Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Will the OSx86 project help or hurt Apple and Mac?
- Thread starter sartajc
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ummm... things may not be that simple for Sun.
The source released in OpenSolaris may not actually have been authorized for public release. Sun paid the SCO Group, but the SCO Group wasn't authorized to unilaterally negotiate buyouts of System V licenses... further, the SCO Group was required to pass 100% of those funds to Novell, after which Novell would pay the SCO Group 5% for the deal. NO MONEY MADE IT TO NOVELL and NOVELL DIDN'T AUTHORIZE THE BYOUT.
Sun may actually be in a lot of trouble because SCO has already spent most that money, and Novell doesn't have to live up to SCO's unauthorized agreements.
Microsoft is in a similar situation, except that they never released source code to the public.
The whole thing will escalate even quicker if SCO's chapter 11 bankruptcy becomes a chapter 7, because everything having to do with System V and UnixWare will return to Novell in that case under the terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement.
So, quite frankly, I don't think that holding up Sun as an example of how it should be done is such a good idea. OpenSolaris is actually in a pretty precarious position... you'd be better off going with Linux.
Just FYI.
On the topic of Sun hardware, I think it is great. I own three Sun systems, but only two of them run Solaris. The third (and most used) is running OPENSTEP 4.2.
Actually, what is truly amazing about this logic is that it completely ignores the fact that anyone who wants a Mac can get one for next to nothing. An good Macs can be had for under a couple hundred dollars, so the impression that there is some price barrier stopping either users or hackers from using the platform is completely erroneous.
I have never spent more than $800 to buy an Apple computer. And I haven't spent any where close to $800 since the summer of 2000. So where you people are coming up with this misconception that the only Apple computers are new Apple computers is beyond me.
Honestly, writers of malicious software will start looking to other platforms once Windows stops being an easy target. They have all the access they need for any other platform, but until Microsoft makes attacking Windows harder, no other platform has much to worry about.
Which I would point out isn't going to happen any time in the near future. the last time Microsoft took anything that looked like steps toward cutting down on their security issues, the antivirus software industry nearly had a cow!
Ummm... things may not be that simple for Sun.
The source released in OpenSolaris may not actually have been authorized for public release. Sun paid the SCO Group, but the SCO Group wasn't authorized to unilaterally negotiate buyouts of System V licenses... further, the SCO Group was required to pass 100% of those funds to Novell, after which Novell would pay the SCO Group 5% for the deal. NO MONEY MADE IT TO NOVELL and NOVELL DIDN'T AUTHORIZE THE BYOUT.
Sun may actually be in a lot of trouble because SCO has already spent most that money, and Novell doesn't have to live up to SCO's unauthorized agreements.
Microsoft is in a similar situation, except that they never released source code to the public.
The whole thing will escalate even quicker if SCO's chapter 11 bankruptcy becomes a chapter 7, because everything having to do with System V and UnixWare will return to Novell in that case under the terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement.
So, quite frankly, I don't think that holding up Sun as an example of how it should be done is such a good idea. OpenSolaris is actually in a pretty precarious position... you'd be better off going with Linux.
Just FYI.
On the topic of Sun hardware, I think it is great. I own three Sun systems, but only two of them run Solaris. The third (and most used) is running OPENSTEP 4.2.
Honestly, I heard about the SCO thing, didn't really read up about it, so I just don't know about all this... so thank you for the heads up!!!
Anyway, that's a more of a legal problem, and that is not a technical problem thar make the coupling of their software and hardware any worse, right? The post I replied to basically says that you must not let other people to make your software supported on other platforms if you want your software to work well on your own platform, which I don't agree with, because Sun has done just that and it isn't a technically infeasible thing.
What you're essentially saying is there is security through obscurity. That simply isn't true. You're afraid more hackers will show an interest in the platform; ergo there will be more exploits. That simply doesn't hold.
You want to sell it to me, right? Name your price!
Tsk tsk. Nasty words.
Oops! Someone missed the turn in the road! Stand in line - and stay in line! Keep your head down and whatever you do you do NOT go to your headmaster and say "MORE, SIR?"
This is history rewritten to serve a fanboy argument. Dude you are SO far off the track it's not even worth getting into. Members of the jury: please disregard this testimony. Instead consult your Wikipedia (before a fanboy vandalizes it).
If that was true, Linux world would be full of virus and worm problems. No system is 100% crack proof, but Windows seems to be based on faulty foundation making it easy to hack. It seems to be getting much better lately though...
It does not bother me. I wanna be able to call one number and complain if something goes wrong. In Windows world, hardware company can point the finger to software and same for the software side. It gets even worse if you buy your own graphics card etc.
I like Apple's model. I buy a computer, which includes OS and hardware. I don't have to know what goes under the hood, kind of like buying a car. I don't have to know what mechanical or electronic system they use to keep the car running. Bumper to bumper warranty covers all problems.
Based on your recent posts, I'd say, if it bothers you that much, sell your Mac. This much anger is not good for your health.
Beyond the fact that Wikipedia is by far the most unreliable source for any information (and should never be used as a sited source for creditable research), I'd point out that Wikipedia has sited me as a reference for content on their site.Kugo said:This is history rewritten to serve a fanboy argument. Dude you are SO far off the track it's not even worth getting into. Members of the jury: please disregard this testimony. Instead consult your Wikipedia (before a fanboy vandalizes it).
As for being off track, if Wikipedia is what you consider an accurate source of information on this subject then you really shouldn't be talking about this. The guy writing most of the NeXT stuff on Wikipedia wasn't even alive when NeXT became a company and didn't get his first NeXT system until two years ago.
Sorry, but he is far from being an authority on the subject.
As for how erroneous Wikipedia is on things like this, look at the first sentance on the TextEdit Page:
"TextEdit is a simple, open source word processor and text editor, first featured in NeXT's NEXTSTEP and OPENSTEP."
Anyone who has ever actually used this stuff knows that TextEdit was never part of NEXTSTEP. It was introduced as a developer demo in OPENSTEP, and didn't become the main text editor/word processor until Rhapsody.Or how about this one from the WriteNow page:
"Due to concerns of third-party publishers such as WordPerfect over the issue of competing with a free word processor, WriteNow for NeXT was transferred to a start-up company; TextEdit, which could essentially be considered a heavily stripped-down version of WriteNow, was its replacement."
Again, TextEdit didn't show up until OPENSTEP, what took over for WriteNow on NEXTSTEP and OPENSTEP systems was Edit, and even then it was part of NEXTSTEP even when WriteNow was included with the system.Basically, what you have on Wikipedia is mainly a bunch of people who have never even used this stuff writing about it because they fired up a NeXT system at some point and think it makes them an expert on the subject.
If what I've said doesn't match up to your wiki-research, I'll consider that high praise!
I think not.Kugo said:You want to sell it to me, right? Name your price!
I've never sold any of my NeXT stuff, and I never will.
Unlike other people who only recently discovered NeXT, the platform has been an important resource for me for more than 15 years now. I have that system for running some of my math apps and I keep a copy of OPENSTEP on my ThinkPad for running my old copy of FrameMaker.
If you want to actually start learning about this stuff (rather than relying on Wikipedia), you can hunt down what you need on your own.
And be sure not to use any of the resources I've maintained for the last 8 years in your endeavor... you wouldn't want to contaminate your research with my "fanboy" disinformation.
If it were me, I would listen to RacerX.Our first example, NeXT Computer decided to shift to a software based strategy back in 1993.
This is history rewritten to serve a fanboy argument. Dude you are SO far off the track it's not even worth getting into. Members of the jury: please disregard this testimony. Instead consult your Wikipedia (before a fanboy vandalizes it).
Then again, I was a developer back then and what I remember, he pretty much captures it.
BTW, nice posts RacerX.
I'd say hurt, in some ways, but help, ultimately.
If it weren't for the Hackintosh, I wouldn't have a Macbook now. There wouldn't be at least 3 people at work getting a Mac as their next computer. My parents wouldn't be drooling over the iMac line. Yep, all because I have a Hackintosh, and fell in love with OS/X.
I'm also saving up for a nice, new, shiny, aluminium iMac, even though the Hack still works perfectly fine. I just want a "real" Mac on the desk, is all.
If it weren't for the Hackintosh, I wouldn't have a Macbook now. There wouldn't be at least 3 people at work getting a Mac as their next computer. My parents wouldn't be drooling over the iMac line. Yep, all because I have a Hackintosh, and fell in love with OS/X.
I'm also saving up for a nice, new, shiny, aluminium iMac, even though the Hack still works perfectly fine. I just want a "real" Mac on the desk, is all.
What?! Are you kidding? That is what makes Macs "just work". If you could install OS X on any POS PC then it would work about as well as Windows.
OS X crappy on a PC? It is compiled to run on Intel processors! It is the absence of drivers for core hardware that stands in the way. If ever Apple would decide to officially release OS X to major hardware vendors that problem would not exist anymore.
The EU is preparing legislation, or at least is studying this, to force PC manufacturers to offer their hardware without a pre-installed OS. The end customer must be able to choose his or her preferred OS. Presumably, this crowbar must end Microsoft’s iron grip on the desktop OS market.
But think about the ramifications of all of this. Because this means that Apple, if it wants to continue to sell Macs in Europe, must offer OS-less machines as well!
Please, a Mac is virtually a PC, hardware wise. Don’t confuse ‘POS PC’ with the OS that runs on it. The reason “it just works” is indeed the fact that Apple exclusively produces both the hardware AND the OS in a monopolistic fashion. As IBM does with their iSeries and OS/400.
While that's true, theres a lot of people that don't like the fact that Apple only has top of the line hardware (at top of the line prices). If everyone were to get a $499 dell laptop, and install OS X on it rather than get a mac, Apple would lose a lot of money. Plus, Windows users tend to tinker around more than mac users, and I guarentee you if this ever happened, you'd be able to get pre-compiled versions of OS X for Generic PCs on Bittorrent. I know you can already do this, but with source code the resulting hackintoshes would actually be usable.
The EU is preparing legislation, or at least is studying this, to force PC manufacturers to offer their hardware without a pre-installed OS. The end customer must be able to choose his or her preferred OS. Presumably, this crowbar must end Microsofts iron grip on the desktop OS market.
But think about the ramifications of all of this. Because this means that Apple, if it wants to continue to sell Macs in Europe, must offer OS-less machines as well!
I have a feeling that no companies will like this and if the EU does this all that would have to happen to get it reversed would be for all of the companies that this would effect to just pull out of Europe, and then there are no pre built computers for sale in Europe. I don't think that that would actually happen, but the EU does do too much against companies and some day it will come back to hurt them.
OSx86 will hurt Apple, though the damage probably isn't noticeable.
A lot of the people who run OSx86 are the kind of script kiddies who are downloading the OS X torrent, and then shouting "hey i jus got MAC OS X to run on mny del how col is that??!"
A lot of the people who run OSx86 are the kind of script kiddies who are downloading the OS X torrent, and then shouting "hey i jus got MAC OS X to run on mny del how col is that??!"
apple would be stupid to pull that stunt. It would hurt apple in the long run because people would use it and thing why do people like this piece of crap. It can not do anything. They will not be willing to buy a full computer just to use it.
It would be another run of the joke known as quick time for the PC. The early release of Quicktime for the PC was beyond a joke and a POS very hated program. People hated it. I refused to use it for anything out side of in my browser (and I still do on my PC) It left a very bad taste in everyone mouth and it still haunting apple to this day. It took them years just to undo the damage they did. Quicktime 7 was the first Quicktime for the PC that was decent.
As for apple releasing OSX for PC I think it would do pretty well. It would cost about 300 or so. Remember all copies you buy of OSX really are "upgrade versions" so they are price accordingly and they are "upgrade versions" because is supposed to only be able to install that is an apple made computer which means it had OSX installed on it at one point in time. I think apple would do pretty well at it with people duel booting. It would hurt their hardware sells but software sales will grow very quickly. On top of that more companies will make OSX software because it would have a larger install base. Now the draw back is I would expect to start seeing some glaring security problems start popping up and "virus/ spyware" popping up for the same reason.
(emphases mine)
Apple never crippled any of it's software for other platforms... including QuickTime on Windows. To make any assertion otherwise is to ignore well documented history of Microsoft crippling third party products on Windows that directly competed with Microsoft products (such as QuickTime verses Windows Media Player).
This was a main area of the US case against Microsoft. Avie Tevanian testified at length to Microsoft's continual and blatant sabotage of QuickTime on Windows (including direct descriptions here).
I highly suggest that you discontinue propagating these false contentions. Microsoft has worked exceptionally hard to make Windows an uneven playing field and outright hostile environment for third party software makers... to the point that the only two distributers of software with any real success on the platform are Microsoft itself and makers of Virus/Malicious software.