The biggest beneficary of Open source drivers...... APPLE

[madjr]

Once, the Linux community gets enough hardware manufacturers to open up their drivers, we'll get a new mass market competitor: MacOS PC version to compete with windows in it's own territory.

Yea, normal Mac would still be it's main product.

once the BSD kernel and open source driver matures Apple will have very little problem to get MAC OS to work with almost any hardware.

So they'll start selling Mac OS freely for the pc market and quadruple sales and marketshare.

They will take advantage in 2 fronts: proprietary drivers (thanks to their marketshare) and the open source drivers (thanks to the Linux community efforts)

I guess MAC OS will have a win win situation without even making any effort.

I think they're secretly waiting for Linux to advance... so they can further take once again from our achievements.

Every time we advance we're clearing the way for commercial competitors to do so also.

But when they advance, we get an even harder time to do so, because they want everything exclusively for them, closing the doors to others.

We open the door for everyone, but they lock us out.

We'll we ever be number 2 on the desktop with our strategies?

Apple will also let "macOS PC" get pirated. They won't focus too much on sales, but on marketshare, just like windows does.

[acelin]

Actually, there are more Ubuntu installations in the world than Mac OS X. With governments and schools installing more and more machines with Ubuntu, I think we are ahead of the Mac crowd. Does anyone knwo how many Mac users there out there?

[acelin]

Sorry double post.

[kostkon]

We'll we ever be number 2 on the desktop with our strategies?
I think Ubuntu is already the number 2 on the desktop. Counting all the Linux installations only makes the difference even bigger.

There was an article recently about this.

[Dr. C]

All a driver developer has to do is release the drivers under GPL v2 or later. Then they can be used by GNU / Linux but not by Apple. This is a reason why the GPL and copyleft was invented in the first place, by RMS, and this scenario is just that.

[maniacmusician]

I think Ubuntu is already the number 2 on the desktop. Counting all the Linux installations only makes the difference even bigger.

There was an article recently about this.

If you're referring to the older 2004 article that someone posted a link to in the Cafe yesterday or the day before, I believe that article only contained predictions of Linux desktop installations to exceed Mac installations by 2008. I haven't seen any definitive statistics showing this to actually be the case.

[TBOL3]

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
Linux usage is small. Even smaller then apple. And this seems like a webpage that would attract linux users, followed by windows users, followed by apple users.

[billgoldberg]

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
Linux usage is small. Even smaller then apple. And this seems like a webpage that would attract linux users, followed by windows users, followed by apple users.

That link doesn't prove anything.

[igknighted]

I completely disagree with this thread... Apple could have released OSX for windows-based PCs long ago, but it isn't a priority. Why? Because they are first and foremost a hardware company. They want to sell you their box, and the OS on it is simply a ploy to get you to buy theirs instead of another. If you could buy their OS to run on another box, why would you pay more for Apple's? It would cut into their primary market, so it will never happen.

[macogw]

Mac OS has always run on PCs.

And um, yeah, what igknighted said.

[intense.ego]

Once, the Linux community gets enough hardware manufacturers to open up their drivers, we'll get a new mass market competitor: MacOS PC version to compete with windows in it's own territory.

Yea, normal Mac would still be it's main product.

once the BSD kernel and open source driver matures Apple will have very little problem to get MAC OS to work with almost any hardware.

So they'll start selling Mac OS freely for the pc market and quadruple sales and marketshare.

They will take advantage in 2 fronts: proprietary drivers (thanks to their marketshare) and the open source drivers (thanks to the Linux community efforts)

I guess MAC OS will have a win win situation without even making any effort.

I think they're secretly waiting for Linux to advance... so they can further take once again from our achievements.

Every time we advance we're clearing the way for commercial competitors to do so also.

But when they advance, we get an even harder time to do so, because they want everything exclusively for them, closing the doors to others.

We open the door for everyone, but they lock us out.

We'll we ever be number 2 on the desktop with our strategies?

Apple will also let "macOS PC" get pirated. They won't focus too much on sales, but on marketshare, just like windows does.


I completely disagree with this thread... Apple could have released OSX for windows-based PCs long ago, but it isn't a priority. Why? Because they are first and foremost a hardware company. They want to sell you their box, and the OS on it is simply a ploy to get you to buy theirs instead of another. If you could buy their OS to run on another box, why would you pay more for Apple's? It would cut into their primary market, so it will never happen.

Mac OS has not been released to the PC market (that is PCs other than those manufactured by Apple) because Apple likes it that way. Making sure the OS is only operating on specifically designed hardware is what makes Mac OS so problem-free. If they had to deal with all sorts of different hardware, their problems would multiply infinitely. just look at the terrible time Vista is having with drivers and such (same for parts of ubuntu too really). because apple know the hardware they are dealing with, they can ensure the quality of their product.

PS: I am not a Mac fanboy at all. I have never owned one and never plan to, I just understand the argument for them.

[perce]

I think Ubuntu is already the number 2 on the desktop. Counting all the Linux installations only makes the difference even bigger.

There was an article recently about this.

When I go to an internet cafe Macs are often more that Pcs, but I'm always the only one using Linux. And this happens even in a geek/nerd stronghold like Caltech. As sad as it is, the war is lost.

[madjr]

I completely disagree with this thread... Apple could have released OSX for windows-based PCs long ago, but it isn't a priority. Why? Because they are first and foremost a hardware company. They want to sell you their box, and the OS on it is simply a ploy to get you to buy theirs instead of another. If you could buy their OS to run on another box, why would you pay more for Apple's? It would cut into their primary market, so it will never happen.

When Linux starts gaining big marketshare and start becoming number 2 in the desktop, am sure Apple might rethink their strategy and release a PC version of MAC (but probably not as good as it's main MacOS + hardware deal) This will be a strategy to gain marketshare and much more commercial Hardware/software support by getting pirates to start distributing it just like windows.

If they start giving up their marketshare they will lose commercial support. They will not give in to Linux easily

[Polygon]

All a driver developer has to do is release the drivers under GPL v2 or later. Then they can be used by GNU / Linux but not by Apple. This is a reason why the GPL and copyleft was invented in the first place, by RMS, and this scenario is just that.

what are you talking about?

Apple can use the gpled drivers, as long as they provide the source back upstream if they change anything or just provide the source in general.

[schauerlich]

Apple would have released OSX on generic PCs long ago if that's what Uncle Steve wanted. They like their ecosystem the way it is, and I don't see them changing it around any time soon.

[TBOL3]

That link doesn't prove anything.

Of course it doesn't, but it is more then no link at all.

[Dr. C]

what are you talking about?

Apple can use the gpled drivers, as long as they provide the source back upstream if they change anything or just provide the source in general.

IANAL We are talking GPL and not LGPL big difference. Apple can use the GPLed drivers internally but cannot distribute or convey a derived work Kernel+divers without making the whole thing GPL. Apple can easily run afoul of the linking provisions of the GPL. There may be a way around this but it can get very tricky legally.

[bigbrovar]

When I go to an internet cafe Macs are often more that Pcs, but I'm always the only one using Linux. And this happens even in a geek/nerd stronghold like Caltech. As sad as it is, the war is lost.

i wont quite put it that way.. not with the recent success of the eee pc.. today Linux is the choice OS for ultra light pc.. before this year runs the numbers of linux users increase considerably which in turns make hardware vendors take linux more seriously.. this would in turn enhance the out of the box experience of linux,bringing in even more users...
N.B
in my country its very rare to see an apple computer .. u are more likely to see Linux users than anybody running apple

[schauerlich]

IANAL We are talking GPL and not LGPL big difference. Apple can use the GPLed drivers internally but cannot distribute or convey a derived work Kernel+divers without making the whole thing GPL. Apple can easily run afoul of the linking provisions of the GPL. There may be a way around this but it can get very tricky legally.

This is one of the things I really don't like about the GPL - its viral nature. Let those who want to make something open source, open source. Let those who want to make something proprietary, proprietary. The purest freedom is the freedom of choice; all other freedoms stem from this. I'm more of a BSD license kind of guy.

[perce]

i wont quite put it that way.. not with the recent success of the eee pc.. today Linux is the choice OS for ultra light pc..


I suspect this is going to change with the Windows version of the eeepc.



N.B
in my country its very rare to see an apple computer .. u are more likely to see Linux users than anybody running apple

Sorry... :oops: I've been infected to the North-American-centric way of thinking. Actually in my country too I see very few Apples.

[Dr. C]

This is one of the things I really don't like about the GPL - its viral nature. Let those who want to make something open source, open source. Let those who want to make something proprietary, proprietary. The purest freedom is the freedom of choice; all other freedoms stem from this. I'm more of a BSD license kind of guy.

While I must respect this point of view, the reality of human nature is that freedom is not the best way to defend freedom. The argument for a strong copyleft is that it keeps the market place honest, and allows for profit corporations to produce free software, without a competitor being able to take advantage of them. Take a look at some of the contributers to GNU / Linux and, consequently Ubuntu, and you have IBM, SUN, Novell, Google, HP, Intel, and an endless list of for profit corporations that are not only competitors of Microsoft but also competitors of each other. In addition there are many individual developers that would not want their code to be incorporated into closed propriety DRMed software. So I am in favor of the strongest copyleft possible: GPL v3.

For those that do not mind their own code to be licensed back to them for a steep price, under a restrictive EULA, and crippled by nasty DRM by some megacorp then a BSD style license is fine for them. On the other hand for those who wish their code to remain free against the greatest possible list of threats, GPL v3 is the way to go.

[TBOL3]

I agree with fineE. But I do think that the gpl, if anything, will be the downfall of linux.

While I think the idea is good, the problem stems with it's incompatibility. If someone releases something under a licence that's almost identical to the gpl (it protects the same rights, but it's worded differently), it is now incompatible with the rest of linux. Thus creating a huge division.

[tubezninja]

When Linux starts gaining big marketshare and start becoming number 2 in the desktop, am sure Apple might rethink their strategy and release a PC version of MAC

Marketshare is a metric that Apple likes to tout right now seeing as the numbers look interesting at the moment (records climbs in the past few quarters over the past year). However, the bottom line will be two factors: stock price and profit.

Apple does not share the same model that the FOSS community does, where market share is the primary aspiration. If the market share numbers are convenient to Apple, great. However, they are primarily concerned with how much money they are making. And as long they remain profitable, Apple is unconcerned about its market ranking.

Also bear in mind that Apple, quite frankly, isn't about just computers anymore. In fact, they've sold more iPods and iPhones than they have Macs, and it's been that way for several years now.

In any case, I really don't see Apple trying the open hardware model again any time soon. They tried it once before and nearly went out of business. And while there's a company who CLAIMS to be selling an "Open" hardware Mac, there is as yet no one outside of company who has received a computer from them yet.

[schauerlich]

While I must respect this point of view, the reality of human nature is that freedom is not the best way to defend freedom. The argument for a strong copyleft is that it keeps the market place honest, and allows for profit corporations to produce free software, without a competitor being able to take advantage of them. Take a look at some of the contributers to GNU / Linux and, consequently Ubuntu, and you have IBM, SUN, Novell, Google, HP, Intel, and an endless list of for profit corporations that are not only competitors of Microsoft but also competitors of each other. In addition there are many individual developers that would not want their code to be incorporated into closed propriety DRMed software. So I am in favor of the strongest copyleft possible: GPL v3.

For those that do not mind their own code to be licensed back to them for a steep price, under a restrictive EULA, and crippled by nasty DRM by some megacorp then a BSD style license is fine for them. On the other hand for those who wish their code to remain free against the greatest possible list of threats, GPL v3 is the way to go.

But isn't the point of free software to let the code be free for whatever it's useful for? I consider the GPL a restrictive license, because it keeps me from doing whatever I may want with the code I get.

I'd also like to address this section in particular:

The argument for a strong copyleft is that it keeps the market place honest, and allows for profit corporations to produce free software, without a competitor being able to take advantage of them.

But doesn't this go against the FOSS philosophy, that code should be shared? Why can't a competitor take advantage of another company's open source software? And last time I checked, business isn't the place to look for honesty. :lolflag:

I'll repeat my original point: Developers should be able to chose whether their project is open source or not, and the GPL does not allow for that.

[geoken]

I'll repeat my original point: Developers should be able to chose whether their project is open source or not, and the GPL does not allow for that.

I don't understand the problem? If you want to be closed source then why should you care about the GPL? Just make your closed source app and be happy with whatever alternate licsence you chose.

[the_darkside_986]

If the GPL and software freedom are such a problem, a company is free to write their own original code. "Freedom" to enslave is not a legitimate freedom.

With that being said, I think Apple mostly writes proprietary user-land applications. The kernel was/is an open source project (unless that has changed?). however, there still may be problems with GPL drivers vs. the Darwin BSD-style license, but if Darwin is open source then it should be alright. I mean, Mac OS X already contains some GNU programs (command line stuff).

[maniacmusician]

I'll repeat my original point: Developers should be able to chose whether their project is open source or not, and the GPL does not allow for that.

Well, sure, but the GPL is a statement by developers who want to incur growth by keeping code active and open source. Isn't it also a developer's choice to be able to say "I don't want my code being used in closed-source applications"? I think it's kind of understandable.

Which is why multiple licenses exist; some developers want to say "do whatever you want with my code, I don't care," and others want to say "You can use and improve my code if you share it back" while still others will have commercial restrictions, etc.

While a lot of these things do end up creating license conflicts that prevent projects from coming together, they also allow the developers to clearly express how they want their work to be treated.