Jeff Mincey's Profile

  • Apr 30, 2006
  • 74
  • 0

Latest comments made by: Jeff Mincey

  • George, you say "Free + Proprietary = Proprietary" -- but this makes no sense. I guess you still don't understand that you can download Darwin as a separate, free-standing operating system in its own right. You can also download OS X. But I don't accept your equation above anyway because of its all or nothing proposition. It reminds me of that old attitude that if someone's racial make-up is 80 percent white and 20 percent black, then in historic racist America they were considered black -- full stop. My answer is that 80 percent white plus 20 percent black equals neither white NOR black. What it equals is this: 80 percent white and 20 percent black. And by the same reasoning, when 80 percent of OS X is free and 20 percent is proprietary, this does not translate into declaring OS X as proprietary. Instead, 80 percent of it still remains free. There is no escaping this. Sure, Apple retains control. But then Torvolds retains control of the Linux kernel. If there is a component Torvolds does not want baked into the kernel, then it will simply not be baked into it. So tell me how this is "free." You say that all of the ten major Linux distros supply the X graphics layer and Gnome or KDE window managers. Well, OS X also supplies the X graphics layer as well, and while Gnome and KDE are not bundled with OS X, they are a free download to any OS X user who wants them. So again I ask you -- what does Linux ADD to your daily computing experience that you cannot have with OS X? Please name an X11-based application or a UNIX/GNU shell tool or script which you can run under Linux which you cannot run under OS X? Please advise me as to something you can do under Linux which you cannot do under OS X. This is a fair question because I can think of numerous things I can do under OS X which I cannot do under Linux.
    Jeff Mincey had this to say on Jan 14, 2006 Posts: 74
    When Will Apple Notice Linux?
  • By the way, as an addendum let me clarify that I think no one suggests Linux is not commercially viable as a SERVER platform, and I don't know anyone who counts Linux out as a possible player at the desktop level. I just don't think it's there yet -- in spite of the strides it has made thus far. Also, the market share figures of 0.30 percent are AGGREGATE data -- which combine the server and workstation figures. The market share of Linux on the desktop is actually much lower yet. Anyway, let's remember how this whole thing got started -- we are speculating as to whether Apple should throw its significant consumer savvy to the Linux platform and whether Linux itself is a viable player as a consumer desktop OS. Others in this thread have spoken of apps like Open Office, GIMP, etc. -- and I can run all these same apps under Darwin and OS X. So I feel I pretty much have the best of both worlds here. What value does Linux ADD to a person like me -- again, at the desktop level?
    Jeff Mincey had this to say on Jan 11, 2006 Posts: 74
    When Will Apple Notice Linux?
  • George, please. Overwhemling evidence that Linux is commercially viable? Is an example of this how in 2004 the Linux market share was 0.29 percent and rose a whopping 0.01 for the following year? Or just how do you define "commercially viable" anyway? As you and others have so vigorously pointed out, this is an OS which is free of charge; it's a simple download. So if this product were so commercially viable -- AND FREE -- why is its market share so low? How low would a platform's market share have to get before you would find other phrasing than "commercially viable"? As for the free (as in speech) question, you REALLY should do yourself a favor and visit the Darwin web site. It has been freely available (in BOTH senses of the word) for several years -- and on both the PPC and Intel platforms I might add. It is fully open source and the source code itself is freely available. (Just try getting the source code to any part of Windows.) Your problem is that you keep talking about OS X as being not free when in fact 80 percent of it (if not more) is precisely that -- FREE. Take away the proprietary GUI Apple added to Darwin and a proprietary file system, and basically you have a fully functioning operating system very much on par with Linux. Here's the link for the Darwin home page: http://developer.apple.com/darwin/ On this page Apple gives full disclosure about its compliance to the licenses of open source and the terms of its participation in it. Apple also lists all the open source projects at the company. You can download the complete Darwin operating system from here and you can also download the source code. Now in my book that's pretty damn free -- what do YOU call it? If despite the foregoing you want to harp on the fact that OS X is not one hundred percent free, then I put it to you -- find a Linux distro out there which has added a proprietary graphics layer and window manager on top of the Linux/GNU bundle -- and yet which STILL is cimpletely free and open. Then you can talk. Otherwise, you are comparing apples and oranges. If you want another source independent from Apple, here it is: http://www.opendarwin.org/ Maybe this will help to educate you a bit on precisely how open Apple truly is -- not bad for a Fortune 500 corporation.
    Jeff Mincey had this to say on Jan 11, 2006 Posts: 74
    When Will Apple Notice Linux?
  • wvandin says: "To the comments about Apple complying with the gpl, I doubt it. I’m sure that if you take libdvdread and the like out of Apples non-free software that it will work. Maybe more people need to get a clue." Your doubts don't qualify as evidence. If you have good cause to claim that Apple fails to live up to the terms of its open source licenses (such as the GPL), please cite a URL I can examine. Until you do this, you might hold off on the "get a clue" rhetoric.
    Jeff Mincey had this to say on Jan 10, 2006 Posts: 74
    When Will Apple Notice Linux?
  • George, I'm still sick with the flu, but I can't let one of your commuents stand. You say: "This sounds suspiciously analogous to “They would need to support Windows 98, 98SE, ME, 2000, and XP - it just costs too much!”, except of course with Windows everyone already KNOWS better." If you labor under the impression that it's not more expensive to a developer go guarantee support for these multiple Windows platforms, then you are grossly misinformed. Do you truly believe that all software developed for Windows XP will ipso facto run under Windows 98? My goodness -- even Microsoft's own MS-Office 2003 cannot make this claim. Hell, even to go from service pack one to service pack two on Windows XP "broke" a lot of software. The development costs -- including extensive testing and quality assurance -- rise greatly with each new Windows platform one seeks to support. And so it goes for Linux and UNIX. For marketing purposes, a developer may claim to support "Linux" or "Linux x86," but the fine print of the system requirements will invariably specify that only certain distros are supported. Consider Mozilla's Firefox. On the download page, the choices are Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux i686. This seems to support your position, right? But if one looks closer at the system requirements, one will see this for the Linux platform: ---------------------------- Please note that Linux distributors may provide packages for your distribution which have different requirements. Linux kernel - 2.2.14 or higher with the following libraries or packages: glibc 2.3.2 or higher XFree86-3.3.6 or higher gtk+2.0 or higher fontconfig (also known as xft) libstdc++5 Firefox has been tested on Red Hat Linux 8.0 and later ---------------------------- Notice that Mozilla has tested Firefox on only ONE Linux distro. Only ONE -- of the more than one hundred Linux distros on the market -- and the one on which Firefox has been tested happens to not be one of your free as in beer Linux distros. Moreover, these are just the SOFTWARE requirements -- the Mozilla web site goes on to detail all the hardware requirements for users of Linux. Contrast this with the software requirements for Firefox on the Mac OS X platform, and I quote: "Mac OS X 10.3.x and later" If this difference doesn't make an impression on you, then there is nothing more I can do. Finally, before I go get some rest, let me say I'm well aware of the difference between correlation and causation and the pitfalls of confusing the two. I contend in this discussion I have kept them separate.
    Jeff Mincey had this to say on Jan 10, 2006 Posts: 74
    When Will Apple Notice Linux?
  • George, I've read your last two posts but can't summon the energy to respond just now because as it happens I have the flu, (and have had it for days actually but somehoe managed to keep up my end of the discussion until now). So I guess you will just have to wait a while for my highly coveted and sought after response and words of wisdom. :-)
    Jeff Mincey had this to say on Jan 08, 2006 Posts: 74
    When Will Apple Notice Linux?
  • To Doug, thanks for furnishing a URL on this subject. Let me add only that by the measure of _installed base_ the figures are even worse for Linux at the desktop level. Market share is one thing; and installed base is another -- both measures are valid. We also have to keep in mind regional differences. Apple is much stronger doemstically (in the USA) and I suspect Linux data look better when you control for the variable of geography. But Apple has been gaining significant ground in this category (of global market share) as well. Of course, we can take a snapshot of a moment in time and we can also observe TRENDS. But even by this latter measure OS X seems to be doing very well indeed. At bottom, for my part this isn't a numbers game anyway. I maintain no correlation between market share and QUALITY -- if I did, I would champion Windows XP over all other platforms. So I fail to see what market share numbers prove in any case -- unless we are back on the topic of whether it would be economically viable for Apple to devote development resources on porting its applications to Linux -- and the answer for this is clearly it would NOT. I think this whole question of Apple's support of Linux is a solution in search of a problem -- a non-existent problem -- and the URL you supply above helps to document this.
    Jeff Mincey had this to say on Jan 08, 2006 Posts: 74
    When Will Apple Notice Linux?
  • George, no need to play the misunderstood martyr; I fully understand the distinction you are drawing. But the kind of "open source" freedom you embrace in Linux is not what permits you to install it on the computers of your friends. It's the "free as in beer" policy that allows you to do that. As I have tried to get across (but apparently in vain), OS X is open source also -- except for the proprietary GUI layer which Apple ADDS to the operating system. All the rest of it, Darwin, X11, and the same GNU tools and window managers you have with Linux are every bit as "free" (in the sense of speech) as it is under Linux. The only thing that prevents you from installing OS X wherever and whenever you want is the "free as in beer" restriction -- which you yourself acknowledge many Linux distros have as well. Thus you steer clear not only from OS X on this ground but also from other Linux distros ON THE SAME GROUND. And it's not that these other Linux distros are less free as in speech; rather they are just less free as in BEER. Now you ought to know your own reasons -- after all, if you are the authority on nothing else, it's on your own position. But as you attempt to lay it out in this thread, something is just not adding up.
    Jeff Mincey had this to say on Jan 08, 2006 Posts: 74
    When Will Apple Notice Linux?
  • Ooh, sorry to hear that you lost your detailed, point by point response. How maddening. Anyway I think I've gotcha George, (meaning I understand your position). You prefer Linux because it is free of charge.
    Jeff Mincey had this to say on Jan 08, 2006 Posts: 74
    When Will Apple Notice Linux?
  • Oh, one more thing -- I wish to reiterate that OS X is built on many open source software components. Even Apple's web browser, Safari, is built on the open source KHTML rendering engine (the same as that used by Konqueror). Apple not only takes from the open source community but it also gives back to it. Yes, Apple retains exclusive control over the end product, but then if you think the same is not true of Novell with SuSE and Red Hat with its enterprise product, you have another thing coming. So, again, I fail to see a compelling difference here which would argue in favor of Linux. Linux does have its stengths, but on balance -- and especially as a consumer platform -- I think OS X holds the edge.
    Jeff Mincey had this to say on Jan 07, 2006 Posts: 74
    When Will Apple Notice Linux?
  • Excuse me, WheelDweller, but this discussion has been chiefly about Apple and (1) the extent to which it might support Linux in the future and (2) the merits of OS X vis-a-vis the merits of Linux. You have recast the argument to pit Linux against BSD -- and that's not the topic I wish to discuss. Yes, OS X is based in part on BSD components, but it is ultimately a different OS. So you are spending time and energy to advocate a position no one is arguing against to begin with. I've mentioned BSD only tangentially. My main point is that OS X brings the best of both worlds -- the best of the UNIX/Linux world and the best of the consumer desktop world. It offers both, and no other operating system platform can make that claim with so much credibility as Apple can. If you wish to dispute this, feel free, and I look forward to how you would make the case. But when you recast the argument it looks suspiciously as though you are conceding the larger point.
    Jeff Mincey had this to say on Jan 07, 2006 Posts: 74
    When Will Apple Notice Linux?
  • First, let me say I thoroughly enjoyed reading the post by viperteq. You make some valid points. Second, to George, I don't recall making any claim that one cannot use or configure Linux except by having to edit text files. That was someone else in this thread -- not me. Third, it seems to me that your use of "freedom" is a euphemism for wanting to have free (as in beer) and unrestricted access to use an operating system in any way you wish. You want to be able to give copies of the OS to your friends. I don't find this a reasonable criterion by which to evaluate software. Hey, don't get me wrong -- I wish all software carried no price nor any license restrictions either. But is that wish reasonable? Microsoft has historically had Draconian licensing terms, but Apple's license is much more forgiving. You don't have to call Apple and go through the "Mother may I" routine in order to install the same copy of OS X on multiple computers. Is it a technical violation of the EULA? Yes. But Apple doesn't take measures to prevent you from doing it and instead relies on your honor. Now maybe you are under the impression that I could take Novell's SuSE Linux and install it willy nilly on any computer or server I wanted -- all without any violation of the EULA -- but in this impression you would be mistaken. This idea that just because an operating system is Linux it ipso facto carries no restrictions is just wrong. Sure, certain distros, under certain conditions, may waive any restrictions, but then you get ZERO support, ZERO customer service, ZERO help -- and in some cases ZERO updates. If you want to run debugging software and reverse engineer or decompile software, you can do this under OS X very easily. You can even do this to Darwin components. You iust can't do it to proprietary OS X components. Now if this restriction somehow confines you, then OS X is not the platform for you; but I find it hard to believe you are wiling away the hours by decompiling Linux binaries. To me, the best OS is the one I'm scarcely conscious of as I use a computer. I want the OS to get out of my way and allow me to effectively get my work done. I don't want it in my face, I don't want it to impose idiosyncratic config requirements on me, I want it to be brain-dead simple to use. Having IT/developer skills doesn't change this attitude on my part. I gather you are a highly skilled software developer or power user. That's fine -- but does this mean you actually PREFER software which is obtuse, arcanse, or otherwise difficult or a pain in the ass to use? Are you still clinging to the myth that more complexity in the UI means more power, and, conversely, that less complexity in the UI means less power? Surely not. No need to apologize for the soapbox. And in fact I AM glad I asked -- because I enjoyed reading your elaboration and I'm glad you fleshed out your earlier comments. One last reminder -- on a Mac, one can run both OS X and any number of Linux distros or BSD implementations. And on upcoming Intel Macs one can run Windows as well (by all accounts). But one cannot run OS X on just any Wintel or Linux box. So I find that the Mac platform allows much more flexibility in this regard.
    Jeff Mincey had this to say on Jan 07, 2006 Posts: 74
    When Will Apple Notice Linux?
  • Just so others know, I administer an OS X Server, a Fedora 4 server, and a Windows 2003 server. I also preside over OS X and Windows workstation clients, and I tinker with Linux on the desktop. My first exposure to Linux was in the early 1990s when the OS was a bear to install and configure -- even by UNIX standards. Linux has come a long way since that time. I must say I don't feel less free using OS X than I do in using any particular Linux distro. I can download source code from sourceforge and compile it for OS X just as any Linux devotee can do on the Linux platform. Essentially you haven't answered my question, (and of course you are within your rights to refrain from answering if that's what you prefer), but when I ask what Linux offers that OS X lacks and you answer freedom, this only begs the following question: Freedom to do WHAT? What can you do under Linux that you can't do under OS X? I have no missionary zeal to convert Linux proponents away from their platform -- not at all. Rather this is just an honest question on my part. I'm curious as to how you figure Linux offers advantages over OS X. Basically the only one that leaps to mind is price -- but then you can pay on the back end for support plans. (You might check sometime to see how expensive Red Hat's server/enterprise product is and how much Red Hat charges for one year of tech support. (This is why so many have fled to Fedora.) Anyway, I like Linux myself. It serves as an e-mail server and web host for one of my clients -- and I have no complaints.
    Jeff Mincey had this to say on Jan 07, 2006 Posts: 74
    When Will Apple Notice Linux?
  • George, I would be interested in your answer to this question: What does any Linux distro offer (as part of the OS) which sets it apart favorably in your view from OS X. Now for purposes of this question, I define OS in loose technical terms to be not only the kernel but also all subsystems thereto, such as I/O, file system, device drivers, hardware abstraction, graphics and GUI APIs, window managers, command shells, developer tools, etc. And I exclude (for this question) bundled applications (such as iTunes). I ask because it seems to me that by and large OS X includes everything you cite as an advantage with Linux -- except for the kernel. Now if you truly want this discussion to be about the merits of the Linux kernel vis-a-vis the merits of Xnu and Mach, feel free. Otherwise, however, let me point out that OS X includes the full bundle of GNU tools -- including developer tools, text editors, compilers, etc. It includes X11. It does not include (but it can run) KDE and Gnome). It includes such common parts of Linux distros as Apache, sendmail, postfix, ssh, telnet, ftp, imap, ldap, vi, emacs, MySQL, php, Java, ruby, perl, python, NFS, SMB/CIFS, etc. (I could go on and on with this.) OS X includes the standard UNIX command shells such as Korn, Bash, and many others. In fact, OS X has more claim to the UNIX family that Linux does -- because at least OS X is a derivative of the BSD branch on the UNIX tree. In contrast, Linux is a whole new kernel altogether and the GNU tools had to be ported over to it. So please make the case that Linux is offering something to the consumer -- or indeed even the developer -- that OS X sorely lacks. While you ponder that question, let me say I must take issue that Linux has attained an ease of use sufficient for it to join other consumer desktop platforms. Good luck having an ordinary user configure a Linux computer for use with third-party devices such as cameras, scanners, printers, cell phones, etc. Linux has made great strides in this area but still doens't measure up just yet. (I hope one day it will do so.) Also, I don't expect the hapless end user to be able to navigate the dizzying array of Linux distro choices on the market. For any operating system to meet the standard of a consumer desktop platform, it must have provision for prompt, regular automatic security updates. Many Linux distros fail by this measure alone. But getting back to my original question, what do you find lacking in OS X that Linux brings to the table? Also, do you think Apple should invest in porting its proprietary software (such as iTunes, Quicktime, Safari, etc) over to Linux? If so, why?
    Jeff Mincey had this to say on Jan 07, 2006 Posts: 74
    When Will Apple Notice Linux?
  • James, is it me or have you not -- in your last post immediately above -- just given an excellent argument against the recommendations you make in your original article above (which has spawned this thread). In your article, you ask why Apple has failed to notice Linux and why it doesn't port iTunes and QuickTime (among other applications and technologies) to the Linux platform. Well, read your post above for an excellent answer to that question.
    Jeff Mincey had this to say on Jan 07, 2006 Posts: 74
    When Will Apple Notice Linux?