Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX
Linux to Over take Apple on Desktop
Bazoukas:
For me, closed source is irrelevant. What I mean with this? I dont really care about it. And I do believe that closed source is more of a pull down than anything. It creates more problems than it solves.
On the other hand I do believe that no one should force a company to open up their source. Since I am a 101% Linux user, I do believe in freedom of choice whatever that may be.
The one thing I do mind though, is when one's freedom becomes arrogance and ties me down from being free.
If Apple wants to be closed source, fine be me, as long as when MS goes down, they wont try to pull another Bill Gates on us. If they dont anything of that nature, they will have my support.
At any rate, I believe that Linux is the OS that will replace MS on the front end (the back end is owned by unix and linux, period), simply because the users are free to choose a variety of Hardware to run the OS. Thats what launched MS in its early years.
Apple will be a real competitor when they decide to pull their head out of their asses and do what they should have done decades ago. Make their OS run with different kinds of CPUs and Motherboards. A real hacker (not cracker) wont stand to be locked in specific hardware.
Apple really needs to get flexible on this issue because they do inovate and their products even though closed source, are of really high quality (something rare when it comes to close source), not like MS.
Laukev7:
Apple tried to use open source whenever possible. But again, open source is an advantage in some situations, but not always. Sometimes, you need the exclusivity of a technology to differentiate your product. Of course, open source can be a benefit for huge projects which don't require anything new, like databases or servers.
Apple porting its OS or making it open source would mean a certain death for the both the OS and the platform. However, it is possible to buy processors and motherboards from Powerlogix and other, and you can even build your own Mac if you like, provided you know where to look.
billy_gates:
quote:Originally posted by Laukev7:
Apple tried to use open source whenever possible. But again, open source is an advantage in some situations, but not always. Sometimes, you need the exclusivity of a technology to differentiate your product. Of course, open source can be a benefit for huge projects which don't require anything new, like databases or servers.
Apple porting its OS or making it open source would mean a certain death for the both the OS and the platform. However, it is possible to buy processors and motherboards from Powerlogix and other, and you can even build your own Mac if you like, provided you know where to look.
--- End quote ---
for example...
www.2khappyware.com
Bazoukas:
quote:Originally posted by Laukev7:
Apple tried to use open source whenever possible. But again, open source is an advantage in some situations, but not always. Sometimes, you need the exclusivity of a technology to differentiate your product. Of course, open source can be a benefit for huge projects which don't require anything new, like databases or servers.
Apple porting its OS or making it open source would mean a certain death for the both the OS and the platform. However, it is possible to buy processors and motherboards from Powerlogix and other, and you can even build your own Mac if you like, provided you know where to look.
--- End quote ---
Yeah but do they expect? People locking themselves into specific hardware? I really like the fact that I can choose from a plethora of hardware. Its all about freedom.
They wanna keep their OS closed source? Again, thats 101% fine be me. They have proved they can make a really good product. No doubt. But whats the logic behind locking your OS in a very limited set of hardware. Make it run in as many platforms as possible. Then you got something cooking.
Otherwise its just greed, unless though am missing something here and I would like somebody to explain it to me.
Laukev7:
Yes, you appear to be missing something here. If Apple released Mac OS X for the PC, they would lose an important sale point for their hardware. People wouldn't bother buying Macs anymore, not because Macs aren't good (the hardware is in fact very good quality), but because of sheer ignorance, and most of Apple's profits come from the hardware, which pay for all the good stuff you get on a Mac and the R&D involved in their innovations.
If they changed their business model, and reaped their profits from their OS instead, they would be in a situation much more similar to that of Microsoft than their current situation (where they cannot be compared to MS in ANY way). They would have to forfeit their hardware -- no more powerbooks, no more competition for Intel and AMD on the desktop. Then, they would have to find OEMs who would accept to bundle Mac OS X with their computers -- and Microsoft has a stranglehold on OEMs.
So, porting to other systems is not an option until they gain a market share high enough to secure their position.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version