Yeah, I haven't read the article yet either, but I'd agree with those conclusions.
Dan
· 2 years ago
One thing I would add to that conclusion that I previously thought they would have covered in the hardware section; the clear advantages of hardware support that Apple has since it does confine you to the hardware it sells, I noticed they brought up Linux's issues with this but left that out entirely. Although it's already been said but it's the reason why it "just works".
JaredB
· 2 years ago
I guess that would depend on whether you see that constraint as more of a positive than a negative.
I think that in the summaries, at least, they covered that point well: there are benefits (stability) as well as drawbacks (loss freedom in some of its various meanings) inherent in going with a restricted hardware platform.
You obviously believe it's a "clear advantage", but that's only because you value those benefits over the benefits of a more open system / platform, but that's a personal preference as to what you give more weight to in the comparison process.
JaredB
· 2 years ago
I guess I'd also add that you can always (with a little extra research) limit your hardware platform yourself to take advantage of the same sorts of benefits.
If you find out ahead of time which hardware works with the operating system you want (Windows, a particular Linux distro, etc.), then you'll experience many of those same benefits. It's just that in Apple's case they believe that process is so important that they've taken the guesswork out of it and made those decisions for you.
nstryker
· 2 years ago
i think the funniest part of dan and jared's linux/mac debate is that you agree. you agree on the facts, you agree on the conclusions, the only thing you guys don't agree on is where to draw that good/bad dividing line. you guys continue to use mutually agreed upon facts to convince the other to change their personal preference.
Dan
· 2 years ago
I agree and disagree. I agree that we agree on the facts but disagree that *I* try to convince Jared's personal preference because I really don't care especially since it's his choice to shitty windows. On the other hand it seems Jared has a direct dislike towards personal choice and positive opinions for Apple/Mac (aka "fanboyism") as-well-as the urge to defend windows for about anything. :)
I also think this discussion would have been different if it was about windows v. mac. But I'd love to see a discussion on windows v. linux, I think Jared's head would explode trying to decide who to defend ;).
JaredB
· 2 years ago
I think I've made it pretty clear in the past that I favor Linux over Windows (and both over Apple), so I don't think that's too complicated an issue.
Perhaps I shouldn't have responded further after my initial comment, but then it seemed like Dan wanted to talk about it more, so I responded.
I'd agree that the conclusions that you draw based on the same set of facts are inherently based on what you value personally. Because (in this specific case) I value freedom over stability, I do personally choose that side. Bringing Microsoft into the mix is a bit off topic (perhaps just to sling some mud since you don't want to do so towards Linux), but my take as far as they relate to this discussion (as we've discussed before) is that if you have a 1-10 scale of "free (as in freedom) software", as far as operating systems go I'd put Linux at 10, Apple at 1, and MS at 2 or 3.
In addition, because I feel that in the long run, society will be better off if more people choose to value freedom over other things like (initial) stability or ease of use, I advocate it in friendly conversations. I don't get upset or offended if someone still chooses to think differently than I do, because that's their right. I also don't believe that my opinions or reasons for making that choice are infallible, but since I currently believe they are correct I will act and speak accordingly.
Dan
· 2 years ago
Ah...the "freedom" card; waved so admittedly and vigorously throughout the Linux community it makes people just warm inside and want to join the rally. It's actually insulting because you're implying Mac users are enslaved despite their freedom to choose the Mac or anything else not FOSS. I and maybe others value our freedoms differently and would completely feel enslaved with any other platform.
I brought Windows into the discussion because I was clearing Nathan's comment about previous discussions, we've never had a discussion on mac v linux and they've all been based similarly on why you think MS has a 1-2 point lead over Apple based on "freedom".
Nate
· 2 years ago
I'm interested in the list the libre (not sure but I don't think the Shared Source Initiative counts) portions of any of the Microsoft operating systems, and I'm assuming a narrow definition for operating system since Apple has at least one very significant non-OS project in WebKit which should put them somewhere above one.
Dan
· 2 years ago
Don't forget...or the Darwin source releases...or the major contributions for the creation of Zeroconf. But I guess Jared is talking about the notion of freedom within released software not how MS or Apple has influenced "free software" either through contributions, litigation or threats.
Dan
· 2 years ago
Well we wont hear any response from Jared for two weeks so make sure to bookmark. :)
JaredB
· 2 years ago
Hey, I'm gone but not completely cut off; I'll still have access periodically. Don't think you'll get away with this nonsense for two whole weeks. :) Plus, that's why God (via WordPress, in this case) gave us comment feeds. I generally subscribe to the comment feeds (where available) for all my friends' blogs, but you can also subscribe to comments for any one particular post as well, out-of-the-box in WP. {End of RSS tip/advocacy of the day}
First, regarding the so-called "freedom card"; I did not bring that into the discussion. In the original post you quoted (and said you agreed with), freedom was the primary focus of the brief Linux conclusion section (in fact the word "freedom" is mentioned specifically six times). I'm not sure why it's suddenly an issue now that I bring it up.
Second, everyone involved in this post so far knows that those references to freedom (as well as mine) are referring to "free (as in freedom) software", not the "freedom to choose" any other proprietary / non-free platform. Intermixing the term "freedom" in reference to those two very different contexts is (IMHO) an attempt to muddy the waters. No one disputes an end user's right to choose any platform that they'd like to, whether it's free or non-free. It's a separate issue from the one we're discussing (free software, and the lack of freedom to varying degrees in proprietary alternatives).
Third, to clarify my scale comment (in regards to operating systems), which referred to MS being more "free" or open than the Mac OS, I was specifically alluding to the commonly accepted measure of "free software" as spelled out by the FSF. Neither is "free software" by any strech of the imagination, but I do think one comes slightly closer in spirit.
In particular, both Windows and Mac OS fail miserably on all "four freedoms", but if partial credit is at all possible, I have to give MS the slight edge regarding freedom 0 (the freedom to run the program), since you can run legally Windows on any consumer PC (any one of the many name brands or one hobbled/hacked together from spare parts in your basement) as well as in virtual machine environments. This is not true with Apple, where you are only allowed to run their operating system on proprietary hardware you have to buy from them, and not at all in any VM environment. Everything else being equal (equally bad), I put them both at the low end of the scale but give a slight favor to MS for at least supporting freedom 0 in a better / more open way than Apple does.
As for the other open source contributions by either Apple or MS, I'm probably not well versed enough in them to comment, but I won't let that stop me from doing so (briefly) anyway. I do recognize WebKit as a significant contribution, but I didn't include it in this discussion (and my ratings) because the scope was confined to operating systems. I do have a beef with the Darwin releases (nicely summed up here and elaborated upon in numerous places all over the internet), as well as Apple's own insane version of an "open source" license - the APSL.
[Disclaimer: the links above are pulled from the first page of a quick Google search, since I'm on vacation, after all. I'm sure there are better ones out there, and if you're interested in looking into it further (I'm not), I'm sure you can find all sorts of more knowledgeable free software advocates out there outlining the issues with Apple's approach(es) more eloquently than I could.]
JaredB
· 2 years ago
Oops, looks like that first link got carried away. It should end after "as spelled out by the FSF.", then the next one should be "nicely summed up here" (which looks like it's working.
Dan
· 2 years ago
Once again you bring up that OS X doesn't run on non-apple hardware. The two companies have completely separate business models one that supports hardware and one that absolutely does not. The later MS when hardware is applied the OS/software is closed that device, e.g. Zune, 360. Also, you should know that Vista cannot legally be run in a VM unless it's the ultimate edition (MS had flip flopped 3 times before the release).
[disclaimer: I'm not going to read those articles that were simply found through Google because it sounds they were sought out to prove a point rather than actually researching all sides and maybe rethinking the topic.]
So in your scale it doesn't matter that MS actually hates "free' (software)" compared to Apple whom widely supports and leverages "free" software.
And Apple's mistake is having a proven business model that does not support "freedom" in terms of opening ALL of the Mac OS (not just the what they contribute tot he community).
[MS for a fact hates FOSS: just run a google search :) for "Microsoft hates freedom" or "MS hates Linux" or "Linux is a cancer" or "MS Linux patents" and comparatively let's search "Apple loves open source"]
Dan
· 2 years ago
Okay I lied. I just had to look at the APSL article you linked to. Yeah...great research, your resources a little out of date (1999). In '99 they were working on version 1 of the APSL now it's v.2 which the FSF worked directly with Apple to re-create it. I only spent 10 minutes reading and looking around but it looks like shortly after 1.0 they released 1.1 which addressed the issues raised.
<del datetime="2007-08-06T03:54:11+00:00">You have to catch up on </del>a little history for the first article. The <del datetime="2007-08-05T23:18:39+00:00">article</del>opinion-piece was written in May of 2001 and the book it quotes was written in May of 2001, now OS 10.0 was released in March that same year and it wasn't really setup for major release, 10.1 is deemed to be the major consumer release and was out after the book in September. I write this brief history because some may read those quotes and apply them to the current OS X and Apple Inc.. The quotes would be better suited towards OS X server that was released as a non-consumer product and may had portions closed for not only security reasons but since it was very early in it's infancy the modifications could have not been acceptable releases for the community or simply they just weren't released yet--because there isn't a release data requirement for giving back tot he community--.
In 2007 Apple does have a license agreed upon by the FSF and releases it's source as required and contributes to multiple FOSS projects.
OK, I have to call you on this one - the "completely separate business models so you can't compare them" line does not fly. You started this post, which is completely based around comparing Linux to the Mac OS. Then you bring Windows into the discussion / comparison as well (comment #6). Then, all of a sudden, it's "oh, wait - you actually can't compare the Mac OS to anything else because Apple has a different business model". If that's true then why did you post this article in the first place? Make up your mind.
As for the links being out of date, that's exactly why I put the disclaimer on there. My opinion isn't solely based on those articles, they were just a quick representation of what I've heard (past and present) from various people who know more about the issue than I do. I'm sure if either of us really wanted to (I know I don't) dig up some dirt on Darwin or the APSL, it wouldn't be very difficult at all to find many well informed critiques, from a free software perspective. I'd rather not do that digging though, since I suspect it would be futile.
Speaking of futility, let's take a step back an look at the fact that you're promoting (what you believe to be) Apple's positive standing in regards to free software / open source, but in the context of a comparison to Linux. As I stated in my original comment, I think it's pretty clear that Linux has the edge in that regard. The fact that I also believe that MS has some advantages in the spirit of free software over Apple's operating system is certainly a matter of opinion, but I have yet to see anything to persuade me that belief is off base.
I think it's hilarious that you bring up the Vista price premium for being able to run it in a VM as a negative point against MS, because (while I'd obviously agree that it's bad) you also must then recognize that Apple's position on this exact issue is much worse, since they don't allow you to run it in a VM at all, even if you wanted to pay extra for the privilege.
In the end, I think my points remain: for people who value freedom more highly than other things in their choice of operating systems, then Linux is probably the way to go. And (secondary point), if you're going to throw MS into that mix, I'd say they come out a bit ahead (although still poor) since you're allowed to run their OS on anything you can get it working on (even if it costs a bit more to run it in a VM), whereas Apple's operating system product that they sell is intentionally restricted from running on anything other than proprietary hardware that you must buy from them alone, and not at all in any VM environment.
Dan
· 2 years ago
OK, I have to call you on this one - the “completely separate business models so you can’t compare them†line does not fly...you bring Windows into the discussion / comparison as well (comment #6).
Comment 8:
"I brought Windows into the discussion because I was clearing Nathan’s comment about previous discussions"
"Also, you should know that Vista cannot legally be run in a VM unless it’s the ultimate edition"
I didn't bring up price nor meant to compare it to OS X; I was informing you or the readers because your comment was misleading and MSes new stand on VM is progressively limiting "free" use.
Your difference of opinion (from above) lies on heavily on whether Apple allows it's software to be run "freely" on any hardware, which is understandable if Apple was a software company.
Yes, I don't like comparing Apple to MS and when I do I'm selective because one is a software company and one is a hardware company. I try to only compare the two when I defend Apple not supporting "freedom" or similar statements like "Apple hates freedom".
It's obvious that Linux is more "free" than Mac, that's because Linux practically sets the benchmark.
Dan
· 2 years ago
I'd also like to point out that this entire conversation went downhill when you insulted every Mac user through the moral compass of "freedom".
In addition, because I feel that in the long run, society will be better off if more people choose to value freedom over other things
And I regret not sticking with that statement because it's apparent that you're belief/opinion are set and no factual argument is not going to sway you to rethink your position because it's based on sentiment.
Dave Z
· 2 years ago
I think macs are great.
JaredB
· 2 years ago
I (and probably most everyone else involved in this post so far) was aware of the Vista VM issues; so no need for the clarification. I don't think my remarks were misleading at all: MS does let you run their OS legally in a VM (even though you now have to pay extra for it), Apple does not let you at all - it's that simple.
I'm not sure why this discussion is even continuing, since you on the one hand say that you can't compare Apple's OS with any others, but then continue to try to do just that (as evidenced by the existence of this post and its comments).
Saying that I do believe society would be better off in the long run if more people chose to use free software is by no means an insult to every user of proprietary software (be it Apple, MS, or whatever). I'm not sure why you took it as an insult, but it was just a statement of my opinion. Take it or leave it; you obviously don't agree, and that's fine.
It really bugs me when you say things like "factual arguments will not sway my opinion" because that's patently false, as well as insulting. Just because you haven't succeeded in convincing me doesn't mean it can't be done. If I see any convincing facts that challenge the opinions I currently hold, I'll consider them with an open mind. I certainly haven't seen any so far in this discussion.
Furthermore, as Nathan already pointed out above, this issue isn't completely about facts anyway. Two people can come to different conclusions / preferences even given the same set of facts - based on the differences in how they value the various components being weighed on the plus and minus sides of the scale.
It doesn't really bother me that you prefer to use the Mac OS, because I understand that you value the things that it brings to the table.
It does bother me a bit that you then bash MS so harshly, though; not because I'm a MS apologist (as you incorrectly imply above), but because I see it as hypocritical the way you slam them while embracing Apple, because the way they operate the operating system side of their business (as well as other parts) is so similar. The VM issue is a perfect example of you taking a dig at MS (which they deserve) for something that Apple deserves an even larger dig for, yet you refuse to acknowledge it, reverting yet again to your "you can't compare them" argument to avoid the issue, and then later resurface to compare them again.
nstryker
· 2 years ago
because it's important to always choose the freedomist product, jared's next phone will be the ofone.
Dan
· 2 years ago
I was about to blockquote a bunch of stuff I already said but I think Nathan concluded the thread (for me) perfectly.
Dave Z
· 2 years ago
This has the look and feel of a political " discussion ".
I have turned from my anti-mac bias. Jamie has one and is it good.
All Comments
I think that in the summaries, at least, they covered that point well: there are benefits (stability) as well as drawbacks (loss freedom in some of its various meanings) inherent in going with a restricted hardware platform.
You obviously believe it's a "clear advantage", but that's only because you value those benefits over the benefits of a more open system / platform, but that's a personal preference as to what you give more weight to in the comparison process.
If you find out ahead of time which hardware works with the operating system you want (Windows, a particular Linux distro, etc.), then you'll experience many of those same benefits. It's just that in Apple's case they believe that process is so important that they've taken the guesswork out of it and made those decisions for you.
I also think this discussion would have been different if it was about windows v. mac. But I'd love to see a discussion on windows v. linux, I think Jared's head would explode trying to decide who to defend ;).
Perhaps I shouldn't have responded further after my initial comment, but then it seemed like Dan wanted to talk about it more, so I responded.
I'd agree that the conclusions that you draw based on the same set of facts are inherently based on what you value personally. Because (in this specific case) I value freedom over stability, I do personally choose that side. Bringing Microsoft into the mix is a bit off topic (perhaps just to sling some mud since you don't want to do so towards Linux), but my take as far as they relate to this discussion (as we've discussed before) is that if you have a 1-10 scale of "free (as in freedom) software", as far as operating systems go I'd put Linux at 10, Apple at 1, and MS at 2 or 3.
In addition, because I feel that in the long run, society will be better off if more people choose to value freedom over other things like (initial) stability or ease of use, I advocate it in friendly conversations. I don't get upset or offended if someone still chooses to think differently than I do, because that's their right. I also don't believe that my opinions or reasons for making that choice are infallible, but since I currently believe they are correct I will act and speak accordingly.
I brought Windows into the discussion because I was clearing Nathan's comment about previous discussions, we've never had a discussion on mac v linux and they've all been based similarly on why you think MS has a 1-2 point lead over Apple based on "freedom".
First, regarding the so-called "freedom card"; I did not bring that into the discussion. In the original post you quoted (and said you agreed with), freedom was the primary focus of the brief Linux conclusion section (in fact the word "freedom" is mentioned specifically six times). I'm not sure why it's suddenly an issue now that I bring it up.
Second, everyone involved in this post so far knows that those references to freedom (as well as mine) are referring to "free (as in freedom) software", not the "freedom to choose" any other proprietary / non-free platform. Intermixing the term "freedom" in reference to those two very different contexts is (IMHO) an attempt to muddy the waters. No one disputes an end user's right to choose any platform that they'd like to, whether it's free or non-free. It's a separate issue from the one we're discussing (free software, and the lack of freedom to varying degrees in proprietary alternatives).
Third, to clarify my scale comment (in regards to operating systems), which referred to MS being more "free" or open than the Mac OS, I was specifically alluding to the commonly accepted measure of "free software" as spelled out by the FSF. Neither is "free software" by any strech of the imagination, but I do think one comes slightly closer in spirit.
In particular, both Windows and Mac OS fail miserably on all "four freedoms", but if partial credit is at all possible, I have to give MS the slight edge regarding freedom 0 (the freedom to run the program), since you can run legally Windows on any consumer PC (any one of the many name brands or one hobbled/hacked together from spare parts in your basement) as well as in virtual machine environments. This is not true with Apple, where you are only allowed to run their operating system on proprietary hardware you have to buy from them, and not at all in any VM environment. Everything else being equal (equally bad), I put them both at the low end of the scale but give a slight favor to MS for at least supporting freedom 0 in a better / more open way than Apple does.
As for the other open source contributions by either Apple or MS, I'm probably not well versed enough in them to comment, but I won't let that stop me from doing so (briefly) anyway. I do recognize WebKit as a significant contribution, but I didn't include it in this discussion (and my ratings) because the scope was confined to operating systems. I do have a beef with the Darwin releases (nicely summed up here and elaborated upon in numerous places all over the internet), as well as Apple's own insane version of an "open source" license - the APSL.
[Disclaimer: the links above are pulled from the first page of a quick Google search, since I'm on vacation, after all. I'm sure there are better ones out there, and if you're interested in looking into it further (I'm not), I'm sure you can find all sorts of more knowledgeable free software advocates out there outlining the issues with Apple's approach(es) more eloquently than I could.]
[disclaimer: I'm not going to read those articles that were simply found through Google because it sounds they were sought out to prove a point rather than actually researching all sides and maybe rethinking the topic.]
So in your scale it doesn't matter that MS actually hates "free' (software)" compared to Apple whom widely supports and leverages "free" software.
And Apple's mistake is having a proven business model that does not support "freedom" in terms of opening ALL of the Mac OS (not just the what they contribute tot he community).
[MS for a fact hates FOSS: just run a google search :) for "Microsoft hates freedom" or "MS hates Linux" or "Linux is a cancer" or "MS Linux patents" and comparatively let's search "Apple loves open source"]
<del datetime="2007-08-06T03:54:11+00:00">You have to catch up on </del>a little history for the first article. The <del datetime="2007-08-05T23:18:39+00:00">article</del>opinion-piece was written in May of 2001 and the book it quotes was written in May of 2001, now OS 10.0 was released in March that same year and it wasn't really setup for major release, 10.1 is deemed to be the major consumer release and was out after the book in September. I write this brief history because some may read those quotes and apply them to the current OS X and Apple Inc.. The quotes would be better suited towards OS X server that was released as a non-consumer product and may had portions closed for not only security reasons but since it was very early in it's infancy the modifications could have not been acceptable releases for the community or simply they just weren't released yet--because there isn't a release data requirement for giving back tot he community--.
In 2007 Apple does have a license agreed upon by the FSF and releases it's source as required and contributes to multiple FOSS projects.
FYI: I found the FSF stuff from http://badvista.fsf.org and was then looking for http://badosx.fsf.org, I never could find it.
As for the links being out of date, that's exactly why I put the disclaimer on there. My opinion isn't solely based on those articles, they were just a quick representation of what I've heard (past and present) from various people who know more about the issue than I do. I'm sure if either of us really wanted to (I know I don't) dig up some dirt on Darwin or the APSL, it wouldn't be very difficult at all to find many well informed critiques, from a free software perspective. I'd rather not do that digging though, since I suspect it would be futile.
Speaking of futility, let's take a step back an look at the fact that you're promoting (what you believe to be) Apple's positive standing in regards to free software / open source, but in the context of a comparison to Linux. As I stated in my original comment, I think it's pretty clear that Linux has the edge in that regard. The fact that I also believe that MS has some advantages in the spirit of free software over Apple's operating system is certainly a matter of opinion, but I have yet to see anything to persuade me that belief is off base.
I think it's hilarious that you bring up the Vista price premium for being able to run it in a VM as a negative point against MS, because (while I'd obviously agree that it's bad) you also must then recognize that Apple's position on this exact issue is much worse, since they don't allow you to run it in a VM at all, even if you wanted to pay extra for the privilege.
In the end, I think my points remain: for people who value freedom more highly than other things in their choice of operating systems, then Linux is probably the way to go. And (secondary point), if you're going to throw MS into that mix, I'd say they come out a bit ahead (although still poor) since you're allowed to run their OS on anything you can get it working on (even if it costs a bit more to run it in a VM), whereas Apple's operating system product that they sell is intentionally restricted from running on anything other than proprietary hardware that you must buy from them alone, and not at all in any VM environment.
Comment 8:
I didn't bring up price nor meant to compare it to OS X; I was informing you or the readers because your comment was misleading and MSes new stand on VM is progressively limiting "free" use.
Your difference of opinion (from above) lies on heavily on whether Apple allows it's software to be run "freely" on any hardware, which is understandable if Apple was a software company.
Yes, I don't like comparing Apple to MS and when I do I'm selective because one is a software company and one is a hardware company. I try to only compare the two when I defend Apple not supporting "freedom" or similar statements like "Apple hates freedom".
It's obvious that Linux is more "free" than Mac, that's because Linux practically sets the benchmark.
And I regret not sticking with that statement because it's apparent that you're belief/opinion are set and no factual argument is not going to sway you to rethink your position because it's based on sentiment.
I'm not sure why this discussion is even continuing, since you on the one hand say that you can't compare Apple's OS with any others, but then continue to try to do just that (as evidenced by the existence of this post and its comments).
Saying that I do believe society would be better off in the long run if more people chose to use free software is by no means an insult to every user of proprietary software (be it Apple, MS, or whatever). I'm not sure why you took it as an insult, but it was just a statement of my opinion. Take it or leave it; you obviously don't agree, and that's fine.
It really bugs me when you say things like "factual arguments will not sway my opinion" because that's patently false, as well as insulting. Just because you haven't succeeded in convincing me doesn't mean it can't be done. If I see any convincing facts that challenge the opinions I currently hold, I'll consider them with an open mind. I certainly haven't seen any so far in this discussion.
Furthermore, as Nathan already pointed out above, this issue isn't completely about facts anyway. Two people can come to different conclusions / preferences even given the same set of facts - based on the differences in how they value the various components being weighed on the plus and minus sides of the scale.
It doesn't really bother me that you prefer to use the Mac OS, because I understand that you value the things that it brings to the table.
It does bother me a bit that you then bash MS so harshly, though; not because I'm a MS apologist (as you incorrectly imply above), but because I see it as hypocritical the way you slam them while embracing Apple, because the way they operate the operating system side of their business (as well as other parts) is so similar. The VM issue is a perfect example of you taking a dig at MS (which they deserve) for something that Apple deserves an even larger dig for, yet you refuse to acknowledge it, reverting yet again to your "you can't compare them" argument to avoid the issue, and then later resurface to compare them again.
I have turned from my anti-mac bias. Jamie has one and is it good.