Beta
×

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!

A Linux User At MacWorld

timothy posted more than 12 years ago | from the interesting-futures-assembling-themselves dept.

Apple 202

usermilk writes "Linux Journal just posted a pretty cool article, A Penguin Angle on the Ox: Day One at Macworld. It features a Linux user's perspective on MacWorld, OS X, Darwin, and how all these things play together. Most interestingly, he comments on the large number of open-source-Unix bigwigs who are now on Apple's payroll. There's also a pretty concise description of the difference between Apple building off of BSD compared to Microsoft trying to also reap the benefits of open source." Doc Searls' perspective makes a great companion to the report from the floor (and part II) that chrisd posted.

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

It's a (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2822458)

First post penguin!

Apple (1, Interesting)

neroz (449747) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822467)

I think, for apple to really get in the Linux/Free Software's good books, they need to give something back. The license on Darwin is too restrictive to count, and they did rip off FreeBSD 3.2 (I realise, that is not how the BSD developers see it, but this is reality :-). Something like funding, or code, would go a long way in giving them a better reputation.

Re:Apple (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2822481)

I would think that the fact they employ BSD and Darwin developers, as this article mentions, would count towards "giving back".

Re:Apple (0)

neroz (449747) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822551)

Are the developers paid to develop FreeBSD or Darwin?

they're both open sauce (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2822828)

They're both open sauce, so one can use code from the other one. So it doesn't really matter which they are paid to develop, because it's all open sauce.

Re:they're both open sauce (0)

neroz (449747) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822878)

I don't think that the Darwin license permits that. AFAIK, it just allows people to contribute, not to take from it.

Re:Apple (3, Informative)

pelorus (463100) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822497)

True. They hired Jordan Hubbard and made sure he could pay the rent. They hired Bud Tribble and Brian Croll who were both Eazel developers. All these guys have to pay the rent.

There was also that NFStest stuff that Avi gave to the BSD guys which they are using to "fix" NFS which is pretty borken!

I don't think they care about getting into "good books" any more than providing a machine that works. No-one is saying dump Linux, they are saying that when using screen and mutt, use a Mac OS X Terminal window...

Re:Apple (1)

Craig Maloney (1104) | more than 12 years ago | (#2823125)

They hired Bud Tribble and Brian Croll who were both Eazel developers.

Since Bud was a former Apple employee, I don't think it's so much taking expertise from the community, as it is rehiring expertise.

Get over it (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2822523)

...and contribute something yourself.

Re:Apple (1)

t (8386) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822544)

It may not seem like it from the outside but I'm sure with that many free software types on the inside there is probably a lot of not so subtle hinting going on. I've often considered working for M$ to try and push them from the inside, or failing that, turn state evidence.

t.

Re:Apple give back centralised management (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2822631)

Apple gives the unix community some opt-in direction and control, and a platform with MS Office. It legitimises unix as a desktop, and gives more exposure to unix in the corporate desktop environment. It's brilliant, as I can use a decent OS, and still develop apps using linux tools if I desire. I really think it's the best of both worlds.

I've sold my rev A imac, ordered the new one, and will continue to run my previous Linux box as an fileserver, mp3 server and first level firewall.

Now to spend less time with hardware configurations and kernel rebuilds everytime I plug something in, and work on a standard hardware platform that lots of other developers have. More time to code, less time doing the dishes.

Change is good. Embrace it.

Re:Apple give back centralised management (0)

neroz (449747) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822734)

Change is good. Embrace it.

When MacOS X runs on more than just PPC machines, I will give it a shot. I am not about to go and buy hardware so that I can run an OS, that I have to pay more money for, when I can buy cheap hardware, and use a free OS.

Re:Apple give back centralised management (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2822882)

i'm not trying linux until they make a port for my nintendo64.

Re:Apple give back centralised management (1)

Alan Partridge (516639) | more than 12 years ago | (#2823015)

I'm not trying Solaris until they port it to my Casio G-Shock!

Re:Apple give back centralised management (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2823055)

I'm not trying Windows until they port it to my abacus.

Re:Apple give back centralised management (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2823204)

I'm not trying PalmOS until they port it to my Dragon 32

ep! (-1, Flamebait)

the_furies (541751) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822471)

Errata: Recent editions of "Linux For Dummies" contained erroneous data concerning the correct way to pronounce the word "Linux". The correct pronounciation is: "COMMUNISM". Thank you.

Darwin Mascot (2, Funny)

mirko (198274) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822472)

I didn't know about Hexley [hexley.com] , the Darwin mascot, but what the Hell is this grey picture [linuxjournal.com] in the article?

Re:Darwin Mascot (2, Informative)

pelorus (463100) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822485)

That's a listing of the "public" wireless networks set up by people on their laptops in the keynote room. you can name the network anything you want so I guess there's some satire there...

Re:Darwin Mascot (0, Flamebait)

dimator (71399) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822589)

They chose a platypus? Seriously, are all other animals taken, or what? The end result looks way to Duck Tales to be taken seriously.

Re:Darwin Mascot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2822993)

It makes Duck Tales look serious.

Re:Darwin Mascot (1)

Spencerian (465343) | more than 12 years ago | (#2823157)

They chose a platypus because of the "Darwin" name--an "evolutionary" (if not revolutionary) variation on FreeBSD. The BSD little-devil additions to Hexley also pay homage to OS X's roots.

/./.

if you... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2822480)

...hold your toung while saying "apple", it sounds like you're saying asshole. [howstuffworks.com]

A Mac from the view of a Linux Newbie (4, Informative)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822486)

I bought an iBook two weeks ago and it is my first Mac. I was playing around with Linux for over a year and feel quite confident with it. (quite a lot, on my older hardware). You know compiling kernels, getting stuff to work and to interoperate with my Windows machines, setting up a nice desktop and using it as a desktop machine. Worked perfectly and I was hapyp.
The Mac always looked a bit like toys for me, but they are most of the time pretty. (Yes, that is a selling point for me!) They also have a stimga of being computers for people that don't want to know about computers. However, prettyness and curiosity about OSX got me buying one. Now, I am not desoriented at all using OSX. It really rocks! Command line open and it's all there: it's often more useful than wading through config screens which you are unfamiliar with. I know, stating something like that is very un-Mac, but the point is: you come from a Linux world (or *BSD) and your Mac will feel at home. If you come from a Windows background, I'm pretty sure you will feel at home too (and enjoy a prettier desktop *grin*),

One people get a bit more open-minded on computers and operating systems, and are willing to give a Mac a a try....then I'm sure the Mac will have a very bright future.

(A bit offtopic: even from my hardcore PC users co-workers, I only had positive reactions on the design of the new iMac)

Re:A Mac from the view of a Linux Newbie (5, Informative)

glwillia (31211) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822578)

I agree. I've been using Linux and FreeBSD since 1995, and just recently bought a Mac. OS X is, quite simply, fabulous (despite the interface issues, which I expect will get ironed out soon enough).

I've heard a lot on /. about how Macs do not appeal to geeks, but I think they might. How many Linux/Unix coder geeks really care about Photoshop and computer graphics (besides rendering?) Judging from what I've seen of KDE/GNOME splash screens (with the exception of Ximian), I'd say not very many. There are some of us out there who want access to a command line and a top-notch development environment, but also might want to create movies and modify images without learning Photoshop (or GIMP) or Premiere, or spending the money on these applications. That's really the appeal of the (new) Mac experience to many geeks: top-notch consumer OS, with the Unix functionality built-in.

In fact, here in the Physics department, I've watched a fair amount of people switch from Sun/SGI to Linux, or Mac OS X (and even some from Linux to OS X), because it runs their applications, is cheaper than new SGIs/Suns, and just works right away, unlike (sorry) Linux.

Re:A Mac from the view of a Linux Newbie (1)

Tipsy McStagger (312800) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822666)

Me Too!

I've been using Linux on and off since '96, I use Debian and Netware on my servers, Windows on desktops but I just bought an iBook...

I love that the GUI is consistant throughout, that everything just works, that I don't have to spend hours going through config files, that it dosen't crash like windows, that I can drop to a shell and nmap away to my hearts content. Most of all I love that my fonts are all smooth and nice and cuddly ;-)

It's the first computer I've had where I spend more time working with it and less time making it run the way I want it to (except for my deleting Internet Explorer the first day I got it (to remove the dock icon) and since then being unable to find the installer ;-)

OSX is cool. I love my Mac.

Re:A Mac from the view of a Linux Newbie (2, Interesting)

slashdot2.2sucks (516360) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822715)

In fact, here in the Physics department, I've watched a fair amount of people switch from Sun/SGI to Linux, or Mac OS X (and even some from Linux to OS X), because it runs their applications, is cheaper than new SGIs/Suns, and just works right away, unlike (sorry) Linux.

Yeah I guess that's why Fermi has their own distro.

Re:A Mac from the view of a Linux Newbie (2, Interesting)

laslo2 (51210) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822872)

> I've heard a lot on /. about how Macs do not
> appeal to geeks

you'd be surprised how many geeky professional people are using ibooks and imacs, including techies. the old 'apple is about desktop publishing and education' idea is really getting to be ancient history. apple's a lot geekier than they were a couple of years ago, and that's a good thing.

> That's really the appeal of the (new) Mac
> experience to many geeks: top-notch consumer OS,
> with the Unix functionality built-in.

yeah, definitely. there's also a lot of good software produced for linux/bsd that will find users on os x... as mac users find that you, you'll see the two worlds merging even more.

> In fact, here in the Physics department, I've
> watched a fair amount of people switch from ...
> [snip] ... and just works right away, unlike
> (sorry) Linux.

amen. when I was working on pc's and nt, the first thing I had to do with a new machine was reinstall nt and spend hours finding and downloading new drivers. linux can be the same way, if you don't carefully select your hardware ahead of time. no such problem with imacs... you order 1,500 imacs, and they're all going to have the exact same hardware and software installed (correctly) when they arrive.

Re:A Mac from the view of a Linux Newbie (1)

Spencerian (465343) | more than 12 years ago | (#2823178)

The best realization (I think) that Linux/UNIX aficionados have begun to really appreciate Mac OS X will be when you see more iBooks and PowerBooks with OS X showing up during the LinuxWorld trade show.

Re:A Mac from the view of a Linux Newbie (2, Interesting)

OuiPapa (151543) | more than 12 years ago | (#2823359)

you'd be surprised how many geeky professional people are using ibooks and imacs, including techies.

Yes I _would_ be surprised. Even if so, this may be a temporary phenomenon. I bought an iBook, and totally regret it. The main reasons why I bought one were:

I didn't want to support wintel;

I wanted RISC

I thought I might use some of the mac multimedia stuff if I was in a hurry.

I don't care for osx. It's good for other people, but not for me. But the single thing which has made me regret the purchase is the input mechanism. That may seem odd to some people, but this is crucial to me. The keyboard does not work like a normal keyboard, and it cannot be re-mapped as I like. By hardwiring Policy into the Mechanism of the keyboard, they've made the whole iBook a real pain to use for me. And the trackpad is mis-placed. It's good for people who drag-and-drop to work with a computer. But if you have to use the keybaord a lot, it gets in the way and fucks everything up royally. You can reduce its effect by judicious changes in fvwm, but that's not enough. I even hoped to disable it by building the trackpad support as a kernel module, but its driver cannot be turned into a module. So I might go into the driver code and see if I can make it do what I want.

The Thinkpad would have been far better, even though it had wintel and a 3-hour battery life.

Re:A Mac from the view of a Linux Newbie (0, Offtopic)

dirtyhippie (259852) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822614)

They won't make any inroads until they support x86, which, considering they make their money on hardware, ain't gonna happen.

Re:A Mac from the view of a Linux Newbie (3, Insightful)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822640)

And why would you want a x86 port? It works fine on my G3 you know. It is quite weird that a lot of people on this forum say that the x86 platform deserves to die, but then they want their OSes to run on it.
I don't care that Apple makes their money on the hardware....I actually think it's a very good way: pay good money for a good system and you get an excellent OS "free" with it. Sounds better to me than paying cheap for crappy hardware with an instable OS (x86 with Windows). People are cheap and that is why x86 is popular (okay, Apple is a bit on the pricy side but for quality you should compare them to IBM and they are quite pricy too)
I have a lot of x86 machines, don't worry....I like them too, but I install them according to what they will be used for. Windows for my familiy to do surfing and play games, Linux for me and for my servers. (And OpenBSD as firewall...)

Re:A Mac from the view of a Linux Newbie (2, Informative)

nachoman (87476) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822996)

X86 isn't all the amazing, in fact it's not even that great of an architecture. It's just used everywhere.

Oh, and Their kernel, Darwin, runs on x86 as well as PPC.

Oh, and no their hardware isn't all that expensive. Take a look at the low end iBooks and compare it to the low end Dells. The iBook was about 70$ CDN more for the same basic system (except the iBook had firewire too). So I bought an iBook. Their desktops are a bit pricy though.

Re:A Mac from the view of a Linux Newbie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2822665)

[They also have a stimga of being computers for people that don't want to know about computers.]

Sort of like Mercedes are cars for people who don't want to know about cars?

ac

Re:A Mac from the view of a Linux Newbie (1)

nachoman (87476) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822978)

I also just recently bought my first Mac, and iBook. I've been impressed with OS X. It was the real reason I bought a Mac. If you want to get all of your GNU Linux utilities you can download GNU-Darwin [gnu-darwin.org] .

I downloaded these tools (about 1 GB full install). It's just like having your favorite BSD distrabution along side the Mac interface. XDarwin lets you run X-Windows rootless so you can run X apps along side Mac ones.

People know I'm a geek. When I tell non-geeks I bought a Mac they are like ewww... I didn't think geeks liked Macs. I just tell them They do now cause of OS X! But when talking with other geeks, they know exactly why I bought a Mac. I think we will start to see many Unix lovers use Macs for every day desktop stuff. I still plan to use Linux for servers. As the article said, there isn't much conflict here. Linux and OS X can live together.

Re:A Mac from the view of a Linux Newbie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2823120)

We have just interviewed 5 people for a molecular modelling position, all made presentations using MacOSX. With GAMESS, Gaussian etc now available its looking more and more attractive.

Welcome. (2, Insightful)

pelorus (463100) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822490)

At the end of the day, there are two operating systems in the world. Those that are UNIX(like) and those that are just Windows. To me that speaks of opportunities especially for you Linux guys who have excellent knowledge of your systems. Brush up a bit on Darwin and become a Mac OS (X) systems expert. The end users themselves can do the GUI stuff but they may, at some point, need someone to have a look at the plumbing. Hey, if ya make a quick buck then all the better.

This doesn't work (off-topic advice needed) (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2822493)

I'd tried to install linux on a new macintosh but because the hardware is closed and each model only comes with one type of graphics card and hard drive (and all except the TiBook have the same motherboard throughout the model line) I had trouble trying to have a hard time finding the right drivers. Could somebody install some weird hardware on my machine so I could futz with it some a lot more before it works right. I miss PCs.

Re:This doesn't work (off-topic advice needed) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2823239)

I had Mandrake PPC 8.0 installed on my Titanium PowerBook. The only problem, I was required to do a text install. Other than that everything worked great.

Re:This doesn't work (off-topic advice needed) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2823500)

Huh? There's only a couple of different video cards, etc. on Macs, and they pretty much all have drivers written. In my experience linux on Macs is easier than PCs, since there's no searching for drivers (if there even are any) for your $2 sound card and whatnot.

What Mac model and distro are you using?

Apple candy and chatter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2822500)

All this is talk is moot until Apple can compete on the commodity desktop. That is where the main stream is. Until Apple can truly go head to head with Bill Gates, we are talking about a niche product. If you want to play in the big time, you have to deal with commodity hardware. That is reality. That is the world of commerce and business. Hey, even The Gladiator, as great as he was, had to come to Rome.

Re:Apple candy and chatter (5, Insightful)

Enzo90910 (547270) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822575)

I am all against Apple trying to take on M$ (I'm not saying they could). I think M$ as bigger teeth and claws, and Apple would be shredded in 5 secs. What a Machead like me really wants is Apple going on making it's 5% market share every year and earning enough money to invest enough back in R&D to still make the best hardware/software combination out there in the future. Plus I think the breakthroughs Apple makes would not be possible if they targeted commodity hardware, where you have to support everybody and his cousins graphic card, motherboard,... If Apple is a luxury brand (and it is), I'm fine with it, I'm ready to pay, and that as long as it is still worth it. Apple going for commodity hardware and big market share would have to scale back its innovation factories and would kill itself in the process.

Re:Apple candy and chatter (2, Insightful)

rm-r (115254) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822616)

Not neccesarily so, most 'ordinary' users simply want something to do their documents on, connect to the internet and play a few games on. Added to this, companies tend to buy in bulk very generic PCs so that their support staff have an easier time- again all joe staffer needs is a word proccesor, a spreadsheet and connectivity to the company's net apps.
Apple probably could compete at this end of the market by keeping the original iMac alive and selling it cheap (I'm thinking no more than £500, which is about $750 I believe)
I think that if they can secure the low-end of the market as well as keeping their foot in at the top end that the middle ground of the market shall come to them naturally

Re:Apple candy and chatter (1)

Enzo90910 (547270) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822683)

You may be right, but you have to remember that Apple is a company that probably doesn't know to do that effectively. It has never had to compete with the others PC makers for the absolute lowest price and would probably not be very good at it.
Nobody taught them how to only buy second-grade RAM, take that Airport port out, buy 10Base-T only Network card (who needs 100Base-T anyway?), forget FireWire, stop wasting time designing their boxes, and why the hell would you want a glowing power button for?
And I still think they would need M$ "approval" before taking more than 10% of the market, otherwise they could say good-bye to office, and THAT would hurt.

Re:Apple candy and chatter (1)

rm-r (115254) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822915)

It would clearly be a massive shift for the company- but that is way I would propose using the old iMac rather than something new, they've already spent money designing, marketing and tooling up for it. Corners could be cut in place to, low-level users don't need Airport (hell, it's an open door to hackers unless you really know what you're doing), the same goes for firewire.

You've got a point about MS, ie. if they get scared they'll stop supporting Office, but there are still plenty of Office-esque suites out there. I'm pretty certain that once companies have made that first spend they'll pay to keep it valid (isn't this how MS have been operating?) It's not as if these things are expensive or hard to produce either, Apple could ship an Office suite with the OS maybe, after all a word processor is much mre a fundamental part of the OS than, say, a web browser...

Re:Apple candy and chatter (1)

piggy (5857) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822785)

FYI, Apple continues to sell 2 models of the CRT iMac: a $799 500 MHz G3 one and a $999 600 MHz G3 one.

Russell

Exclusive OS (2, Interesting)

Keslin (319658) | more than 12 years ago | (#2823069)

The reason why Apple is cool is because they are NOT competing in the same market as Linux or Windows. Apple computers are intended for people that are very into design and appearance. These are the people that sip lattes in trendy cybercafes and waltz past the velvet rope at the coolest clubs. Linux is for nerds, and Windows is for boring people in brown suits. If everybody drove a Ferrari, then Ferraris wouldn't be cool any more. That's why I'm happy that General Motors still makes cars even though I wouldn't be caught dead driving one, and that's why I'm happy that Microsoft dominates the computer market.

All three markets can coexist, and should coexist. It's perfectly normal for the computer world to divide into different virtual geographies with different personalities, just like the real world. Apple's new vision is to build a line of products that appeal to people that hang out in places like South Beach or Greenwich Village. Linux appeals to people attracted to places like San Jose or Austin. Windows appeals to people that for some unknown reason spend their time in Detroit.

The biggest reason why Apple is so cool is because they know their niche and they cater to it. Opening the flood gates and bringing the bazillion Windows users and developers into the Apple world is the worst thing that could happen to Apple, because without the exclusivity that they have right now, they would be just another OS. The last thing that I want to see on my beautiful OSX system is a bunch of crappy shareware built by 14-year-old teenagers in Hungary with no design sense whatsoever. I don't want the bouncers letting people in jeans and sneakers into the nightclubs that I visit, and I don't want ports of a bunch of ugly Windows applications running on my Aqua system. If Apple's market share rises too high, then the whole mystique will be broken when the exclusive feel of the OS is lost.

The applications available for OSX are mostly designed and built by people that are very into the Apple mystique, and a lot of people like it that way. Applications for other OS's are generally not designed at all, they are just built. I keep an ugly Gateway PC in a side room for running junk like that when I need to, but it's an iMac running OSX that gets to sit in my living room. If I need real power, then I can pop up an X window on my iMac from the Linux server that lives in a closet where nobody sees it.

Re:Apple candy and chatter (2)

uebernewby (149493) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822624)

Maybe Apple doesn't *want* to compete on the commodity desktop. I think with all the flashy gadgets they've been releasing, focussing on looks as well as content, it's obvious they're interested in a different market entirely: luxury items. Most of their customers don't care about the technical side of things, nor do they need to because Apple takes care of that quite nicely, they just want something that works and looks good.

Re:Apple candy and chatter (1)

MartinB (51897) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822868)

Apple absolutely doesn't want to compete on the commodity level. It wants to be a premium brand, commanding premium prices (and margins).

Jobs has said again and again, they view their main competitor as Sony, not Microsoft - look at the whole digital hub push. What is that but a direct competitor to the Vaio franchise?

"Buy cool stuff. Put it together. It works." That's the goal.

crapple (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2822504)

[slashdot.org] [slashdot.org]

ps- . [jesus-sucks-dick.com]
linux is for bitches [stileproject.com]

Apple really has something here... (5, Insightful)

baptiste (256004) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822524)

I agree with the comment of Apple having a subversive way of getting folks to run *nix at home. I'm a Linux & Windows guy. I've never liked Macs. MacOS was too touchy feely without any way to really get at teh guts (thats why I like regedit - if I really feel ina destructive mood I can knock my PC into the dirt!) Seriously - I hated WIndows for its lack of stability, but didn't feel MacOS 8 or 9 was much better.

Well, we recently had a Mac user in our area have his HD crash and burn. While I was swapping out the HD he was complaining about how often it crashed, etc, etc. So on a whim I installed OS 10.1 for him. All I can say is wow - what an amazing OS. Not from a "look Ma, a bash prompt" and not necessarily for me - I like my Gnome desktop. But from an average user's perspective, OS X is sweet! The interface is very nice - and it is so stable. The user made that very comment "Why hasn't it crashed on me?" He used to have crashes all the time. Now he has the other Mac users asking if they can upgrade anytime soon.

No its not perfect. but Apple really managed to finally create a non-technical user desktop and OS built around a stable fast core. Good for them, I hope it really works out for them. I'll stick with Linux case its fun, but my wife, anotehr Mac user at work complains about usign Windows to do stuff at home - maybe she'll get an iMac for her birthday with OS X - nah - the new ones are too ugly :) Don't want people to think my LCD screen took a dump on my desk :)

Re:Apple really has something here... (2)

ishark (245915) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822625)

But from an average user's perspective, OS X is sweet! The interface is very nice - and it is so stable. The user made that very comment "Why hasn't it crashed on me?" He used to have crashes all the time. Now he has the other Mac users asking if they can upgrade anytime soon.

Hehe, sounds like my wife. After an upgrade of her "old" B&W G3 we decided to buy and install OSX. She spent basically one day and night playing with it (iMovies - nice app, plugged the camera via firewire and it worked immediately -, iTunes, etc.). And at the end she told me with surprise "I know it'll sound strange for a linux user to hear this, but I used it for 1 day!! And it NEVER crashed! It never happened before with 9!!".

BTW the system is really good. The finder is unfamiliar at the beginning, and the tons of special effects make the interface dog slow (I'm the kind of person running windowmaker on at Athlon 800 because I find that all the E/KDE stuff crawls...), but being able to open a terminal, use emacs/gcc/ssh/etc. make you feel at home even if you come from the unix world.

We had some installation problems: in the upgrade the HD was replaced with a new (blank) one, and it was only after putting it in that we found that the MacOS9 given with X requires a firmware upgrade to be installed correctly (why X does not require it is beyond me). The upgrade program is on the installation CD, but it requires booting from a writable device (no booting from the CD), so we were forced to install MacOS8, upgrade the firmware, reformat the disk and install 9+X.

I've not looked into the configuration-through-the-command-line issues, for what was needed (setting up the eth card for the local network) the graphics configuration tools were fine.

The idea of requiring an administrator password to make changes is nice, since it provides a protection which is missing in the old MacOS as in the Win9x world, and which ensures that no stupid mistake will screw up the system.

Package installation is a vey very nice: drag the file with the "box" icon to your disk and it's done.

I've not yet been able to burn a CD in any format. I've slipped in a blank CD, and it asks me to initialize it, but even with admin provilege there's no way I can partition/format/??? it with the disk utility. Using an image passes through the disk copy utility which looks like a fairly ultimate image management program, but it refused to create an iso9660 image and crashed on me after a short time. I just downloaded the latest system update and I'll see if it fixes the issues.....

Overall, it's worth just for the stress reduction of having my wife scream when the system locked hard with all her data lost in never-never land :)

Re:Apple really has something here... (2)

helixblue (231601) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822746)

How to burn a CD in MacOS X.1 in a few easy steps:

1. Insert Black CD, it asks you if you want to initialize it. Say yes.

2. Drag all the files you want to burn to the "CD" icon that appears on your desktop with the name you gave it.

3. In finder, click either the "Burn" icon, or drag the CD icon to the trash can, which (strangely) turns into a CD Burning icon.

4. Wait while it burns

Now, if you want to burn an .ISO, it's pretty easy as well. Open up DiskCopy, and well, just point it to the ISO or DMG and click burn.

I've had DiskCopy crash while creating image files, but I've never had the burning process die.

Re:Apple really has something here... (1)

nachoman (87476) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822946)

CD burning works great with my new iBook and OS X. I really enjoy the combo drive.

One problem that I have yet to figure out though is how to burn a CD without using a damn HFS partition. It will only let me burn 660 MB on a 700MB CD (and 620 on a 650 I think). It's kinda annoying. I still havn't found a way around this.

Re:Apple really has something here... (2, Informative)

Rand Race (110288) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822968)

Built in burning is super easy, but get Toast anyways. For some reason the built in burning software will only format about 680MB of a 700MB disk. No problem unless you have a 700MB file... like, oh say, a DAP episode of MST3k. Toast OTOH will format all 700MB.

Re:Apple really has something here... (1)

flagstone (464079) | more than 12 years ago | (#2823119)

Actually the latest version also burns ISO discs from the Finder (as described above). When initializing, a dialog box allows you to choose a format - Mac HFS+, ISO or Audio CD. Works just great.

Re:Apple really has something here... (1)

checkyoulater (246565) | more than 12 years ago | (#2823131)

How to burn a cd in Windows with Nero Burn

1. Start Application

2. Insert Blank CD

3. Drag and Drop files you want to burn

4. Click write/burn button.

CD writing is easy on all platforms, and has been for years. Nothing new here.

Re:Apple really has something here... (1)

Spencerian (465343) | more than 12 years ago | (#2823225)

The difference is that you don't have to BUY anything else. This is a built-in feature of Mac OS 9 and X.

Re:Apple really has something here... (2, Flamebait)

ichimunki (194887) | more than 12 years ago | (#2823455)

So what you're saying is that they are using their position as the maker of the pre-installed OS to eliminate competition from other software vendors by making interesting features part of the OS? Aren't we normally complaining about such behavior when some other OS maker does it?

Re: Apple really has something here... (2, Troll)

NTSwerver (92128) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822823)

The user made that very comment "Why hasn't it crashed on me?" He used to have crashes all the time. Now he has the other Mac users asking if they can upgrade anytime soon.

Usually the problem with these Computer User Non Technical's is that they tend to install all manner of 'exoctica' on their machines that conflict either with each other or with the OS, this is more often than not the cause of crashes.

I run Linux, W2K, MacOS9.2.2, MacOSX and I work with IRIX. Without exception, if these OSes are correctly installed and configured, they will work correctly - ie they will not 'crash all the time'. I have a Mac running OS9.x at home connected to a file sharing enviornment that I leave running for weeks at a time without any crashes.

The bottom line is: If you have a problem with your OS crashing - TROUBLESHOOT IT! Don't whinge and whine that the OS is crap - IT'S NOT CRAP - IT WORKS! FIX IT!

[/rant]

Re: Apple really has something here... (1)

Rand Race (110288) | more than 12 years ago | (#2823027)

I agree with you... up to a point. I've got a database server (Filemaker and Cumulus) running 9.1 that stays up for months at a time. But on designer's machines one corrupt font in ATM crashes Quark which locks the system up. No, that's not all the OS's fault, much blame can be laid at the feet of ATM and Quark (much, much blame for Quark), but classic MacOS's decrepit memory management is a big part of the problem. Unfortunately, lack of a few things (font management, xtension compatability, collection software) prevents upgrading the users to X yet. Servers are all being changed over (the db server being the last one running classic), but it's just not ready for production machines quite yet.

Re: Apple really has something here... (2)

NTSwerver (92128) | more than 12 years ago | (#2823160)

I agree with you....up to a point too ;).

Font problems in Mac OS are 99% of the time due to fonts not being written correctly. A font is a piece of software - most fonts you find on designer's Macs are purty ones they downloaded from the internet that were written by other designers, probably using Fontographer, who have absolutely no clue about FOND resources - they just know how to make purty fonts. Put one of these fonts into ATM, Suitcase or even the system fonts folder and you WILL have problems with applications that try to use this font.

This has got absolutely nothing to do with the OS, in fact it has nothing to do with ATM or Quark. If the fonts were written correctly ATM and Quark would not crash.

Mac OS memory management is an entirely different kettle of fish. I agree that the lack of protected memory on mac OSes up to and including 9.x is a pain, but again - if your machine is properly configured this will not cause your machine to crash.

Re: Apple really has something here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2823357)

Just how, exactly, is this a troll?

You are one cluless mother-fucker of a moderator - go and moderate on a forum where you know what the fuck the posts are about. FUCKWIT!

Re:Apple really has something here... (1)

ritlane (147638) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822992)

I like my Gnome desktop

I hope that isn't the only thing keeping you from OS X. Remember, it is a Unix. Gnome can compile and run on OS X. It can run in two ways.

X windows can run along side Aqua, and thus you can switch between Gnome and Aqua with just a keyboard command (which is a pretty neat looking trick)

You can also shut down Aqua and log in with just a terminal. Then you can do the normal 'startx' and load Gnome using only the Open Source Darwin Kernel. Thus you have a fully Open Source OS.

Perhaps the most useful part about this is that it makes it really easy to configure hardware. Want to jump on a wireless network? Just configure it in Aqua and switch over to Gnome and use whatever app you like.. Gaim, Netscape, etc...

it's kind of funny (0, Flamebait)

markj02 (544487) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822564)

It's kind of funny to hear the Apple marketing force extol the virtues of UNIX, when until OS9, they wouldn't have given a UNIX programmer the time of day and would have argued that the OS9 systems architecture was perfect. I also don't think OSX, while being UNIX-compatible, should be called a version of UNIX--it has almost none of the original UNIX source code, and it has little of the traditional UNIX architecture.

Still, despite these historical ironies, it's good to see Apple have an OS that is somewhat related to, and compatible with, UNIX. Apple desparately needed this, and going with a UNIX-like personality makes so much more sense than if they had cooked up another proprietary system for the core OS APIs.

Re:it's kind of funny (1)

Syre (234917) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822596)

Mach-based systems are as Unix as Linux is -- in other words either neither of them is, or both of them are.

Neither one has a line of Unix code in it, and both can run Unix apps and are Unix-like.

And Mach was first...

Re:it's kind of funny (2, Informative)

mccalli (323026) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822603)

It's kind of funny to hear the Apple marketing force extol the virtues of UNIX, when until OS9, they wouldn't have given a UNIX programmer the time of day

Well, no. Far back in the mists of time (err..1992/1995), I earned my living writing code on the Mac. One of the things we regularly used was MPW - the Macintosh Programmer's Workshop.

Now, this wasn't necessarily the most elegant thing in the world. However, it was a fairly good approximation of a Unix development environment on a Macintosh. You know - command-line make, STDIO-driven command line tools with (emulated) pipes...much porting of utils from Sun-derived sources went on too.

Point is that Apple has never, to my knowledge, been anti-Unix. It's just that until recently, Unix simply wasn't what it did.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:it's kind of funny (5, Insightful)

Contact (109819) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822717)

Actually, Apple has been selling unix based servers for years, well before OS X Server.

They used to sell some Apple-badged AIX boxes, which admittedly weren't really macs, but prior to that (back in the early nineties) they actually had their own version of unix, A/UX. It was truly bizarre, an Apple desktop (circa system 6 or so) with a terminal window in it to actually get at the system.

I used to admin a couple of these things, they were unusual, but they worked. The weirdest things were the manuals - all standard Apple typesetting, but detailing how to use "ls" and "cd"...

Re:it's kind of funny (4, Insightful)

Enzo90910 (547270) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822604)

>I also don't think OSX, while being UNIX-compatible, should be called a version of UNIX

Well, if I remember, OS X has been recognized POSIX-compliant, and as such, is probably as close to the Unix throne as Linux is. It is amusing that talking about computer we should hear such arguments as "original source code" and "traditional architecture". If being Unix is running on 30 years old computers, I guess Mac OS X is far from it. But as far as I'm concerned, Mas OS X is as Unix as it gets, if only because any developer used to any Unix variant out there will master Mac OS X internals in 5 minutes time.

But I think you're right about Apple PR having completely changed its stance on Unix, and most of this change was brought by Copland's complete failure, prompting Apple to buy NeXT to get a memory-protected operating system.

Re:it's kind of funny (0)

sinator (7980) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822632)

I'll disagree with the current (7:15 AM EST) moderation of 'flamebait'; I'll rather claim that you are ignorant of the existence of:

* MPW and POSIXy environments that have existed on Mac for years
* A/UX, which was Apple's previous UNIX used for services (some bizarre mutation of SVR3). Please do not confuse A/UX with AIX.

But now you are less so.

Re:it's kind of funny (5, Insightful)

uebernewby (149493) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822644)

I also don't think OSX, while being UNIX-compatible, should be called a version of UNIX

I also don't think Linux, while being UNIX-compatible, should be called a version of UNIX. After all, once you start up KDE/GNOME and start working with apps written specifically for KDE/GNOME, you, as an ordinary user, will hardly ever come across evidence of there being a traditional UNIX architecture running your system.

Darwin is UNIX, period. It's just that Apple were smart enough to ditch X and come up with a better graphical system. I wish someone would do the same for other UNIces.

Re:it's kind of funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2822764)

>Darwin is UNIX, period. It's just that Apple were smart enough to ditch X and come up with a better graphical system. I wish someone would do the same for other UNIces.

Well, why doesn't anyone? I mean, the underlying idea is pretty simple: a graphic engine that renders everything as PDFs - you could probably repurpose a lot of GhostScript code.)

Is X really all that wonderful? Is there just too ruch time and effort sunk into X apps and windows managers? Would it mean rewriting all of the video drivers from scratch?

I mean, Quartz is a closed-box cathedral piece of software if there ever was one. If the bazaar Open Source software development model is so superior to the cathedral, then why can't Linux/OSS/GNU buffs come up with something that blows Apple's offering away?

Instead, we get a lot of complaints that Apple hasn't voluntariliy opened up Quartz and Aqua. If Open Source coders were as l33t as they claim to be, there wouldn't be any NEED for Apple to release anything.

Re:it's kind of funny (2)

infiniti99 (219973) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822808)

Apple were smart enough to ditch X and come up with a better graphical system. I wish someone would do the same for other UNIces.

The DirectFB [directfb.org] project looks promising, and is almost finished (most recent release is 0.9.8). Of course, what really is there to such a graphics layer? Considering it piggiebacks on the Linux framebuffer console anyway, probably not much.

They have an X compatibility layer for running X apps. I see there is a patched gtk available as well, but is that enough to do anything? Now if someone could port a WM and a DE...

IMO, there's actually nothing wrong with X11, but rather XFree86. I understand that XFree86 needs to work on more platforms than Linux, but still. As a Linux user, having a completely separate driver system just for XFree86 is both redundant and annoying. Configuration is also a disaster (fonts anyone?).

DirectFB with an optional X layer sounds like the future for desktop Linux.

Re:it's kind of funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2823199)

Hi, you're an idiot.

Re:it's kind of funny (2)

Tet (2721) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822859)

It's just that Apple were smart enough to ditch X and come up with a better graphical system.

Better is a matter of opinion, and people who claim that usually do so out of ignornance of X. You're unlikely to find a better windowing system than X any time soon. Sure, it has some problems in current implementations, but those are being fixed with time (alpha blending, antialiased fonts, etc.). X is so much more than people think, and still has a long way to go. If people put in the effort to get it to where it was always intended to be, it'll be untouchable. The ability for an application to specify an editor widget, for example, but leave the implementation as user-configurable. Sure, most people will just stick with the standard text box, but others can replace it with a vi or a jed or even emacs-alike widget. For *all* applications, not needing to be configured on a per-app basis. Those interested may find Alan Cox's comments from his April 7th diary entry [linux.org.uk] enlightening.

Re:it's kind of funny (2, Informative)

doggo (34827) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822646)

I dunno, Macintosh always seemed UNIX friendly to me. My first experiences with the Internet were on a Mac (1993), and at that time there were'nt any WinXX Server boxes on the 'net. Mac seemed to interact with UNIX boxes a lot easier than Windows 3.1 machines did.

Not to mention all that freeware that did what UNIX tools did on Mac.

And what about that apple UNIX like server OS, what was it, A/UX?

Apple's been flirting with UNIX for years, it's just now that they're finally getting it on.

Re:it's kind of funny (1)

dirtyhippie (259852) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822656)

> it has almost none of the original UNIX source code

Yes, and, neither does linux, bsd, or many if not most of the commercial unix vendors.

> has little of the traditional UNIX architecture.

Kindly explain what on earth you are talking about. System calls? The internals of the kernel itself? Command line programs? Any way you slice it, I'm afraid you're wrong.

Apple is going nowhere (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2822622)

I keep hearing people say that OS X is the best...period...i've heard that it combines the ease of previous mac OSes and the power and stability of UNIX...I got to try it out on an iMac at my school, and I liked the fact that I still use the good ol' command line and it was indeed easy to use; HOWEVER, I don't think that ANY of this matters...the fact is that PCs have gained a VERY strong foothold in the industry and unless Apple comes out with some sort of revolutionary (and cheap) hardware, then it's not going to be raising its 4% user base...Apple is really only going to expand if it can start making software for PCs...while that may seem like blasphemy to many of you mac users out there, that's the only way I can see Apple having a competing edge in the long run...i'd be MUCH more open to running OS X if it was on a PC...

Re:Apple is going nowhere (2)

uebernewby (149493) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822654)

But if you stick an athlon in your purty iMac, the case would melt.

Re:Apple is going nowhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2822688)

Possubly because an athalon can't dissapate heat well?

Re:Apple is going nowhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2823001)

Yes, that's exactly why.

Re:Apple is going nowhere (2, Insightful)

tRoll with Butter (542444) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822771)

My problem with OS X (Or is it 10.1, or X.1) is... (Drum roll please [imdb.com] )

It's too slow! Okay, so that's just an immediate problem and will be fixed with beefier hardware. If OS X ran on X86 hardware, it would be great since fast processors are plentiful and cheap. (Enough with the "Is there an echo in here?" jokes! I know the OS X on X86 comment is more overplayed than the latest Brittany Spears song!) Before you go off and comment that I've probably only used a Mac at the local CompUSA for 5 minutes while my friend is on a quest for the super-secret hidden location of the public restrooms [flushmate.com] , well, you'd be right. However, I also own a Mac too.

Granted, it is an iMac 500MHz G3 with 256MB of RAM, which would be considered "entry level" in the Mac world. Would a top-of-the-line G4 have more snap when running OS X? You bet - I tried one of those out too at CompUSA (the bathrooms must be REALLY hard to find, cause my friend was gone FOREVER). The G4s run OS X great, and for a brief moment in time, I felt like this OS had a real chance - until I returned to reality and realized how it runs on the system I was able to afford.

My only hope is that the Apple fairy comes in the night and sprinkles some speedup dust on my iMac - otherwise getting $800 for it on eBay [ebay.com] is starting to look really good. That money could get me a REALLY nice Athlon XP [amd.com] barebones system.

Re:Apple is going nowhere (1)

mkarpinski (409464) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822917)

It's not slow dammit!

This summer I bought my fiancé an iMac DV (400MHz G3). The computer came with the stock 10GB hard drive and only 64MB of RAM.A week after I purchased her machine, OSX was released. I went out and bought a nice 7200RPM 40GB hard drive (7200s are not always recommended because of the possible heat issue but I haven't had any problems) and 2 256MB sticks of Crucial RAM. I did a clean OS 9/X install and I was a little disappointed by the speed.

However, when 10.1 was released, I was amazed at the difference. I have a 1.4GHz Athlon, and the perceived speed difference between her machine is not that great. The only slow thing that I have noticed is when starting the Classic environment. However, because the iMac is quite and stable, I have only had to reboot when installing updates. Please, if you are going to make the hackneyed claim that's machine Y is too slow - think for a minute. I bet if you were to spend the $35 and get another 256MB of RAM, you would notice a big difference.

Re:Apple is going nowhere (1)

nachoman (87476) | more than 12 years ago | (#2823068)

I'd have to disagree with you on this one...
I just recently got a iBook (600MHz) with 128 MB of ram. OS X (10.1.2) runs quite smoothly. When I start running a lot of programs though things grind to a hault. The memory requirements are quite high. I plan to pop another 256 MB of ram in there soon. With nothing running almost all of my ram is used up.

I think people are confusing massive swapping with the fact that the thing runs slow. When I'm not swaping like mad, it runs smooth.

neither is bmw (1)

simpl3x (238301) | more than 12 years ago | (#2823288)

having a small market share is no rational for going nowhere. what most pc users accomplish is word processing of some form, and communications/organization. what most automobile users accomplish is getting somewhere. some people like to to get there better and faster, and spend time thinking about process and not just goals. personally, i would like to see apple get to 10% of devices with some sort of tablet/pad, since desktops do not reflect the future of computing. one scenario is using an ms tablet networked with an ms desktop/home server, and the other is using a generic (osx/linux) tablet to telnet/x into a home server or work server. dependent devices versus independent devices. are you opposed to running a shell on a terminal versus your pc also?

Software stability in the public opinion? (4, Interesting)

Enzo90910 (547270) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822642)

Apple's been bragging for some months now about their being the first company to put "the power and stability" of Unix in the hands of the average user and it seems that's what they did. What I'm wondering now is if this kind of stability put in the homes of millions of people will not change everybody's standard of stability. Five years ago, the standards of stability were Win95 and Mac OS 8 (I'm trying to speak for the general public there,OK? No flame, please). Neither was very stable (although I still remember 95 as being a true nightmare, whereas OS 8 was acceptable, as long as you didn't try anything fancy, such as developing on it), but since nobody had a better example, people were happy with it. Now we've got millions of mac users let loose among their friends and saying their computer (almost) never has to reboot! This could change the acceptable standards of stability, not only for Operating Systems, but also for the whole software industry.

Most people thought computers had to crash, because that's what they always did. If some start to be STABLE, where is the world going?

Easy to hack. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2822674)

What is sad is that it is so easy to hack [hackers.org] .
So maybe they need to beef up their security a bit.

A Linux User At MacWorld? (1, Funny)

NiftyNews (537829) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822684)

A Linux User At MacWorld, eh? What is that, like the IT version of the Pepsi Challenge?

Just a matter of timing. (1)

fymidos (512362) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822703)

With one move apple is into the server business as well as desktop. And linux being so popular, unix users/administrators are easier to find these days.
It was just a matter of timing ..

I think it would be a good time to give a PC version of OS X, taking after all these years Bill Gates' advice. But i remember microsoft "helped" apple some years back , no ?

I hope this isnt the future of Unix...... (1)

CDWert (450988) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822789)

I have used OSX.1 and yeah its O.K. , that all I thought about it, Reminded me of Solaris in performance, I.E. pretty damm slow on hardware Yellow dog freaking screams on. Their hardware is getting better granted, but dumbing down *nix for the average Apple user, who still cant understand why you would ever need more than one button on a mouse ?

Im not some *nix elitist, hey let everyone use it, what I wonder is the impacts OSX will have on other mainstream *nix variants, I mean is everybody going to whore their codebase up to handle all the fun, pretty eye candy and usability, hiding stuf that doent need hidden , and so on ?

Apple, from the contact Ive had is a group thats right up their with MS in terms of "OURS ! OURS ! OURS !" They contibute little so far back to the OpenSource domain, their APSL Sucks(IMHO), and is too restrictive.

Im all for choice. Hey it it ran on X86 (Not JUST DARWIN !) I ......well wouldnt feel any different. Why do people think Apple is less greedy or sniveling than MS, they had it perfected before MS was a player, just happened MS won by default because the PC won the last 30 year batle by a margin of 10:1

OpenSource and Apple make dangerous bedfellows.
IBM FREELY gives back to the OpenSource community , this is better than it sounds, If they didnt want to they wouldnt have too they have enough money and power to stall the courts and RMS pretty much forever. Apple does too , keep an eye out....

When you do years of GUI... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2822899)

... research, and STUDY how people use their computers. Yes, the majority of the world does, indeed, use a GUI, not a command line. Sorry, but that's a fact. When you realize how people use their computers, and all the research Apple/Xerox pumped into the GUI (the Xerox would be a akin to a prototype -- Apple's designs improving on some areas Xerox got it wrong) then perhaps you'd realize that there are some benefits to a one button mouse.
But, it's an old debate, and you are seemingly stuck on one side of the wall. Gah! It's people who can't open their ideas to the benefits of an alternate design (hey, if it didn't WORK, would Apple sell it? No! So, it must be working.) and perhaps see the benefit of it.

Re:I hope this isnt the future of Unix...... (1)

pelorus (463100) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822901)

"but dumbing down *nix for the average Apple user, who still cant understand why you would ever need more than one button on a mouse ?"

You have a problem with this???? Is it just that we don't want l33t grannies fragging us on wolfenstein and berating us for making our perl readable?

"Apple, from the contact Ive had is a group thats right up their with MS in terms of "OURS ! OURS ! OURS !" They contibute little so far back to the OpenSource domain, their APSL Sucks(IMHO), and is too restrictive."

As it's your opinion you are entitled to it. Apple has to keep some stuff closed because if you work with completely open source stuff...you go out of business. I mean - who's really doing well in the Open source arena?

"Why do people think Apple is less greedy or sniveling than MS, they had it perfected before MS was a player, just happened MS won by default because the PC won the last 30 year batle by a margin of 10:1"

Let me add that I'm not interested in Apple gaining a 90% market share. I trust them more than I trust other companies I'd mention but having a dominance is too much of a temptation for anyone. I'd be quite happy with 10-20%. Course I'd like it if Linux/BSD managed to chalk up another 10-20%. But that's tomorrow...

"IBM FREELY gives back to the OpenSource community , this is better than it sounds"

What exactly? Investment or are they throwing a few marketing bucks at something they can talk about in their ads and brochures. Where's the source code to AIX and OS/2? Seems there's not much meat on those bones.

Re:I hope this isnt the future of Unix...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2823108)

Im not some *nix elitist, hey let everyone use it...


Yes. Yes you are.


I mean is everybody going to whore their codebase up to handle all the fun, pretty eye candy and usability, hiding stuf that doent need hidden , and so on ?


No, they don't have enough talent. Programing talent is there, design talent sucks donkey balls on OSS though.


They contibute little so far back to the OpenSource domain...


Just an OS.... oh and objective C extensions to gcc... and...


IBM FREELY gives back to the OpenSource community ...


Oh yea, IBM is sooo much better than Apple. Get a fucking clue, they are in the business of business. If giving back to the community did not benifit them then they would not do it.


Apple does too , keep an eye out...


Does what? Use the GPL? Nope. They go with BSDish liscensing so as to not have to worry about ideology and just make some damn software. Well, except for GCC and a few other utilities for which they have FREELY given their enhancements back to the community.


Please, stay with using Linux. We neither need nor want any more ideolouges in the Apple camp. We have our own homegrown ideolouges thanks.

Re:I hope this isnt the future of Unix...... (1)

Cybersiren (195103) | more than 12 years ago | (#2823143)

"but dumbing down *nix for the average Apple user, who still cant understand why you would ever need more than one button on a mouse"

What? One button mice have ways of doing the same thing as two button mice. I have used both. I prefer a cirque touchpad to either. Trust me, most Mac users aren't using one button mice because they are too DUMB to grasp two buttons. I hope that was intended to be hyperbole, because otherwise it's one of the silliest comments I've read on Slashdot, and that is saying a lot.

The general myth that Mac users are dumb and/or non-technically inclined really bugs me. Most of the Mac users I have known are in love with their computers and at least as comfortable with the technical details of what is going on as your average PC user.

One of the key beliefs of the Mac community back when that was ALL I used (our house is now multi-platform, linux, win98 and OSX) was that Macs are more easily customisable (in terms of system configuration and software) than windows boxes. Mac folk developed shareware to improve the useability of the OS, and took pride in the amount of tweaking that they could perform. Some Mac users even enjoy hardware hacking (oh, the horror.)

Your average Apple user is a straw man. The average Apple user, I assert, is neither stupider nor less technically inclined than your average PC user.

Re:I hope this isnt the future of Unix...... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2823285)

Well, I work in a mixed shop, we are a Grapihcs and Print house, 1/2 mac 1/2 pc and me *nix,
Out of about 20 mac users, only ONE actually understands the workings of a computer, no joke. None of them are stupid they are all very intellignet and VERY good at what they do, graphics and design.They have no basic understanding of a computers operation, they cannot grasp that you could need more than one button, they preffer to use control keys in concert with their mouse to perform functions that need only be done with a mouse, no big deal, So that one mac guy I spoke of he buys a two button scroll mouse, it was like revolution in mac land, FIRE LOOK WE MAKE FIRE WITH NO CONTROL KEYS UGH !, EVIL , GO BACK NO NEED MORE BUTTONS. And while they didnt try to cast him out or anything it was funny to watch.

The assertion that most mac users are FAR less technically oriented than PC users may be slanted from my view but it is all I have ever seen, My prior employment had 40 mac users and 35 pc users, same scenario, you are perhaps right on one note, It may be the difference from Graphics type, and Development types that the gap widens, it is however the only AVERAGE I have seen is what I have seen.

Can you live with only one button, sure, but its easier with 3 , I honestly belive most mac users adhere to the use of one button mice for two reasons, Mac users are adverse to change, 2 they feel as most mac people they are unique a one button mouse is a seperation from the norm somehow make them special, individuals rather than part of some drummed up MS conspiracy crap.

ease of use (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2822806)

Remember there are a vast number of folks out there who need ease of use to use a computer. With the advantages of a *nix at the lower level and the ease of use of an mac, this could erode the windows base over time. Personally, I will recommend this to all the non-technical folks that ask me about computers since it means less assistance will be required and over time I can teach them the *nix that underlies the GUI. Plus now I have an excuse to get an iBook.

this makes the iMac special? (2, Insightful)

posmon (516207) | more than 12 years ago | (#2822979)

"I can go to my Mom's, fire up her iMac, open a shell, ssh to my own server and get some real work done", one guy said to me.

so this is different from using putty on win95 in which way?

Hmmm... (2, Funny)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 12 years ago | (#2823021)

There were people in line wearing Sun and SGI schwag too...he thought OS X was "subversive" because it "seeds" millions...Of course there was plenty of buzz...unusually high level of hype etc etc.

Oh man...I could totally make a bong out of those new iMacs...hey! Where did you leave the chips?

No Respect! (1)

Andrewkov (140579) | more than 12 years ago | (#2823038)

From the article:


this attracts a lot of Linux weenies, not to mention UNIX heavies

Linux developers are weanies and UNIX developers are heavies? When are we going to get some respect?!! Not to mention that UNIX would be all but dead if not revived by the Linux community. Sheesh!

Apple Gives Nothing Back to Open Source? (5, Informative)

lordfetish (48651) | more than 12 years ago | (#2823201)

Time and time again, /.ers complain that Apple takes but does not give back to Open source. If you believe that the only way to contribute to the Open Source Movement is by releasing all your intellectual property under the GPL license then by your estimations then it has taken and not given back. However, you are then being just as blindly bigotted and dogmatic as those who would only want software released under strict licenses at considerable expense and lack of freedom to the enduser (i.e. MS).

Apple has contribute to Open Source in several small, but significant ways. For a start, there are currently six open source projects at Apple that it is providing funding for under the APSL:
1) Darwin (the foundation of Mac OS X)
2) Quicktime streaming server.
3) Common Data Security Architecture (CDSA).
4) Open play - a cross platform network abstraction layer.
5) Headerdoc.
6) Documentation.
Apple gave back all this stuff away despite the fact that the BSD license doesn't force them too (in the case of Darwin).

Furthemore, Apple provides employment for Open Source programers, such as Jordan Hubbard (FreeBSD) and Guy 'Bud' Tribble (ex-Eazel) - although admittedly since Eazel went tits up because it couldn't make a profit from a GPL product, I don't think Dr. Tribble will be doing as much work on GPL software for a while.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?