should i be seduced by apple?

[Sepero]

Wow, you can get garbage for free?
Seriously though, a lot of proprietary software is garbage too.

If you think Apple and their patents are more "holy" than Microsoft, then I feel you are sorely mistaken.

[fatTrav]

Originally posted by Sepero
Wow, you can get garbage for free?
Seriously though, a lot of proprietary software is garbage too.

If you think Apple and their patents are more "holy" than Microsoft, then I feel you are sorely mistaken.

Yeah, you can get garbage for free. I think emacs is garbage and its free. (Actually it's not bad...I just really like vim). I never said all commercial/propriatary software is good. Some is, some isn't. Same with the free stuff. I support the best software, period, free/commercial/whatever.

I just wanted to point out that Apple has found perhaps the happy medium. Enough Unix to please the geeks and yet easy enough to have stuff "just work" out of the box.

[nugget15]

Originally posted by tlyons
This "study" was widely reported on dozens and dozens of websites:

Mac OSX most secure OS, Linux least

I'd like to hear some educated critique about the study, if anyone has some to offer.

Original study link/source is here if the above link disappears. Or, just Google the phrase "OSX most secure OS".

- T.

What ever type of unix you run is as secure as you know how to use it. If you know nothing about linux and do a plain full install a lot of stuff will be turned on depending on the distro. someone who has used linux for years and knows what he/she is doing then they will be able to lock it up a whole lot better.

[Sepero]

Originally posted by fatTrav
There is nothing wrong with proprietary software. But then I'm a professional (read paid) software developer for a fortune 20 company and it puts food on the table...Software patents pay my bills I guess.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin


Anyway, I just wanted to point out that Suse, Xandros, and Linspire have found perhaps the happy medium. Enough Unix to please the geeks and yet easy enough to have stuff "just work" out of the box.

[XiaoKJ]

Originally posted by gehidore
Not true, many if not most apps run on OSX.

Darwin is the *nix behind OSX. Thats why I said it.

But are the other 2 you suggested true? I don't have one myself so I do not know, but apps on OSX should run on the drivers nicely because they will be tunneled to the works isn't it?

Anyway, I believe one would still like Mac OS X on a Mac. debian-ppc and gentoo-ppc may be faster but its not native. You would lse many functions like the original graphics driver from nvidia. I think.

Update me on the news.

Originally posted by rocketpcguy
i can run linux applications in osx?? how?

Again, I stress that I don't have a Mac, but the underlying OS in OS X is darwin, a *nix, and thus venerable programs that can run on *nix should run on a Mac. Esp in a terminal emulation.

[fatTrav]

Originally posted by Sepero
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin


Anyway, I just wanted to point out that Suse, Xandros, and Linspire have found perhaps the happy medium. Enough Unix to please the geeks and yet easy enough to have stuff "just work" out of the box.

Anyone who thinks all commercial/propriatory software is bad isn't playing with a full deck, to be nice about it.

Without the software patents, there would be little money in the software industry. A lot of free software is written by professional coders in their off time or by students to gain experience. You cut the money involved you end up cutting the number of people who get interested in it and in turn write free software.

I don't think I'd give _any_ linux distro the title of "happy medium." Maybe, maybe, for a power geek they are easier to use or better. I've found some hardcore geek stuff difficult to do in OS X (editing /etc/hosts for one) but it is still a better mix than any distro. A working, fully developed/polished Graphical Interface and proper hardware support right out of the box. Gnome/Kde are sometimes useable but they aren't on the same level as Apple's.

I love linux as much or more than anyone on this forum, but it's not nearly ready. Most distros still feel very clunky and patchwork. I've yet to find something I can't do in linux and have learned about all I care to learn. Now I just want to enjoy my new seductress.

If you want to be able to run most linux applications, make sure X11 is installed (if you want a GUI) and you can use an apt-get like program -- fink -- to install/compile the program you choose. Google for "fink"

[Sepero]

I think you are confused, FatTrav. With your "distros still feel very clunky and patchwork", you are obviously saying Linux ISN'T READY FOR THE DESKTOP.
I assume you've never read this:
http://justlinux.com/forum/showthrea...than+years+now
or tried one of these:
http://justlinux.com/forum/poll.php?...lts&pollid=668

IDC
...giving Linux a small but respectable 6 percent of the desktop market.

"Linux captured the No. 2 spot as desktop operating system in 2003,"
link


And you keep coming to us with RUBBISH about "Without the software patents, there would be little money in the software industry".

Maybe I'm not playing with a full deck, but I know there are Millions of $$ being made today with Free Software. And if you can't figure out how to get a nice piece of that pie, you will become extinct like the dinosaurs.

(And yes, with my own pc repair/educational shop, I'm getting some of that pie too. And yes, it tastes better than Blueberry or Apple. )

PS.
Though, to be fair, I don't deny that there will probably be niche markets for proprietary software in the future. Just not among the common public. If you can get a job like that, you'll be very lucky.

[XiaoKJ]

I agree to sepero. Open source will still be open source without those professional programmers as it is, after all, a community effort. just that it might be slower.

however, a professional programmer will not have the time to help out in linux anyway --- so the credit should go to those reaping profits out of open source and those tech support people who find that coding seems to suit them better, esp at times when they are waiting for the next call....

Finally, there has been this talk about the open source economic system whereby support would be paid for, not the original software like how M$ got to power. I shows how open source can power the future.

Lastly, professional programmers, in their code, shouldn't be working on code out of their scope isn't it? and isn't code at work enough to stress them out already?

[Sepero]

XiaoKJ, I have almost no idea what you said, but I'm glad you agree with me.

[CoffeeMan]

fatTrav, I agree with you (but I dont think you should ever call emacs trash, that is just disrespectful, it is Stallman's baby.) I agree that not all proprietary software is bad, what I like to do is support the model before I support the actual product, free software and open source software have come a long way because there are passionate communities and a little bit of buisness behind both, and the licenses behind open and free software leave potential that most proprietary software dealers couldn't achieve if they tried. I am talking about security, stability, and a handful of other things that companies like Microsoft don't truly emphasize. There was no such thing as proprietary software 30 years ago, and that is when UNIX and C came into fruition. I used to hate Apple and love Microsoft, but this was when I was about 11. The more and more I learn about Windows and the Microsoft EULA, the more and more I dislike the boys at Redmond. The more I learn how Apple Mac OS X and GNU/Linux and *BSD are all decendants of UNIX, the more and more I like them all.
I think that software is only as good as the people make it. And if everyone has the ability to put their hand in the pot, then more things get fixed, tweaked (for the better), and so on.
PS I love the avatar, I made one for my friend based on that picture, here it is: http://www.tipcrew.com/staff.html

[fatTrav]

Originally posted by Sepero
I think you are confused, FatTrav. With your "distros still feel very clunky and patchwork", you are obviously saying Linux ISN'T READY FOR THE DESKTOP.
I assume you've never read this:
http://justlinux.com/forum/showthrea...than+years+now
or tried one of these:
http://justlinux.com/forum/poll.php?...lts&pollid=668


And you keep coming to us with RUBBISH about "Without the software patents, there would be little money in the software industry".

Maybe I'm not playing with a full deck, but I know there are Millions of $$ being made today with Free Software. And if you can't figure out how to get a nice piece of that pie, you will become extinct like the dinosaurs.

No, I'm talking about linux just in general. As a server or desktop. Compared to a BSD unix it feels very patchworked. I'm sure a lot of this is because each distro does things differently, but in the end any distro is just a collection of packages someone throws together. Unlike a BSD (FreeBSD for example) where everything is designed to work together and was developed together.

Those patents protect a company's investment. My company has billions invested in software for their business logic. That will NEVER be opened up and I doubt many large companies would ever give out any software freely if they can sell it to make some money. If you don't have a patent or anything protecting your product, and your product isn't support but the actual software, then how can you make money other than by altering your business model and focusing on the support side instead?

If I am wrong, point it out. If you make freely available your sole product then there is nothing stopping people from just taking your work.

I'd like an example of someone making "millions" off of open source software. Apple and IBM are the only companies that I can think of that would fit that category and IBM's linux related profits are most likely small. I'm sure there are some small web-firms making good money by using apache and linux servers and selling ecommerce solutions using osCommerce, but come on man.

The open source development model *is* better but it is only better because it's not governed by the financial bottom line and as a result things don't get rushed as bad. I changed this because I rethought it. I don't know how open source will do in the future. I do know there will always remain plenty of closed source just because businessess want to keep their secrets/logic to themselves because that is what gives them an edge on the competition.


Note: I called emacs "garbage" and not trash. And I was only joking, it's not that bad. I just vim better

[fatTrav]

Originally posted by XiaoKJ
Lastly, professional programmers, in their code, shouldn't be working on code out of their scope isn't it? and isn't code at work enough to stress them out already?

Not necessarily....as long as you get permission before you code, things are usually ok. Work sometimes likes that type of thing because it keeps your skills sharp and keeps you learning new things. Also code done during personal time is usually fun because it is something you want to do. I for instance work on software for my old university as a way to give back to them instead of being lazy and writing a check.

Hmm, yes, work is more than enough to stress you out. That's why we have alcohol.

[Sepero]

Originally posted by fatTrav
No, I'm talking about linux just in general. As a server or desktop. Compared to a BSD unix it feels very patchworked.

Let's get one thing straight. Although, it's roots are *bsd, we are not talking about *bsd, and it will Never see the desktop.

We are talking about Mac and GNU/Linux. And Compared to Debian, I say Macintosh feels very patchworked.

My company has billions invested in software for their business logic. That will NEVER be opened up and I doubt many large companies would ever give out any software freely if they can sell it to make some money.

NEVER! I agree!

But think... did we ever need their code before? Um, no.
If they are selling it to the public, it will become extinct!

Their code will become replaced by FOSS. Just like IE is being replaced by FireFox this very moment. We are watching history be created right Now. The signs are right in front of you. Proprietary is being replaced by FOSS.

If you don't have a patent or anything protecting your product, and your product isn't support but the actual software, then how can you make money other than by altering your business model and focusing on the support side instead?

Patents don't prevent the death of Proprietary software. They only prolong death. Don't believe me? Look as Sun Solaris.

Anyone that is smart enough to get into the support business at this early stage of the game will be making some good $dough, in the coming years.

On the other end of the spectrum, because software will be so widespread and inexpensive, hired programmers are going to become a dime a dozen. Competition in that market is going to become tooth and nail. (It's already happening.)

If I am wrong, point it out. If you make freely available your sole product then there is nothing stopping people from just taking your work.

No, not all proprietary software will disappear. Yes, corporations will continue to have proprietary software with inhouse programming staff. For the simple reason that they want to keep code from their competitors.

My point is that, among the public sector, proprietary software will completely die.

I'd like an example of someone making "millions" off of open source software.

Well, I was thinking collectively, like if you add everyone together. Perhaps I should have said billions. (I was being conservative.)

If you think there will ever be another "MS" type corp making money with Free Software, then you're only fooling yourself. Free Software is a product where the playing field is much more level, and everyone gets a fair chance.

I don't know how open source will do in the future. I do know there will always remain plenty of closed source just because businessess want to keep their secrets/logic to themselves because that is what gives them an edge on the competition.

Exactly. And that is where proprietary software will continue to live. (Although, I question how "plentiful" that will actually be.)

BTW: Yes, emacs is pretty bad. For a FOSS program, it is way too much bloat. Who needs a webbrowser built into their code editor?
I prefer jed. It's like emacs without the bloat.

[fatTrav]

Regarding "Macintosh feeling patchworked" ... compared to FreeBSD, which is it's "daddy" it is. The whole directory of /etc is not used by the OS and seems put there just so "sh*t will compile."

Some code will *never* be replaced by FOSS. I'd crap in my pants if my company moved to FOSS servers (BSD/linux) let ALONE start using FOSS code. Jakarta-Commons and Struts may be the extent of what FOSS code is allowed, but I don't even think they are used.

"Patents don't prevent the death of Proprietary software. They only prolong death." I don't disagree or agree with this statement. I can see it two ways. The only way proprietary stuff lives is in business-logic or the core components of a company's software. Either way let's hope this won't happen until I retire in 35 years.

"My point is that, among the public sector, proprietary software will completely die." I'd say yes with the exception of games. I think there will still be a market for them. But even then, I wonder if the FOSS groups have enough of the types of people to really elevate the FOSS. Graphic artists, UI Testers, Planners, etc.

"Anyone that is smart enough to get into the support business at this early stage of the game will be making some good $dough, in the coming years." Perhaps. Business will still throw money at buying good software, but that comes along with some sort of support. I think custom-software will return to the forefront of the industry.

I agree and disagree with a lot of your points. I'm just saying that linux and the bulk of FOSS just isn't ready for prime time use yet. It's come a long way but it needs to go a long way yet. Some FOSS projects have a "professional" feel about the code and related materials. Most don't however. I'm NOT saying the code isn't high quality only that when compared to the professional stuff I have seen, some of the FOSS is lacking.

Hopefully my seductress will get here today...

[Sepero]

Originally posted by fatTrav
Some code will *never* be replaced by FOSS. I'd crap in my pants if my company moved to FOSS servers (BSD/linux) let ALONE start using FOSS code.

I might pay to see that... nah.
Honestly, I think you may be under estimating the growth of FOSS. The base of GNU/Linux alone is currently doubling about every 2 years.

"My point is that, among the public sector, proprietary software will completely die." I'd say yes with the exception of games. I think there will still be a market for them.

Ok, you got me here. I agree with you on this(and most of your other points). FOSS programmers can produce commercial-like games, but they should never try to replace them. Just like FOSS programmers should never try to replace Movies or Music.

The reason is because the greatest strength of FOSS is being able to recycle code. Though, when it comes to games(, music or movies), people want fresh and new, not some recycled Duke Nukem.

Software won't be able to replicate human creativity for several more years. (Though, I recently heard that the speed of computer intelegence should reach that of humans around the year 2029)

As for FOSS being poor in quality, this is mostly Fud. Though you 'somewhat' do have a point. To find good proprietary software, generally all you have to do it see what is most expensive. Finding good FOSS can be more difficult because it has no sticker price.