Friday, Sep 5, 2008
Apple is too strong to be Linux's lunch; DEA Museum shows only one side of drug wars; does LAPD behavior shed light on O.J. case?
Oct 5, 1999 | Do penguins eat apples?
BY ANDREW LEONARD
(09/28/99)
Most of the Mac/Linux debate is based on misleading analogies, such as Clif Marsiglio's "geek" vs. "moron" dichotomy. Mac users aren't "morons"; they just want to focus on things other than cron jobs and inodes. At its best the Mac OS becomes transparent -- it stays out of your way and lets you devote your precious brainpower to the task you actually want to accomplish. Linux fails this test abysmally. If I want to set up a mail server at home to host a mailing list, do I want to read a 1,000-page O'Reilly book and stay up till all hours editing sendmail config scripts? No, that takes time away from my real interests. I'd rather install a Mac app like the free Stalker Internet Mail Server, fill in a few dialog boxes and get back to work hacking on my own code.
The whole Linux mind-set is based on wanting to twiddle every layer of the system, right down to the iron. It's like my friend Larry who's had a classic '62 Corvette up on blocks for years, getting every last component into perfect condition. Myself, I bought an off-the-shelf Nissan 240SX and the only time I pop the hood is to change the oil. Like most people, I just don't care about perfecting the valve timing -- I bought the car to take me to the places I really want to go. This attitude, applied to computers, is utterly foreign to the Linux mind-set, and thus far the efforts aimed at making Linux "user-friendly" have failed to make much progress.
As for the decline in evil-
-- Jens Alfke
Apple may no longer be a giant-killer, expecting to conquer the world, but that is fine with most Macintosh loyalists. Macs have been the underdog for most of their lives, and that's part of the appeal for many of us. There is something to be said for being a niche market, particularly when you have a high-quality product. It's all the more tolerable when the company is financially healthy. Wouldn't some of the joy of driving that sleek, road-hugging convertible dissipate if you pulled into the supermarket to find that every other car was just like yours? Does Porsche need to displace General Motors or Toyota to be relevant?
Whether or not anyone is willing to admit it, being a part of any minority does have its upside. I can't help but imagine that this same phenomenon has some effect on the Linux community. Sure, there's something romantic about the political aspect of the open-source movement, but if Linux ever conquers the world, won't something else suddenly be more hip? Linux would become the status quo. Might Apple still be catering to a healthy niche?
-- Michael Everhart
I think the main difference between Apple advocacy/fandom and Linux/OSS advocacy/fandom is the ability of the advocate/fan to be able to transform their enthusiasm and passion into useful code and make a real difference for themselves and others. With OSS, the fans have a complete capacity to change things, modify things and make them available. The contribution is not made held up by some company that determines what the next marketing objective will be; instead, merit counts. I think this ability to transform one's passion and to express it by making a difference in the OSS world is what sets apart the OSS world from the Apple world.
-- Karim R. Lakhani
If Apple's Mac OS X debuts as advertised, it will be a compelling package: Unix/Linux stability and networking, Mac ease of use, and all the software that runs on the Mac.
The principal claim of the open-source community is that open source produces more stunning innovation more quickly than can Apple or any proprietary, for-profit company. But recently, Apple's head of marketing suggested that Mac OS X may be ready by January 2000. If true, Apple will have produced a Unix-based OS that fully supports all the features and services (QuickTime, USB, Firewire, the Finder, etc.) of the Mac OS that runs all of its legacy software, along with all of its other innovations, in the approximately two years since Steve Jobs' return. And Mac OS X will allow developers to write their source code in C, C++, Objective C, which they can recompile to run under Windows NT, the Mac OS and several flavors of Unix.
In a similar amount of time, Linux folks will have refined their kernel to add features that most versions of Unix have had for years. And as for the recent improvements in Linux -- the new easy-to-use installers, the improved GUIs, the drivers for some peripherals, and improved support -- nearly all of it is the work of for-profit companies like Caldera and Red Hat, which are backed by major enemies of Microsoft. These well-heeled enemies of Microsoft are spending their money and are willing to take losses to advance Linux. Linux is a strategic weapon for Microsoft's enemies, and their money and innovative powers have been able to do more for Linux in one year than the entire open-source community could do since its inception.
The ardent effort of the open-source community is a force to be reckoned with, but it is an unfocused, intermittent force united only by Linux as a cause. As a force, the open-source community is often ignorant, and defiantly so, of the demands of customers and other market forces -- focused instead on some sort technical perfection that most appeals to code writers and other computer technophiles. IBM, Sun and Oracle quickly discovered that their resources, focus and discipline can compensate for the weakness of the open-source community.
The anti-Microsoft powers have transformed the Linux effort into their quasi-corporate subsidiary. But Apple has enough resources, and the focus and discipline of profits; it also has Steve Jobs. Taken all together, I think that this augurs well for Mac OS X.
-- Orlando Smith
There should be no animosity between MacOS and Linux; they are both beautiful in different ways. The "enemy" has been and should continue to be this buggy, derivative, poorly functional DOS relic known as Windoze.
Where Linux is obscure, it is because it is a babe in the cradle; when Windoze is obscure, it is through design and/or incompetence. Windoze 2000 will not save the Microsoft empire from being swept away by the winds of progress. I hope it is Mac OS X that does the job, but I can live with Linux or BeOS.
-- Tom Barta
Get Salon in your mailbox!