Skip to main content

Make OS X open source?!?

John Dvorak: Apple Needs to Make OS X Open-Source:
A cloud is rising over Mac OS X and its future unless Apple makes its boldest move ever: turning OS X into an open-source project. That would make the battle between OS X and Linux the most interesting one on the computer scene. With all attention turned in that direction, there would be nothing Microsoft could do to stem a reversal of its fortunes.
Interesting concept. Apple has taken three discrete steps that have lured my interest. First was Mac OS X, a lovely operating system that deserves far greater exposure. Second, the shift to Intel. And third, Boot Camp, its "beta" software that allows a MacIntel user to install and boot Windows XP, in addition to Mac OS X.

Right then and there, with step three, I know that my next computer purchase will be a Mac, probably an iMac. More than good enough for the Mac application I want to run (Bartas Technologies Copywrite), and more than good enough to support the XP programs I want to run (Doom3, damnit). Oh, and I get to keep my entire PC library, all my files, hardware, etc. The TCO for a Mac, for me, fell through the floor.

I've always argued against the assertion that Apple is primarily a hardware company. They're not really primarily a software company, either. They are (surprise) something different, a company that sells a hardware/software symbios. Until recently, one could not live without the other.

That's no longer true. Apple's Intel hardware can now easily live without Apple's software. Certainly there were distros of Linux that always made this possible, but now we have Apple seemingly endorsing the concept.

So what of OS X? Apple can simply sell it to whoever wants it, to install it on whatever Intel (or AMD) box they choose. Just limit support to key manufacturers. Or, alternatively, make a deal with someone like Dell to market OS X on their machines.

Or, as Dvorak suggests, just release OS X to open source and concentrate on hardware.

Interesting times ahead.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania

Wow, it’s been over a year. What a way to get back to this blog because… Are the films of the MCU getting worse? It’s a serious question because the latest that I’ve seen, Thor: Love and Thunder and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania , are strong arguments that the answer is “yes.” Summary: Ant-Man & Ant-Family get sucked into the quantum realm, where skullduggery is afoot. A load of crap ensues. I’m an Ant-Man fan. I loved the first film despite its flaws. It would have been wonderful to see what Edgar Wright may have wrought. It was clear, though, that replacement director Peyton Reed kept some of Wright’s ideas alive. The result was one of the MCU’s most intimate films, a straight-forward tale of a Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) desperate to remain in his daughter’s life while being “gifted” the life of a superhero. Ant-Man and the Wasp sorta stayed that course, but naturally, because this is the modern MCU, we had to have a female superhero take over, the titular Wasp (Hope van Dyne,

John Wick: Chapter 4

No sense in playing coy, this is a great film. I’ve seen it twice and while I don’t quite love it in the way I love the first, original John Wick , it’s my #2. It’s a little overlong, has some wasted space and time, has one absolutely pointless and useless character, and generally ignores the realities of firefights, falling, getting shot, hit, etc. All that notwithstanding, it’s a great action flick, has a genuine emotional core, and is well worth your time if you’re into that sort of thing. Like I am. Summary: John Wick (Keanu Reeves), last seen saying he was fed up with the High Table, goes to war to obtain his freedom. Some of the most incredible action scenes ever filmed ensue, culminating in a very satisfactory finale and a devastating post-credit scene. The first Wick film was a surprise hit. It was a simple, straight-forward tale of vengeance told in a simple, straight-forward manner. Where it stood out was its devotion to human stunt work, on exploiting long camera shots that

Rogan

The entire Joe Rogan controversy is an example of the kids being left in charge and the adults refusing to teach them any better. I’m not a regular consumer of podcasts. There are a couple I listen to from time to time, but nothing on a regular basis. While I’ve caught a few minutes of the Joe Rogan Experience on YouTube, I’ve never listened to his podcast. One of the primary reasons for that is that you have to subscribe to Spotify to do so, and I prefer Qobuz, Tidal, or even Amazon Music. Rogan is behind Spotify’s paywall and that’s that. But the nature of the fight is about more than who does or does not listen to Rogan. This fight goes to the very nature of the First Amendment and the fundamental concept of the United States. And yes, I understand that cuts both ways. What’s his name and Joni Mitchell are free to yank their creations from Spotify, no ifs, ands, or buts. I’m not denying their right, I’m questioning their reasons. Rogan talks to people. He does so largely unfiltered.