Jeff Mincey's Profile

By the way, as an addendum let me clarify that I think no one suggests Linux is not commercially viable as a SERVER platform, and I don't know anyone who counts Linux out as a possible player at the desktop level. I just don't think it's there yet -- in spite of the strides it has made thus far. Also, the market share figures of 0.30 percent are AGGREGATE data -- which combine the server and workstation figures. The market share of Linux on the desktop is actually much lower yet. Anyway, let's remember how this whole thing got started -- we are speculating as to whether Apple should throw its significant consumer savvy to the Linux platform and whether Linux itself is a viable player as a consumer desktop OS. Others in this thread have spoken of apps like Open Office, GIMP, etc. -- and I can run all these same apps under Darwin and OS X. So I feel I pretty much have the best of both worlds here. What value does Linux ADD to a person like me -- again, at the desktop level?

wvandin says: "To the comments about Apple complying with the gpl, I doubt it. I’m sure that if you take libdvdread and the like out of Apples non-free software that it will work. Maybe more people need to get a clue." Your doubts don't qualify as evidence. If you have good cause to claim that Apple fails to live up to the terms of its open source licenses (such as the GPL), please cite a URL I can examine. Until you do this, you might hold off on the "get a clue" rhetoric.

George, I've read your last two posts but can't summon the energy to respond just now because as it happens I have the flu, (and have had it for days actually but somehoe managed to keep up my end of the discussion until now). So I guess you will just have to wait a while for my highly coveted and sought after response and words of wisdom. :-)

George, no need to play the misunderstood martyr; I fully understand the distinction you are drawing. But the kind of "open source" freedom you embrace in Linux is not what permits you to install it on the computers of your friends. It's the "free as in beer" policy that allows you to do that. As I have tried to get across (but apparently in vain), OS X is open source also -- except for the proprietary GUI layer which Apple ADDS to the operating system. All the rest of it, Darwin, X11, and the same GNU tools and window managers you have with Linux are every bit as "free" (in the sense of speech) as it is under Linux. The only thing that prevents you from installing OS X wherever and whenever you want is the "free as in beer" restriction -- which you yourself acknowledge many Linux distros have as well. Thus you steer clear not only from OS X on this ground but also from other Linux distros ON THE SAME GROUND. And it's not that these other Linux distros are less free as in speech; rather they are just less free as in BEER. Now you ought to know your own reasons -- after all, if you are the authority on nothing else, it's on your own position. But as you attempt to lay it out in this thread, something is just not adding up.

Oh, one more thing -- I wish to reiterate that OS X is built on many open source software components. Even Apple's web browser, Safari, is built on the open source KHTML rendering engine (the same as that used by Konqueror). Apple not only takes from the open source community but it also gives back to it. Yes, Apple retains exclusive control over the end product, but then if you think the same is not true of Novell with SuSE and Red Hat with its enterprise product, you have another thing coming. So, again, I fail to see a compelling difference here which would argue in favor of Linux. Linux does have its stengths, but on balance -- and especially as a consumer platform -- I think OS X holds the edge.

First, let me say I thoroughly enjoyed reading the post by viperteq. You make some valid points. Second, to George, I don't recall making any claim that one cannot use or configure Linux except by having to edit text files. That was someone else in this thread -- not me. Third, it seems to me that your use of "freedom" is a euphemism for wanting to have free (as in beer) and unrestricted access to use an operating system in any way you wish. You want to be able to give copies of the OS to your friends. I don't find this a reasonable criterion by which to evaluate software. Hey, don't get me wrong -- I wish all software carried no price nor any license restrictions either. But is that wish reasonable? Microsoft has historically had Draconian licensing terms, but Apple's license is much more forgiving. You don't have to call Apple and go through the "Mother may I" routine in order to install the same copy of OS X on multiple computers. Is it a technical violation of the EULA? Yes. But Apple doesn't take measures to prevent you from doing it and instead relies on your honor. Now maybe you are under the impression that I could take Novell's SuSE Linux and install it willy nilly on any computer or server I wanted -- all without any violation of the EULA -- but in this impression you would be mistaken. This idea that just because an operating system is Linux it ipso facto carries no restrictions is just wrong. Sure, certain distros, under certain conditions, may waive any restrictions, but then you get ZERO support, ZERO customer service, ZERO help -- and in some cases ZERO updates. If you want to run debugging software and reverse engineer or decompile software, you can do this under OS X very easily. You can even do this to Darwin components. You iust can't do it to proprietary OS X components. Now if this restriction somehow confines you, then OS X is not the platform for you; but I find it hard to believe you are wiling away the hours by decompiling Linux binaries. To me, the best OS is the one I'm scarcely conscious of as I use a computer. I want the OS to get out of my way and allow me to effectively get my work done. I don't want it in my face, I don't want it to impose idiosyncratic config requirements on me, I want it to be brain-dead simple to use. Having IT/developer skills doesn't change this attitude on my part. I gather you are a highly skilled software developer or power user. That's fine -- but does this mean you actually PREFER software which is obtuse, arcanse, or otherwise difficult or a pain in the ass to use? Are you still clinging to the myth that more complexity in the UI means more power, and, conversely, that less complexity in the UI means less power? Surely not. No need to apologize for the soapbox. And in fact I AM glad I asked -- because I enjoyed reading your elaboration and I'm glad you fleshed out your earlier comments. One last reminder -- on a Mac, one can run both OS X and any number of Linux distros or BSD implementations. And on upcoming Intel Macs one can run Windows as well (by all accounts). But one cannot run OS X on just any Wintel or Linux box. So I find that the Mac platform allows much more flexibility in this regard.

George, I would be interested in your answer to this question: What does any Linux distro offer (as part of the OS) which sets it apart favorably in your view from OS X. Now for purposes of this question, I define OS in loose technical terms to be not only the kernel but also all subsystems thereto, such as I/O, file system, device drivers, hardware abstraction, graphics and GUI APIs, window managers, command shells, developer tools, etc. And I exclude (for this question) bundled applications (such as iTunes). I ask because it seems to me that by and large OS X includes everything you cite as an advantage with Linux -- except for the kernel. Now if you truly want this discussion to be about the merits of the Linux kernel vis-a-vis the merits of Xnu and Mach, feel free. Otherwise, however, let me point out that OS X includes the full bundle of GNU tools -- including developer tools, text editors, compilers, etc. It includes X11. It does not include (but it can run) KDE and Gnome). It includes such common parts of Linux distros as Apache, sendmail, postfix, ssh, telnet, ftp, imap, ldap, vi, emacs, MySQL, php, Java, ruby, perl, python, NFS, SMB/CIFS, etc. (I could go on and on with this.) OS X includes the standard UNIX command shells such as Korn, Bash, and many others. In fact, OS X has more claim to the UNIX family that Linux does -- because at least OS X is a derivative of the BSD branch on the UNIX tree. In contrast, Linux is a whole new kernel altogether and the GNU tools had to be ported over to it. So please make the case that Linux is offering something to the consumer -- or indeed even the developer -- that OS X sorely lacks. While you ponder that question, let me say I must take issue that Linux has attained an ease of use sufficient for it to join other consumer desktop platforms. Good luck having an ordinary user configure a Linux computer for use with third-party devices such as cameras, scanners, printers, cell phones, etc. Linux has made great strides in this area but still doens't measure up just yet. (I hope one day it will do so.) Also, I don't expect the hapless end user to be able to navigate the dizzying array of Linux distro choices on the market. For any operating system to meet the standard of a consumer desktop platform, it must have provision for prompt, regular automatic security updates. Many Linux distros fail by this measure alone. But getting back to my original question, what do you find lacking in OS X that Linux brings to the table? Also, do you think Apple should invest in porting its proprietary software (such as iTunes, Quicktime, Safari, etc) over to Linux? If so, why?