Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Dvorak Avocates Open Sourcing OS X 571

xzvf writes "Dvorak claims OS X and Apple in trouble. He suggests open sourcing OS X for an epic battle with Linux. In many ways, this is just insane rambling, but it's certainly entertaining on some levels." From the article: "That would make the battle between OS X and Linux the most interesting one on the computer scene. With all attention turned in that direction, there would be nothing Microsoft could do to stem a reversal of its fortunes. Let's start at the beginning. There's been a lot of fuss over Apple's rollout of the unsupported Boot Camp product, which lets Mac users run Microsoft Windows easily on an Intel-based Macintosh. I got into various levels of trouble when I suggested that Apple was going to gravitate towards Windows since it would be easy to do and there was some evidence that the company might want to do it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dvorak Avocates Open Sourcing OS X

Comments Filter:
  • by RunFatBoy.net ( 960072 ) * on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @12:46PM (#15150979)
    There have been several instances where I would have liked to step into a Cocoa API call to see what's going on behind the scenes, but was not able to. The Cocoa API is part of what the Mac experience is built upon, so Apple is not going to open up this library. But from a developer's standpoint, it is frustrating to have it closed.
    • Like the story notes, running Mac OS on Macs was also what Mac was built upon, so don't count on it staying closed.
      • It is never going to happen. Steve Jobs has one goal - take over the world. He wants to domainate. If he open-sources OSX it would require that Apple share with the world. Lets look at past experiences with apple. I would say that it is totally contrary to their thinking. In the mind of Apple they would want to crush Microsoft, and ignore Linux.
        • by Moby Cock ( 771358 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @01:20PM (#15151306) Homepage
          I don't think Jobs wants to dominate.

          Apple has very carefully created a boutique quality to their products. This was a calculated move. To strive for dominance would bring much of the hip-and-cool aspects of Mac culture to an end.
          • by Golias ( 176380 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @01:38PM (#15151461)
            Jobs doesn't want to dominate. He's a kooky hippie who managed to strike it rich, not an aspiring Bill Gates or Larry Ellison.

            He wants his *vision* to dominate.

            By that metric, he's already won.

            - Windows (the OS which most people use) looks a hell of a lot more like the Mac OS than the OS which was dominating the market (MS-DOS) when the Lisa was first introduced.

            - Almost everybody has moved to object-based development, just like he was saying they would back when he founded NeXT.

            - CGI dominates the entire animation industry, just like he knew it would when he acquired Pixar from LucasArts for a tiny fraction of what it would ultimately be worth.

            - Companies all over are pouring huge resources into finding ways to make computers more appliance-like.

            - You can buy one song you like off an album you otherwise don't want.

            The guy gets off on advancing Big Ideas and seeing them catch on. He doesn't seem to care how much he personally benefits when it happens, so long as it happens the way he thinks it should.

            He may not be after the kind of economic power which Gates enjoys, but he's clearly all about power. How often do most people get to change the whole goddamn world?
            • by dohcvtec ( 461026 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @03:21PM (#15152333)
              Jobs doesn't want to dominate. He's a kooky hippie who managed to strike it rich, not an aspiring Bill Gates or Larry Ellison.

              True, and this is the key reason why Dvorak is clueless. He says Apple is doomed because they will never dominate the desktop or monopolize like Microsoft. If Apple not overtaking Microsoft is considered failure, then sure they're doomed, and something crazy like open-sourcing OSX may become necessary. But back in the real world, Apple is sitting pretty with the small marketshare they have, and I see their star rising with the path they're currently taking, not falling as Dvorak confusingly suggests.
      • By "Macs" do you mean, motorola-processor-based macintosh computer systems, powerPC-processor-based macintosh computer systems or intel-processor-based macintosh computer systems?

        Mac processors have changed before. Mac processors will change again.
    • Sounds like you're a good candidate for this: http://www.gnustep.org/information/mission.html [gnustep.org] --as they say, due to Apple changing the Cocoa API all the time, it's not a 100% match, but any development work you do in GNUStep should be trivial to build in Cocoa.
      • by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @01:33PM (#15151408)
        Are you sure GNUStep is a strict subset of Cocoa? I could be wrong, but I thought they still supported some things from OpenStep that Cocoa dropped or diverged a little or something. Ah, here's the relevant quote (from the page you linked to):
        Our target implementation for the core libraries is the OpenStep standard and OPENSTEP implementation. However, we do consider changes and additions to this API under the following circumstances.
        • We add methods and classes, either from Cocoa or our own extensions, if they add substantial value and don't interfere with OpenStep and/or Cocoa compatibility.
        • We generally don't remove things unless there is a clearly better implementation in newer Cocoa API.
        • Where there is a real problem with a change, we find a technically superior work-around. In rare cases, this might involve a change in the original OpenStep API.
        It's sad, but this focus on "OpenStep with a bit of Cocoa, and maybe some of our own stuff if it's better" is why nobody uses GNUStep. If their mission was "100% compatibility with Cocoa" instead, then it would be a lot more popular.

  • Let me share with you friends, the deep, dark, scary secret that Starbucks is keeping. A secret so shocking that when it is released on the world, it will literally change things forever! I've only recently figured this out myself, so pay attention as I walk you through the sordid details.

    Like many super-intelligent-people-in-the-computer-industry- that-write-for-a-magazine, I get a cup of Starbucks every morning. However, this morning was to be different than all the rest. You see, a brand new Starbucks opened up near my office. (Well, nearer-er than the old one.) This new Starbucks boasted an incredible new feature: A drive through window! I could drive up to the Starbuck as if it were a McDonald's, and order a cup of coffee from the comfort of my own car.

    But then I got to thinking. What does Starbucks need with drive through windows? I mean, they're in the coffee business, not the fast food industry. People come into Starbucks to enjoy the environment, not grab their cup and run! Then it hit me! Starbucks needs drive-up windows because they are planning to bring that same environment to your vehicle! That's right, Starbucks wants to give you that same coffee-saturated, easy listening, comfortable seating feeling you get in their stores, but in your car. But how will they do it? Will they allow you to place your Venti cup in a cup holder and allow the smell to drift across your Caddilac? No!

    There can be only one explanation: Starbucks is going to make cars. Nothing else makes sense! So two years from now when you're driving your Starbucks-mobile, remember this. You heard it here first. --John C. Dvorak
  • by Otter ( 3800 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @12:48PM (#15150997) Journal
    Dvorak should buy Ubuntu. Or maybe Novell.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    I frequent a message board frequented by members of the gaming journalism press and developers. Upon the Boot Camp announcement, about ten of them immediately bought new Macs.

    All of them, to a man, spend all of their time in OSX. They only boot Windows to play games, but do everything else in OSX.

    Dvorak still doesn't get it.
  • by baadger ( 764884 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @12:48PM (#15150999)
    How would open sourcing OS X make an epic battle with Linux? If anything, asuming the license was favourable, it would only benefit Linux and projects like KDE and Gnome, wouldn't it?
    • How would open sourcing OS X make an epic battle with Linux? If anything, asuming the license was favourable, it would only benefit Linux and projects like KDE and Gnome, wouldn't it?

      Don't even try understanding Dvorak. He seems to spend his time in la la land, and rarely seems to have a good grasp on reality.

      The truth is some stuff works well because it is open source, other stuff works well because its closed. Each culture has its advantages and there is no need to try the 'one size' fits all, since it ra
    • Don't read into it too much. Dvorak isn't smart enough to realize that there's no way one open-source project can shut down another, very dedicated and well-known open-source project. Linux will always have its supporters - you can't shut it down.
    • Two open source software projects aiming at the same market, developing the same product?

      I predict that the winner will be the one who goes gold [wikipedia.org] last. All you've got to do is take their version and up the ante! Now, can I run a company or write for a magazine?

      Seriously, wouldn't the big winner be the BSD projects [apple.com]?
  • by DavidinAla ( 639952 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @12:50PM (#15151018)
    I advocate that banks open their vaults to anyone who wants money. I advocate that car dealers leave their keys in the cars for anyone to take them. I advocate that restaurants make their food free. All of these things might kill the businesses involved, but it certainly would be nice for me and for other people who'd rather not pay for things.

    David
  • by flanksteak ( 69032 ) * on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @12:52PM (#15151039) Homepage
    I often enjoy reading Dvorak, but this is just nonsense. Apple's usability comes from their software. Nobody buys Mac because of the hardware no matter what they say. They buy it because of the OS. Apple charges a premium for their hardware, but people are willing to pay this premium because of the software. Apple comes closer to "it just works" because of OS X, not because of the nifty design of the boxes or because they supposedly use "high quality" parts.

    Switching to Windows would mean two things: 1) The differentiation factor for Apple decreases, meaning that they would have to compete more on price, and 2) Their support costs would go up because of the number of calls they'd get from users with Windows problems. Hello, spyware anyone? Not a problem for Apple now, but would change instantly with a Windows conversion.

    I still think that Apple is slowly making the move to put OS X on generic PC boxes (and eventually more OEMs). Only they're doing it slowly and quietly, so as not to awaken the sleeping giant with the massive war chest. Apple could make a move for just desktop share, as they haven't shown any interest in becoming a large-volume server OS company. Let MS and other *nixes fight over the servers, Apple would be happy with selling boxes to just the end users and software licenses to OEMs and third parties.
    • Apple has no way to make money from such a move.
    • by McDutchie ( 151611 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @01:12PM (#15151238) Homepage
      Nobody buys Mac because of the hardware no matter what they say.

      So says you. Have you ever seen recent Mac hardware from nearby (and I mean recent as in less than five years old)? It's not just beautiful, it's solid and durable. Look inside one and the attention to detail seems immediately obvious. I have never seen a PC box or laptop that comes close, although some try.

      Yeah, so I'm an Apple fanboi. Sosumi.

      • by MaxQuordlepleen ( 236397 ) <el_duggio@hotmail.com> on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @01:31PM (#15151395) Homepage

        You're just flat-out wrong. You think nobody in the PC industry pays attention to build quality, durability and style? Have you never used a Thinkpad? There IS great PC hardware out there if you are willing to look for it. Not everything is cheap plastic Dell crap.

        I own, use and appreciate Macs, I'm typing this post on one as a matter of fact. I also own, use and appreciate my Thinkpad. Seriously, I don't see how you think that taking blatantly silly stances "Only Apple cares enough to pay attention to detail" does anything but undermine your overall position. Sigh, this is what drives me nuts about Apple zealots.

    • by Dan Ost ( 415913 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @01:27PM (#15151364)
      Nobody buys Mac because of the hardware no matter what they say.

      Then how do you explain all the people like Linus who run Linux on Apple hardware?

      They sure didn't buy it for the operating system.
    • by jpellino ( 202698 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @01:44PM (#15151508)
      ... of HW and SW that really makes it. I get an iBook for $800 that just works. No parts to stick out and snap, stock ports to support 90% of the work I'll need, a lid and sleep controls that actually listen to each other, instant wake from sleep, foolproof wireless HW and SW... in short, clean and effective HW, clean and effective SW. The two together are bliss.
      • Bingo. I was going to say something like that.

        Also the grandparent post misses the way that truly standardized hardware makes it significantly easier for Apple to make its lovely software.

        There are a few things here and there I'm not crazy about w/ my G3 iBook, like the single mouse button, and some other thins that probably because of over exposure to Windows I'm not comfortable with, but overall it's a much more well tuned experience, and I love that the hardware doesn't bake my lap...
    • Complete Nonsense (Score:3, Insightful)

      by o-hayo ( 700478 )
      To assume that buying Apple hardware is just means-to-an-end for getting their software is quite ridiculous. Yes, OSX is great and I've been happily using it since 10.0.3 on a first gen ti-powerbook.

      So back to the hardware. Whatever premium you think exists (I disagree) on Mac Gear is what my good friend and I call "Worth Every Penny." I've seen an iBook that a caring mother drove over with her BMW X5, sure the LCD was cracked but system still booted in FireWire mode and I was able to retrieve all the doc

    • I think you're missing the mark with regard to what makes for the "it just works" experience. it is not just OS X. It is the blend of the two -- which is only possible because Apple controls both ends. The MacBook Pro has an integrated iSight. From a hardware perspective, lots of systems have built-in cameras. But the integration with OSX is so tight and straightforward it makes using it seamless with virtually every app I've tried. Could they do it as easily if they had to rely on some industry "stan
    • I often enjoy reading Dvorak, but this is just nonsense. Apple's usability comes from their software. Nobody buys Mac because of the hardware no matter what they say.

      I did. I bought a Quad G5 because I wanted a PowerPC based Mac and it was time to buy a new one. When there are no more PPC macs left, I'll find an old IBM pSeries box and switch to AIX full time. I already have a 44P Quad 375 next to my Quad Powermac.
  • Uh... (Score:5, Informative)

    by TheSenori ( 947444 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @12:52PM (#15151046)
    They did. They called it "Darwin". It had everything that Linux has and had; it runs GNU software like everything else and is capable of GNOME or KDE. It hasn't performed very well.
    • They did. They called it "Darwin".

      Gosh - that is sooooo true - Darwin==OS X and OS X==Darwin.

      Anyone who thinks OS X is not open source is insane.

      I agree with you completely!!!!!!
  • by digitaldc ( 879047 ) * on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @12:54PM (#15151053)
    Dvorak claims OS X and Apple in trouble. He suggests open sourcing OS X for an epic battle with Linux. In many ways, this is just insane rambling, but it's certainly entertaining on some levels.

    How about we Open Source Dvorak's articles and let some other insane ramblings ensue, in fact, I have a few of my own.

    First, I want a epic battle between humans and robots complete with protests, picketing, egg-throwing, and flaming.
  • by rbochan ( 827946 )
    ... nothing but increasing his ad-hits by continually pumping out provacative, but senseless drivel, with a side of flame-festy goodness.

    Nothing to see here... move along.

  • oh please (Score:5, Informative)

    by benbritten ( 72301 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @12:54PM (#15151063) Homepage
    Dvorak is trolling again.

    The reason Apple is 'so great' is because they control the whole experience. What you are buying is the hardware + apps +OS.

    If you sell the OS on any old PC hardware (as many have asked for) then suddenly Apple loses one of the legs or their product.

    If you open the OS then you lose another leg.

    The reason everyone wants apple to do these things is because the quality they can get when they control all those things. (no they dont control all the apps, obviously, but they provide the basic user with everything they would need in an easy to use package)

    I am so tired of people saying: I love apple OS, but i will never pay for it until they sell it for my shitty dell hardware! Well, then it wouldn't be the Apple that is able to be so high quality, and you wouldn't want it anyway!

    So, back to my original point: Dvorak is a tired hack, and he is trolling for pagehits. Please stop putting his crap up here and helping him out!
  • Moronity (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Phroggy ( 441 ) * <slashdot3@ p h r o g g y.com> on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @12:55PM (#15151079) Homepage
    I got into various levels of trouble when I suggested that Apple was going to gravitate towards Windows since it would be easy to do and there was some evidence that the company might want to do it.

    No there wasn't.

    Getting OS X onto PCs might be even more doable today, since researchers are reporting that as many as half of the business-owned PCs in operation now may not be capable of running Microsoft Vista.

    And any random crap hardware that can't run Vista should have no trouble running Mac OS X! Piece of cake.

    The Boot Camp product is pure test marketing. It's so obviously test marketing that it's hard to believe that people are foolish enough to get worked up about it.

    Yes, Apple announced that this functionality will be built into the next version of Mac OS X, because they want to wait and see how people react before they decide whether it's a good idea. Because if they had already decided it was a good idea, they would have done something differently.

    Does Windows works well on Mac hardware, or not? The idea here is to put it into the wild and see what happens in a support-free environment where Apple has no responsibility to help make it work.

    Does Windows work well on PC hardware, or not? That's debatable, but obviously Apple thinks they can make it work just as well on Mac hardware. Does it yet? No. That's why Boot Camp is in beta. There are bugs they need to work out. Some of them are documented.

    Apple needs to analyze the reaction to Windows on a Mac. This includes seeing whether there is massive rejection of the idea--protests, picketing, egg-throwing, and flaming. In other words, can the community at large live with the idea of Windows running on a Mac? That cannot be known or assumed without this test.

    Nope, it can't be known. Absolutely no way to even guess. It's not like you could ask people. You know, take a survey. And I mean a real one, not PC Magazine's equivalent of a Slashdot poll.

    Much of the positive reaction, though, seems to stem from the mistaken supposition that having Windows on a Mac will make OS X look better by comparison, so people will flock to OS X.

    Really? That's not the reaction I've been hearing. The two reactions I've been hearing are:
    • I've never used Mac OS X and I don't know if I'll like it; now if I buy a Mac and don't like the OS, I can rest assured that I can switch back to Windows without ditching the hardware.
    • I prefer Mac OS X but I have to use Windows for work (or gaming); now instead of buying a PC to get my work done (or play my games) and being stuck in XP all the time, I can buy a Mac instead, run XP when I need to work (or want to play), then spend the rest of my time running a better OS.


    I didn't bother continuing to the next page.
  • by truthsearch ( 249536 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @12:56PM (#15151085) Homepage Journal
    In the words of Peter Griffin: "This plan is brilliant it's retarded!"

    What's crazy to me is this might be a brilliant marketing strategy to divert some attention away from Microsoft. It's so crazy it just might work...
  • Insanity (Score:5, Interesting)

    by stealie72 ( 246899 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @12:57PM (#15151099)
    Great, so Apple can give away either its best product (or it's number one hardware advertisement, depending on if you think Apple is a hardware company, or a software company), into a hardware environment it can't control, thereby eroding its famous stability.

    Great business plan. Apple would be insane to turn OSX into an open source product. The market has repeatedly shown what happens to high end wintel box manufacturers.
  • Dvorak claims OS X and Apple in trouble. Me Tarzan, you Boy. Go find Jane. Need firewood.
  • It is utter bullshit this maniac comes up with each and every single time he wastes words into cyberspace, but nonetheless, I at least spare a glimpse for it by accident whenever this complete dork is featured on /.
    As this turns out to be physically painful 100% of the time, I suggest you just drop the crap (that means EVERYTHING published by him!) Mr. Dvorak fantasizes about when obviously being on crack, dope, and at least 3 other illegal drugs (possibly not!) known to the broad masses of mankind, and jus
  • by cyngus ( 753668 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @12:58PM (#15151116)
    How can I get a job where all I have to do is write an article with no backup or substantiation beyond my own knowledge and speculation about an idea that I shat out this morning on the toliet? Not only that, how can I get a job where I get to keep it after doing this every week for years?
  • The reason is that the vast majority of existing commercial software is running on Windows and people have gotten used to it. Microsoft has a captive market for Windows, the same way Columbian drug dealers have a captive market for cocaine. Microsoft has other things to worry about, not the least of which is that a third party may come into the ring out of nowhere and offer a solution to the biggest problem facing the computer industry today: software unreliability and our inability to manage and create hig
  • by Cr0w T. Trollbot ( 848674 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @12:59PM (#15151125)
    • A naked jello-wrestling match between Angelina Jolie and Natalie Portman
    • The Wall Street Journal hiring John Dvorak for triple his current salary to be their technology editor.
    • Bill Gates driving up to his house and pitch-forking stacks of $100 bills onto his lawn.

    All of these ideas have the following in common with Dvorak's "advocating" opensourcing all of OS X:

    • Each would benefit Dvorak greatly.
    • Each would benefit those with the actual power to implement his suggestions not at all.
    • Each has 0% chance of coming to pass.

    Crow T. Trollbot

  • I swear to God, what is wrong with him? Is he stupid or what? OSing OS X? This is exactly why he writes a few paragraphs once in a while instead of being entrusted with running an actual company. What a twit.

    OS X (open or not) for PC timeline:
    1. Apple releases OS X for PCs.
    2. Dell begins to sell desktops preloaded with OS X.
    3. Phone call to Dell from Redmond about the new per unit cost to "nonexclusive" vendors of preloaded Windows: $500.
    4. Dell announces that OS X shipments being discontinued due lack of d
  • I've been forced to notice John Dvorak for far, far too long.

    Please, everyone do everyone else a big favor and ignore him.
  • The authors of this Dvorak bot should really get their act together and fix it they want it to last more than 5 minutes during the next Turing Test challenge [loebner.net].
  • Since no company, including massive IBM, has been able to compete with or unseat Microsoft from the desktop, Microsoft's stance alone may prevent any universal acceptance of OS X on the desktop from ever happening. In fact, I assume that as this is being written, Microsoft has coders in its skunk works tearing into OS X looking for deep flaws that it can exploit and publicize. Don't think otherwise. It only makes sense that they'd do this.

    Right. This would be because they have no problems of their own
  • A simple request (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Repvblic ( 4658 )
    If the /. staff is going to continue posting Dvorak articles regarding Apple as if they have any value, can my Batboy links please be accepted for the science category?

    I mean if you're going to post bullocks like this in one category it's only fair to accept them in all categories!
  • by TooMuchEspressoGuy ( 763203 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @01:07PM (#15151200)
    "Dvorak Goes Away, Vows to Never Write Columns Again. UN Declares Global Holiday."

    ...oh, wait, that was just the good dream I had last night.

  • This is... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Moby Cock ( 771358 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @01:15PM (#15151261) Homepage
    This notion is unmitigated nonsense.

    Apple is not looking to unseat Windows as the OS king or are they trying to become ubiquitous. Apple is cultivating a boutique culture with their products and they are being very successful. Starbucks charges an unreasoble amout for coffee but people pay because they like to be associated with the Starbuck images. Apple is similar but not the same. They actually produce superior products (OS X, iPod) but they want to maitain the hip and cool vibe that is associated with them. The company is doing very well at the moment. I don't understand the "death knell" attitudes of some comentators. Why on earth would they alter OS X? They are making a fortune with it.

    I think Boot Camp was introduced to shut people up. To end the Will-Windows-Run-on-Macs speculation. I firly believe that virtualization is in the card in the near future. Boot Camp is a temporary release to bridge the gap.
  • by moofdaddy ( 570503 ) * on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @01:20PM (#15151299) Homepage
    Anyone else get the feeling that Dvorak's articles are written by manatee's in a large tank filled with idea balls...?

    Apple + Open source + War

    "Oh, the makings of another great Dvorak article, I can see it now..."
  • by BluhDeBluh ( 805090 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @01:29PM (#15151376)
    Dvorak just likes to make inane random predictions that never, and I mean never, come true. His column inches are dedicated to shots in the dark which don't deserve the time of day. He's a troll with a website who claims to be an expert, and loves making wilder and crazier predictions with a distinct Apple fetish

    Apple has the best sales they've ever had, they have no reason to open source it, and it's just... nonsense to anyone.

    Looking at Slashdot posts he thinks
    * Apple is going to move to Windows
    * Microsoft should buy Opera
    * Apple are promoted by news people more than they are used
    * the Creative Commons license is worth trashing
    * That Apple's move to Intel will harm Linux
    * Google is planning a web browser
    * Apple should discontinue the Mac
    * TiVo is a way of stealing programming

    Make your own opinions. Mine is that he's a poor troll. Okay, so he correctly predicted that Apple would move to Intel. But if you fire enough shots and make enough random predictions, you're eventually going to get one on the bullseye.
  • by soft_guy ( 534437 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @01:29PM (#15151382)
    He's been wishing for/predicting Apple will die for about 18 years now.

    When the Mac was first introduced, he was the guy who stated that the graphical user interface was "stupid" and "toy like".

    Every article he writes is basically a suggestion for Apple to commit suicide. He actually wrote an article saying that if you used an iBook you were gay.

    Here's my suggestion to Dvorak. If you want to be more competitive as a writer, start taking cyanide pills immediately.
  • Apple's real gambit (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rockhome ( 97505 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @01:30PM (#15151389) Journal
    Ok, so my reaction to Dvorak was "yeah, but no, but".

    Apple's real gambit in regards to Windows is almost too transparent. Boot Camp is the second step towards a true virtualization layer for OSX that will blend Windows and OSX. The move to Intel was the first.

    Given that virtualization is becoming so cruicial in so many areas with VM Ware, Solaris zones, and whatever HP call it, Apple's Boot Camp only makes sense. Multi-core processors make virtualization even more attractive to those craving processore density. With the Intel-Mac's lack of BIOS, Boot Camp provides the bridge between OS X and Windows for now, requiring reboots to toggle between operating system.

    The abstraction of the BIOS is a key idea to take away from Boot Camp. The abstraction at least proves that Windows will run at that layer. The next step is likely to be a greater abstraction that will allow a Windows "session" to run inside of OSX without requiring a reboot, possibly similar to Virtual PC but with better performance. At this point, users would be able to access all features of both operating systems, albeit with some difficulty.

    Eventually, the logical move would be to a complete virtualization layer in which multiple operating systems can simultaneously share the system and interact with one another. I wouldn't be surprised to see a virtualization system that allows easy "drag and drop" from OS X into Windows and vice versa.

    This is probably a more realistic view than Dvorak, as it gets people onto OS X without the worry of not being able to use Windows. Could we see some kind of "WinOS/2"-like bundling in the future? Probably not to that extent, but with similar functionality.

    Here is OSX, need to run Windows? Insert CD and click here, now your windows appas run inside what appear to be OSX windows.
  • by Qwavel ( 733416 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @01:38PM (#15151458)

    Certainly the recent rise of OS X on the back of the iPod has hurt desktop Linux, but these two desktop OS's appeal to completely different market segments so they are natural allies, not adversaries.

    Linux attack MS from the low-end and is particularly strong in corporate, third world, and limited use, environments. It is flexible and is appealling technically and politically, but is quite rough and not ready for the average consumer.

    OS X is the opposite. It is high margin, high sytle, and slick. It is perfect for the brand-concious, reasonably wealthy, consumer who wants everything to work together easily.

    I'm not suggesting that Apple would intentionally help Linux, anymore than MS would, but Apple and Linux are not exactly on a collision course!
  • by AusG4 ( 651867 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @01:39PM (#15151465) Homepage Journal
    Honestly, my favorite part of this article is this:

    "I got into various levels of trouble when I suggested that Apple was going to gravitate towards Windows since it would be easy to do and there was some evidence that the company might want to do it."

    What he actually said was that Apple would ditch OS X for Windows. What Apple actually did was allow people who want to run Windows -as well- to install it on a second partition, obviously with the intention of providing a safety net to would-be switchers.

    I like John, but I'd rather he not try to restate what he previously stated to make himself look smarter than he really is.
  • Please *DIETY, NO! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by default luser ( 529332 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @03:09PM (#15152240) Journal
    Then I get to re-experience the same reason why I just recently left Linux for OS X.

    Stuck inside their bubble, open source zealots think it's ok to have thousands of branches of THE SAME OS, COMPETING, INCOMPATIBLE WINDOWING LIBRARIES that aren't even standardized as part of the OS, and ten thousand window managers to make absolutely certain that your OS has no recognizable "look" or "personality" whatsoever. When they add new features, they add them in the "cleanest possible" manner (ie, make everyone patch and recompile EVERYTHING), rather than the "most usable" manner (add compatibility layers). When they change features, they don't do so gracefully, they break old code and expect everyone to recompile.

    Here's just one example of how open source just gets it wrong: a few years ago, I was looking to play some emulators on my Linux box. I figured it would be as easy as emulation on Windows, but boy was I wrong.

    See, I wanted to use the same USB gamepad I'd been using for the last few years on Windows. Only problem was, when Linux added support for *USB* gamepads, they used a different interface. Thus, emulators designed for *ANALOG* gamepads could not use my USB gamepad. Unfortunately, most of these emulators had been abandoned, and nobody had bothered to add USB gamepad support, so I was up shit creek unless I wanted to hack it in myself (sound familiar?). This is an example of adding a new feature CLEANLY, but in a manner that is completely UNUSABLE without extensive reworking.

    I'm sick of it. It's little things like this that made using my Linux box for anything besides web browsing and basic office tasks a pain.

    WINDOWS, by contrast, has supported USB gamepads since Windows 98, and has taken all the guesswork out of the issue. Regardless of whether you use an analog or USB gamepad, an application can use the same hooks to communicate with the pad regardless, and the user can use the same setup widget to configure ALL pads. Now, that's not going to be very CLEAN code, but it is a damn sight more USABLE. I can't speak for OS X on this issue, simply because I've only been using it a few weeks.

    This is just one example of why I don't need yet another open-source operating system. Open source applications are just fine - the ones that are mismanaged or get caught up in their own self-image eventually get replaced by better development projects. But operating systems have momentum, and don't just disappear. Open source zealots could do a lot of damage to the USABLILITY of OS X, and it would still take a long tome for it to fade away.
  • What a bonehead (Score:3, Insightful)

    by danwesnor ( 896499 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @03:56PM (#15152607)
    With all attention turned in that direction, there would be nothing Microsoft could do to stem a reversal of its fortunes.
    Except rake in the profits. If Apple loses quality control by going open source, their product won't meet the standards of their users. Also, it would be mere minutes before an open-source OS X was ported to run on non-Apple hardware, essenitally knocking themselves out of the computer business.
    Step 2: Determining functionality without risk.
    The definition of a public beta test.
    In other words, can the community at large live with the idea of Windows running on a Mac?
    Yes, they can, they've been doing it for a while through various emulators. Maybe if your head was someplace with a more panoramic view than the orifice where you usually keep it, you'd have noticed this.
    If the Windows test keeps going the way it's going, the results may indicate that Mac users are more likely to shift to Windows than we used to think.
    That's a baseless conclusion, and is based on the assumtion that Mac users don't really want to run OS X and are looking for an alternative, an assumption that we all know is wrong.
    But what will happen to Mac OS X?
    It's userbase will grow. That's what happens when you make a good product more useful to more people. I will not use the author's name because I think this article is nothing more than a publicity stunt. But I will give my opinion of him - he is one of those crusty old men hanging around your local computer club meetings waxing poetic about the days of DOS and trying to impress you with his library of obscure and outdated computer trivia ("In the old days, we used to print by copying the file to LPT1 on port 378h."). He has never been able to maintain an up-to-date understanding of what is going on in this industry. He is an anachronism.

    So Johnny, let me give give you a key insight you'll need to hold onto whenever you write anything about Apple: Jobs doesn't want to win, he wants to be the best.


    (PS - I do not and have never owned an Apple computer, so this is not fanboi crap.)
  • by pestilence669 ( 823950 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @04:07PM (#15152684)
    Opensourcing Mac OS X is the number one way to make the operating system resemble Linux. Some people don't see this as bad, but let me explain. I love Linux.

    Mac OS X is much more than the Kernel and UNIX command-line and X11. It's a substantial part, that already is opensourced as Darwin. The real value in Mac OS for developers is the incredibly elegant framework built on very high-level components.

    Core Data, Core Image, Core Video, Applescript, XCode, QuickTime, Speech, Finder, Aqua, Quartz Extreme, Cocoa Bundles & NIBS... There's a lot to this O/S and it's not something you can just "open" at any time.

    There are innumerable software license restrictions in the video CODECS for QuickTime alone. Display PDF? Unless Adobe wants to open source PDF, that just won't happen. This is one of the nicest features of Mac OS. Fonts and vectors actually render as they'll print. Mac users take it for granted. Windows gets this feature in 2007, but no one's asking Microsoft to opensource Windows or ship a stripped down "free" version.

    MacOS stands apart, in part, due to its bullish resistance to what everyone else is doing. Opening the code invites pressure to conform, the absolute worst thing that can happen to this OS. Apple has always been an innovator and is often ahead of the rest of the industry.

    I fear that an open source community would pressure Apple to abandon the very things that make the OS unique and cutting edge. Their proprietary solutions make for great software.

    I can tell you:

    As an Objective C (Cocoa) developer, the memory management woes of C++ are long gone. Network communications are so simple, I feel dumb for ever using sockets. Message delegation is a feature so powerfully simple, it allows me to write a fraction of code for the same functionality.

    To use Mac OS effectively, you really do need to "think different." The Frameworks make extensive use of generics and design patterns... something Microsoft has only started to embrace in their new toolsets.

    When I look at Linux, it's not even close. It's not an end-user OS and never will be without the very things that makes Mac OS what it is. Linux lacks a decent GUI and productivity tools... even the support of commercial development as a whole.

    I don't dislike Linux at all. I use Linux and/or BSD for almost everything... embedded hardware, servers, and even light day-to-day tasks. It's just very raw and continues to be a tad hardcore.

    Linux is largely C-based. The talent, Dvorak suggests should be tapped, is composed of mostly C developers. The OS is built completely different than one that uses C++ or Objective C as its primary language.

    What makes Dvoraks' comments silly, is that there simply isn't a community of good object oriented developers in open source that aren't already actively working on very important projects. I would much rather that some of them finish Eclipse, instead of helping Apple. I think Apple has a handle on it already.

    Dvorak is a militant Windows user. He pokes and prods the Apple community. His predictions are meant only to antagonize Apple users.
  • Apt (Score:3, Funny)

    by drix ( 4602 ) on Tuesday April 18, 2006 @04:51PM (#15152964) Homepage
    "In many ways, this is just insane rambling, but it's certainly entertaining on some levels."

    Wait, so you're referring to just this one column, or the entire Dvorak corpus? :)

"How do I love thee? My accumulator overflows."

Working...