Linux drove me to get a Mac

[CLIFFORD ILKAY]

Kamran Khan wrote:
> Well the Open Source Community lives in one Universe the rest of the
> world lives in another.  Asking companies to completely open source
> their software and platforms is ridiculous.  There is a lot of
> information to be gleaned from open source and open specs, some of it
> trade secrets, some of it just plain hard work to figure out, some of it
> work figure out and some of it trivial.  Having said that, would you go
> to a Chef and ask him to give you his best recipes for free?  Some of
> his recipe will be secret, some will be plain hard workto figure out,
> some just work to figure out and some just trivial.  Put it all together
> and you have a dish that people from miles around will come to and pay
> handsomely for.

Many chefs do exactly what you think they aren't doing, they're "open
sourcing" their recipes in the form of cookbooks and I'll bet not one of
them is put out of business just because they published a recipe in a
cookbook. Just because you can follow a Jamie Oliver recipe to the
letter doesn't necessarily mean that you can cook at all, much less cook
like him.

> The Open Source Community is advocating a business
> model that the rest of world doesn't follow and would outright reject.

This is a sweeping over-generalization if there ever was one.
Apparently, many companies have adopted some form of that model. My
company does well using nothing but free software for building and
hosting web applications and we contribute to some of those projects. No
one forces us to use that software nor to contribute anything. We do it
because it advances our interests. That's the beauty of the model. Does
that mean that there is never room for proprietary software? No, and
someone like Bruce Perens, whom I heard at the Design Exchange a few
years ago, would tell you that there are cases where open source is
appropriate and others where it may not be feasible.

> The problem started when people starting politicizing, of all things,
> computer technology.

No, the problem started when stupid vendors thought that they had
significant value add in printer drivers. The original inspiration for
Stallman was when he couldn't modify the printer driver for some
expensive printer, and they were all expensive back then, that he had
purchased unlike the previous one where he had the source for the
driver. When he called the company to get the source, he was told that
it was "intellectual property". That left him with a printer that was
*less* functional than the one it replaced.

> Stallman et al have brought a philosophy that
> belongs on a hippie commune into the realm of computer technology.  Most
> people expect to paid for their work and technology companies are no
> different.  They have shareholders, they have employees and they have
> multi-national interests that dictate they turn a profit.

Red Hat seems to be doing fine. And before you get too far down this
path, your current darling, Apple, uses a lot of free software.
Microsoft's TCP/IP stack is straight out of BSD. These companies don't
hate free software. They hate a *particular* form it, GPL-licensed free
software because they can't steal that. They *love* the BSD license
because they can leech as much as they like with impunity.

> You own a car
> once you pay for it but do you actually expect to get the engineering
> diagrams, technical specifications and manufacturing techniques as
> well?  The bottom line is cloud computing and virtualization technology
> have pretty much made this entire discussion pointless.

Utter nonsense. I don't see how virtualization does that. As for "cloud
computing", that's just another vendor lock-in play. In any case, I'm
not sure what you're hoping to accomplish by making these ill-informed
and baseless assertions here. Perhaps you're trying to convince yourself
that the premium you paid was worth it. If you think it is, then it is.
I haven't chosen to pay that premium, though I have to admit I've
considered it. The thing that consistently holds me back from buying a
Mac is that I don't like their keyboards. I end up installing pretty
much all the same stuff that I already use on Linux without any useful
package manager. And the final straw, I dislike Apple's business
practices. They've screwed their resellers many times. They screwed OEMs
when Apple changed its mind about Mac clones. They screw users with
their proprietary silos, like QuickTime. If Apple had the same market
share as Microsoft, I have no doubt it would be an even more evil company.

> Microsoft isn't
> f going away anytime soon and neither is Linux.  With cloud computing
> and virtualization technology everyone gets to play and looks like
> Microsoft well get to play a lot.

It remains to be seen. Microsoft's future is not assured by any means.
They're more vulnerable than they ever have been. They have to at least
pretend to be "open" while at the same time ensuring they lock users
into their proprietary silo. If their proprietary silo actually added
some value, perhaps it would be justifiable but it doesn't. There is
*nothing* that one could do on Windows that one cannot do on any other
operating system, which is why they're trying to recast themselves as a
"cloud computing" company. (And even if I cared about gaming, which I
don't, I would just buy a game console instead of spending $3000 for
some liquid-cooled monstrosity that I could run on a $400 console.)

> As for Apple. their future looks grey
> but for now it is the best desktop platform going.
> 
> As for my assumptions.  Yes I assume that people view computers as
> tools.  It is a tool to get something done.  If you look at operating
> systems strictly from that assumption, which most people do, clearly you
> must make significant sacrifices to run Linux.

I am not aware of any "significant sacrifice" I'm making to run Linux.
In fact, I think it is hands-down the best developer platform right now.
Windows is a totally impoverished platform for developers. To turn OS X
into a productive development environment, I have to install a bunch of
open source apps that I could have installed and managed easier on Linux
anyway. I don't see the point. Outside of a few narrow cases, such as
multimedia, and even that isn't as clear-cut as it used to be, I don't
see any advantage of OS X over Linux.

> Ultimately you are
> running an operating system that is largely licensed under the GPL but  
> most people can not even understand how the code works and for the few
> that can they can not improve Linux on the desktop since it becomes
> exceedingly difficult to reverse engineer the multitude of hardware
> available for the x86 platform.

There would be no need to reverse-engineer if hardware manufacturers
provided specs or drivers. There have been several initiatives to devise
a universal driver format. The spoiler, predictably, has been Microsoft.

> Knowing that, clearly you are a slave
> to an operating system for scoio-political reasons and nothing else.

Some people seem to think that the socio-political aspects of their
actions are important. You are also making a socio-political statement.
You just seem to be unaware of what it is.

> You may pay a premium for PC hardware from Apple but even in the higher
> prices there are tangible benefits like a visually appealing piece of
> hardware,

If a computer as a fashion accessory appeals to you, good for you. Some
prefer to allocate their resources differently.

> decent resale value

I've never understood who actually buys a used but modern Apple machine
since the asking prices are usually quite ridiculous and within spitting
distance of a new one. Especially for notebook computers, which get
jostled around, buying used is risky so I'd rather either offset that
risk by getting something so cheap that it doesn't matter or just buying
new.

> and in person technical support(both
> hardware and software) for 1-3 years across the globe.

Unfortunately, their quality seems to be spotty and their warranties are
just ridiculously-priced. I had a recent meeting with a client who was
using a Lenovo ThinkPad whereas he had been using a new MacBook Pro the
previous time I had seen him a few months prior. When I asked why he
wasn't using the MBP with which he had been quite enamoured previously,
he responded that it was back, for the second time, for warranty service
at Apple because of random freezes caused by hardware. Apparently, this
was a known problem for that model. I know computers fail but when
people pay a premium, they expect a premium quality product. There is no
evidence to support that Apple's products have any higher quality than
any other manufacturer's and plenty of it to suggest that it isn't as
high as the leaders.

> In addition your
> choice of supported hardware and software is greatly increased.

... if it has an Apple logo on it.
-- 
Regards,

Clifford Ilkay
Dinamis
1419-3266 Yonge St.
Toronto, ON
Canada  M4N 3P6

<http://dinamis.com>
+1 416-410-3326
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3286 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://gtalug.org/pipermail/legacy/attachments/20090109/547a8164/attachment.bin>