Re: OSX will fail
> % Apple doesn't need Ms now, Apple is
> not in the bad position it was and
> % alternatives are legion (like OpenOffice).
> % Don't think Apple like a puppet!
> Actually Apple does need MS.
> If Apple has the same issues interfacing with MS as Linux then the
> raison d'etre for Apple becomes very thin. What are you left with? A pretty
> interface. I don't think many enterprise users will go for that. Then there is
> the hardware issue. Where are you going to get your hardware .. um.. Apple.
> Well, just brilliant, now you have a possibliy windows compatible system with
> hardware from the same vendor. And you were complaining about MS? At least with
> them you could go to Dell, or HP/C or Gateway or IBM. Apple has an MS imposed
> glass ceiling and OSX does not break them out of it.
> Linux on the other hand has the ability to do an end run around that barrier.
> Thats why the commercial interest is in Linux not OSX.
So why Hollywood seems to prefer Final Cut Pro/Mac than Adobe Premiere/Win or any Linux Solutions ?
True there are also linux clusters for calculus but that is something you can do on ANY unix, if you have the software (MPI and PVM exist nearly for any OS)
About Office, the compatibility was needed because there was no other way to get it before. true it's also one Apple switch reason but as i said which is needed more is interoperability and now you can achieve with OpenOffice
The problem was the same for Linux where there was never some Ms Office, but now with a visible OpenOffice which stands on nearly all platforms, IT Department may have a better choice for Office Software...
> % All other systems have no support for Ms
> % Office and for many of them, they live
> % quiet good.
> Yes, but Apple has to be profitable to
> survive. It can't just live "quite good"
> it has to make money. Unlike some of
> those other systems which can even
> survive as non profits!
I don't remember Solaris or AIX have Office.
yes, Apple is neither Sun, nor IBM, but i think they have some time before closing (some billions bank credits, little compare to Ms but sufficient)
> % i think you don't see why OS X is different from Unix.
> % there are people who search direct and
> % best productivity without having hours
> % to configure your app, searching howto
> % or web for the information needed: in
> % term of video, creativity, press, ...
> Sow hy switch to OSX stay with Windows !
> All of the above you get with Windows!!
> why switch indeed?!!
because MacOS X stands higher than windows, true UNIX based, and Mac easyness.
but i think you don't believe me, do you ?
> % Enterprise don't see any differences of
> % resellers when they see productivity or
> % so why there is still some Mainframe,
> % SGI, and others in so many firms.
> Too true! so why go with Apple when you
> already have a tool that does the job -
> Windows? After all in the Windows vs
> Linux setup you can switch because of
> lower costs and multiple vendors, so you
> can compete support and the product
> itself. You don't get that in the OSX vs
> Windows setup. So why look at OSX? The
> match up will always be Linux vs
Get some consultant stuff and you see that TCO on Mac is lower than windows.
don't speak about Linux (http://searchwindowsmanageability.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid33_gci844851,00.html)
> % You also don't see that on software
> % side, even in opensource, there is not
> % true interoperabilty on vertical
> % sectors: for example medical patient
> % folder, comptability, finance, ...
> % It's better in 3D, 2D or Office, but
> % there has always been many formats in
> % these fields.
> This still does not present any more
> opportunity for OSX than existed with
> the previous Apple OSes. They will still
> sell to their old customers. Few new
harder, but not impossible, depend of user community which is strong (considering what it went through)
> % And what is GNU/Darwin which stands
> % *BSD in front of Linux, seems to you ...
> % APSL has been recognized as free for
> % FSF
> So what! Darwin IS NOT OSX!!
right but you have the warranty that MacOS X base will exist for long and you can modify it.
A kernel comparison would be much long but Apple technotes may show you some diff with others kernel.
> I'm not sure what Apple users do in 5
> seconds that takes me hours. My
> observation of them tells me that these
> "common family users", basically surf
> the web, write documents, play music,
> edit photos and do some simple
> spreadsheet stuff. None of which they
> can do any faster than I can on my Linux
> system. In fact I have noticed a
> disturbingly high level of confusion and
> ineptitude amongs many users of Windows
> and macs, I often have to help out work
> mates with problems on those systems.
> May be they stick to the simple stuff
> thats why they don't tinker as much.
> They use a stock system with little
> customization and only the programs that
> came with it. Well they are missing
sorry but i have not seen many direct use of camera or video camera on Linux (or windows)
there is much time where there is some kernel module or userland program to compile or install.
depends on what you do, writing or playing mp3 is fast & easy on every platform (except if you ask user to compile his soft), connecting the world more difficult (take a look to iSync which synchronizes your phone, Palm, IPod and Mac data in one button ...)
In general MacOS X is as customisable as windows, if not more.
> % it depends a lot ....
> % You have freedom for lower level like
> % kernel, daemons, ...
> % It may not be useful to have all
> % control...
> % did you truly modify much code in your
> % systems ? are you a good hacker ?
> % or do you ask for freedom just because
> % it seems to be good ?
> No I'm not a hacker and I don't modify
> the code (well except changing strings
> in Perl programs of PHP programs). But I
> benefit from other people doing so and
> from the multitude of dual free
> programs available. So what if you can
> get alot or even most of that in darwin
> (its not as much anyway), I already have
> it in Linux its not a reason to switch.
> After all the stuff that just working in
> OSX is the stock stuff. Under linux I
> can get the most obscure program I can
> find that does something I want, compile
> from source and run it and once I
> configure the stock stuff it just works.
> My Open Office just works, so does Gimp,
> Galeon, Evolution Xmms, XCDRoast,
> Gftp,Bluefish, Audacity, Nautilus,
> MultiGnome Terminal, LinNeighborhood,
> and GQ view. Thats my stock stuff. I had
> to install and configure some of it, but
> it just works. The rest I just play
> with, Apache, R, Videolan, Postnuke,
> MySQL etc I tinker a lot with them. I
> learn and its fun.
> Bottom line. OSX stacks up poorly
> against XP. What does it have that XP
> does not? for those who don't care about
> the freedom dimension and just want it
> to work.
don't think so. but it will always be partial for anyone, some tech hints: UNIX base, IPv6 (not option), True RFC compliant IPSec (see freeswan doc for compliant info, or win one), easy integration with LDAP, Kerberos, Rendezvous, ...
MacOS X is more open than Win or compare to Ms tech: kernel, Rendezvous, MPEG-4 support, ...
> OSX also stacks up poorly against Linux
> because Linux users want more than a
> pretty face and just works. They like to
> tinker and they like to tinker and they
> like their freedom. A proprietary system
> controlled by a single vendor can never
> give them that.
Right, i don't think as tim O'Reilly, core Linux users will switch. it's only for people who try Linux because someone say them but they are not enjoying it, because it's not their way of life. Not everyone is ready to use linux full time, take a look at some README, INSTALL, compile, ask mail list or news for help, etc...
> I'm sorry for Apple but its too late to
> save themselves from the yawning chasm
> of bottomless irrelevancy.
Apple Expo, France was one of the biggest ever seen and it is one of the biggest European show.
wait and see ...
Re: OSX will fail
> Once MS puts its anti trust woes behind it, it
> will have no reason to keep Apple around
> and it will pull support for MS
> applications on ANY Apple OS. That will
> relegate Apple to complete irrelevancy
> and users will see Apple for what it
> really is - nothing but a pretty shell.
Apple doesn't need Ms now, Apple is not in the bad position it was and alternatives are legion (like OpenOffice). Don't think Apple like a puppet!
All other systems have no support for Ms Office and for many of them, they live quiet good.
> Why should Linux users and why should
> enterprises switch to OSX?
i think you don't see why OS X is different from Unix.
there are people who search direct and best productivity without having hours to configure your app, searching howto or web for the information needed: in term of video, creativity, press, ...
Enterprise don't see any differences of resellers when they see productivity or so why there is still some Mainframe, SGI, and others in so many firms.
You also don't see that on software side, even in opensource, there is not true interoperabilty on vertical sectors: for example medical patient folder, comptability, finance, ...
It's better in 3D, 2D or Office, but there has always been many formats in these fields.
> If there is anything the rise of open
> source and free software signifies - it
> is the end of single vendor lock in.
> Businesses clearly want freedom and so
> do users.
And what is GNU/Darwin which stands as *BSD in front of Linux, seems to you ...
APSL has been recognized as free for FSF
> What about the non enterprise user?
Common family users have no interest in the underground of bash, /etc/passwd or others, they want something which "just works" out of the box and which they could modify easily.
some Desktop Environment on Linux try to make it, but it's not so natural: using Linux without going under has no interest, i think and not so many users are ready to do it.
these nifty Apps are what permits MacOS X user to do in 5 sec what you do in hours ...
> OSX may get a few windows users but not
> too many MS will kill them off before
> they can do any damage. They won't get
> much from Linux since Linux users want
> more than OSX can give. They want
it depends a lot ....
You have freedom for lower level like kernel, daemons, ...
It may not be useful to have all control...
did you truly modify much code in your systems ? are you a good hacker ?
or do you ask for freedom just because it seems to be good ?