Vista vs. OS X? - Rebuttal: Microsoft's Imperfect Perfection

Technology Review ^ | 02/08/2007 | TR Editors - Brad King

[George W. Bush]

Parallels just announced they won't virtuaize OS X until Apple says okay. Translation: not soon.

Linky

[Golden Eagle]

That's too bad. There was some project called "Mac-On-Mac" but it appears to be defunct now too. Apple will eventually offer it I'm sure, they've just not gotten their enterprise strategy completely formulated yet. Copying Sun technology like ZFS and Dtrace is a good start.

[George W. Bush]

Xen might virtualize against Apple's wishes. I'd bet VMware won't.

Yes, Apple was smart to take up Sun's Dtrace and Zfs. Dtrace helps to overcome the advantages that Windows offers developers. And Xcode 3.0 looks very very good.

Looks like Leopard may be out in March. So Microsoft just announced they may release a new Windows (Vienna) in 2009. But they don't know the features yet, maybe virtualization, maybe UI improvements, maybe just a copy of Leopard. I guess they think they can make a cheap ripoff of Leopard faster than they completed the ripoff of Tiger (Vista).

If there was truth in advertising, they'd have to just call it Windows Leopard.

[Golden Eagle]

I'm obviously only interested in OSX virtualization that's approved by Apple, and with Steve Jobs it could happen tomorrow, or never, but my guess is it will eventually happen, but more like Sun has done by integrating it into the O/S, and not via 3rd parties.

But now that Apple is copying actual code from Sun Solaris, as well as running on a kernel that came from someone else, I don't see how they can complain about someone else copying their feature set, especially since it's not direct code copying like Apple is doing.

It's obvious you like open source sharing as well, so why then is Microsoft not allowed to duplicate features on their own? You can't claim to be for free transfer of software EXCEPT for those you don't like. Especially if they aren't even copying the code itself.

[George W. Bush]

I'm obviously only interested in OSX virtualization that's approved by Apple, and with Steve Jobs it could happen tomorrow, or never, but my guess is it will eventually happen, but more like Sun has done by integrating it into the O/S, and not via 3rd parties.

I think Parallels wouldn't say they're waiting unless Apple had told them that permission would be forthcoming.

But now that Apple is copying actual code from Sun Solaris, as well as running on a kernel that came from someone else, I don't see how they can complain about someone else copying their feature set, especially since it's not direct code copying like Apple is doing.

Okay, let's have a reality check. Apple licenses its BSD, exactly as it should. So it is supporting the BSD community financially and contributing some code back. As far as 'copying code from Solaris', Sun put ZFS and DTrace (not sure if this one is free) out there for the public. Apple 'copying' something placed in the public domain isn't somehow stealing or taking advantage of someone. It is in both Sun's and Apple's interest to put a serious filesystem out there before some nasty thing like NTFS comes along that isn't an open and non-proprietary standard. Also, ZFS on both Sun and Apple helps to shore up the Apple science lab market, a substantial market for them and the main outlet for their servers and Mac Pros.

When Microsoft (and Apple and Linux) adopt Adobe's new open PDF document format, will they be 'copying' or stealing something from Adobe? When Apple embraces the GPL compilers and produces the XCode IDE, is that 'copying'?

BTW, before talking about 'copying', how about Internet Explorer? Microsoft licensed in a very sneaky way (it was a mediocre Mosaic browser) and has avoided ever paying the license fees on it. How about that?

I find it strange to imply that adopting open standards and public domain filesystems is somehow 'copying'. I call it embracing a public domain standard for interoperability. And they thereby reduce the amount of OS-specific lock-in that you get with, say, NTFS filesystems.

It's obvious you like open source sharing as well, so why then is Microsoft not allowed to duplicate features on their own? You can't claim to be for free transfer of software EXCEPT for those you don't like. Especially if they aren't even copying the code itself.

Obviously, they have. Unlike Apple, they don't pay for it and have ruined or attempted to ruin countless smaller companies. They have been found guilty of this repeatedly and paid for it (but not nearly enough). They also like to incorporate features that have nothing to do with an OS so they can pretend that destroying their competitors is just 'adding a necessary OS feature'.

This strategy is very very different from Apple. Apple provides Safari, a decent Mozilla browser. But not something designed or intended to dominate the Mac desktop. They offer their iWork as a separate suite. They bundle iLife with their machines but upgrades will cost, making them essentially a separate feature.

Unlike Microsoft, Apple does not eat its children.

[Golden Eagle]

Unlike Microsoft, Apple does not eat its children

So you are not really in favor of open source, or even features being duplicated, except by those you approve of? So it's not "share and share alike", it's more about stipulations than actually being free like Richard Stallman is always trying to do. I guess you could call it BSD/Solaris/OSX if you're into that sort of thing.

[George W. Bush]

No, I am very much in favor of FOSS. I just don't refer to it as 'copying' from another company.

I like Stallman's work and views but I don't think we will ever get away from some proprietary systems.

As for patents and IP, Apple wasn't the one who recently was caught trying to patent something already in the public domain. Only Microsoft does things like that. I can't quite believe you're unaware of Microsoft's business 'practices' or what they call 'innovation'.

[Golden Eagle]

You like Stallman? He sure don't like the real GWB. You didn't know?

http://www.stallman.org

http://www.stallman.org/images/cartoon-6.jpg

http://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-nov-feb.html

[George W. Bush]

I'm a FOSS guy but not a full Stallman communist. Look, I don't care much what W.'s views on software are either. Bush has the good sense not to comment on it. Stallman could learn from him.

[Golden Eagle]

So you did know, but you didn't care. Gotcha.

[George W. Bush]

Gotcha.

I don't even know what you think you gotcha'd me on and I still don't care. Go take a nap and wait for another thread.

[Golden Eagle]

I "got what" you meant, you knew Stallman was anti Bush if not a communist, but you didn't care, you don't even really care what GWB himself thinks. At least that's what you siad. You like Stallman, even though you "don't think we will ever get away from some proprietary systems". What a shame, I guess you think. Where am I wrong in what you said?

[George W. Bush]

I meant I don't care what Stallman thinks of politics any more than I care what Bush thinks about FOSS issues.

And, yes, plenty of people like Stallman and are still making products and providing services for money. Like the folks at Redhat who make a living on an open source OS by providing support and utilities for it, among countless other examples.

I'm generally a FOSS guy but not theological over the various licensing issues. But I have no great problem with closed-source and proprietary systems provided those companies actually invent something new (not just use predatory business practices to build a monopoly out of other people's work). As for Apple, they use FOSS. They also pay licensing on BSD and other technologies. They invent a lot of stuff. They innovate. But they have proprietary stuff too. It's a mix that works pretty well.

[George W. Bush]

New at Slashdot

theodp writes "Microsoft has applied for a patent for 'securely providing advertising subsidized computer usage.' The application describes how face-recognition webcams and CAPTCHAs can be used in schools to ensure that computer users are paying attention to ads, and the recourse of 'disabling or even repossessing the computer' if they are not."

Using cameras to force children to watch ads. If the children won't watch enough, Microsoft will take their computers away. Yeah, what a great invention for M$. Why would you even want to defend them? Make money off their idiot customers, sure, but try to pretend they're anything but repulsive? I don't get it.