| |||||||||||||
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com)QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com)Posted Mar 15, 2010 22:47 UTC (Mon) by trasz (guest, #45786)Parent article: QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com)
It's rather funny to talk about "Linux beating Apple" when the opposite, in fact, happened - several years ago Apple killed desktop Linux by providing power users with Unix that was actually useful as a desktop. Now, the only real reason to use Linux on a desktop is its price - and Microsoft can always lower its prices for Windows, making sure Linux never exceeds its 1% market share on desktops.
(Log in to post comments)
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 15, 2010 23:18 UTC (Mon) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
Microsoft can't lower its prices forever and lose money on the engineering put into the operating system. Neither can Canonical.
No operating system vendor can live in the red forever. I believe the the pricewar Canonical touched off for OEM attention in the netbook space is unsustainable in the long term. The only question is who's business model going to to survive by forcing someone else out of the market reducing the competition and allowing prices to float up. The only question of merit right now is which netbook operating system company can sustain servicing netbooks at a loss for the longest period of time.
Apple's 'success' is that its avoided the trap to the race to the bottom of commodity pricing. Apple has found a niche group of users who are willing to pay for technology and services. Apple has turned computing technology into a statement of personal style and there are enough people willing to pay for that to keep Apple profitable.
-jef
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 15, 2010 23:23 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] But to see the future that Apple is bringing us, look no further than the App Store. No apps on the iPad or iPhone except via the App Store. Apple approves every app and takes a 30% cut. Developers have to sign a one-sided "agreement" that they are forbidden to discuss, or they are cut off.Any software developer, whether producing open source or proprietary software, who isn't at least somewhat worried by this model isn't paying attention.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 16, 2010 12:25 UTC (Tue) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link]
Very good example, but you missed a few critical facts.
No malware on AppStore. No viruses. No software behaving against the rules. No problems with finding the installation file, figuring out the proper version for your device. No interfering with other software you may have installed. Just a few clicks and it works. Completely different from e.g. Symbian or Windows Mobile.
From a developer point of view, its even better - Apple not only gives you free development kit, tools and documentation - it gives you a way to distribute and sell your stuff, so you don't have to figure all this yourself. All you have to do is to write software and then submit it. Marketing, putting it out somewhere for people to download, handling payments - it's Apple problem, not yours. All this for your one day earnings. Compare it to the situation with J2ME or Symbian, where you have gonna spend several times more on certificates, and then you get pretty much nothing for this money.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 16, 2010 13:12 UTC (Tue) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link]
Sign an NDA, write software, submit it, and (apparently) accept that Apple reserve the right to kill distribution of your application for any reason at any time with no comeback.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 16, 2010 14:27 UTC (Tue) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
Even with that, if your goal is to make a buck and not to advance man kind, it's much better this way. It makes sense for games, for instance.
Maybe Canonical should consider doing something similar.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 16, 2010 15:05 UTC (Tue) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link]
It makes sense for pretty much everything - and that's the reason why iPhone not only has several times more applications than any other mobile platform, but also why it gains applications faster than any other mobile platform.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 17, 2010 10:28 UTC (Wed) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] So you're arguing in favor of a central package repository for smartphones, but elsewhere ("you just open a "folder" [...] and drag application over the "Applications" shortcut") you're arguing that a central package repository isn't necessary for desktop OSes? How does that make sense? Central package repositories are a good idea, for the reason's you said (no malware, etc). One of the major benefits of Linux distributions is that they have such central package repositories, unlike Windows and Mac OS X. However, the fact that a central package repository exists should not mean that the user is locked in to that repository. That is what people are objecting to about the iPhone: the lock-in. Worse, it's a lock-in that may even be enforced by law in the US (by the DMCA).
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 17, 2010 13:17 UTC (Wed) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link]
I never said central package repository isn't neccessary for desktop systems. Actually, I think it is a very good idea.
However, I'm not sure whether the dependencies, as used in Linux distributions, are a good idea. These are two orthogonal things.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 17, 2010 16:25 UTC (Wed) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] > I never said central package repository isn't neccessary for desktop systems. But you said this: > As for installing OSX applications - usually you just open a "folder" (actually, a filesystem image that mounts itself when you click it) and drag application over the "Applications" shortcut. To uninstall, you go to the Applications folder and remove the application icon. No instructions neccessary. In that usage scenario you described, there's no central package repository, is there?
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 18, 2010 8:56 UTC (Thu) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link]
Yes, but it's still orthogonal. Take a look at PC-BSD, for example - there is a central repository, but there is no need for dependencies, because packages contain their dependencies, like in OSX.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 21, 2010 1:59 UTC (Sun) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] > Yes, but it's still orthogonal. Not entirely; having a central repository is a prerequisite for automatic dependency resolution. However, that's beside the point I was trying to make, which was this: you were apparently claiming that Mac OS X does not need a central package repository (because it's good enough to just download "a filesystem image that mounts itself when you click it" from the app developer's website and then "drag application over the "Applications" shortcut.") while at the same time claiming that the iPhone does need its central repository, the App Store (and also claiming that it's a good thing that users are locked in to the App Store).
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 26, 2010 9:44 UTC (Fri) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link]
It's a good thing to have a central package repository, for both phones (e.g. iPhone) and "normal" computers (e.g. Linux, FreeBSD or Solaris). Being restricted from using software from other sources has advantages (no malware, no piracy etc) and disadvantages. Works pretty well for iPhone, might or might not work for "normal" computers. Would be great if Apple provided a central repository for OSX applications, but without forcing everyone to use it. Still, the way of installing OSX applications is less burdensome than using dependencies-based package system, which, as demonstrated below, might force you to e.g. upgrade all the software you have when you need just a newer version of one application.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 17, 2010 16:36 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Yes! We don't need a dependency tracking system because, uh, because Apple doesn't have one.
This is *definitely* argumentum ad pomum.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 18, 2010 8:59 UTC (Thu) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link]
You know, I used a dependency-based systems for a couple of years. They suck, for reasons described below (in most cases to upgrade anything you have to upgrade everything). Apple way of dealing with it is just much less hassle for the user.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 18, 2010 11:52 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
That's a gross overstatement. You have to upgrade lots of things only if a major version of something has changed, or a critical bug's been fixed, *and* every other package has also shifted to the new major version of the package.
If you have every package keeping its libraries separate, then fixing a bug in one of those libraries means you really do have to go and upgrade the lot *by hand*.
We were doing this right in the flipping *60s*. Has everyone forgotten the lessons of Multics?
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 16, 2010 14:54 UTC (Tue) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] Regarding Apple, Tim Bray said it best: The iPhone vision of the mobile Internets future omits controversy, sex, and freedom, but includes strict limits on who can know what and who can say what. Its a sterile Disney-fied walled garden surrounded by sharp-toothed lawyers. The people who create the apps serve at the landlords pleasure and fear his anger.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 16, 2010 15:00 UTC (Tue) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link]
Says the guy who gave the world something like ASN.1, except slower and with lots of new ways to break it. ROTFL.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 16, 2010 15:13 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Hm, that's not an ad hominem, exactly. Argumentum non sequitur?
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 16, 2010 15:26 UTC (Tue) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link]
Do you see any arguments in "The iPhone vision of the mobile Internet’s future omits controversy, sex, and freedom, but includes strict limits on who can know what and who can say what. It’s a sterile Disney-fied walled garden surrounded by sharp-toothed lawyers. The people who create the apps serve at the landlord’s pleasure and fear his anger."? I don't. What I see here is just a plain old FUD.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 16, 2010 17:18 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
No, you don't get it. I'm pointing out that disparaging Tim Bray's earlier work says *nothing* about the validity or otherwise of his statements about Apple: they're in a different field entirely.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 16, 2010 19:41 UTC (Tue) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link]
Yeah, that's just because I personally think XML was a mistake almost as awful as Java. Sorry about that.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 17, 2010 1:15 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
I use it every day and must agree. Even when converted to sexps, the
underlying ugliness of XML and its family of misbegotten standards still shines through. Some of the works it has 'inspired' are quite remarkable, e.g. XExpr, because everyone wants to write scripts by building a parse tree in XML.
(A lot of this blame must be laid at the door of SGML, though.)
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 16, 2010 17:23 UTC (Tue) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] The iPhone vision of the mobile Internet's future omits controversy, sex, and freedom, but includes strict limits on who can know what and who can say what. That's an absolutely factual statement. Take a look at the EFF's expose of the iPhone developer's agreement. Apple's agreement definitely includes strict limits on what you can say. You can't even make any "public statements" about the agreement itself! What I see here is just a plain old FUD. Then you are closing your eyes to reality.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 16, 2010 19:40 UTC (Tue) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link]
Please go to the URL you posted (EFF's expose of the iPhone developer's agreement). Search for words "controversy", "sex", and "freedom". Notice that even EFF doesn't claim that the agreement says anything about that.
Also, notice that the agreement doesn't include any limits on what one can say, except for the usual NDA stuff, which is pretty common practice.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 17, 2010 6:35 UTC (Wed) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link]
>Please go to the URL you posted (EFF's expose of the iPhone developer's agreement). Search for words "controversy", "sex", and "freedom". Notice that even EFF doesn't claim that the agreement says anything about that.
What, seriously? You're trying to refute the argument by scanning for specific words, rather than reading for meaning?
There needs to be a new fallacy name for this thing: argumentum ad regexum, perhaps.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 17, 2010 8:31 UTC (Wed) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link]
Ok. Show me where it says anything that is even remotely related to controversy, sex or freedom.
Right. Was is peace, Freedom is slavery and Ignorance is strength Posted Mar 17, 2010 8:55 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Ok. Show me where it says anything that is even remotely related to controversy, sex or freedom. It's kinda pointless to discuss anything with you. 1. Ignorance is strength: if something is not written directly in EULA it does not exist. Acts of Big Brother^W^W Steve Jobs^W^W Party ^W^W Apple are irrelevant. 2. War is peace: when Big Browser^W^W Steve Jobs says it's bad idea to allow Flash or Opera on the device it's not a war, it's peaceful coexistence of Oceania and Eurasia. 3. Freedom is slavery. When you get approval and later your program is removed because it contains sex it's freedom. Steve Jobs^W^W Big Brother imposes antisexualism so of course such programs must be removed. Actually they were never admitted - check archives of Minitrue if in doubt! It's scary to talk with citizen of Oceania like you - they can always accept any fact and fit in their worldview where Steve Jobs ^W^W Big Brother is always right and Party ^W Apple can do no wrong. P.S. Oh and I like the infamous clip too. They did one thing wrong, of course: David Graham played Big Brother, not Steve Jobs. But I must admit that David Graham looks much better in this role on TV... Steve Jobs plays it much better in real life.
Right. Was is peace, Freedom is slavery and Ignorance is strength Posted Mar 17, 2010 13:21 UTC (Wed) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link]
That's because you're not paying attention. I was replying to a comment by dskoll, who said that the EFF FUD was not, in fact, a FUD, and that I should go read the developers agreement. I replied that the agreement doesn't say anything that would back the claims.
I's hard to argue with Party member, but I'll try... Posted Mar 17, 2010 14:22 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] I replied that the agreement doesn't say anything that would back the claims. Ignorance is strength, right? Agreements says quite straight: "You understand and agree that Apple may cease distribution of Your Licensed Application(s) and/or Licensed Application Information or revoke the digital certificate of any of Your Applications at any time". Apple is Judge, Jury & Executioner, but obviously it's not a shot against freedom because freedom is slavery, after all. And as for sex, yes, it's not written in agreement - it does not need to be: Apple can do anything it wants and developer is absolutely powerless so why write dirty words in the agreement?
Right. Was is peace, Freedom is slavery and Ignorance is strength Posted Mar 17, 2010 15:01 UTC (Wed) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link]
Such a feeble refutation of that comment, indeed. Even if one decides to take the original opinion ("Apple's vision") as a black-and-white guide to the here-and-now, it doesn't take much effort to find sections in the Apple agreement to back that up.
For example, 3.3.14 talks about "content or materials... that in Apple's reasonable judgment may be... considered pornographic, or defamatory" - that's talking about "sex" and "controversy", by the way.
Now, as a lot of the apologists for Apple might say (and have done in comments on the referenced article), this just applies to Apple's own store, which sounds like you can take your ball away and play elsewhere. Except that to do so requires you to jailbreak your phone and encourage others to do so, something which Apple regards as a DMCA violation. That, including a section (3.2e) in the developer agreement, pointed out in what you all too readily regard as "FUD" (a feeble debating tool when used as often as you have done) from the EFF, is a direct influence on "freedom".
Who isn't paying attention again?
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 17, 2010 15:19 UTC (Wed) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] From the iPhone developer's agreement: 3.3.14 Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content... Note that Apple in its sole discretion gets to decide what is "obscene", "pornographic" or "offensive". See also Sec. 7.3 of the Agreement, which forbids you from distributing your apps except via Apple. And see Sec. 8(l) which allows Apple to revoke your application if it feels like it.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 16, 2010 15:56 UTC (Tue) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link]
Argumentum ad pomum
"If it's pro-apple, anything goes."
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 17, 2010 1:16 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
I must endorse this rhetorical term and shall use it whenever possible :)
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 15, 2010 23:51 UTC (Mon) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link]
> Now, the only real reason to use Linux on a desktop is its price
One of many of the real reasons to use GNU/Linux on the desktop is that it is (in some forms) one of the most free operating systems available for ordinary desktop hardware.
If what you claim is true it only underlines that if we try and grow our community artificially by stressing the technical merits of Free Software over proprietary competitors, then a single swoop of marketing and lifestyle advertising that will lure those users into believing that a system is technically better or socially more hip and acceptable will render the effort moot.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 16, 2010 1:48 UTC (Tue) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] > If what you claim is true It isn't. if we try and grow our community artificially by stressing the technical merits of Free Software over proprietary competitors, then a single swoop of marketing and lifestyle advertising that will lure those users into believing that a system is technically better or socially more hip and acceptable will render the effort moot. It's not a bad thing to stress the technical merits of Free Software over proprietary competitors in the case that it's actually true that the software in question has greater technical merits. And it often is true, because of the fact that free software doesn't have an artificial barrier preventing developers from contributing to it.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 16, 2010 12:13 UTC (Tue) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link]
@rqosa: On the other hand, Free Software has economical barriers. So, while it's true that Free Software produced the best Lisp-based text editor out there, killing its closed source competitors, it doesn't mean that it will be able to make better operating system.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 16, 2010 13:35 UTC (Tue) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] Well, as far as I'm concerned, Debian Linux and Arch Linux are already "better" then Mac OS X (for what I want to use them for). As for "economical barriers", there are lots of paid developers working on the "operating system" (including the "desktop") now.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 16, 2010 12:11 UTC (Tue) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link]
Except that to most people, "freedom" in the context of an operating system is no different from "freedom" for pistons or carrots. It's just weird.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 17, 2010 18:33 UTC (Wed) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] It's just weird. You are right. It is weird that people fail to appreciate the clear and present danger that Apple, the DMCA, ACTA, etc. pose to their freedom. RMS may be derided by some as extreme or crazy, but he sure was prescient.
|
|||||||||||||