Linux to Over take Apple on Desktop

[Bazoukas]

For me, closed source is irrelevant. What I mean with this? I dont really care about it. And I do believe that closed source is more of a pull down than anything. It creates more problems than it solves.

  On the other hand I do believe that no one should force a company to open up their source. Since I am a 101% Linux user, I do believe in freedom of choice whatever that may be.

  The one thing I do mind though, is when one's freedom becomes arrogance and ties me down from being free.

  If Apple wants to be closed source, fine be me, as long as when MS goes down, they wont try to pull another Bill Gates on us. If they dont anything of that nature, they will have my support.

  At any rate, I believe that Linux is the OS that will replace MS on the front end (the back end is owned by unix and linux, period), simply because the users are free to choose a variety of Hardware to run the OS. Thats what launched MS in its early years.

 Apple will be a real competitor when they decide to pull their head out of their asses and do what they should have done decades ago. Make their OS run with different kinds of CPUs and Motherboards. A real hacker (not cracker) wont stand to be locked in specific hardware.

 Apple really needs to get flexible on this issue because they do inovate and their products even though closed source, are of really high quality (something rare when it comes to close source), not like MS.

[Laukev7]

Apple tried to use open source whenever possible. But again, open source is an advantage in some situations, but not always. Sometimes, you need the exclusivity of a technology to differentiate your product. Of course, open source can be a benefit for huge projects which don't require anything new, like databases or servers.

Apple porting its OS or making it open source would mean a certain death for the both the OS and the platform. However, it is possible to buy processors and motherboards from Powerlogix and other, and you can even build your own Mac if you like, provided you know where to look.

[billy_gates]

quote:Originally posted by Laukev7:
Apple tried to use open source whenever possible. But again, open source is an advantage in some situations, but not always. Sometimes, you need the exclusivity of a technology to differentiate your product. Of course, open source can be a benefit for huge projects which don't require anything new, like databases or servers.

Apple porting its OS or making it open source would mean a certain death for the both the OS and the platform. However, it is possible to buy processors and motherboards from Powerlogix and other, and you can even build your own Mac if you like, provided you know where to look.

for example...
www.2khappyware.com

[Bazoukas]

quote:Originally posted by Laukev7:
Apple tried to use open source whenever possible. But again, open source is an advantage in some situations, but not always. Sometimes, you need the exclusivity of a technology to differentiate your product. Of course, open source can be a benefit for huge projects which don't require anything new, like databases or servers.

Apple porting its OS or making it open source would mean a certain death for the both the OS and the platform. However, it is possible to buy processors and motherboards from Powerlogix and other, and you can even build your own Mac if you like, provided you know where to look.

Yeah but do they expect? People locking themselves into specific hardware? I really like the fact that I can choose from a plethora of hardware. Its all about freedom.
  They wanna keep their OS closed source? Again, thats 101% fine be me. They have proved they can make a really good product. No doubt.  But whats the logic behind locking your OS in a very limited set of hardware. Make it run in as many platforms as possible. Then you got something cooking.
  Otherwise its just greed, unless though am missing something here and I would like somebody to explain it to me.

[Laukev7]

Yes, you appear to be missing something here. If Apple released Mac OS X for the PC, they would lose an important sale point for their hardware. People wouldn't bother buying Macs anymore, not because Macs aren't good (the hardware is in fact very good quality), but because of sheer ignorance, and most of Apple's profits come from the hardware, which pay for all the good stuff you get on a Mac and the R&D involved in their innovations.

If they changed their business model, and reaped their profits from their OS instead, they would be in a situation much more similar to that of Microsoft than their current situation (where they cannot be compared to MS in ANY way). They would have to forfeit their hardware -- no more powerbooks, no more competition for Intel and AMD on the desktop. Then, they would have to find OEMs who would accept to bundle Mac OS X with their computers -- and Microsoft has a stranglehold on OEMs.

So, porting to other systems is not an option until they gain a market share high enough to secure their position.

[solo]

::cracks knuckles::

Apple cannot open up the source to Aqua, as well as most of the other parts of OSX. They cannot. If they did, I would take Aqua, put it on Redhat Linux and distribute it. Suddenly OSX is not getting any sales because the sweep of ecstasy about free Aqua with a more mature platform attached. Also the hardware would lose a *lot* of sales. Again, suddenly Aqua is available on ix86, powerpc, SPARC, risc, mips, and more. Suddenly Apple is spending more researching the new version of MacOS (10.4/11) than they are making. I mean, who (other than Apple geeks) would continue to buy OSX when Linux acts the exact same way? I sure wouldn't. Not that I buy Macs today.

I am a very strong open source advocate and fanatic. That doesn't mean proprietary software is wrong. Just because I *don't like it* does not mean there should not be proprietary applications.

It costs around $5 million dollars (can get into billions for sequels and high profile) to make a serious 3D action shooter. Then imagine taking all that research and development and not being able to recoop your losses with sales because you made your work open source.

Let's say our mysterious Game Company X (GCX) becomes popular. It's been 2 years since they released Dark Fire Undercover. They are beginning to see a decline in the amount of users on the online game network. They need to make a sequel. Oh yeah, we don't have any money because we open sourced DFU. Well how do we make a sequel? Can we really afford to just make a revamp of the game content data, even if we keep the original engine? We do have the open source community, but we cannot just _tell_ them to make a sequel. It looks like we are just going to have to coast.

-------------------------------------------------

That is today's view of how open source business works. And for the most part it is the way a lot of OSS businesses would *have* to work. But I believe companies should make money with value-added services, much like Redhat does. From open source we breed new business models, models that will succeed and fail. From open source we produce innovation.

So GCX could sell the game network subscriptions for $10 a month in the U.S. and $15 outside the U.S. They could charge users for support, at $5 a call and $25 for one year of support. They could allow their users to register their game network user name for $5.

They could sell expansion scenarios for $20 a pop, and start a clan-communication infrastructure that requires a $25 registration (per clan).

There are a *lot* of ways GCX could make money without keeping the engine code base proprietary.

This is the way _I_ imagine open source business.

--------------------------------------------------

Ok. Back to Apple.

So, why can't Apple sell services?
They do already. That's not really the problem. They problem lies in a lot of things, including proprietary, licensed code in OSX that they are not allowed to release, calming down situations with some of their customers that think open source is evil.

And of course back to the original point. Apple. Is. Aqua. Without Aqua, Apple is not Apple. Aqua is what I think of when I say Apple. Darwin doesn't come to mind and Rendezvous is only a pandering in the back of my programmer mind.

I think Apple is taking good steps to establish themselves with open source.

Note: Also it's not like Apple was open-sourcing anything new or important with Darwin, we already have all that with Linux.

That was my completely unstable and wishy-washy bantering about Apple, OSX, and Open-Source. It completely unrelates to the current topic however.

[mushrooomprince]

What we need to do is get Linux an interface like os X.  Then we need to make it relatively compatible with most peripheals and games.  I hate to say it penguin people but macs run a lot more games than linux does.  Anywho i wouldn't mind Linux if it was built more like os x.  

Now what are we going to do about windows ?   I think one of us needs to volenteer him/herself to suicide bomb redmond.

[Stryker]

quote:Originally posted by mushrooomprince:
I hate to say it penguin people but macs run a lot more games than linux does.

You can't blame that on linux. If that's the biggest issue for you, talk to your game developers.

[suselinux]

Originally posted by mushrooomprince:

I hate to say it penguin people but macs run a lot more games than linux does.

-Grow up

[psyjax]

quote:Originally posted by suselinux:
-Grow up

Sower grapes.

Games sell, their the only reason consumers want ghz processors and new video cards, if not things wouldent have progressed much farther than the Pentium II and G3.

As for Linux being a more mature platform than OSX, spare me. I like the linux's, they are fantastic OS's, but they deffinetly aren't the most mature when it comes to desktop use.

Gnome, KDE, et al. are FAR behind all other GUI's, the choice of applications, while enumerable, are mind bogglingly confusing to the common user, this confusion is then magnafied when said user actually tries to install something.

Aqua to linux would be a Godsend, but it's not gonna happen. Linux's monolithic kernel was never a good choice, it makes things to difficult to implement modular non-dependant applications. Not to mention the fact that a kernel update is needed like every other day due to bugfixes and new drivers. Most OS's have these components external, plain as day for all to see, linux has to actually rewire it's entire core. Simple right?

Not to mention the gobledigook system hiarchy, usr/dev/hda01  .... oh, that's my hardrive!!! Ya, simple. Were are all my programs? user/bin  ... oh... so how come my icon is in X folder? Or even better, I just managed to install this (after attempting to RPM it (failing) then compiling from source three times) programm, and now I cant find it? No icon on the desktop... oh... you mean they don't apear automaticaly? So what you click isint the Actual program!? ... real easy guys... real easy...

So spare me the bullshit, games sell, simplicity sells, common users buy. I tell linux geeks to grow up.

Even if Aqua somehow prettied up Linux, the very design of the OS works at odds to a simple computing environment.

.... I can hear the natives getting restless  

[suselinux]

Oh no I wasn't calling the OS mature

I was calling those dependant on games Imature

and your attacking the wrong people here

GNU is all the screwy stuff Linux is jsut the Kernel

by the time GNU was invented Our lord and savior Linus Torvalds could only add his divine touch to the heart of the beast. Gnu was already written in stone by then

and Hey I've posted before "I love OSX" give it to me running on an X86 and ill say "fuck you penguin"..........well not to his face.

Linux is as much an ideal as it is an OS

so even if it's not as mature it is much more enlightened.

[Stryker]

quote:Originally posted by psyjax: plain 'ol psyjax:

Sower grapes.

yum

 

quote:
Games sell, their the only reason consumers want ghz processors and new video cards, if not things wouldent have progressed much farther than the Pentium II and G3.

True, although I bought my new video card because I didn't like the lag while dragging windows

 

quote:
...
Gnome, KDE, et al. are FAR behind all other GUI's, the choice of applications, while enumerable, are mind bogglingly confusing to the common user, this confusion is then magnafied when said user actually tries to install something.

Confusing? I don't really get what's confusing about them. Perhaps you could elaborate on that.

 

quote:
Aqua to linux would be a Godsend, but it's not gonna happen.

never tried it, but you are probably right

 

quote:
Linux's monolithic kernel was never a good choice, it makes things to difficult to implement modular non-dependant applications.

I dont see the chalenge in copying come binaries to /usr/bin and making the appropriate shortcuts for the desktop manager... it's the same thing windows does.

 

quote:
Not to mention the fact that a kernel update is needed like every other day due to bugfixes and new drivers.

I never had to update my kernel, everything I, and most people, need is in Redhat 9.

 

quote:
Most OS's have these components external, plain as day for all to see, linux has to actually rewire it's entire core.

I got my modem drivers working without touching the kernel. No driver I ever added needed me to recompile the kernel. What's wrong with "rewiring" it?

 

quote:
Simple right?

That's an opinion. but most people dont have to worry about complex things anyway.

 

quote:
Not to mention the gobledigook system hiarchy, usr/dev/hda01  .... oh, that's my hardrive!!!

the knowledge of /dev/hda serves no purpose to the common user. Windows also has such devices, take a tour of your registry(which shouldn't exist)

 

quote:
Ya, simple. Were are all my programs?

does it matter? Most windows users don't worry about where their program are.. c:\progra~1\micros~3\visua~1\vb6.exe isn't easy either.

 

quote:
user/bin  ... oh... so how come my icon is in X folder?

The same reason shortcuts are placed on the start menu and desktop, it's easier.

 

quote:
Or even better, I just managed to install this (after attempting to RPM it (failing) then compiling from source three times) programm, and now I cant find it? No icon on the desktop... oh... you mean they don't apear automaticaly? So what you click isint the Actual program!? ... real easy guys... real easy...

talk to the program developers about that.

 

quote:
So spare me the bullshit, games sell, simplicity sells, common users buy. I tell linux geeks to grow up.

bullshit is smelly. games will always sell. linux is simple (for the standard user, it CAN be hard if you make it that way). People can buy linux cheaper than any other OS I can think of. I have grown up.

 

quote:
Even if Aqua somehow prettied up Linux, the very design of the OS works at odds to a simple computing environment.

i dont get it, but i'm sure i could come up with something if i did.

 

quote:
.... I can hear the natives getting restless      

   

I know ur not a windows fan, but linux is still far better than windows. Even as a desktop. I got my mom who's never used a computer before to find linux quite easy. She didn't install it (that's easy though), but it was right after the default installation. She picked up on it right away.

I can't compare it to a mac, as i've never used the newest. But I am all for saying linux is mature.

I'm tired of typing...

[ July 05, 2003: Message edited by: Stryker ]

[suselinux]

I stand behind my MOD

[Stryker]

quote:Originally posted by suselinux:
I stand behind my MOD

we are both mods??

[suselinux]

quote:Originally posted by Stryker:


we are both mods??

Holy crap, I am that dumb.......wow

I ment Stryker when i said MOD