Posted on 03/08/2006 5:49:56 AM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
OSX isn't an open O/S, obviously. You should actually read the news some.
http://www.linuxpipeline.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleId=180206198
That has nothing to do with the subject, and further diverts us from your statements.
Apple is a proprietary OS built on open source software. Go ahead, download the PPC or x86 version of Darwin, compile, run, use.
Why would they do that? They use open source software in their products.
I have to go with GE on this minute point here. As an example, SCO is on a lawsuit binge against open source, it has even claimed that open source is unconstitutional, yet it uses open source in its products (although its products are not based on open source as OS X is).
Of course, the difference is that SCO is run by incompetents with no real business plan except for "jackpot justice," while Apple is out to make real, earned money the old fashioned way -- by making stuff people want to buy.
Apple only gets an itchy trigger finger on the legal department when people do tortious or illegal things to screw with its business plans, like hacking Apple's proprietary code or releasing confidential corporate information. And, to be honest, I haven't always agreed with their tactics, which sometimes seem a little too heavy-handed.
On a side note: What constitutes a "single, legal version" of Linux and why would we want one?
No, it would just be your own lack of understanding of standard terminology, including the classification of systems known as "home desktops" and configurations called "preinstalled". You're of course not the first one to have difficulty understand the Linux gobbledy gook, which is exactly why Dell is insulating his home users from the trauma of having to deal with it.
I know, since I've been telling you that all along, but you were once again suffering from schizophrenia and were for some reason arguing about it.
You nicely leave out the end of that sentence, "built on open source software," in order to misquote me, one of your usual shady tactics. Although more correctly instead of "OS" I should have written "shell." Open source does the heavy lifting in OS X, the proprietary stuff makes it pretty and brain-dead easy to use.
OSX is still a proprietary operating system no matter how many qualifiers you want to throw out there. Apple's relationship with your freakish "community" is testy at best. You're really going to hate them when the lawsuits against these open source hackers start actually getting filed.
Rip out the open source, and how well will OS X function? Hint, it won't even boot. It'll be a bunch of useless code sitting on the hard drive.
Going back to the point, Apple was languishing until it decided to use an open source OS as the basis for its new OS, discarding its previous entirely proprietary OS. Open source can mean profit. It does not ruin the companies that use it.
So, are you ever going to fess up to your libel?
And no shame either for taking me out of context to claim I said something contrary to the plain intent of the sentence. I'm impressed.
I have no problem with open source as a component. I have problems with open source when it is pushed as the only alternative, as is being done by those behind the GPL movement, as you know. They see no co-existence with proprietary software. You typically defend them, and are attempting to misconstrue my position at the moment in order to score points in for their sake.
I have no problems with Apple's process, their operating system is ultimately proprietary. Just like the DRM that is in their music delivery system. They are ultimately NOT an "open" company as you are trying to portray them, just so you can use that as leveragle to push your total open source utopia. Forget it.
You've repeatedly stated your objection to open source software on principle as anti-capitalist, communist and China-helping. Actually, that comprises a large portion of your posts.
I have problems with open source when it is pushed as the only alternative, as is being done by those behind the GPL movement, as you know. They see no co-existence with proprietary software. You typically defend them,
The "no co-existence" statement leads me to think you are here defining "GPL movement" as those following Stallman's ideology. I have never supported Stallman's utopian vision, nor can I remember any FReeper who has. In fact, most Linux advocates here look down upon Stallman's ideological approach to software as much as they look down upon yours.
They are ultimately NOT an "open" company as you are trying to portray them
Looking back, you'll see my point was that open source has helped Apple make money, not whether Apple was an "open" company. You really love strawmen, don't you?
Actually it's rather apparent to this frequent lurker that your purpose is to hijack threads and take them off topic. Sort of like a one man denial of service attack.
The most interesting comment on the thread so far was the speculation about Dell rolling their own distribution.
Sorry, but you should see some of these guys. They post some bull like this every day about who's deploying Linux next, and they all turn out to be hogwash. Some of them even refer to it as "the cause" over on other websites. I'm just exposing them, like needs to be done.
It's not like Dell didn't try a Linux desktop, Dell added. The Austin, Texas-based company "tried that with Red Hat on the OptiPlex and Dimension lines, but we had too many people not buying and saying we picked the wrong one." By 2001, Dell was no longer offering a Linux desktop to its usual retail customers.
I read pretty much every computer related thread here.
Five years, didn't realize it was that long ago. Yep, sounds like Mike has had plenty of time to make sure it was the right decision.
Yeah it's a gory mess with everyone accusing everyone of being liars, but of course only one side is right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.