[Off topic] Re: Mac OS X

[Justin Mack]

I also don't understand what is so bad or restrictive about the OS X 
license.  Dr. MacDonald is right--nobody else makes OS X compatible 
CPU's, so what's the fuss?  Further, why would you want to run OS X on 
any other CPU since OS X has been so specifically optimized and tuned 
for the CPU's running current Apple hardware?  As far as Darwin goes, 
yeah, it might not be the biggest and baddest flavor of Unix around, 
but at least it is Unix, which, by the way, has been a big draw for a 
lot of people to switch to Apple hardware--it is the first Unix powered 
laptop.  Licenses are a necessary evil these days and, unless a license 
is particularly restrictive, invasive, or demands your soul, just live 
with 'em.

--Justin--

On Mar 21, 2004, at 9:34 PM, Clinton MacDonald wrote:

> Mr. Ryabitsev:
>
> [The following constitutes a bit of a Mac-vs.-PC flame war, and I 
> advise anyone who is not interested in such diatribes to ignore this 
> post. I also ask Mr. Ryabitsev not to take my invective personally -- 
> I can't resist a good fight!]
>
> Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
>> Clinton MacDonald wrote:
>>> Do you, for instance, object to Apple's license terms for Mac OS X? 
>>> What about
>>> licensing for the Darwin project?
>> If you read the license terms of OS X, it states very
>> clearly that you can only use OS X on Apple hardware,
>> and therefore you effectively vendor-lock yourself into
>> Apple products.
>
> Your argument doesn't make any sense to me.
>
> I do not have the license in front of me, but I will concede that it 
> says you can only use the OS on Apple hardware. Ignoring, for the 
> moment, that no other vendor makes Mac OS X-compatible CPUs (and 
> ignoring that this license would be difficult to enforce), how is this 
> a hardship? Apple makes fine -- though expensive -- hardware that is 
> tuned to run Mac OS X, and Mac OS X is tuned to run on that hardware 
> only. One of the major reasons one would choose Apple's hardware and 
> software solution is for the high degree of compatibility and 
> integration that entails. If that is not an issue for the buyer, then 
> there are many other solutions available (including Linux on various 
> Intel- and AMD-based PC computers).
>
> One should choose one's operating system based on which programs one 
> wants to run, not on which hardware one might someday want to run the 
> programs on. Seriously, I use this argument all the time. For 
> instance, if the only programs a computer buyer will ever run are the 
> Microsoft Office applications (in, say, a secretarial setting), then I 
> advise the buyer to purchase the Microsoft operating system on 
> compatible PC hardware. However, if the buyer wants to use a larger 
> range of products (say, a Web designer using BBEdit, Adobe Photoshop, 
> several Web browsers, a nice e-mail client, calendar and and address 
> book PIM synchronization, an open source database, and two or three 
> Linux-based applications; or a molecular biologist using all those 
> tools and several more specialized gene sequencing and annotating 
> applications), I advise him or her to buy a Mac (and lots of RAM! :-) 
> ). Those are the tools I use, and I have most of them open all the 
> time.
>
>> This is worse than Windows by a long shot -- if you
>> don't like one hardware vendor, you can always switch
>> to another and still run Windows. With OS X, you are
>> *FOREVER* stuck with Apple, unless you choose to move
>> away from OS X.
>
> Are you *really* saying that Windows licensing is better than Apple's? 
> I also do not have the Windows license in front of me. However, I 
> think that the product activation scheme that Microsoft has instituted 
> is far more restrictive than Apple's unenforced (and cheaper) OS 
> licensing. Once Windows XP has been "activated," for instance, can one 
> really transfer the license to another PC? I thought that the product 
> activation prevented doing that. Please correct me if I am wrong.
>
>> Apple licensing is bad for business.
>
> I am not sure what you mean by that statement -- Apple's licensing 
> certainly hasn't harmed my "business" (or research and educational 
> endeavors). The hardware is more expensive initially, but I find that 
> its longevity more than makes up for that.
>
>> I don't see why any sane person would use Darwin. It's not a very 
>> good implementation of Unix.
>
> I don't know very much about Darwin, but I imagine you are right. I 
> know that Darwin has not soared in popularity amongst the Open Source 
> crowd, and that probably means that it is not a very good version of 
> Unix. One *can* run X Windows on it, but I agree with you that there 
> is no very good reason to do so.
>
> On the other hand, I don't believe that Microsoft has (intentionally, 
> at least :-) ) contributed any of their operating system code to the 
> Open Source community. Apple is doing the right thing with the Darwin 
> version of BSD, as far as I know, and is also contributing heavily to 
> other important technologies (like the KHTML base of Konqueror and 
> Rendezvous for network discovery).
>
> Do I wish that Apple's PowerMacs were cheaper? Sure I do: I wish they 
> were FREE, but that seems unreasonable. Do I think that Apple could 
> use some competition in its market? Actually, Apple has incredible 
> amounts of competition form all the Wintel and Linux PCs on the market 
> today. Do I wish that other companies made Mac OS X-compatible 
> hardware? I'm not so sure.... If driving the profit out of the 
> hardware side of their market drove Apple out of business, I would be 
> unable to get *any* Mac OS X products. So, I will have to say, "No."
>
> Apple's job in the market is to create new and innovative hardware and 
> software, and to keep creating it so that it is always a few steps 
> ahead of the rest of the PC market. Just as innovations made by BMW 
> and other high-end automobile manufacturers (innovations like 
> air-bags, anti-lock brakes, etc.) eventually make their way to less 
> expensive vehicles, so do innovations first brought to market by Apple 
> (windowing operating systems, mice, WYSIWYG word processing, wireless 
> networking, printer discovery, USB, Firewire, the iPod; heck, even 
> Microsoft Word and Excel started on the Mac!) become mainstream in the 
> PC world. Not everyone wants to purchase a Mac, just as not everyone 
> wants to purchase a BMW. There is enough variety to keep everyone 
> happy in the computing world.
>
> Good night!
>
> Best wishes,
> Clint
>
> -- 
> Dr. Clinton C. MacDonald | <mailto:clint DOT macdonald AT sbcglobal 
> DOT net>
>
> _______________________________________________
> yellowdog-general mailing list
> yellowdog-general@lists.terrasoftsolutions.com
> http://lists.terrasoftsolutions.com/mailman/listinfo/yellowdog-general
> HINT: to Google archives, try  '<keywords> site:terrasoftsolutions.com'
>
>