[luau] NEWS: New Copyprotected CD's destroy iMacs

[Eric Jeschke]

On Tue, 14 May 2002, Joe Linux wrote:

| Well I'm still wondering how Apple's OS-X stands up to Linux.  Is OS-X 
| genuinely more user friendly than Linux or is it more restrictive and 
| provide less choice than Linux?

OS X is definitely more user-friendly.  But the interface does hide a
lot of what is going on in BSD/Darwin below.  First thing I needed to do
was figure out how to get a shell up.

Also, since it basically looks like a FreeBSD API (for X and console
apps), there is a lot of stuff that can be pretty easily ported.  Lots
of binaries available too.

| cpaul at telemetrybox.org wrote:
| 
| >On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 06:16:44AM -0600, Joe Linux wrote:
| >
| >>The more you learn about Apple, the more you'll know not to buy one. 
| >>They are for people who know nothing about PC's and are therefore 
| >>willing to waste their money on what they believe to be a better 
| >>machine.   
| >>
| >
| >I know a lot about PCs, but I still think that Apple hardware is far
| superior to the hardware in most PC desktops. 
| > 

Apple hardware is impressive.  They have great engineers.  The stuff is
solidly built and will last a long time.  The ergonomics are awesome.
If it wasn't for the PowerPC CPU, it would be worth buying their
boxes/laptops just to put Linux on it.  Like any luxury item, you pay
more for the great hardware and engineering.

| >
| >>Here's another fact about the new iMacs:   You have to take them into an 
| >>authorized repair center just to add more memory as apparently the cases 
| >>are glued together in some way, and therefore it takes "an expert" to 
| >>even open the case and then glue it back together.
| >>
| >
| >FUD.  Apples are not 'glued' together.  Adding memory to an iBook,
| >TiBook, iMac or G4 only requires skill.    

True.  They could make it easier.  I nearly broke a tiny, tiny screw
trying to max out the RAM in my iBook.  But it wasn't too bad. 

| >
| >
| >
| >>If Apple ever gets it's act together they will offer their OS-X for 
| >>standard PC clones.
| >>
| >
| >I have seen this argument for the past 4 years (I was an early
| >Rhapsody for x86 beta-tester).  I tend to agree.  But I realize that
| >the overhead of supporting the vast range of PC Hardware would make
| >it cost-prohibitive for Apple.  

Apple is a hardware company.  They have decent software engineers, but
they make their money selling boxes, not software.  The software helps sell
the boxes, just like Sun.  That is why these companies are fundamentally
different from MS.

If Apple licensed their OS for Intel, it would seriously erode their
market for their boxes.  For this reason, unless things change
drastically, they will never do this.  It's one reason why they use the
PowerPC chip.

| >
| >
| >My final statement is this:
| >
| >I think that the Apple Vs. PC debate is over and has been over since
| >Linux hit the scene.  The real debate for Apple is about how their
| >Unix box stands up against workstations from SGI/Sun/IBM.  

Apple is walking a tightrope with their mixed Open source Darwin +
proprietary GUI.  So far they have managed to do a decent job of not
alienating they open source community.  It's going to be tricky for them
to continue to successfully navigate the waters, especially since they
are pretty agressive with enforcing their patents.

Although I am impressed by Apple's pretty Unix box (I have an iBook), I
continue to be more impressed by Linux and how well it stacks up on
commodity hardware.  My desktops and servers are all Linux, and maybe
someday my iBook will be as well.

-- 
Eric Jeschke, Ph.D.      |  Assistant Professor of Computer Science
jeschke at hawaii.edu       |  The University of Hawaii at Hilo
808-974-7392             |  200 W. Kawili St., Hilo, HI 96720
http://cs.uhh.hawaii.edu/~jeschke