Comment For the record (Score 1) 136
I agree with most of what you say. My proposal wasn't to encourage a new monopoly around Apple. Nor was it for anything else so absolutely, incredibly unlikely and regressive. I am just in favor of a temporary massing around Apple.
Using, developing, and evangelizing for Linux right now, other than for your own personal fun, which I can't begrudge, is equivalent to voting for a third party candidate in the U.S. The best choice? Sure. But you're "throwing your vote away." With enough people "voting" for Apple, we give them enough market force (5%, 10%... certainly no monopoly) to ensure that it's no longer a Microsoft Office world, or an IE world, or a Windows world. Developers have to consider other platforms. And if they're going to consider OS X, they may as well consider Linux too. (viz., it's a lot easier to get a "just another" platform added, than to change the "one platform" mindset).
Your "At the same time" paragraph sums up the problem nicely. I just believe that my proposal is the only short/medium-term viable solution forward for Open Source.
> Take a look at the office suit that Apple is promoting. Is it open or standardized? Yeah right. It's the same, closed [...]
I maintain my claim that people using Apple's closed office suite is a win for openness. Not directly, or immediate, but an important step. If enough people use Word Perfect, Apple's suite, or Star Office, that the general perception of a .doc as a universally readable format appropriate for exchange, archiving, etc decreases, then open standards and open source eventually fill the hole. (Initially, figuratively, in perception, and eventually, literally, in open source market share).
> Microsoft stopped IE for Mac, not the other way around
I may have misremembered that, I won't deny. But I believe the back-room politics that went on were more complex than that. (Sources welcome.)
Using, developing, and evangelizing for Linux right now, other than for your own personal fun, which I can't begrudge, is equivalent to voting for a third party candidate in the U.S. The best choice? Sure. But you're "throwing your vote away." With enough people "voting" for Apple, we give them enough market force (5%, 10%... certainly no monopoly) to ensure that it's no longer a Microsoft Office world, or an IE world, or a Windows world. Developers have to consider other platforms. And if they're going to consider OS X, they may as well consider Linux too. (viz., it's a lot easier to get a "just another" platform added, than to change the "one platform" mindset).
Your "At the same time" paragraph sums up the problem nicely. I just believe that my proposal is the only short/medium-term viable solution forward for Open Source.
> Take a look at the office suit that Apple is promoting. Is it open or standardized? Yeah right. It's the same, closed [...]
I maintain my claim that people using Apple's closed office suite is a win for openness. Not directly, or immediate, but an important step. If enough people use Word Perfect, Apple's suite, or Star Office, that the general perception of a
> Microsoft stopped IE for Mac, not the other way around
I may have misremembered that, I won't deny. But I believe the back-room politics that went on were more complex than that. (Sources welcome.)
