Interesting, as far as I've noticed Apples prices are still crap. As for porting their OS to the PC, I could seriously care less. It would be far to little far to late to bring Apple back into the mainstream. But yeah it would've been nice if Apple could have done just a little bit more to help *Nix users. Oh well, KDE has some nice Mac themes.....
Interesting, as far as I've noticed Apples prices are still crap. As for porting their OS to the PC, I could seriously care less. It would be far to little far to late to bring Apple back into the mainstream. But yeah it would've been nice if Apple could have done just a little bit more to help *Nix users. Oh well, KDE has some nice Mac themes.....
Sorry for bringing up the Apple thing. I didn't realize x86 bigots would come in here and crap all over. Sometimes I wish they would just STFU and get back on their knees for Intel.
I gave BeOS a try when the OS maker (I know this term is-not-too-appropriate) was in its dying stages.
I might give it a try again in a few days...
I might give it a try again in a few days...
hey, now
I'd use mac if I could afford it... well for the desktop, but i can't so I don't.
Things like applescripting and a acceptaple gui (gnome, kde vs OS x? ha OS X wins hands down...) put a great big smile on my face everytime I use it. Hell OS X should be the OS of choice for any old-school unix guru.
But seriously, is there any reason that Apple places such a high cost on hardware? It just doesn't make sense...
i would like you to explain that to me. 90% of it is just the same as the PC, the architecture is better, but it's not that better to put a 40-60% premium on it compared to it's closest competiters. If it wasn't for apple setting it's prices so high the windows 3.11/win95 horror would never had happened.
If that BeOS thing works out and it's better.. I take it over any inferior OS in a second. No problem. I can handle running my Linux servers from a terminal if I can find something actually pleasent to use, but it's just one of those things that will just kinda die off probably. Along with apple if they don't get their heads out their butts, hell the only reason Linux does as well as it does is that it's developement model doesn't require any economic basis for survival, MS is just to big to go head to head against and expect to make a remarkable profit. Dammit, BSD and Linux have a hard enough time just trying to GIVE AWAY their OS.
But at least OpenBeOS developers can always point to GNU's Hurd and laugh. the poor bastards
I'd use mac if I could afford it... well for the desktop, but i can't so I don't.
Things like applescripting and a acceptaple gui (gnome, kde vs OS x? ha OS X wins hands down...) put a great big smile on my face everytime I use it. Hell OS X should be the OS of choice for any old-school unix guru.
But seriously, is there any reason that Apple places such a high cost on hardware? It just doesn't make sense...
i would like you to explain that to me. 90% of it is just the same as the PC, the architecture is better, but it's not that better to put a 40-60% premium on it compared to it's closest competiters. If it wasn't for apple setting it's prices so high the windows 3.11/win95 horror would never had happened.
If that BeOS thing works out and it's better.. I take it over any inferior OS in a second. No problem. I can handle running my Linux servers from a terminal if I can find something actually pleasent to use, but it's just one of those things that will just kinda die off probably. Along with apple if they don't get their heads out their butts, hell the only reason Linux does as well as it does is that it's developement model doesn't require any economic basis for survival, MS is just to big to go head to head against and expect to make a remarkable profit. Dammit, BSD and Linux have a hard enough time just trying to GIVE AWAY their OS.
But at least OpenBeOS developers can always point to GNU's Hurd and laugh. the poor bastards
Bulk. Dell sells 300,000 machines a day (pulled this out of my ass
). Apple sells 30,000 machines a day (same source). Who do you think can stand to make a little less money on each product sold and still make a reasonable profit? Do you think if prices lowered to Dell's level things would even out? Do you think there are that many people that would switch or get a Mac alongside their Dell? I don't. And I am not so sure how much development Dell does on their hardware. Do they make the chipsets? The BIOS? Do they help design the processor? Apple has a hand in each, if they don't do it all. That's money they spend that they have to make back somehow. Would I like to see Apple sell its machines cheaper? Of course. Their laptops are unmatched. But something like price will not stop me from getting enjoyment out of a machine. I saved up quite a while for my iBook, and I use it pretty much every day. Using other laptops is tough because I think this one is the best out there (not necessarily in the hardware arena, but in many ways).As far as software goes, I got a lot of free software with OS X.
At the end of the day, I would still rather have Sun hardware, even if I am too dumb to keep it from kernel panicing
If that BeOS thing works out and it's better.. I take it over any inferior OS in a second. No problem. I can handle running my Linux servers from a terminal if I can find something actually pleasent to use, but it's just one of those things that will just kinda die off probably. Along with apple if they don't get their heads out their butts, hell the only reason Linux does as well as it does is that it's developement model doesn't require any economic basis for survival, MS is just to big to go head to head against and expect to make a remarkable profit. Dammit, BSD and Linux have a hard enough time just trying to GIVE AWAY their OS.
But at least OpenBeOS developers can always point to GNU's Hurd and laugh. the poor bastards
There is a funny thing about religions, if there are people that believe hard enough, the religion will stay around for a long time. I don't see Apple dying just yet.
Here's what I think:
A Few Facts To Start With
It was reported in the not to distant past that Apple has a fully ported and working version of OS-X for x86 and has maintained it since the beginning of the project.
OS-X has for the most part shown itself to be a very good OS and if you compare its prices to Win2k Server and/or Advanced Server it becomes a PHENOMINALLY INCREDIBLE DEAL.
PC Hardware (motherboards, video cards...etc) can be had for cheap compared to Apple specific stuff.
So what SHOULD Apple do?
I think that IF Apple wants to continue to be a hardware company, then they should release PC's and PC Servers with OS-X on them! They can do MS style registration to get in the way of people pirating it. There are a LOT more people who would consider buying an Apple product if it were a PC where they could get FAR more hardware and at a reduced price...
Two things would happen, IMHO:
1) Apple would make a KILLING and be adopted by many smaller corporations who want to pay less than MS prices but don't have the staff and/or expertise to go to Linux.
2) In a few years, the MAC as we know it would no longer exist because eventually even the MAC-heads are going to want to get the most bang for their buck, especially if they can still run the MAC OS, so that it appears transparent to them.
Alternatively, Apple could decide to get out of the hardware business (good idea... high inventory overhead and slim profit margins) and become mainly a software company and start competing head-to-head with MS both on the desktop and in the low/mid server environment. I doubt if they would think of this though.... they're too emotionally attached to their box.
Joe
A Few Facts To Start With
It was reported in the not to distant past that Apple has a fully ported and working version of OS-X for x86 and has maintained it since the beginning of the project.
OS-X has for the most part shown itself to be a very good OS and if you compare its prices to Win2k Server and/or Advanced Server it becomes a PHENOMINALLY INCREDIBLE DEAL.
PC Hardware (motherboards, video cards...etc) can be had for cheap compared to Apple specific stuff.
So what SHOULD Apple do?
I think that IF Apple wants to continue to be a hardware company, then they should release PC's and PC Servers with OS-X on them! They can do MS style registration to get in the way of people pirating it. There are a LOT more people who would consider buying an Apple product if it were a PC where they could get FAR more hardware and at a reduced price...
Two things would happen, IMHO:
1) Apple would make a KILLING and be adopted by many smaller corporations who want to pay less than MS prices but don't have the staff and/or expertise to go to Linux.
2) In a few years, the MAC as we know it would no longer exist because eventually even the MAC-heads are going to want to get the most bang for their buck, especially if they can still run the MAC OS, so that it appears transparent to them.
Alternatively, Apple could decide to get out of the hardware business (good idea... high inventory overhead and slim profit margins) and become mainly a software company and start competing head-to-head with MS both on the desktop and in the low/mid server environment. I doubt if they would think of this though.... they're too emotionally attached to their box.
Joe
While these ideas are old, boring, repetitive, and pointless; I will point out the flaws in each as nicely as I can. Again.
Of course this is all just my opinion. I don't have the lawyers, accountants, and business gurus behind me that Jobs and other members of AT do.
It has also been reported that Darwin and OS X would run well on a CISC style processor, which x86 is closer to than PPC.
Bad idea.
Apple has stated in the past that they are against this type of stuff. "It makes the user experience worse," or something to that effect. They even released a family license to encourage people not to pirate the OS.
Who will write the drivers? Most companies will not write the drivers for Linux. Why would they write a driver for Mac OS? Many companies refuse to open technical documents to developers of free or open source OSes, why would they do so for Apple developers? Maybe if they got money for them, but that raises the price. Plus, in order to stay a hardware company Apple would have to come up with a way to lock customers into their hardware. That requires development of hardware devices (maybe the firmware they use on PPC since x86 is stuck with crappy BIOSes). More money there.
No, these companies are either locked into Windows for some reason, or are too short sighted/ignorant to look into other avenues.
MAC is Media Access Control I believe. But it will *not* in any way shape or form be transparent. More on this below.
Oi.
And where would Internet Explorer come from? And Office? Are you going to get users to switch not only their platform but also the applications they use their computer for? Doubtful.
I doubt it is emotional attatchment at all. Competing with Microsoft is a bad idea. Yeah, all the Linux zealots thinking Linux can compete at this point are out of their gourds. Microsoft has Exchange/Outlook, Internet Explorer, and Office. Right there you have 3 programs/program combinations/suites that are quite possibly the reigning champions in their field.
Also, how are you going to convince developers that yet another big change in platform will be a good thing? The switch from m68k to PPC was not too big of a deal due to emulation, but programs still had to be fixed. The change from Mac OS to Mac OS X is another story all together, and in this situation emulation solved the problem again but sloppily. Now you want a change from PPC to x86, obsoleting all of the PPC specific code in the OS and software (and there is a lot) and requiring major rewrites in code because of the platform switch. Developers left before because of the previous switches, do you really think they are going to sit through another one?
So, if you did get developers to switch you now have the problem of users. You want a transparent switch? You then have to write an emulator for PPC on x86, Mac OS on x86, and Mac OS X on x86. Think of the problems that would cause. End users would eventually have to purchase all new software to get rid of the cycle wasting emulation crap going on, which is going to piss them off to no end.
Over all, I see the whole "I'm going to pout until Apple's business men, accountants, and other employees that have been doing this since before I was born do things my way!" arguement is getting boring.
Of course this is all just my opinion. I don't have the lawyers, accountants, and business gurus behind me that Jobs and other members of AT do.
It has also been reported that Darwin and OS X would run well on a CISC style processor, which x86 is closer to than PPC.
Bad idea.
Apple has stated in the past that they are against this type of stuff. "It makes the user experience worse," or something to that effect. They even released a family license to encourage people not to pirate the OS.
Who will write the drivers? Most companies will not write the drivers for Linux. Why would they write a driver for Mac OS? Many companies refuse to open technical documents to developers of free or open source OSes, why would they do so for Apple developers? Maybe if they got money for them, but that raises the price. Plus, in order to stay a hardware company Apple would have to come up with a way to lock customers into their hardware. That requires development of hardware devices (maybe the firmware they use on PPC since x86 is stuck with crappy BIOSes). More money there.
No, these companies are either locked into Windows for some reason, or are too short sighted/ignorant to look into other avenues.
MAC is Media Access Control I believe. But it will *not* in any way shape or form be transparent. More on this below.
Oi.
And where would Internet Explorer come from? And Office? Are you going to get users to switch not only their platform but also the applications they use their computer for? Doubtful.
I doubt it is emotional attatchment at all. Competing with Microsoft is a bad idea. Yeah, all the Linux zealots thinking Linux can compete at this point are out of their gourds. Microsoft has Exchange/Outlook, Internet Explorer, and Office. Right there you have 3 programs/program combinations/suites that are quite possibly the reigning champions in their field.
Also, how are you going to convince developers that yet another big change in platform will be a good thing? The switch from m68k to PPC was not too big of a deal due to emulation, but programs still had to be fixed. The change from Mac OS to Mac OS X is another story all together, and in this situation emulation solved the problem again but sloppily. Now you want a change from PPC to x86, obsoleting all of the PPC specific code in the OS and software (and there is a lot) and requiring major rewrites in code because of the platform switch. Developers left before because of the previous switches, do you really think they are going to sit through another one?
So, if you did get developers to switch you now have the problem of users. You want a transparent switch? You then have to write an emulator for PPC on x86, Mac OS on x86, and Mac OS X on x86. Think of the problems that would cause. End users would eventually have to purchase all new software to get rid of the cycle wasting emulation crap going on, which is going to piss them off to no end.
Over all, I see the whole "I'm going to pout until Apple's business men, accountants, and other employees that have been doing this since before I was born do things my way!" arguement is getting boring.
What you mean, is that you want them to, not that they actually should do it, because apple knows what apple should do a hell of a lot better than anyone else, and it obviously isn't the same thing that pc users want, which would be expected. Apple makes money on markup, since their volume is relatively low to other computer vendors. Dell makes money on volume, now don't you think they would be against doing something that would hurt their volume? Apple is making money, they don't need your business. I guess that's hard for people to understand, since everyone is used to corporations with unsatiable greed and expansionist logic, but apple is just fine how it is.
And it's great to see them take such positions on things. The last thing we need is one more company trying to make our lives more of a PITA in the name of profits.
My job has about 8 employees. We have something like 13 computers. We are transitioning from all windows to a debian server / redhat desktop setup, with a couple windows machines left for adobe apps. Small businesses are the EASIEST ones to make the transition, because there is less legacy junk to replace, and less data to convert. This is a small company, but even this transition will, and is, taking months. This is the reason there are LUGs. Not everyone can afford a unix admin, but anyone can afford to have a lug help them out for free.
Yes.... this phenomenon of acronym-ifying things that aren't acronyms is very peculiar, and I always wonder where the hell it comes from. Mac is short for macintosh, there is no reason to capitalize it all.
And thereby go out of business altogether. Apple's real product is their OS, their hardware is just how they make good money as a result of owning the OS. Same deal with MS and windows. No one uses windows because it is god's gift to operating systems, they use it because that's where the software and compatability is. If you take that away, windows is worthless, and MS is out of business.
At this point in time, no it can't totally compete, however it's getting close in alot of areas, and obviously is only getting stronger and stronger. OO does a good deal of what office does, and for many uses, does the job just as good as office, and is free. I don't know much of anything about exchange, but there are plenty of MTA's obviously, and openldap (ugh) can be used for contacts, in fact outlook and exchange already use ldap to communicate these things to one another. (I have finally gotten ldap + evolution working for an address book directory, pretty neat, but ldap/openldap is a PIT-fvcking-A, due to the lack of good info on the net, hell, people complain about sendmail being tough, sendmail was a walk in the park compared to ldap). IE is pretty worthless anymore, mozilla has been on par with it for a long time now, and there is also phoenix, galeon, and konqueror. Hell, you can use mozilla for a browser, and mozilla mail as a mail client, and using ldap it can grab contacts from an exchange server (I believe), with tab-key name completion and everything.
Agreed, the transition would be extremely ugly.
tru dat.
Now now, the real reason that Apple probably will not switch over to x86 is because hardware is their bread and butter. Developing a OS in the current business climate is unpofitable, the whole point behind OS X is so that people buy the hardware. If they switch over to x86 they would probably have to double the price on their OS to make it so that with the cost of developing it is covered, because they would become just another DELL otherwise.
There are lots of examples of this behavior. Look at Sun and IBM, they are two good ones, Sun can and has ported it's software over to x86.. but they don't give you the full version or the newest stuff. IBM makes most of it's monay off of technical support and hardware sales. They sell OS's, but these are just to run the hardware. What about OS/2? In every way it was supperior to MS's OS at the time of it's introduction, and it has a loyal user base. Now why aren't they supporting it more, why aren't they developing new versions of it? Because they made it to good for themselves. At the price people are willing to spend on software they need to make it up from tech support. But people running OS/2 don't need enormous amounts of tech support. IBM's business model will not accept unprofitable software, so they stopped developing it and just sell it. Now it's profitable and they are just waiting for it to die off. Sun's OS is a good one, but sun can only make money by selling hardware, otherwise they'd have x86 versions running on DELL servers in a heart-beat.
It's kinda like car manufactures and dealers. They make more money off of used cars and replacement car parts than they ever will off of making new cars, but you wouldn't think that would you? but it makes sense once you think about it.
Out of all the server software, database crap, and the mirade of different services and product that MS sells they only have 2 products that make a profit. The rest of the orginization rests on the laurals of these 2 products, without them MS wouldn't have a leg to stand on.. Those 2 products are Office and Windows.
The reason that Linux freaks think Linux has a chance against competing head to head with Microsoft in the x86 market is because they are the only ones who have a chance. With the cost of software developement at a fraction of other models it becomes more important that companies are able to offer good services to users.. Weither it's webhosting, or a gaming platform, or a e-mail system, or computers that are actually pleasent to use, then it becomes more important to provide good services that people will actually pay for then a flashy OS. I donno if that is enough, but that's exactly why Apple, Sun, and IBM are still around and why Bill Gates says that the opensource developement model stiffles inovation.. because in his world MS = innovation and Open sources stiffles MS. (of course not to a large degree mind you) And don't forget if it wasn't for Linux the BSD's would only be a fraction of what they are now... I doubt the linux freakout during the dotcom would of happened to FreeBSD and I doubt Apple would be baseing it's OS off of Free software.
There are lots of examples of this behavior. Look at Sun and IBM, they are two good ones, Sun can and has ported it's software over to x86.. but they don't give you the full version or the newest stuff. IBM makes most of it's monay off of technical support and hardware sales. They sell OS's, but these are just to run the hardware. What about OS/2? In every way it was supperior to MS's OS at the time of it's introduction, and it has a loyal user base. Now why aren't they supporting it more, why aren't they developing new versions of it? Because they made it to good for themselves. At the price people are willing to spend on software they need to make it up from tech support. But people running OS/2 don't need enormous amounts of tech support. IBM's business model will not accept unprofitable software, so they stopped developing it and just sell it. Now it's profitable and they are just waiting for it to die off. Sun's OS is a good one, but sun can only make money by selling hardware, otherwise they'd have x86 versions running on DELL servers in a heart-beat.
It's kinda like car manufactures and dealers. They make more money off of used cars and replacement car parts than they ever will off of making new cars, but you wouldn't think that would you? but it makes sense once you think about it.
Out of all the server software, database crap, and the mirade of different services and product that MS sells they only have 2 products that make a profit. The rest of the orginization rests on the laurals of these 2 products, without them MS wouldn't have a leg to stand on.. Those 2 products are Office and Windows.
The reason that Linux freaks think Linux has a chance against competing head to head with Microsoft in the x86 market is because they are the only ones who have a chance. With the cost of software developement at a fraction of other models it becomes more important that companies are able to offer good services to users.. Weither it's webhosting, or a gaming platform, or a e-mail system, or computers that are actually pleasent to use, then it becomes more important to provide good services that people will actually pay for then a flashy OS. I donno if that is enough, but that's exactly why Apple, Sun, and IBM are still around and why Bill Gates says that the opensource developement model stiffles inovation.. because in his world MS = innovation and Open sources stiffles MS. (of course not to a large degree mind you) And don't forget if it wasn't for Linux the BSD's would only be a fraction of what they are now... I doubt the linux freakout during the dotcom would of happened to FreeBSD and I doubt Apple would be baseing it's OS off of Free software.
I missed the "small" part, but it is great to hear that some companies are making a switch.
Can you imagine telling someone that is basically afraid of the current technology that you are going to take it all away and install something totally new? I can. It couldn't be pretty.
I read an article recently about a company making an exchange work-a-like for Linux. Sounds like some neat stuff.
I thought I followed (even the part where you think Sun is doing well financially ) until you got about here:
First, Microsoft only has a problem with GPL and GPL-like licenses. The BSD license and BSD-like licenses are acceptable.
For this I have to say WTF have you been smoking? TCP/IP? Developed on a BSD. Apache? Developed on a BSD. IPSEC? First released on a BSD. IPv6? First released on a BSD. Various IDE (and possibly other) drivers in the Linux kernel? BSD (and it is neat how they quite possibly violate the GPL by slipping BSD licensed code in there). Linux wouldn't be there if it wasn't for BSDs.
Why not? FreeBSD has a better license for commercial use.
Jobs knows a little about Free and Open Source software. NeXT developed a Unix-like OS after all.
) until you got about here:First, Microsoft only has a problem with GPL and GPL-like licenses. The BSD license and BSD-like licenses are acceptable.
For this I have to say WTF have you been smoking? TCP/IP? Developed on a BSD. Apache? Developed on a BSD. IPSEC? First released on a BSD. IPv6? First released on a BSD. Various IDE (and possibly other) drivers in the Linux kernel? BSD (and it is neat how they quite possibly violate the GPL by slipping BSD licensed code in there
). Linux wouldn't be there if it wasn't for BSDs.Why not? FreeBSD has a better license for commercial use.
Jobs knows a little about Free and Open Source software. NeXT developed a Unix-like OS after all.
Na I didn't mean anything in terms of FreeBSD owes what it is to Linux or anything like that. I mean in terms of userbase and stuff like that. How many new users go from Windows to Linux to BSD vs Windows to BSD? I know that I wouldn't of never got my job mantaining Macs if it wasn't for what I learned using Linux. As far as I see it the GNU GPL stuff is kinda complemantary, each one has it's strengths and suited to different situations.
I know that the idea of Linux vs Windows is realy played out, but realy Linux is as bout as close to a compitition in cheap x86 hardware as your going to get.
And are you realy telling me that when Bill Gates refers to Open Source he is just refering specificly to GNU liscencing sceme and not other ones? Forgive me if I think that's a bit unlikely.
I never realy studied it very much I know that GNU doesn't stiffle compitition. It may not be a good model for selling software, but it is a good model for developing stuff. I think that it is more modeled for service based stuff than for making money from selling it. I can see some issues with this model. If it is a bad thing then it's still a positive thing for computer users in general, because it allowed a alternative to MS. I am not a gigantic fan of GNU, but I enjoy using Linux and without GNU I doubt it would be possible. Oh well this liscencing stuff is something I need to know more about anyways...
I know that the idea of Linux vs Windows is realy played out, but realy Linux is as bout as close to a compitition in cheap x86 hardware as your going to get.
And are you realy telling me that when Bill Gates refers to Open Source he is just refering specificly to GNU liscencing sceme and not other ones? Forgive me if I think that's a bit unlikely.
I never realy studied it very much I know that GNU doesn't stiffle compitition. It may not be a good model for selling software, but it is a good model for developing stuff. I think that it is more modeled for service based stuff than for making money from selling it. I can see some issues with this model. If it is a bad thing then it's still a positive thing for computer users in general, because it allowed a alternative to MS. I am not a gigantic fan of GNU, but I enjoy using Linux and without GNU I doubt it would be possible. Oh well this liscencing stuff is something I need to know more about anyways...
Agreed, and it only gets better.
All of the GPL-like licenses are tainted. The BSD-like licenses are free. Bill likes BSD. Bill does not like GPL. The GPL makes Bill Gates cry.
Bill Gates can incorporate BSD-like licensed software into the Windows code, and all he has to do is keep the copyright and license information intact. If he wanted to include GPL-like licensed code, he would have to GPL a lot more than just that piece.
I hope you are joking. It is obvious farce. If you cannot tell with common sense, the fact that mslinux.org is owned by someone in Texas should be a big enough of a clue stick.
Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
I figured he knew it was a joke and forgot a winky face or something. If not.... :Q
Oh nooooo, I am dead serious
.hrmph I think you may be not serious enough...
Although I think the part about Microsoft invading cuba is something Bill Gates could actually ge away with!
Although I think the part about Microsoft invading cuba is something Bill Gates could actually ge away with!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter