PDA

View Full Version : So many MS posts, what about Apple?



WalmartSniperLX
May 16th, 2007, 10:10 AM
Whats with all the MS haters. What about Apple? I'm sick of people bashing MS when theyre forgetting there is a another corperate lock-down called Mac. They take a lot from open-source giving nearily nothing in return (however thank BSD for that possibility), they only allow you to legally use Apple hardware with Apple software (which is understandable to an extent since OS X was tested only with a few select peices of hardware for super stability and compatibility). On top of that, they overcharge you for anything from them.

It seems people who like Mac like it simply because OS X is based on *NIX. But, who cares. I understand that Vista took a lot of ideas from OS X but that is a fair strategy in competition. Sure it isn't inovative but it's not cheating or copyright infringment. MS may have its strict laws but so does Apple.

Well anyway, flame away. Just kidding but I want to hear it. Please don't direct anger toward me, just post your thoughts as I have posted mine:) :D And, honestly I don't have anything against Apple or MS. I just want to hear some thoughts from the community.

brim4brim
May 16th, 2007, 10:15 AM
I kind of agree. Apple take a lot from Open Source, given back very little. Where is iTunes and Quicktime for Linux?

They also make huge mark ups on their products because they've locked users into their platform.

Ms and Apple are as bad as each other. If anything Apple would be worse given half the chance to form a monopoly on OSes. Just look at the iPod and ITMS fiasco.

steven8
May 16th, 2007, 10:19 AM
I understand that Vista took a lot of ideas from OS X but that is a fair strategy in competition. Sure it isn't inovative but it's not cheating or infringment.

Actually, that is exactly the type of infringement MS is referring too. It's not about stealing code. Sure, Apple's bad at user lock. They're one BIG lock. However, it's all about how you present yourself. When Bill Gates walks into a room, we all hear the Darth Vader theme in our head for a reason. When Steven Jobs walks into a room, we hear Daydream Believer. It's all in the presentation.

WalmartSniperLX
May 16th, 2007, 10:20 AM
Actually, that is exactly the type of infringement MS is referring too. It's not about stealing code. Sure, Apple's bad at user lock. They're one BIG lock. However, it's all about how you present yourself. When Bill Gates walks into a room, we all hear the Darth Vader theme in our head for a reason. When Steven Jobs walks into a room, we hear Daydream Believer. It's all in the presentation.

I understand you, but I meant copyright or legal infringment. I will edit it. But, you are right. Its rather stupid they push this crap on linux users when they are doing it themselves.

ssam
May 16th, 2007, 10:25 AM
they do give stuff back. their kernel is opensource (you can download and run it on any powerpc or x86 hardware). they contribute code back projects eg khtml, gcc etc. http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html

they promote open standards. eg
zeroconf, apple did most of the work designing it. now it is used lots in linux (as well as other places. just bought a HP deskjet 6940 which uses it). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeroconf
xml. pretty much apple their applications store their data as xml. it is easy for example for a third party app to read the itunes database.
canvas tag in html. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canvas_tag

they produce software for linux. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shake_%28software%29

i don't recall an aggression from apple towards linux.

brim4brim
May 16th, 2007, 10:31 AM
they do give stuff back. their kernel is opensource (you can download and run it on any powerpc or x86 hardware). they contribute code back projects eg khtml, gcc etc. http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html

they promote open standards. eg
zeroconf, apple did most of the work designing it. now it is used lots in linux (as well as other places. just bought a HP deskjet 6940 which uses it). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeroconf
xml. pretty much apple their applications store their data as xml. it is easy for example for a third party app to read the itunes database.
canvas tag in html. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canvas_tag

they produce software for linux. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shake_%28software%29

i don't recall an aggression from apple towards linux.

They only use Open Source for the security parts of the OS. All the GUI work is closed source so you can get the kernel but you can't run any of their software without getting a Mac, nor can you run third parties software using Linux that is designed for OSX because of cocoa libraries not being Open Sourced.

WalmartSniperLX
May 16th, 2007, 10:33 AM
they do give stuff back. their kernel is opensource (you can download and run it on any powerpc or x86 hardware). they contribute code back projects eg khtml, gcc etc. http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html

they promote open standards. eg
zeroconf, apple did most of the work designing it. now it is used lots in linux (as well as other places. just bought a HP deskjet 6940 which uses it). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeroconf
xml. pretty much apple their applications store their data as xml. it is easy for example for a third party app to read the itunes database.
canvas tag in html. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canvas_tag

they produce software for linux. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shake_%28software%29

i don't recall an aggression from apple towards linux.

IS that the OS X kernel or just already open source projects and the kernel os x was BASED on? The fact that the 2 are based on BSD lisences (correct me if I am wrong), Apple changed them and relisenced them in os x as proprietary code. However there is a great deal of os x that is open source.

Adamant1988
May 16th, 2007, 10:39 AM
Whats with all the MS haters. What about Apple? I'm sick of people bashing MS when theyre forgetting there is a another corperate lock-down called Mac. They take a lot from open-source giving nearily nothing in return (however thank BSD for that possibility), they only allow you to legally use Apple hardware with Apple software (which is understandable to an extent since OS X was tested only with a few select peices of hardware for super stability and compatibility). On top of that, they overcharge you for anything from them.

It seems people who like Mac like it simply because OS X is based on *NIX. But, who cares. I understand that Vista took a lot of ideas from OS X but that is a fair strategy in competition. Sure it isn't inovative but it's not cheating or copyright infringment. MS may have its strict laws but so does Apple.

Well anyway, flame away. Just kidding but I want to hear it. Please don't direct anger toward me, just post your thoughts as I have posted mine:) :D And, honestly I don't have anything against Apple or MS. I just want to hear some thoughts from the community.

I have no problem with proprietary design, or even companies selling software. I have a problem with Monopolies. Microsoft, being a monopoly, bothers me.

brim4brim
May 16th, 2007, 10:46 AM
I have no problem with proprietary design, or even companies selling software. I have a problem with Monopolies. Microsoft, being a monopoly, bothers me.

Ms aren't really a monopoly. They have not locked users into Windows really as there is Office for Mac etc.. The reason Ms have so much marketshare is because users choose to be locked into it by not wanting to learn about alternatives.

If someone duplicated windows with all windows programs supported and shipped it with a different name, people would buy it instead. Its only the laziness and fear in people to learn about technology that keeps Ms a monopoly.

steven8
May 16th, 2007, 10:55 AM
Ms aren't really a monopoly. They have not locked users into Windows really as there is Office for Mac etc.. The reason Ms have so much marketshare is because users choose to be locked into it by not wanting to learn about alternatives.

If someone duplicated windows with all windows programs supported and shipped it with a different name, people would buy it instead. Its only the laziness and fear in people to learn about technology that keeps Ms a monopoly.

They sure are a monopoly. This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft doesn't happen just because people are too lazy to change.

ssam
May 16th, 2007, 11:16 AM
They only use Open Source for the security parts of the OS. All the GUI work is closed source so you can get the kernel but you can't run any of their software without getting a Mac, nor can you run third parties software using Linux that is designed for OSX because of cocoa libraries not being Open Sourced.

yes its only the kernel part of the OS that is opensource. there is plenty of proprietary bits in there as well.

do you think it is wrong for any person or company to produce closed source code? (BTW do you have the flash plug in installed?) This is fair enough, some people do think this.

an alternative view is to say as long as apple don't go out of their way to hurt opensource, then they can sell their software under what ever licence they want. if people want to buy it its up to them.

i think it is a bit harsh to hate a company because they only help contribute a bit of open source code.

Adamant1988
May 16th, 2007, 11:16 AM
Ms aren't really a monopoly. They have not locked users into Windows really as there is Office for Mac etc.. The reason Ms have so much marketshare is because users choose to be locked into it by not wanting to learn about alternatives.

If someone duplicated windows with all windows programs supported and shipped it with a different name, people would buy it instead. Its only the laziness and fear in people to learn about technology that keeps Ms a monopoly.

They are an effective Monopoly, having 90%+ of the home/enterprise PC market in their pocket. Windows is a monopoly because the vast majority of software written for users... is written for Windows. Windows is a monopoly because switching is not only difficult, it is HIGHLY discouraged by practices of the Redmond empire.

People do not buy Windows on a store-shelf 90% of the time, they buy it Pre-installed on a computer, because it's the only choice for almost every major application written. It's a monopoly, but your argument is the only reason the government hasn't stepped in and gone 'EU' on Microsoft.

zenwhen
May 16th, 2007, 11:35 AM
Apple does have a better relationship with the "open source" community than Microsoft, but is no less of an enemy to the free software movement.

I think Apple hate is less noted on forums such as this because Apple does not hold majority market share. They sell proprietary software, though. It is tied to their hardware. It is tested only on their hardware.

They have a profitable business model. Whether this can be spoken of as a "good" business model is up for debate.

Apple also is not hated on because it does not have many of the flaws that you will find in Windows. OSX is not nearly as much of a security nightmare as Windows. It doesn't have spyware issues. It doesn't have virus issues. It runs wonderfully on Apple's hardware.

Driver issues are non-issues...

An Apple computer running OSX can be tinkered with and you can have a good time customizing things. However, you can choose not to, and have a computer that is reliable as a toaster, microwave, or refrigerator.

My Mac is like an appliance I sit down at for a dose of internet, music, and video. My Linux box is my workhorse. It is a great situation.

Adamant1988
May 16th, 2007, 11:39 AM
Apple does have a better relationship with the "open source" community than Microsoft, but is no less of an enemy to the free software movement.

I think Apple hate is less noted on forums such as this because Apple does not hold majority market share. They sell proprietary software, though. It is tied to their hardware. It is tested only on their hardware.

They have a profitable business model. Whether this can be spoken of as a "good" business model is up for debate.

Apple also is not hated on because it does not have many of the flaws that you will find in Windows. OSX is not nearly as much of a security nightmare as Windows. It doesn't have spyware issues. It doesn't have virus issues. It runs wonderfully on Apple's hardware.

Driver issues are non-issues...

An Apple computer running OSX can be tinkered with and you can have a good time customizing things. However, you can choose not to, and have a computer that is reliable as a toaster, microwave, or refrigerator.

My Mac is like an appliance I sit down at for a dose of internet, music, and video. My Linux box is my workhorse. It is a great situation.

Apple computers rest in a weird place. They're designed like consumer electronics, but they run like computers, and operate like them too. So, you really can't look at a Mac the same way you can look at a PC, because they're not the same. A Mac is like a game console to a large degree, meaning the operating system of that hardware is tied to that hardware to ensure best-of-breed performance.

So, to an extent, saying that Apple is an enemy of the free-software movement is the same as saying Nintendo is an enemy of the free software movement.

SunnyRabbiera
May 16th, 2007, 12:30 PM
The thing is that Apple isnt nearly as pushy as MS when concerning who gets to wear the pants in the OS market.
I think Apple learned its lession when the US patent office denied them thier claim that only they can have a GUI, but now are more neutral then they used to be.

brim4brim
May 16th, 2007, 12:43 PM
yes its only the kernel part of the OS that is opensource. there is plenty of proprietary bits in there as well.

do you think it is wrong for any person or company to produce closed source code? (BTW do you have the flash plug in installed?) This is fair enough, some people do think this.

an alternative view is to say as long as apple don't go out of their way to hurt opensource, then they can sell their software under what ever licence they want. if people want to buy it its up to them.

i think it is a bit harsh to hate a company because they only help contribute a bit of open source code.

I don't hate them nor do I think closed source is bad. I duel boot with Windows and I use a Mac at the office.

Flash is different however because it is not building on Open Source technologies. Apple have taken an open source kernel and added a closed source interface and locked it to their hardware to make a profit. That is what I find unethical. That and they don't seem to have contributed a whole lot back to the Open Source community so after using Open Source code in their OS, they didn't release an iPod connection library for Desktop Linux users.

ssam
May 16th, 2007, 01:25 PM
I don't hate them nor do I think closed source is bad. I duel boot with Windows and I use a Mac at the office.

Flash is different however because it is not building on Open Source technologies. Apple have taken an open source kernel and added a closed source interface and locked it to their hardware to make a profit. That is what I find unethical. That and they don't seem to have contributed a whole lot back to the Open Source community so after using Open Source code in their OS, they didn't release an iPod connection library for Desktop Linux users.

thanks. that clarifies better in my head what is upsetting you.

do you mind netscape doing the same with the mozilla code. they still release a closed souce version of mozilla which they call netscape. i am not sure if they give any code back. (but then they did opensource the netscape code to create the mozilla project).

what about when a GPL project incorporates BSD style licenced code? The original BSD project can't take new changes back from the GPL project. I am pretty sure this is a common thing in the linux kernel.

the beryl people changed their licence so that code could only flow from compiz to beryl, but not back. this has all been resolved now though.

i guess its the grey space between illegal and impolite when it comes to using BSD code. some people give back everything, some give back none. apple seem to give back some.

Erunno
May 16th, 2007, 02:03 PM
Apple has released WebKit (which is partly based upon KHTML) under the LGPL license so at least they have the decency to let the people who's technologies they used to build theirs use the improved versions.

forrestcupp
May 16th, 2007, 02:05 PM
Yeah, Apple won't even make iTunes for Linux, so do you think there's any way they would make it for BSD, which is what osx is based on? Some of the same people who talk bad about MS because of how much their software costs seem to like Macs just because they are not MS. But Mac computers and software cost way more than Windows PCs and software. It's a double standard. Steve Jobs is just as shrewd as anyone at MS.

zugu
May 16th, 2007, 02:18 PM
Apple stole nothing from the BSD people. What Apple did cannot be classified as stealing, since they did nothing but obey the BSD license. And who says they're supposed to give back anything to the community?

GPL exists to prevent exactly that kind behaviour and to make sure that all the beneficial changes make it into the open code.

And yes, Apple is more evil than MS, because their users are not only in software lock-in, but in hardware lock-in. Imagine a world where Apple has the biggest market share *shrug*.

graabein
May 16th, 2007, 02:19 PM
Apple who? ;)

b0ng0
May 16th, 2007, 02:34 PM
I dislike Apple Inc. with an unreasonable passion. I can't really say specifically why but I guess it's their advertising and philosophy that annoys me. I think their computers are designed to keep users in the dark and they put emphasis on simplicity which basically ends up with a bunch of users who have no idea about how to use a computer beyond the most basic tasks.

Not that MS are much better, but I feel I have learnt more about computers from having to deal with the problems Windows has given me than I would have with OSX. And they say it doesn't crash which is rubbish, it crashes just as often as Windows :p.

Sunnz
May 16th, 2007, 02:40 PM
The BSD people doesn't care about getting code back, they simply like their code to be used. Apple is being generous giving back code when they don't have to - they have a great relationship with the BSD people.

So I don't understand why some freedom junkies like to infer their own philosophy on BSD, they are open source but BSD is NOT Linux, just like Linux is NOT Windows, get over it.

forrestcupp
May 16th, 2007, 02:47 PM
The BSD people doesn't care about getting code back, they simply like their code to be used. Apple is being generous giving back code when they don't have to - they have a great relationship with the BSD people.

So I don't understand why some freedom junkies like to infer their own philosophy on BSD, they are open source but BSD is NOT Linux, just like Linux is NOT Windows, get over it.

I don't care if they contribute back to BSD kernel, or whatever. But I'll bet there are some BSD users that would like to have a native version of iTunes. I see BSD people all the time that are disappointed because no one will make a BSD version of a certain software.

If my boy grows up to become rich and famous, then thinks he's too high and mighty to waste his time with me when I need his help, it would be kind of like Apple not making a native BSD version of iTunes (whether or not it's open source).

Rumo
May 16th, 2007, 03:09 PM
Besides, apple behaves just like microsoft in the market where they have an monopoly - iPod and iTunes:

Does iTunes purchased music run on anything else than an iPod (and iTunes)?

Does the iPod support anything else than aac and mp3? What about music from other stores?

I think you know the answers to these questions and the reasons why this situation won't change soon (except for the apple-emi-deal).

Polygon
May 16th, 2007, 03:59 PM
except steve jobs is putting up the impression that he wants all the record labels to agree to have their music be able to be downloaded from the music store in a non DRM format.... and he already did this with one major record label.

my only beef is that their excellent music player does not play ogg or flac, which is my preferred music format... why they dont do this i dont know as they are very easy to implement i imagine....

3rdalbum
May 16th, 2007, 04:10 PM
my only beef is that their excellent music player does not play ogg or flac,

"Excellent" music player? Apple makes the iPod, the only MP3 player in the world that needs formatting regularly!

Notice how, every time you reformat it, iTunes phones home?

Darwin can't really be classed as an open-source project. Its source code is only slightly more "open" than Cedega.

forrestcupp
May 16th, 2007, 04:36 PM
except steve jobs is putting up the impression that he wants all the record labels to agree to have their music be able to be downloaded from the music store in a non DRM format.... and he already did this with one major record label.


That is true. That is the only reason I respect Jobs. Anyone who can work to get rid of DRM is my hero.

Sunnz
May 16th, 2007, 04:45 PM
I don't care if they contribute back to BSD kernel, or whatever.Like I said, it doesn't matter what YOU think. BSD developers don't ask people to contribute back, it is not a requirement. They accept it if it is valuable.


But I'll bet there are some BSD users that would like to have a native version of iTunes.I bet otehrwise. Perhaps it is the BSD community I hang around with (OpenBSD), they generally simply dislike non-free software anyway.
I see BSD people all the time that are disappointed because no one will make a BSD version of a certain software.I see this too, but it isn't Apple, but MS's monopoly more than anything else.
If my boy grows up to become rich and famous, then thinks he's too high and mighty to waste his time with me when I need his help, it would be kind of like Apple not making a native BSD version of iTunes (whether or not it's open source).Wrong.

BSD developers DOES NOT need Apple's help or anything, they don't ask for it, yet Apple do contributes back, contrary to your analogy.

And even Ubuntu people aren't all that keen on iTunes, I don't see BSD people would care any more about it.

peedeeramone
May 16th, 2007, 05:10 PM
Personally, i dont like either. I used windows all my life until i discovered ubuntu, now i never use windows...

as far as monopolies go, i think windows only has their "monopoly" because up untill osx came out there really werent any reasonable alternatives. macs in my opinion sucked (you have your own) plus few people knew there was such thing as a mac still, and no one knew what linux was so there was just microsoft in their crafty marketing and managing.

im going to be straight up, the main reason that made me stray from apple products is the fact that you have to basically use apple products...
nowadays i guess most usb devices etc will work, but i remember a few years ago (i think before osx) getting on my uncles mac and every single peice of hardware had that shafty little apple on it, from the speakers to the mouse to the keyboard to the monitor. it kind of disgusted me. i may sway towards the M$ side, but i shure as hell wouldnt want any microsoft logos on my stuff (granted i have used a microsoft mouse at one point)

but yeah, i dont particularly think the ipods are as great as they are put out to be, i find them to be no better than a simple usb flash mp3 player, and itunes... ugh... i dont care what anyone says, i HATE ITUNES. it is allmost as bad as musicmatch jukebox. i have a little ipod shuffle, only cuz my uncle bought it for me and i tried using itunes but all it did was **** me off, so i didnt use the ipod thing for the longest time until i found yamitunes which is just a little bitty .exe that i store on the ipod itself so i can go anywheres and basically just pop a few songs on it

oh and regarding the above post^^^^^^^ just because the government says something doesnt mean its neccicarilly true. i dont trust the government. its supposed to be run by the people, but i dont see our laws getting passed, i see corporations' laws getting passed

okay enough smack talking

corporations can kiss my @$$
open source rules

yeahhh UUUUBUUUNNTUUUUUUUUU :guitar:

Adamant1988
May 16th, 2007, 05:26 PM
Personally, i dont like either. I used windows all my life until i discovered ubuntu, now i never use windows...

as far as monopolies go, i think windows only has their "monopoly" because up untill osx came out there really werent any reasonable alternatives. macs in my opinion sucked (you have your own) plus few people knew there was such thing as a mac still, and no one knew what linux was so there was just microsoft in their crafty marketing and managing.

im going to be straight up, the main reason that made me stray from apple products is the fact that you have to basically use apple products...
nowadays i guess most usb devices etc will work, but i remember a few years ago (i think before osx) getting on my uncles mac and every single peice of hardware had that shafty little apple on it, from the speakers to the mouse to the keyboard to the monitor. it kind of disgusted me. i may sway towards the M$ side, but i shure as hell wouldnt want any microsoft logos on my stuff (granted i have used a microsoft mouse at one point)

but yeah, i dont particularly think the ipods are as great as they are put out to be, i find them to be no better than a simple usb flash mp3 player, and itunes... ugh... i dont care what anyone says, i HATE ITUNES. it is allmost as bad as musicmatch jukebox. i have a little ipod shuffle, only cuz my uncle bought it for me and i tried using itunes but all it did was **** me off, so i didnt use the ipod thing for the longest time until i found yamitunes which is just a little bitty .exe that i store on the ipod itself so i can go anywheres and basically just pop a few songs on it

oh and regarding the above post^^^^^^^ just because the government says something doesnt mean its neccicarilly true. i dont trust the government. its supposed to be run by the people, but i dont see our laws getting passed, i see corporations' laws getting passed

okay enough smack talking

corporations can kiss my @$$
open source rules

yeahhh UUUUBUUUNNTUUUUUUUUU :guitar:

Yeah, those corporations are the reason you're able to use Linux the way you are today, believe it. Do you have any idea how much of the kernel work is done by people who are paid by Novell and Red Hat? Also, you know that Canonical is a 'corporation' right? (ltd).

peedeeramone
May 16th, 2007, 05:32 PM
oh and just to add... i think currently the thing i hate the most about them is their advertising... i seriously wonder how much they pay the 9 year olds they have writing their commercials.

can anyone especially a mac enthusiast tell me that they like those commercials (the ones with "mac" the young cool hip guy and "pc" the goofy old unhip fogey guy)

personally if people have stupid commercials i wont buy their products, maybe why i randomly hate certain types of cars and miller lite, oh wait, i also hate miller cuz it tastes like old man pee water...

i also hate the mac supremists... you know the ones that think that their poo poo does not have that putrid smell that it does in fact have. i tend to generalize and think all mac owners do, which is not true, but for the ones that do screw you


peace

Sunnz
May 16th, 2007, 05:41 PM
can anyone especially a mac enthusiast tell me that they like those commercials (the ones with "mac" the young cool hip guy and "pc" the goofy old unhip fogey guy)

Not sure if I am an enthusiast but I do find it fun how they make fun of Windows and Vista.

Adamant1988
May 16th, 2007, 06:25 PM
The PC vs Mac commercials are some of my favorites. I really liked the Apple Switch commercials too.

hobieone
May 16th, 2007, 06:53 PM
yes apple does lock down things like ms but i think the reason you don't see the hate poste about them like you do with ms is mainly due to apple is not out too destroy linux or open source software as acompetitior like microsoft is actively doing and they are not doing things to upset the open source community. more than likely apple see linux as helping them by offering competitiion to microsoft and eroding some of there market share even if it is a very tiny bit at a time

WalmartSniperLX
May 16th, 2007, 07:40 PM
Sunnz, I did not say anything against BSD in a non-respectful matter for you to target me in such a way. I respect ALL opensource liscences. It's nice that BSD allows people to use their code and put ownership on it. The GPL prohibits ownership so it's nice to have an alternative that does. Look at Solaris/SunOS. It started the same way OS X did and I am proud of what has become of it, and what will become of it thanks to the opensolaris group.

But the thing that has me going isn't the fact that OS X was based on BSD, it's the fact that it is made of a mix of OTHER opensource programs under different licsenses. It ISN'T JUST BSD anymore that has put together the foundation of OS X.

mech7
May 16th, 2007, 09:14 PM
Apple rocks only unix system which has proper commercial software support :guitar:

aysiu
May 16th, 2007, 09:14 PM
There are only a few things I like about Apple:

1. It's fun. It has its little secrets it unleashes on the public at MacWorld and always wows... well, at least the Mac users, if not others.

2. I like the look of its hardware and software--polished.

3. I like the idea of the software being designed for the hardware and vice versa instead of trying to support every single hardware configuration imaginable.

Here are some things I don't like about Apple:

1. Few rewards to the faithful. The early adopters of Apple products pay more money than the later adopters. My sister-in-law was quite bitter when she bought an iPod less than two weeks before Apple knocked $100 off its price and included more with it.

2. Even though I like the look of the hardware and software, I don't really like the feel of the software, and I think the durability or "quality" of the hardware is often exaggerated by Mac fans. I don't like the user interface from a usability standpoint (my usability--I realize, for others, it's ideal, and Mac fans will go on and on about how perfectly it's designed... well, not for me). I like to maximize windows, not scale them. I like minimized windows to be restored on a Cmd-Tab to the application. I would like the application I click to restore after an F11 to restore that application and not all the windows F11 originally hid. I like F2 to rename and Enter to launch. I like having real terminal feedback when I launch a crashing application from the terminal. I like flexible GUI configuration (not editing .plist files). I like package management or at least setup.exe files. The .dmg mounting, dragging, unmounting thing just confused me and now only annoys me.

3. I don't like how the software is locked to the hardware. It's one thing to say, "We offer no guarantees of Mac OS X working on non-Apple computers," but it's another (annoying) thing to say, "It's illegal to install OS X on a non-Apple computer."

godd4242
May 16th, 2007, 10:47 PM
I have no problem with proprietary design, or even companies selling software. I have a problem with Monopolies. Microsoft, being a monopoly, bothers me.

Apple is 100 times the monopoly Microsoft is.

Not market share wise, but once you're inside the Apple computers market it is completely Apple only hardware and software, with no third party support.

The only things ever made for Apple computers are made by, well Apple.

it's why iLife exists
there really aren't any other alternatives to what Apple can cook up.

godd4242
May 16th, 2007, 10:52 PM
Apple rocks only unix system which has proper commercial software support :guitar:

Proper commercial software support....
Made by Apple.

Sunnz
May 17th, 2007, 02:16 AM
Sunnz, I did not say anything against BSD in a non-respectful matter for you to target me in such a way. I respect ALL opensource liscences.If you felt offensively targeted, sorry about that.

It is just that I hear this from pro-GPL people insist on all FLOSS should act like GPL way so many times that is getting really stupid, and I rather not to have more people reading this and thinks this is the right way of thinking and post even more about how BSD code should showhow act like GPL code when it is not.


It's nice that BSD allows people to use their code and put ownership on it. The GPL prohibits ownership so it's nice to have an alternative that does. Look at Solaris/SunOS. It started the same way OS X did and I am proud of what has become of it, and what will become of it thanks to the opensolaris group.It is misconception like this that gets me started. BSD does not give up ownership, putting code in the public domain does. If BSD code were in public domain Sun Microsystems would be able to put it under their own copyright, i.e. take ownership on it and sue the BSD developers for copyright infringement and Apple would not be able to use any BSD codes.


But the thing that has me going isn't the fact that OS X was based on BSD, it's the fact that it is made of a mix of OTHER opensource programs under different licsenses. It ISN'T JUST BSD anymore that has put together the foundation of OS X.:confused: As far as I know even Ubuntu or perhaps gNewsense does that, do you feel the way about about Ubuntu just because it uses FLOSS with different licenses?


Apple is 100 times the monopoly Microsoft is.

Not market share wise, but once you're inside the Apple computers market it is completely Apple only hardware and software, with no third party support.

The only things ever made for Apple computers are made by, well Apple.

it's why iLife exists
there really aren't any other alternatives to what Apple can cook up.
Ahh dude, I am running Firefox, Adium(Gaim/Pidgin), OO.o, Thunderbird, etc, here... on a Mac.

WalmartSniperLX
May 17th, 2007, 02:29 AM
If you felt offensively targeted, sorry about that.

It is just that I hear this from pro-GPL people insist on all FLOSS should act like GPL way so many times that is getting really stupid, and I rather not to have more people reading this and thinks this is the right way of thinking and post even more about how BSD code should showhow act like GPL code when it is not.

It is misconception like this that gets me started. BSD does not give up ownership, putting code in the public domain does. If BSD code were in public domain Sun Microsystems would be able to put it under their own copyright, i.e. take ownership on it and sue the BSD developers for copyright infringement and Apple would not be able to use any BSD codes.

:confused: As far as I know even Ubuntu or perhaps gNewsense does that, do you feel the way about about Ubuntu just because it uses FLOSS with different licenses?


Ahh dude, I am running Firefox, Adium(Gaim/Pidgin), OO.o, Thunderbird, etc, here... on a Mac.

Its fine. I really wasn't offended at all. I don't feel that way about Ubuntu because it's not proprietary

Sunnz
May 17th, 2007, 02:44 AM
Then your problem are proprietary in general, not really Apple related.

And lets not forget Ubuntu is not without non-free code. gNewsense is close to it, though not 100%.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for FLOSS, I do run OpenBSD on most of my computers because it is contains as much free code as one would get as an OS. However Apple's proprietary system is the most open platform that I could find that provide the functionality I need to operate with the rest of the world that are still running on MS.

WalmartSniperLX
May 17th, 2007, 02:50 AM
Then your problem are proprietary in general, not really Apple related.

And lets not forget Ubuntu is not without non-free code. gNewsense is close to it, though not 100%.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for FLOSS, I do run OpenBSD on most of my computers because it is contains as much free code as one would get as an OS. However Apple's proprietary system is the most open platform that I could find that provide the functionality I need to operate with the rest of the world that are still running on MS.

I clearily stated in the beginning of the thread that I don't have a problem with neither Apple or MS. I do not have a problem with proprietary. I made this thread because I wanted to hear what people had to say about Apple, and I had to take a stance so my post would not sound wishy-washy.

The thing I do not like is how apple's lock down is much tighter than MS.

I believe this is what I said to lead you to ask me if I felt the same for Ubuntu and I said "no because it isnt proprietary:

"But the thing that has me going isn't the fact that OS X was based on BSD, it's the fact that it is made of a mix of OTHER opensource programs under different licsenses. It ISN'T JUST BSD anymore that has put together the foundation of OS X."


I never stated having a problem with ownership. But, you asked me a question and I gave you an answer. When I said Ubuntu isnt proprietary I was getting at how Apple has given back little to what it has taken from. Ubuntu CANT do that because more than 90% of the OS is free. And, really Apple hasn't given much back to open source. Giving back means contributing. I wont attack MS on this topic because they seem to do things within their corporation.

But you are also right and others before you that have said that Apple is built upon open source. Gosh this gives me a headache. So they are more open than windows, but it doesnt mean they are giving something back by contributing. But, that's all my argument was. I understand they are doing more than MS, but that's not my point.

Anyway I just wanted to hear what you all had to say about apple, and why they aren't a headline topic like MS in this forum.

BoyOfDestiny
May 17th, 2007, 03:46 AM
Fear and Loathing in Cupertino

"I should explain that I commonly add bits of movie stills or posters, or photos I've found (and sometimes modified) on the Internet to my slides in order to liven them up for the audience. Technical talks are deadly dull without something to amuse. In my opinion this falls under the “fair use” of Copyright law. Apple had other ideas about that, but then again this is the company that promotes the widest use of “Digital Restrictions Management” (DRM) in the world. Apple revenues depend on copyright lock-down and removal of fair use rights from customers. What else is their iTunes Internet music store but a perfect example of this."

http://www.tuxdeluxe.org/node/175


Interview: Ronald G Minnich

" have spoken with the EFI authors at length. They make no secret of the fact that a "core value" of EFI is the preservation of intellectual property related to chipset programming and internal architecture. To put it another way, EFI is dedicated to the preservation of "Hard" hardware (as defined above), and the provision of binary interfaces and subsystems to BIOS vendors and others."

http://www.fosdem.org/2007/interview/ronald+g+minnich



Hope you like the articles. The first is related to this samba developer Jeremy Allison doing (or not) a presentation at an Apple Conference, the 2nd is more on LinuxBIOS, but it's worth noting Apple's PC (or whatever, ;) ) uses EFI.

I don't think Apple is as anti-competitive as Microsoft. But they definitely give more of a walled-garden thing, and I think MS is trying to close up the PC in a worse manner with Vista.
They may be the underdog compared to MS, but I wouldn't be happy with them as top dog.

JT673
May 17th, 2007, 04:15 AM
Eh, I'm not really into bash Mac because:


It's Unix.
They're not obnoxious liars as MS
And I live near the Apple HQ

Sunnz
May 17th, 2007, 04:32 AM
I clearily stated in the beginning of the thread that I don't have a problem with neither Apple or MS. I do not have a problem with proprietary. I made this thread because I wanted to hear what people had to say about Apple, and I had to take a stance so my post would not sound wishy-washy.Oh, my bad, I thought you were forrestcupp since he is the who quoted my post and I responded back to him... now, I don't get it, where did you mean by "Sunnz, I did not say anything against BSD in a non-respectful matter for you to target me in such a way."?

I did not said anything specifically about you in my initial post, and the fact that I quoted forrestcupp made me thought what you meant by 'target' is to respond to hia post.


The thing I do not like is how apple's lock down is much tighter than MS.I disagree. There is a cost to produce quality software and hardware that are designed as one piece, and they need to sell Macs in order to cover the cost, and I don't think everything should be like Apple, but I do think it is good to have at least one system that are designed by one company from top to bottom, just like it is good to have at least one OS that focus on security more than everybody else - OpenBSD.


I believe this is what I said to lead you to ask me if I felt the same for Ubuntu and I said "no because it isnt proprietary:

"But the thing that has me going isn't the fact that OS X was based on BSD, it's the fact that it is made of a mix of OTHER opensource programs under different licsenses. It ISN'T JUST BSD anymore that has put together the foundation of OS X."I guess what I am essentially asking is, why are you upset about Apple using FLOSS code? Making a propriety product out of it isn't a good reason to get upset about, BSD code have no problems end up being part of propriety product, and other different licensed would be complied by Apple according to their corresponding license, unless you are implying Apple has taken copylefted code and close source it, which is another matter of legality.

I never stated having a problem with ownership. But, you asked me a question and I gave you an answer. When I said Ubuntu isnt proprietary I was getting at how Apple has given back little to what it has taken from. Ubuntu CANT do that because more than 90% of the OS is free. And, really Apple hasn't given much back to open source. Giving back means contributing. I wont attack MS on this topic because they seem to do things within their corporation.

But you are also right and others before you that have said that Apple is built upon open source. Gosh this gives me a headache. So they are more open than windows, but it doesnt mean they are giving something back by contributing. But, that's all my argument was. I understand they are doing more than MS, but that's not my point.I wouldn't say what Apple given back is little and like I said, they are not asked to give back anything in the first place, yet they do have a great relationship with FreeBSD developers - so I don't know why people are pretending Apple as a theft of BSD when you don't know much about them and they have happy among themselves.


Anyway I just wanted to hear what you all had to say about apple, and why they aren't a headline topic like MS in this forum.Well I have expressed my opinion and my frustration about some Linux people have to make up how Apple steals from BSD when they are happily together, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Oh, to your original question, I think it is just a matter of statistic: almost every Linux user don't like MS in one way or the other, but a lot of Linux users loves the Mac as well as Linux itself... a overly rough example that I made up to illustrate the idea: there are 99% Linux users in this forum, 98% hates MS, but only 40% hates Mac and 40% loves the Mac, and you'll end up with a lot more MS hate comment than Apple hate just by the statistics, then Mac lovers will know Mac haters to respond to their comments (about Macs) and vice versa, and they generally want to avoid unnecessary trolling when they all know they both loves Ubuntu anyway.

WalmartSniperLX
May 17th, 2007, 06:02 AM
Oh, my bad, I thought you were forrestcupp since he is the who quoted my post and I responded back to him... now, I don't get it, where did you mean by "Sunnz, I did not say anything against BSD in a non-respectful matter for you to target me in such a way."?

I did not said anything specifically about you in my initial post, and the fact that I quoted forrestcupp made me thought what you meant by 'target' is to respond to hia post.

I disagree. There is a cost to produce quality software and hardware that are designed as one piece, and they need to sell Macs in order to cover the cost, and I don't think everything should be like Apple, but I do think it is good to have at least one system that are designed by one company from top to bottom, just like it is good to have at least one OS that focus on security more than everybody else - OpenBSD.

I guess what I am essentially asking is, why are you upset about Apple using FLOSS code? Making a propriety product out of it isn't a good reason to get upset about, BSD code have no problems end up being part of propriety product, and other different licensed would be complied by Apple according to their corresponding license, unless you are implying Apple has taken copylefted code and close source it, which is another matter of legality.
I wouldn't say what Apple given back is little and like I said, they are not asked to give back anything in the first place, yet they do have a great relationship with FreeBSD developers - so I don't know why people are pretending Apple as a theft of BSD when you don't know much about them and they have happy among themselves.

Well I have expressed my opinion and my frustration about some Linux people have to make up how Apple steals from BSD when they are happily together, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Oh, to your original question, I think it is just a matter of statistic: almost every Linux user don't like MS in one way or the other, but a lot of Linux users loves the Mac as well as Linux itself... a overly rough example that I made up to illustrate the idea: there are 99% Linux users in this forum, 98% hates MS, but only 40% hates Mac and 40% loves the Mac, and you'll end up with a lot more MS hate comment than Apple hate just by the statistics, then Mac lovers will know Mac haters to respond to their comments (about Macs) and vice versa, and they generally want to avoid unnecessary trolling when they all know they both loves Ubuntu anyway.

Sorry I kept acting like you were directing you're posts against me. It just so happened to be that you answered everything completely but in opposite opinions I felt like I was being confronted. And, yet that's what I was looking for, ironically. Really you're right. It isnt anything to be upset over. And, it does take money to produce something quality. And, they have every right to do so to achieve that. But, same thing for MS really. I just hope one day there will be less posts flaming our proprietary neighbors and more about making opensource work for everyone (or everyone who wants it at least). :)