derinax (93566) | more than 13 years ago | (#347163)

NEXTSTEP was Unix for the 'common person' twelve years ago. If you were never there on the front lines, using the NeXT environment for day-to-day tasks, you can't understand how transparent the entire experience was. Every app was a registered service to every other app (no matter where you were-- file manager, a paint program, WordPerfect-- Command + '=' brought up an illustrated Webster definition; another hotkey could import arbitrary data to the Paint program, etc.). Display Postscript was awesome, and obviated print preview in any arbitrary application. Everything was nice and there were happy flying puppies.

There was no need for a command line; but NeXT's mistake was in letting us old Unix farts and punks try to market the system. Ultimately, the system became schizophrenic, and never found a target audience.

Apple has gone the other way; taken a platform known for its user-friendliness and insinuated NEXTSTEP onto it. That schizophrenia is still there, but it will be embraced by the Mac platform audience, and then find its Unix power niche, in an inversion from NeXT's 1980's tactics.

Disclaimer: I was a NeXT marketer in '89. Pity me.

"...while linux sees this..." (1)

scotch (102596) | more than 13 years ago | (#347175)

To the best of my knowledge, linux is not a single person, nor a single-minded group of people, nor even a single corporation or a group of corporations with a single vision, nor even a single super intelligent shade of blue.

Journalism always makes me laugh - the more you know about a particular subject, the more you laugh. Over and over again, we see articles in the press that assume linux is some cohesive movement with a single vision or a single set of goals. But really, the only single thing that all members of the linux community absolutely share in common is the linux kernel. Just about everything else can vary. So when you translate statements by David Reynolds (and admitted mac addict, no less ;) ), you get utter nonsense.

Linux has no goals. People who use and develop linux have a wide range of goals, from embedded devices, to desktops, to dedicated gaming systems, to hobby shop experimentation, to back room power. Linux has no threats. People who want to use it, will; people who don't, won't. Linux and other OSes don't have goals or aspirations, or even gratitude for misguided people who waste their time on earth fighting for mindshare on their behalf.

Put that in your crack pipe and smoke it, David Reynolds.

Re:Why? (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 13 years ago | (#347182)

The main reason that I can think of is this... Companies won't produce applications if they don't see a market for them. If you want more applications available for linux then it needs to attract people to be in that market. an easy way to attract more people is to make Linux easy to use. Making the OS easier to use is a lot easier then making poeple smarter.
=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\ =\=\=\=\=\

Er, he should read what he writes (1)

Godai (104143) | more than 13 years ago | (#347184)

Reynolds writes:

Regular people were going to be able to install their favorite Linux variant and have a powerful, customizable, infinitely tweakable operating system at their command, complete with a stable of software that could be freely downloaded and compiled.

Er, isn't that what Linux already is? OSX - while a pretty good OS on many points - is only about half of that. It certainly doesn't come with 'a stable of software that [can] be freely download and compiled. For one thing, Mac apps still ain't free. Neither is their source available. And the OS - for all of it's options - clearly isn't 'infinitely tweakble' given that some of perfectly intelligent UI criticisms I read about weren't built into the final product.

Wood Shavings!

Re:Must be pretty tall (1)

Oztun (111934) | more than 13 years ago | (#347194)

That isn't a troll. His point is valid IMHO.

Re:Must be pretty tall (1)

Oztun (111934) | more than 13 years ago | (#347195)

sorry I thought you were replying to the post above yours. you were right the moderators need to mod down the post about affording a $1500 computer.

Re:Linux truly delievers to the common man (1)

Oztun (111934) | more than 13 years ago | (#347196)

Your argument makes no sense when comparing Linux to apples (pun intended). Have you priced a mac today?

Re:Linux truly delievers to the common man (1)

Oztun (111934) | more than 13 years ago | (#347197)

Ok I get your point but then how many people who don't own or aren't into computers read slashdot?

I think so (2)

ericdano (113424) | more than 13 years ago | (#347198)

Apple might not be everyone's favorite company on Slashdot, but they have done a number of technical feats that companies like the Borg [] have not done.

For instance, remember when they switched over to the PowerPC from the Motorola 68XXX series of chips? I do. I had a mac with a 68XXX in it, and then a PowerPC computer. For a while I had the two running concurrently. Both could run the software even though they were different chips.

System stability. Having used a Mac since the Finder 4 days (dual floppies rule!), I've always been impressed with the stability of the system software. Crashes of a system have never proven fatal for me, and I have crashed many a mac. I wish I could say the same for the PCs I've had (windows 3.1, 95, 98, NT, 2000).

I think Apple's new OS X looks great. And Apple knows it can't ingore the existing apps for the older system, and is providing support for those apps (as long as the apps didn't break any "no nos"). My experience so far with running OS X prereleases is very very favoriable. You can access Unix command, but most of it is hidden by default. The hardcore Unix guy can easily tweak everything to their heart's content. The average user will notice a few changes but will benefit from Multitasking (FINALLY!), memory protection, etc. Hopefully NO MORE frozen macs.

The only complaint with OS X is that my Midi programs don't run...:-(

Linux truly delievers to the common man (2)

segoave (115819) | more than 13 years ago | (#347200)

How many residents of third-world contries can afford $150.00 for their OS?

Easier than Linux (1)

VultureMN (116540) | more than 13 years ago | (#347206)

Yeah, OS X will be. But it helps that Apple controls the entire process, and hardware, and has a lot of money to spend on it. If every software house on the planet knew they could just target RedHat (for example), and everyone was using Gnome/Enlightenment, and knew everyone had certain hardware, then yeah, Linux would be a helluva lot easier for end users, also.
The price you pay for Freedom is often confusion. I'm willing to deal with it.

Linux promises, NeXT delivers... (1)

karzan (132637) | more than 13 years ago | (#347232)

Let's remember that MacOS X is repackaged NeXT, which was doing "everything just works without being a UNIX guru, but with UNIX under the hood" years ago. I'm actually surprised that the UNIX vendors didn't take this approach a long time ago--eg, power on, and within seconds you're in CDE, hardware autoconfiguration, etc. Makes you wonder.

Re:Linux truly delievers to the common man (1)

karzan (132637) | more than 13 years ago | (#347233)

Yes, Macs have always been far more expensive than PCs. But when you're making $1/day and spending it all on the few crumbs of food and clothing you can manage to scrape together, $200 for a PC might as well be $2000 for a Mac, or $2 million. The fact is most people will never see that kind of money; it's like going to the average US citizen and telling them $10 billion is so much cheaper than $30 billion they should be ecstatic.

Re:Linux truly delievers to the common man (4)

karzan (132637) | more than 13 years ago | (#347234)

How many residents of the third world can afford $200 (minimum) for a PC? You do realise most people have never even made a telephone call, don't you? 1 billion people are starving, the next 1 billion people live on under a dollar a day, and it doesn't get much better after that til you reach the smallest 20% or so in the first world. A free operating system doesn't help much when you have to buy hardware as well.

The better the GUI the more applications for Linux (1)

MongooseCN (139203) | more than 13 years ago | (#347245)

Although not directly related. If Linux was easy to use and had a good user interface that everyone could understand, then more people would use Linux. If more people use Linux then more companies will make applications for Linux. I know many Linux users think "Well it works for me, I don't care about anyone else." Well unless everyone else starts using linux, companies are not going to see enough consumers using Linux that will buy their products.

More Linux users == bigger market share for Linux == more Linux users to buy Linux applications == more applications for Linux.

Open your eyes (1)

bangman (140200) | more than 13 years ago | (#347246)

You guys just crack me up. The reason Apple can't put X on x86s is that Microsoft OWNS Apple. No way in the world will they let Windows compete with X on a level playing field. If they did, well we all know what the results would be. Everyone would be running X and I mean everyone.

Different goals (1)

HerrGlock (141750) | more than 13 years ago | (#347247)

Apple is a capitalistic company, they have to make money. Their primary goal is to make money.

Linux is a hobby with most people working on it. Their primary goal is to make the best, most stable thing they can.

Apple has to appeal to the lowest common denominator, Linux types appeal to the tech inclined anyway.

This is like... like.... comparing apples to penguins.

Cav Pilot's Reference Page []

Nonsense! (1)

kalifa (143176) | more than 13 years ago | (#347251)

"Linux promises, Apple delivers"

Pretty provocative title, huh? Especially when it's groundless:

The writer says: "When the Linux hype hit its height about a year ago, there were predictions that it was going to take market share from every operating sysqem out there, including from the Mac but especially from Windows. [...] Well, things didn't work out quite that way."

There has been one year, and only one between the promise and the verdict of this talented and objective journalist. Considering that it took ALMOST TEN YEARS (yes!) to Apple to deliver an operating system based on modern fundations after its promise of doing so, I find this comment a little bit odd, don't you?

Besides, who delivered this stable operating system of Apple's? Unix. Apple failed completely. Remember Copland? Nukernel? Remember the fancy rechnos of the pre-Amelio and Amelio era? Boy, this man really has a short memory And even this friendly Unix is not really Apple's work, it's just NeXtStep's child.

Last, it may be useful to remind everyone out there that Apple has achieved this so-colled user-friendliness by hiding as much as it could the Unix tools: their flexibility and their powers are buried as deep as can be. Sorry, but Linux environments are up to something more ambitious.

See you in 3 years, Mr triumphant.

Unfair (2)

f5426 (144654) | more than 13 years ago | (#347254)

Yes, CmdrTaco, this is unfair. It is 19h50 in europe. Just when european have to leave work, you post such a trollish article ? This is unfair for us, europeean trolls. (Btw, Cmdr, is it because you learn that Mac
OS X supports 2 buttons that you are okay to try it ?)

Lastly, Mac OS X is not sweet because it brings unix to the masses, but because it bring a real object oriented system to the desktop.

NeXT promised, Apple delivers.

I started to develop for NeXTstep in 1991. The moto was "NeXT have ten years of advance". I didn't expected it to be that true.



Re:OSX is just OpenSTEP with Mac software support (2)

f5426 (144654) | more than 13 years ago | (#347255)

1/ OpenSTEP capitalisation was OpenStep (the spec) or OPENSTEP (the OS)
2/ OPENSTEP relied heavily on DPS. DPS was licensed from Adobe. The story says that Adobe refused to extend license.
3/ The silver bullet was not OPENSTEP, but the YellowBox (aka OPENSTEP/Enterprise, aka OpenStep for Windows NT, a way to run OpenStep applications under NT)



Re:The better the GUI the more applications for Li (2)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 13 years ago | (#347261)

Mandrake Linux is easy to use. You have to use the command line about as much as you do in Windows. The lack of apps is the problem, and is a much harder one to solve.

Re:It's too bad Apple is an Evil Corporation (TM) (2)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 13 years ago | (#347262)

Linux hackers have not been doing GUIs since 1984 either. If they had the source code to all these wonderful ideas, perhaps they could do what Apple has done, but they have had to reinvent the wheel, and as far as KDE goes I think they're doing a great job.
OS X on x86 would have the same problems as Linux - not all the drivers, the apps or the games would be available - e.g. pigs would divebomb Redmond en-masse before Microsoft ported Office to a competitor that had any chance of taking market share away from Windows. Running a PPC binary on x86 wouldn't cut it in terms of speed.

Is this a surprise? (2)

d.valued (150022) | more than 13 years ago | (#347268)

Apple has done a very good job in their GUI's.

No one can deny that.

However, their OS's needed work.

I mean, a 450 MHz processor dedicated to one thing at a time?

It needed to be gutted.

However, like many GNU purists, I think their decision to go with BSD over Mach is pretty short-sighted.

And, like many Linux purists, I would prefer the more fun, more chaotic environment of a less-mature, more malleable OS.

Besides, I prefer the look and feel of Linux on a Mac versus BSD ;)

Ruling The World, One Moron At A Time(tm)
"As Kosher As A Bacon-Cheeseburger"(tmp)

Re:Is this a surprise? (1)

Rura Penthe (154319) | more than 13 years ago | (#347274)

I think he meant classic MacOS, not OS X. Classic MacOS wasn't limited to one thing at a time either though. It used cooperative multithreading (which didn't work very well, but did allow multiple processes to run at once at least, hehe)

Re:Unfair (1)

Rura Penthe (154319) | more than 13 years ago | (#347275)

OS X also supports the scroll wheel in many applications. IE, Omniweb, etc. Not within the Finder itself though. At least not yet! :)

Re:More dumb ass moderators (1)

Rura Penthe (154319) | more than 13 years ago | (#347276)

You can get an iMac with this config:

iMac 600MHz
40GB Ultra ATA drive
CD-RW Drive
10/100BASE-T Ethernet
56K internal modem
Two USB ports
Two FireWire ports
VGA video mirroring
Harman Kardon speakers
Apple Pro Keyboard
Apple Pro Mouse

For $1500. More expensive than a PC, yes. :) But hey, wouldn't you rather get a G4 Powerbook anyway? It's much more competitive pricewise compared to PC laptops. ;)

Re:Linux truly delievers to the common man (3)

Rura Penthe (154319) | more than 13 years ago | (#347278)

How many residents of third world countries can afford a $1500 computer?

*nixy power in OSX? (3)

VoidOfReality (156286) | more than 13 years ago | (#347280)

On the subject of Linux vs. OSX, I believe this article is sadly mistaken on a number of points. These points are enumerated below:

1)"Apple will become the highest-volume vendor of Unix in the world, and it'll bring all that *Nixy power to folks who don't know a thing about command line terminals".

This is very wrong - one of the most powerful things about *nix is the ability to chain together multiple commands in a pipeline to perform some desired task. This is why most *nix commands are very simple and only accomplish a very limited task. The ability to pipeline commands is something that currently can only be had at the command line; I have seen a couple of discussions on /. about possibly extending this concept to a GUI, but as of now, it hasn't been done.

The article talks about *nixy power at the fingertips of OSX users, but if they don't take the time to learn the command line interface, where is the power in that?

2)"it's nowhere near ready for prime time as a consumer operating system. Ever try to print from Linux or add a new hard drive? Forget it."

I have used a number of different flavors of Linux, and I really don't have a favorite. However, the flavor I've had the most experience with is RedHat. As far as the two tasks here are concerned, the article is mistaken about their complexity. If I want to configure my printer to work with RedHat 7, I:

  • Su to root.
  • Start up printtool
  • Click the Add button
  • Choose the printer make/model
  • Check the "Fix Stair-stepping text" button
  • Click OK.
  • Choose the "Lpd | Restart lpd" menu option

And that's it! It's not very hard to do - yes, there are other ways to do it, and if you're a hardcore *nix user, you can always go into /etc/printcap and write your own printer entries in there. But the way that I've outlined here is easy, contrary to what the article says.

Adding a new hard drive? Forget about it - fdisk to create your partitions (disk druid for the people out there that don't like fdisk's arcane commands) and mkfs to format it. Then you mount it - add the mount point to /etc/fstab basing it on one of the entries already there. This is not rocket science. However, most people can't even install their own hard drives, so this is a moot point as far as the article is concerned.

3) "Mac OS X simply works."

And why is that? Because Apple has a stranglehold on the hardware market for their machines. Sure, it'll work. But you'll pay through the nose to get the box. On the other hand, Linux is free, and Intel hardware is much cheaper than Apple hardware.

On a final note, consider the source of the article: Need I say more about the bias of the article?


*nix doesn't have to be userfriendly (1)

-LoneStar- (162505) | more than 13 years ago | (#347290)

You don't have to lower *nix to the common man's level. You have to raise common man to *nix level. If common man doesn't care to learn *nix, *nix doesn't care about him.

Re:Linux truly delievers to the common man (1)

Lord_Pain (165272) | more than 13 years ago | (#347292)

Is this the same Rura Penthe from [] ?
You're right of course. I can't imagine a field worker in rural South America, Africa or Asia being able to afford a computer when they can barely afford food to feed their family.

Re:Maybe a stupid question... (1)

B-B (169492) | more than 13 years ago | (#347304)

Wall STreet should be ok to run os-x. Main Street (you have the second gen g3 powerbook) which looked like a 3400 will not run th eos.

best of luck.

Re:$$$ Darwin $$$ (1)

B-B (169492) | more than 13 years ago | (#347305)

Actually, it will run on a 300Mhz G3. The requirements are a bit steep (128k ram if you want to run os-x with classic) but most (i bloddy hope) mac users have given up their se/30s a long time ago.


Linux is made for the people who made it (5)

sjbe (173966) | more than 13 years ago | (#347311)

Linux was and is made by hackers to fill their own needs. A friendly GUI interface was of lesser importance to this group because they didn't need it themselves, and they weren't trying to convince (sell) anyone else on using it. If others did, great but it wasn't a primary motivating force. As the saying goes, they are scratching their own itch, and the interface just doesn't bug them. GNOME was only started because some hackers got an itch due to the restrictive (originally) KDE licenses. This is not to say that projects won't evolve further once started, but the general tendancies of the hacker community lie in other directions besides overt user friendliness.

Apple on the other hand, is a company trying to sell a product. They know darn well that if their product isn't very easy to use, their existing customer base will leave and they will have a hard time attracting new customers. Apple is scratching their own itch. And it appears they are doing a pretty decent job of it too, though only time will tell for sure.

I'm fairly convinced that user friendly GUI's will only become a priority to parts of the linux community with corporate involvement. Companies care about selling products and they will sell more if their products are easy to use. If IBM is going to sell a lot of machines with linux on it, it is in their interest to make linux as attractive as possible to the widest range of customers possible. Ditto for anyone else. Hackers generally don't and won't care.

OSX is BSD!!! (1)

Xylantiel (177496) | more than 13 years ago | (#347316)

Apple didn't bring unix to the common man. All the real work was done in creating the BSD system that they put some nice GUI stuff on top of. So if anything BSD brought unix to (Apple's version of) the common man before linux, with Apple as a mojor contributor.

This is really bound to happen because Apple's definition of bringing to the common man is basically 'incarnated as a home-user targeted commercial OS'. Of course BSD will make this goal first since it's liscence is more commercial friendly. The BSD and GPL liscences have different goals and Apple's definition of the common man simply fits BSD goals better.

This really annoys me since it's basically Apple claiming credit for all the work that has been done on BSD unix over the past N years.

Re:Maybe a stupid question... (1)

donutz (195717) | more than 13 years ago | (#347340)

Do you think it would be worth it to install OSX on such a laptop, used by my gf, who pretty much just surfs, word processes and checks email on it? She's got Mac OS 9 on it, which works ok but freezes up too much. Is OS X gonna make this better? i guess, are the problems having to do with the apps, or with the laptop hardware?

. . .

Re:Is this a surprise? (1)

mblase (200735) | more than 13 years ago | (#347343)

I mean, a 450 MHz processor dedicated to one thing at a time?

OS X features OS-level support for multiple processors, multithreading, and protected memory. If you're going to troll, try harder.

I've got no CD-R, no DVD (2)

mblase (200735) | more than 13 years ago | (#347344) might be surprised how many people really don't have an immediate need for those drivers. And the ones who do will just wait for the first round of updates, the same as any sensible WinXX upgrader will do.

Easy for him to say... (1)

LowneWulf (210110) | more than 13 years ago | (#347355)

... when OSX only needs to support one platform, and that platform is more or less under their control. Also, can you do a dual boot OS X machine? If you want to take over the entire disk, most linux distros can do that just as easily.

And I will believe it compiles and RUNS BSD apps with the same ease as everything else when I see it for myself.

Just as a disclaimer - I'm bashing the article, not OS X, which I think has great potential if they see it through.

Re:OS X leaves a lot to be desired. (1)

torinth (216077) | more than 13 years ago | (#347380)

Word has it that it will ship without the ability to write CD-Rs, and without the ability to play or record DVDs. This is a GIANT step backward for Apple, who have been touting their DVD authoring capabilities for months.

The rest of the rumour has it that they're doing that so that they can get the majority of a stable product out on time. They do have plans to add the other features in a marginal-build/ upgrade. You can read more about this "rumour" in an Industry Standard column from about two weeks ago.


Re:Dave misses the point (1)

3G (220614) | more than 13 years ago | (#347383)

That's pretty easy. Login to OS X as >console with no password, and up pops the Darwin login prompt, with BSD services at your service. Run X on it, bash on it, compile a binary or two - knock yourself out.

There's no need to use Aqua and the Mac OS system configuration tools if you don't want to.

Re:$$$ Darwin $$$ (2)

3G (220614) | more than 13 years ago | (#347385)

Or $2700 dollars less [] .

OK, OK... $2670 less. You gotta spend another 30 bucks on RAM to be "official."

I hate seeing these slashdotters complain about having to buy Apple's most expensive machine to run their software. It's not like you couldn't quote an equally expensive PC and say the same thing about Linux.

Dave misses the point (1)

chriseh (220654) | more than 13 years ago | (#347386)

And for those who want at the real power of Unix, simply fire up, and start typing away.

The terminal is hardly the 'real power of Unix'. The real power of (especially) linux is the ability to configure/modify/recompile/disable/enable any component you need with relative ease. I've played around with OS X PB, and IMO it is an improvement over the current MacOSes, but the system configuration is a bit of a mess... at least from a Linux user perspective. Perhaps BSD users might have a happier time?

Anyway, my G4s (see URL above) will be running YellowDog Linux for a while. We might integrate MacOS X for some uses, but it will be a while before it replaces Linux.

Re:Dave misses the point (1)

zephc (225327) | more than 13 years ago | (#347392)

No, the power of Unix *is* the command line; it's *linux* that has the power to "configure/modify/recompile/disable/enable" any system part (except that which you do not have the source for).

Solaris and HP-UX and all those are still closed source and still exhibit the "Power of Unix". By the way, OSX will have source available for all things from the kernel up to commandline tools (and XWin stuff if you so desire)... just not the propriatary Frameworks and graphics libraries.

I will be getting OSX soon, because I loved OSX PB, and I want to help Apple squash M$ :)

I like Linux, but it's only role for my is as a Unix-like-power web server, and for telnetting purposes, not as a desktop OS... right tool for the right job.


Linux truly delievers to the UNcommon man (1)

JohnTheFisherman (225485) | more than 13 years ago | (#347393)

How many residents of third-world countries can afford the time, let alone the money, to learn how to use a complex, complicated OS like Linux? It's really easy for you guys with a CS major and a few years at college. It's not difficult to use, if you have someone else to maintain it for you, but try keeping your own Linux box up and running without help from someone else (and the HOWTOs are virtually worthless to newbies) and little or no experience with it - it will quickly become a paperweight.

Don't get me wrong, I'm starting to like Linux, it's just not for the 'common' man, at least yet.

It's too bad Apple is an Evil Corporation (TM) (2)

Bonker (243350) | more than 13 years ago | (#347425)

Because, like Microsoft, Apple cares about getting their software and other accessories into as many hands as possible. To this end, they've spent decades worth of man-hours on usability, testing, usability testing, and even more testing. Since their GUI and applications are written to be sold to people who need them rather to 'scratch an itch', the applications are often, but not always, powerful *and* intuitive.

Apple as a company, however, has fallen into the trap of thinking that it has to control every single aspect of its business to remain sucessfull. Steve has forgotten that (Control != Profit). This means that despite the fact that MacOS X is probably the best user-oriented *nix we'll ever see, it will never gain the kind of marketshare that the major Linux Distros currently occupy.

If only it would run on x86 hardware, Windows users would flock away from the evil empire.

After using a Mac professionally for quite a while, and lusting after all the cool hardware and software, I cannot in good concience, buy Apple products or reccomend them for purchase because of Apple's punitive busines practices.

It's truly sad, because Linux hackers don't get the importance of a usuable, intuitive interace and M$ and its legion of MSDN coders will never get the point of a powerful user-controlled subsytem.


Re:Linux truly delievers to the common man (1)

Spamuel (246002) | more than 13 years ago | (#347429)

No, I'm saying it doesn't matter how little an OS costs if it's not user friendly enough to use.

Re:Linux truly delievers to the common man (2)

Spamuel (246002) | more than 13 years ago | (#347430)

What does it matter if they can't figure out how to use the OS?

Re:Hmm, Sun Delivered too! (1)

XBL (305578) | more than 13 years ago | (#347451)


OSX is just OpenSTEP with Mac software support (1)

Old.UNIX.Nut (306040) | more than 13 years ago | (#347452)

When Steve Jobs built his NeXT computer system he managed the creation of the OS the Mac should have always had.
When he returned to Apple his stupidity returned.

1) he killed Mac clones
2) he killed the x86 version of OpenSTEP

His need to "control the hardware" undercuts Apple's software efforts.

The Mac OS or NeXT/OpenSTEP could've stomped Windows if Jobs had the brains to license the hardware widely.

Jobs should stand on the platform next to Xerox for creating some of the most exciting stuff in the comuter industry, then blowing the possibility of owning the industry with their stupidity.

They both make Bill Gates look the the genius he isn't!

Re:Why? (1)

nyteroot (311287) | more than 13 years ago | (#347459)

yeah, really, i dont see why theres such a need to dumb *nix down for the "common man". indeed, its too easy as it is, with distributions like redhat making installing linux easier than installing windows, thereby having a bunch of people considering themselves linux users but who barely have the faintest idea what a shell is. if you dont believe me, nmap a random 24.x.x.* subnet.. youll find atleast 10% of them to be redhat "users" who havent even configured what daemons they want running! note: this is not a slur on rh, though i personally use slack; its a slur on the idiots who run rh out of the box.

Here we go... (3)

ibullard (312377) | more than 13 years ago | (#347469)

As a linux advocate, you have several options: 1) "Oh yeah! can't do [enter a feature here]!" 2) "Yeah, but their [type of computer] costs $[several thousand dollars]!" 3) "Yeah, so? I never cared that Linux made it to the desktop. As long as it's free and available to the masses, it's fine with me." 4) "Let's learn from what Apple has done and make Linux even better! Discuss." 5) "Linux is for 3l33t h4ck3rz!" (excuse me if I did that wrong, for I am not elite nor a hacker)

*nix to the desktop (1)

MTWZZ (409893) | more than 13 years ago | (#347494)

Use Linux (most likely to be SuSE or some homebrewed version) and get KDE 2.x
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>