Apple tells Mac users, ignore OpenSource revolution.
Stay with us, we are closed environment just like M$FT, we just do it with a smile ;-)
back
3 comments
While that looks to be a blatant troll, I really have to ask if you seriously see MS Windows and Apple OS X as being equally closed? Where are MS's versions of Darwin, Webkit, etc...?
While Apple isn't 100% open source, they are the closest among commercial end-user targeted OSes. Apple obviously feels, and honestly I think they're probably right, that fully open sourcing their OS would negatively impact their ability to run a profitable hardware/software business. That's absolutely their right.
I'd also argue that for mass consumer end users, there is no open source revolution. While I love and use Linux all the time, I'd never put my mother or my sister or my wife on it. Likewise with software, it needs to come with a nice printed or online manual that's easy to use, and a 1-800 number for the support department. Fixing an issue needs to not involve steps like "use vi to edit giant.xml which depending on your distro could be in one of these 10 long path locations".
goes to get coffee
1. Most of the Internet runs on open platforms. The Internet is a tremendous revolution by all measures. I strongly believe that your mother, your sister and wife are all been into it already.
2. Have you tried to develop and deliver an Iphone app? Don't you think Apple could have make the iPhone SDK some how more open and flexible. Wouldn't you as a Java guy be happy to have Java there in addition to the Objective C?
I switched to Ubuntu from OS X 10.5 and don't think will ever go back.
1. Yes, there is a huge open source revolution on the server side, but not on the consumer desktop. My mom doesn't know or care if the web servers serving up pages are Linux or Windows. As a server-side developer, I've seen and been a part of the big shift to open source OSes, software, tools, etc... However, if you're talking about consumer desktop OSes and apps, there isn't one yet.
2. I haven't worked on an iPhone app. Not really my area. Sure Apple could be more open, although they obviously see reasons not to be, and that their right. However, I'd argue that they're generally more open than most of the widely used competition. You might wish the iPhone SDK supported multiple languages, but compare that to developing for the Motorola Razr, or the Blackberry? I think Apple is doing pretty well. Obviously not as well as some folks would like, but they're running a business and trying to ensure profits, quality, low support calls, all that stuff, and I respect that.
while I agree that the prevailing attitude is "if you're not a hacker/programmer, use Windows, not Linux" I guess I don't really get why.
Your comment on the fact that software needs to come with a nice printed manual highlights why: of my mother, my sister and my wife, I'm the only one that reads the damn things.
edit: this http://contentconsumer.com/2008/04/27/is-ubuntu-useable-enou... makes me think we don't give non-hackers/programmers enough credit.
You have a point with the manuals, however my mother calls Dell support regularly, and uses the Microsoft online help stuff a lot. My sister has used AppleCare support a few times as well. My wife uses the iWork help application and tutorial app.
--edit-- My prevailing attitude is to tell folks to use OS X on the desktop and linux on the server, regardless if they are a hacker or my mom:)
Open Source is a revolution like Ron Paul was a revolution. Yes, it's got some nice features, and it's good to have a viable third alternative, but at the same time there's too much wrong with it to rely on it entirely.
Apple needs a closed environment. They need to make money from selling their computers. They do so because they need to pay their programmers, who are among the best in the world. They have to pay their designers, who are quite possibly the best in the world. (Apple's won more Red Dot design awards than any other company or single designer, and they've won with a ridiculous margin.) Speaking as a consumer, I'm willing to pay money for good service. That's how the economy has worked for centuries, and I think it's a proven workable model.
Apple's open enough for me. I can tweak everything I want, to my heart's content, because it runs on top of perfect Unix. I'm not a hardcore programmer, I don't yet see the point for emacs (though part of me feels that day is coming), but Terminal is enough to give me a keyboard-only environment when I need to do coding. Apple's got an excellent set of universal shortcuts, actually, which I don't recall Ubuntu having when I tried it.
The set-up on a Mac requires me to actively approve any virus on my computer before it launches. That's pretty close to foolproof if I'm cautious about it. Apple recommends it, sure, because that's responsible of them. That doesn't make it absolutely necessary.
On the other hand, when I installed Ubuntu, the graphics and sound cards on my perfectly-normal Dell box wouldn't show things right or play sound, installing third-party applications melted the entire thing, and eventually I had to reinstall Windows as well. The fact that Open Source makes it possible for me to accidentally destroy something (and I wasn't even messing with terminal) makes me think I'll stick with Apple, thanks.
Is that you Stallman?
loved that ;-)