Jobs offers Mac OS X for $100 Laptop

[AlmostThere]

Then there's the English barrier ... isn't the internet 75% English (yes I'm aware of babelfish) ... one of the reasons we learn easily in the US, England, and Japan is because (even if we can't read or write) we have people speaking intelligently and fluently around us.

This is one of the core reasons that people choose open source software in preference to proprietary. It is just not worth the investment for a major company to translate software but it is worth local communities putting the effort in and furthermore, they are free to do so.

Compare Tiger, which is translated into 14 languages and supports another 10 character sets, with OpenOffice, which has been translated into around 85 languages. KDE is working on the same set of languages, as is GNOME.

If South Africa is interested, perhaps Apple better get cracking with that Afrikaans release.

 

[Object-X]

It is nothing to do with open source idealism..

So, 10 years down the road when Steve decides to change his mind and charge a royalty for his "Idiotic Property", what then? All their children and now workers are trained to use that platform, which all of a sudden is creating a huge cost to doing business there.

And please don't tell me about how for a typical business wages are the largest component of cost. For those third world countries the price of a USD$2000 PM will probably buy a HOUSE there and feed a family for decades. It just doesn't equate.

And hence it is understandable why they want to stay open, there is no telling that Steve won't be like Bill.

I can accept that argument, but that isn't the argument they made. If they wanted to say we can't accept "terms or conditions" Apple offered us I would shut up, but that isn't the argument, at least not the way it was reported. I took from their comments they want to "play" with the OS. Fine, but what about the people this is for? Why not do what's in their best interest. The whole reason for open source is because corporate America is by and large greedy and only concerned about stock price. If a large company wants to give away thier property to help those in need why would you prevent them? Because you want to "tinker"?!? I don't know, it's a lame excuse, if that's even what it is. I think it has more to do with open source idealism and anti-commercialism attitudes.

 

[Object-X]

This Thread is showing what I been pointing out time and time again: it is very unfortunate to have such blind fan boys-os x is superior dude, that don't let their brains kick in before they start typing.

The bottom line is, this is a very noble initiative no matter the OS, technology or whatnot... this will help and hopefully make a change! Period!

If they declined to have OS X is probably because they could not have reached the $100 mark with it to begin with.
Then, the open source community have a tendency to create more in Windows and Linux than anything else... so what makes sense? To go Linux since it is free... then you have thousand of applications to go with it that are ready...

It's not blind fan boy mentality at all, actually, it's the opposite. Open source has it's place and I use it for such. Linux shines in a server room OS X shines in a classroom. Why can't they see that for this purpose OS X is superior? Why can't you? Are you seriously saying that if you had your choice of Linux or OS X to expose your child too for a first computer you would go Linux? Only Linux "fanboys" would do that. OS X is a no brainer when it comes to a class room in my opinion. Don't take my comments out of context. I did not say that OS X is superior in every way, but for this purpose it would be ideal, and to take Linux over OS X, suggests the folks at MIT have an another agenda other than helping people.

 

[Stella]

I love the way people are bashing open source.

If it wasn't for open source we wouldn't be using the OS we are today on the Mac. But of course, people are blinded, because its Mac, its OK, but outside of the Mac utilitisation of opensource, it becomes 2nd rate.

There is lots of support for open source software - some better than others, just like commercial software.

 

[pizzach]

I'm still cringing on seeing the work Redhat. They could have gone for a slightly less commercialized discribution...like Debian or Ubuntu...

 

[fixyourthinking]

I'm still cringing on seeing the work Redhat. They could have gone for a slightly less commercialized discribution...like Debian or Ubuntu...

Redhat, AMD, and MIT Professors realize there is money to be made ... when there are discussions about Linux; Red Hat gets 1st dibs ...

Let me say this: Even if red hat were to charge 50 cents per laptop for the customization of the OS (which MUST be done) that's 50 to 75 MILLION! A huge bottom line producer to Red Hat...

And of course you could extrapolate that to 25 cents and 10 cents.

The turning down of big money and shunning of deep pockets to go with Linux just smells funny to me ... it's not the open source part ... because I kind of agree with that ... but this just seems like more of a move to make Linux viable than to help those in need.

 

[john123]

I can't believe they declined it! So, you are going to force the less fortunate of the world to suffer with an overly complex and inferior OS? I thought the whole idea was to help people not push your stupid open source idealism.

Are you kidding me? Linux is not without its faults, but it is a fantastic OS -- and it's FREE. Something tells me that you haven't really used Linux much. If you had, you'd know that it doesn't have to be "complex" and it is very powerful.

 

[mdavey]

I took from their comments they want to "play" with the OS. Fine, but what about the people this is for? ... Because you want to "tinker"?!?... I think it has more to do with open source idealism and anti-commercialism attitudes.

I'm not sure about idealism, but you can guarantee it is definately about anti-commercialism. And it isn't that they want to 'tinker' with it either. Open Source isn't about just about access to the source, it is about the freedom to redistribute the software, create derived works, use the software with any technology and without discrimination against fields of endeavour or persons or groups. A side-effect of having the source is that you can then contract anyone to modify it - you don't have to go back to RedHat or Apple - heck, you could even contract it to a software house in India or in one of the developing countries you are helping.

You are right, OS X does make for a far better desktop than Linux, but that isn't the only consideration. A project such as this absolutely must guarantee that it will be free from vendor lock-in. Unless Jobs was willing to provide a version of OS X under a true Open Source license, there is no way that the project managers could accept his offer. Simple as that.

 

[Evangelion]

I strongly disagree that you can't do this on the mac and with more ease ...

Can I get rid of the menubar on top? Can I move the dock to the top of the screen? Can I replace the windowmanager with something else (I don't like those red/yellow/gree dots) etc. etc.

To be honest, I don't see any of that happening.

I also disagree that what you propose (change to user desires) is AN EASY thing to do within Linux for the laymen.

Well, you configure KDE graphically, there's no real need to edit text-files or anything. So I fail to see how hard it could be.

 

[Evangelion]

Redhat, AMD, and MIT Professors realize there is money to be made ... when there are discussions about Linux; Red Hat gets 1st dibs ...

Again: there's lots more to Linux that just Red Hat. Red Hat Linux is meant for servers and the like. The product Red Hat offers to Joe Sixpack is called Fedora and it's 100% free.

Let me say this: Even if red hat were to charge 50 cents per laptop for the customization of the OS (which MUST be done) that's 50 to 75 MILLION! A huge bottom line producer to Red Hat...

Only way Red Hat could charge for the software was if they offered support or something like that. And I honestly don't see them supporting systems that are in the middle of nowhere in Africa. Red Hat might be involved, but they might not be in in to directly earn any money. Besides helping others, they might be interested in seeing more people use Linux.

The turning down of big money and shunning of deep pockets to go with Linux just smells funny to me ... it's not the open source part ... because I kind of agree with that ... but this just seems like more of a move to make Linux viable than to help those in need.

So they tiurned down Apple, and you immediately assume that it's because they want to earn money and not help the people in question? Why do you hate Linux? Seriously? And fact is that OS X would NOT be suitable for project like this! It really would not

 

[Evangelion]

1. It is simply not as polished as Windows or Mac OS. As much as I think Windows should come with a Surgeon General's health warning, it is well organized and has a nicely refined look and feel. KDE and Gnome are still not as well polished. A KDE/Gnome environment is cluttered (bring up the various menus from the dock and you'll find a confusing mix of choices)

KDE might be cluttered, but what makes you think GNOME is?

and installing/removing/maintaining packages is still too Unix-esqe. Compare this with Apple's approach to package installation and removal.

I'm sorry, but that argument is getting old. It really is. How does one install app in OS X?

1. You locate the app from the web and download it
2. You mount the disk image and install the app

How do you install apps in Linux?

1. You open up your package manager and find the app you want to install
2. You choose the app in question, and click install

Seriously: how is the Linux-way of doing that more difficult?

As it happens, there's a new way of installing apps on Linux:

1. You find the app on the web, and click on it
2. The app is installed

How exactly is that "difficult"?

2. I have tried to upgrade KDE 2.x to 3.x and found it to be an arcane process. Different Linux distributions have their own particular installation and package management UIs. The experience varies. There is no single standard.

Why should there be a "standard"? Different people want to do things in different way, you can't dictate to them how they should do things. And that is the exact reason why there are so many Linux-distros (and GUI's). They do things differently, because people want to do things differently

3. I have Mandrake Linux running under Virtual PC on my Dell Inspiron laptop. I was unable to install Red Hat and SuSE under Virtual PC. Further, it was very difficult to find the freeware version of Mandrake. They really want you to pay, and they've buried the freeware version somewhere...

So you had a problem with Mandrake. And that proves that Linux sucks.... how, exactly?

4. The quality of applications under Linux is also not equal to the quality of apps under Mac OS or Windows. Linux apps may be powerful, but they're not generally pretty or professionally presented. GIMP, for example, may be a competent alternative to Photoshop, but someone decided to repackage it into GimpShop...and for a good reason!

GIMP propably has the worst UI out there. But there are other very nice apps out there as well.

5. The quality of the developer IDE under KDE (KDevelop) is not equal to Microsoft's Visual Studio nor, I think, to Xcode.

Visual Studio costs money, and Xcode runs only on OS X. Don't like Kdevelop? use something else. Ttraditionally developement on Linux has not been done with IDE's but with editors.

6. OpenOffice 2.0 is nice. It's quite nice actually. But it does not contain an Email client

Why should it contain a email-client?

and its database is nowhere as capable as Access.

Use a proper database instead of Access. How about PostgreSQL? KDE has some Access-equivalents, but their names escape me at the moment.

To be fair, Linux is still growing and still improving. But that all-important user experience that we cherish is still lacking. For power users and those familiar with Unix and/or willing to delve into scripting languages and command-line prompts, Linux is a wonderful playground. But for the consumer I think it still has a long way to go.

I have never needed scripting in all my ears of using Linux. I have used the CLI, but that has been by choice, not because it was forced upon me.

That said, I find that people are rapidly running out of things to complain when talking about Linux. About 5 years ago people complained that it's too difficult to install. Today it's VERY easy to install. Then they started to complain that things should "just work". And in recent distros I have tried, things do "just work". Now they are complaining that the UI is not "refined" (well it is). And that area is about to get a huge facelift when we get stuff like KDE4 and kick-ass X.

 

[fixyourthinking]

Can I get rid of the menubar on top? Can I move the dock to the top of the screen? Can I replace the windowmanager with something else (I don't like those red/yellow/green dots) etc. etc.

Yep ... all of that can be done in one way or another ... although some would be unneccesary or stupid. Why does ANY of that matter in ANY way to the cause ... moving the menubar isn't going to make the laptops cost less ...

There are literally 100's if not 1000's of themes for the Mac OS.

 

[john123]

Use a proper database instead of Access. How about PostgreSQL? KDE has some Access-equivalents, but their names escape me at the moment.

Ditto on this (as well as your other arguments for that matter). Access is a joke -- it hardly qualifies as a real database platform. Postgres is much better. It still needs a lot of work (SQL Server 2000 has a lot of nice features that Postgres doesn't, let alone SQL 2005), but at least it will scale. Access won't.

 

[Xacent]

Something doesn't add up

Kudos to the folks at the OLPC and MIT for putting forth effort towards a project like this.

Helping developing countries improve their methods of delivering education is a very positive initiative. However I think that basic teaching supplies like chalk boards, paper, pencils, desks and a building to learn in are far more important and fundamental than providing a dubiously possible 100$ laptop. The gap this idea is seeking to bridge is simply too large to be accomplished by handing out some technology.

People in developing nations need to learn basic skills like reading, writing and develop trades that are applicable to them in their own communities. Trades like carpentry, plumbing, electrical and city planing are much more relevant for a developing area seeking to create an infrastructure with any hope of supporting a technological future.

From MIT's website they comment on why donated desktops are not a feasible solution:

'. . . if we estimate 100 million available used desktops, and each one requires only one hour of human attention to refurbish, reload, and handle, that is forty-five thousand work years.'

By using the same comparison if whatever factory producing these 100$ laptops were able to make one from start to finish in 60 seconds it would take 190 *years* to make 100 million of them. I don't know much about computer manufacture or industry but I can't imagine that the parts for an entire laptop could be manufactured and assembled in less than 60 seconds.

The scale that they are suggesting this would be implemented is just unrealistic and the 100$ could go very far towards more traditional educational tools that could benefit children now instead of decades to centuries from now.

 

[ksz]

Now they are complaining that the UI is not "refined" (well it is). And that area is about to get a huge facelift when we get stuff like KDE4 and kick-ass X.

If the UI is already so refined, why should it need a "huge facelift" in KDE4? A huge facelift or extreme makeover is only needed when the existing version has "issues" (to say it politely).

Anyway, I am done with this Linux vs the World debate.

 

[SPUY767]

Depends on what you do with it. Everyday usage is just as easy (no, you don't have to edit text-files if you don't want to), if not easier.



I'm sorry, but you have zero clue what you are talking about. No, really. I have personally had situations where I have been in direct contact with the developers of an app when I have had problems. I have had situations where I have provided feedback on an app, and it was fixed about 2 hours later!

I have also experience with Apple's tech-support (when my iPod b0rked itself). They just gave me the generic reply: "restore the iPod to factory-settings". Um gee, thanks guys for kick-ass support!

You are saying that you wont get any support with open source. That is pure, 100% BS.



Same logic: what kind of real-world computing-skills is someone gonna learn running OS X? Photoshopping?

Seriously, Linux simply enables the user to do more. The source is all there. You might not find it interesting and worthwhile, but CS-students and other interested people will. And they can dive deep in to the code, modify it and learn from it.



Which is why Apple DIDN'T build their OS, developer-tools, browser, server-tools etc. etc. on open source? Oh, they did? That's what I thought....

Seriously: why do you people hate Linux and open source? Are you afraid it's going to steal OS X's thunder or something? Linux and OS X can co-exists beautifully. Linux and Mac-communities could co-exist beautifully. Same could not be said about Linux and MS/Windows or OS X/Apple and MS/Windows. Yet you people are constantly attacking the thing that could be one of your biggest friends and allies! It just boggles the mind!

You're just proving my point. The fact is, Open source makes no difference. Robustness makes a difference. And what is that crap about being CS majors. They're talking about distributing laptops to people with no electricitry. I don't think that CS majors are in high demand. If it can't teach them how to milk a yak, it probably isn't going to help them survive.

People will dpiss and moan about what I say, but the root of the problem is use elitist americans who think that we know what's best for everyone. the simple fact is, that the world can only supoport so many developed people. While it's sad that folks are in crappy shape, it's a fact of life.

 

[SPUY767]

Kudos to the folks at the OLPC and MIT for putting forth effort towards a project like this.

Helping developing countries improve their methods of delivering education is a very positive initiative. However I think that basic teaching supplies like chalk boards, paper, pencils, desks and a building to learn in are far more important and fundamental than providing a dubiously possible 100$ laptop. The gap this idea is seeking to bridge is simply too large to be accomplished by handing out some technology.

People in developing nations need to learn basic skills like reading, writing and develop trades that are applicable to them in their own communities. Trades like carpentry, plumbing, electrical and city planing are much more relevant for a developing area seeking to create an infrastructure with any hope of supporting a technological future.

From MIT's website they comment on why donated desktops are not a feasible solution:

'. . . if we estimate 100 million available used desktops, and each one requires only one hour of human attention to refurbish, reload, and handle, that is forty-five thousand work years.'

By using the same comparison if whatever factory producing these 100$ laptops were able to make one from start to finish in 60 seconds it would take 190 *years* to make 100 million of them. I don't know much about computer manufacture or industry but I can't imagine that the parts for an entire laptop could be manufactured and assembled in less than 60 seconds.

The scale that they are suggesting this would be implemented is just unrealistic and the 100$ could go very far towards more traditional educational tools that could benefit children now instead of decades to centuries from now.

That argument is foolish as it assumes that there is only one in production at any given time. henrey ford invented this awesome thing called the assemble line a bunch fo years ago. Last I checked, apple had sold 39 million ipods, and by your logic, that would take a little less than 75 years.

 

[zap2]

People were saying 100 is to muc for the poor it is, the person working on this plan even said so!


We are not sure how OSX runs on AMD and what it really needs


On the web site the are outline for the laptop and it show it will be a hybrid tablet/Laptop!!!


They should sell these at 300 to "rich" people(use the term little) and if the really only cost 100 then that 200 they make and can put to buy laptops for people who cant buy 100$ laptops!!!!


Or all the companies involded in making the COmputer should donate all the parts so it would all be free!

 

[dmarkman]

How do you install apps in Linux?

1. You open up your package manager and find the app you want to install
2. You choose the app in question, and click install

Seriously: how is the Linux-way of doing that more difficult?

well, I have 3 computers in my office with the following OSs:
Mac OS X (Mac), SuSe 9.3 and Windows XP
I never had any problem with installation on Mac OS X and Windows
and I had rare success with Linux:
it always complains you don't have that library or that library e.t.c.
it's good entertainment for developers but not for regular users

 

[Xacent]

That argument is foolish as it assumes that there is only one in production at any given time. henrey ford invented this awesome thing called the assemble line a bunch fo years ago. Last I checked, apple had sold 39 million ipods, and by your logic, that would take a little less than 75 years.

Not everything has to be taken so litteraly and since you've not heard of hyperbole I'll spell it out for you. It's highly unlikely that it would take 60s per unit to manufacture and assemble. If you look at something more realistic like 1 hour per unit on an assembly line that has 60 steps then you're pumping out 60 an hour. Which yields the same time result. And I still think that manufacturing all the parts and assembling a unit on an assembly line an hour per unit is optimistic.

Apple has sold 39 million ipods over 6 years at an average selling cost of well over 100$ per unit. Based on what MIT is claiming this laptop will contain you can't possibly make the arguement that it is as simple or less technologically advanced than an iPod. So why would you assume that a completely different and more advanced product could be produced in the same time scale? Even if it could its still going to take 20-25 years at that rate to produce the 100-150 million they are stating they want to make. Its not 190 years as I stated earlier with my tongue in my check but 20 years is a long time. Last I checked a non-profit organization isn't the same as a multinational company with the technical and production resources that Apple has.

 

[kalisphoenix]

Gee. Wish I'd known that GNU/Linux was so difficult to use when I switched to using it as my primary OS back in '99 ;-)

10 SCREEN 12
20 CLS

is about the extent of my programming knowledge, but it only took me a couple hours to get a Linux system up and running on a UMAX 333MHz PC that I didn't screw up for months

Seriously -- Linux can be as simple as the Palm OS. Making KDE that simple would take approximately five minutes -- just a matter of placing icons on the desktop and disabling the kicker. Compiling a version of Fluxbox that would display an iconbar of the ten applications (at most) that these kids will use? Probably about an hour, maybe three, but it'd be lightning fast.

Google would probably compensate (in their Summer of Code) someone tackling the version of fluxbox that I mentioned. A system based on Linux, running the applications that these students need, would occupy at most 100MB.

OS X? Are you @#$%ing kidding me? Do Mbutu and Nguyen really need to export to PDF from Print Preview? Spotlight? Expose? Nobody gives a **** about Darwin but Apple. Not even .001% of Apple users are even remotely interested in using anything but Aqua. And if you strip away Aqua, what do you have? Open ****ing source.

The most intuitive GUI you can have is an array of icons that you click to run an application. That's all these kids need, and that's easily and quickly accomplished with open source.

Seriously -- pull your heads out of your asses. I'm sick of defending Mac zealots to, you know, people capable of thought.

 

[Evangelion]

If the UI is already so refined, why should it need a "huge facelift" in KDE4?

If OS X is such a kick-ass OS, why does it need "kick-ass" new releases like Tiger and Leopard? Such releases are only needed if the OS has "issues" (to say it politely)

A huge facelift or extreme makeover is only needed when the existing version has "issues" (to say it politely).

KDE is somewhat cluttered, that's the primary issue it has. KDE4 will fix that issue, and bring on lots of kick-ass features and improvements.

 

[Evangelion]

well, I have 3 computers in my office with the following OSs:
Mac OS X (Mac), SuSe 9.3 and Windows XP
I never had any problem with installation on Mac OS X and Windows
and I had rare success with Linux:
it always complains you don't have that library or that library e.t.c.
it's good entertainment for developers but not for regular users

Well, my three previous distros have been Debian, Gentoo and Ubuntu. And I have no problems installing apps in any of them. Choose the app you want to install, and install it (granted, Gentoo-installs take some time because it compiles the apps. But if you don't want to compile, don't use Gentoo).

 

[Evangelion]

Yep ... all of that can be done in one way or another ... although some would be unneccesary or stupid. Why does ANY of that matter in ANY way to the cause ... moving the menubar isn't going to make the laptops cost less ...

The point was that Linux is configurable, OS X is less so. And please: show me the configuration-option in OS X which says "remove the menubar". Please show me the configuration-option that says "replace the windowmanager".

There are literally 100's if not 1000's of themes for the Mac OS.

Uh, themes are not the same thing as changing the system. Themse change some things in the UI, but deep down the UI is still the same. Fact is that OS X is nowhere near as configurable as Linux or it's GUI's are.

 

[Evangelion]

Seriously, this thread has been a huge let-down for me. Here we have a noble effort to help the poor of this world. And you people whine and complain because they didn't choose OS X (regardless of the fact that OS X would be a very poor candidate for this project). And because they decided to use Linux and embrace open-source, you start to flame Linux and open source.

Linux and Mac could co-exists beautifully. It really could. Linux and Mac-users have more in common than there are things that set them apart. SAme could not be said about Linux and Windows-users or Mac and Windows users. But you people seem to be determined to make sure that Linux and Mac will not co-exist. It seems to me that you think that anything that is not Apple or Mac-related is automatically crap and should be destroyed. Steve Ballmer would be proud of you guys! You seem to share his mindset, only difference is that whereas he pushes Microsoft-crap, you push Apple-crap. Behavior is exactly the same, spread FUD, bitch and moan. If it's something else than your personal favourite, it must be destroyed. Well done guys. No, really! That is a really mature way of looking at things! And here I thought that Microsoft was bad, it seems that Mac-heads are even worse! At least Windows-users don't have some kind of religious connection to their OS. When Windows-people push Windows, they do so because of stupidity and greed. When Mac-people push Macs and OS X, they do so because of fundamentalism. And I honestly don't know which is worse.

I'm expecting to see wome of you guys start throwing chairs and shout "I'm going to f*cking destroy Linux! I'm going to bury those guys!". You are almost there already.

Let me remind you guys of few things: Open source is not crap. And it's not communism. What did STEVE JOBS say about open source software? I believe it went something like "Open source software. We think it's great!" Are you disagreeing with his Steveness over this matter? And how can open source be communistic, when it's earning Apple (a capitalistic company) millions of dollars in profits all the time?

No, open source is not communistic because you can share it for free. For starters, teh decision to open source some software is up to the developer of the software. And second: There are very few companies earning money from selling software. But there are untold numbers of companies that USE software. And while open source MIGHT harm companies that sell software, it will benefit those untold thousands of companies that use software,because they are not dependant on single vendor and because they don't have to pay humungous licensing-fees. Some companies might be harmed (if their for-profit products are not good enough), while humungous number of companies will benefit. How is that "communistic"? Companies will benefit, and you think it's communism?

Are cars "communistic" because it harmed the makers of horse-carriages?

Here's some more facts: Foundation of OS X is built on Open Source. You develop your software with open source. You browse the web with open source. You communicate with Windows-machines with open source. You print with open source. The very heart of OS X is open source. And yet you claim that open source is crap? I guess that means that OS X is crap as well?

If open source is so bad, why did Apple decide to built their entire software-stack on open source? Did someone at Apple decide that "ooh ooh, I know! Instead of building our OS on solid and excellent foundation, why don't we build it on crap instead, and see what happens?"? Yeah, I can see THAT happening!

I'm a Linux-users. And I'm a OS X-user. And this thread has made me feel ashamed to be the latter. You people act like you oppose Microsoft, yet you are 1:1 identical to them. In fighting the monster, you have become the monster.