On Mar 25, 2005, at 9:41 AM, Stuart Jansen wrote:
On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 17:49 -0700, Grant Robinson wrote:
While many people have said "I don't want to
use software that is not free(libre)" and have hinted or outright said
that Apple should open-source more of their OS, I would say that there
is no good reason for Apple to give up one of their biggest
advantages.
There's a subtle difference there. I didn't say that Apple should do
anything. I said I won't be letting them take control of my future.
They
can make their software as closed as they want, I just won't be using
it.
And I wasn't referring to you specifically. I have heard many people
in many forums say things like "Apple should open source all of OS X".
The same people that say that also usually say "Apple should release OS
X for x86", which is also a flawed argument, as control of hardware and
software is what makes using OS X a very stable experience.
Sure, striving to use only F/OSS is occasionally bumpy, but it's
nowhere
as bad as my experience with proprietary software. In fact, I have so
often been disappointed by unresponsive and incompetent vendors, I
emotionally consider proprietary software a form of tyranny. The
difference is it's a tyranny that can be easily escaped. Others may
choose to live in slavery, that's there business, I don't anymore.
Those are pretty strong terms, but to each his own. My choice of
software or hardware vendors doesn't affect me on that personal of a
level. If Apple went under, I would be sad, but I could live without
them. So could most people if their favorite hardware/software vendor
went under. Stuart, "I think it's safe to say you are taking this
whole software thing to an unhealthy level. Let me give you my card".
:) (oh, and if you know the movie reference, you get a gold star).
That said, my experience is most heavily influenced by the experience
of
running proprietary software on servers. I can see the attraction to
home consumers of trading a little freedom for lickable buttons. I have
a hard time understanding how companies can repeatedly hand control of
their future over to somebody else.
First off, don't try and lick the buttons on OX X. Computer screens
may look clean but they really aren't. Trust me.
Second, if we have to put slavery on a scale with 10 being most and 1
being least, here is where I would rank Apple, Microsoft, Novell, and
All Linux vendors for a combination of directory services, web
services, and file services
10 - Micrsoft with legacy ASP web apps
9
8 - Microsoft with .NET
7
6
5 - Novell with Netware
4
3 - Apple
2
1 - All Linux Vendors (including Novell with Suse)
I base this on how hard it would be to transition from one vendor to
Linux. Apple would be the easiest in my opinion, because the only
thing you would really have to worry about is OpenDirectory.
Everything else (except perhaps WebObjects) is stock stuff that linux
has (Apache/MySQL/PostgreSQL/PHP/Tomcat/JBoss) and WebObjects can be
deployed as J2EE apps. Microsoft with .NET would be easier because of
Mono, but still a pain. Novell with Netware is my real unknown, cause
I'm not sure how their new linux-friendly attitude is rolling over into
their old product areas. That one could probably drop to 4 or maybe
even a 3. Legacy ASP would be the worst, because as far as I know, the
only solution on Linnux/UNIX is also proprietary.
That being said, for home users, I think OS X would still be their best
bet. Just remember, don't lick the buttons. :)
Grant
--------------------
BYU Unix Users Group
http://uug.byu.edu/
The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their
author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG.
___________________________________________________________________
List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list