[CLUE-Tech] Enthusiasm for Linux

[Kevin Cullis]

Zonker,

On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 13:19, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 21:42, Kevin Cullis wrote:
> > Yep, I'd say about the same thing: I use Linux because of the tools, not
> > the games.  However, has anyone looked at the new Mac OX X 10.3, i.e.
> > Panther!!  Real X11 and a whole lot of UNIX tools have become available.
> 
> Yes, Mac OS X has a lot going for it -- but one huge drawback, namely
> Apple continually dropping support for older models. If you notice,
> almost every OS upgrade from Apple comes with a list of older Macs that
> are no longer supported. Since I doubt that Apple is incapable of
> supporting those older Macs, I tend to draw the conclusion that it's
> basically a system of planned obsolescence. Since Mac hardware is damned
> expensive, I'd want to run a machine until it gave up the ghost
> completely rather than having to buy a new machine when Apple decides
> it's more profitable to force me to buy new hardware to go with the
> newest OS. 

While I agree with the idea, does MS still support DOS?  How far does MS
support stuff?  If Apple had $50 BILLION in the bank I would think they
would be more supportive as well, but then with OS X you don't have
viruses to worry about.

> 
> Also, Apple upgrades are kind of pricey -- even moreso than Windows. I
> think the typical upgrade package from MS is about $89 (assuming you're
> using the home version) whereas Apple's usual upgrade set is $129 or
> so... (I'm going on memory here, someone correct me if I'm wrong...it's
> been a loooong time since I purchased updates from either company.) 

You're right: $129 for an upgrade to 10.3

> 
> The lack of older hardware support bothers me more than the fact that
> buying the upgrade costs upwards of $100. People who bought G3s just a
> few years ago can no longer run the latest Mac OS, which means they're
> going to be out a few thousand dollars or they're simply out in the cold
> when it comes to newer features and updates. I'm not even sure if Apple
> provides updates for older Mac OS versions -- I mean, I know they have
> upgrades that might bring you from 10.2 to 10.3, but if 10.3 is
> incompatible with older hardware, can you get security updates and
> bugfixes for older versions that won't break your OS?

Not quite right, all CPU's from G3 on up can still used by Mac OS 10.3

> 
> For a while, I kind of considered Apple a nice middle ground between
> Linux and Microsoft, but I quit being willing to endorse Apple products
> after the company broke features in iTunes with an "update" -- thereby
> removing features that people wanted and had come to use, just to
> appease the music companies. 

Seems like you're throwing the baby out with the bath water. Windows has
too many security problems but people still use them.

> 
> If you're willing to sacrifice control over your system, and willing to
> buy in to the idea that you'll have to buy new hardware every few years
> to remain up-to-date, then I guess Apple is a better way to go than
> Microsoft. But I really don't see Apple as a very good alternative to
> Linux. 

In fact, with OS X's X11 you're getting more control.  Check out the
OpenDarwin.org and other Darwin stuff. It's much better than MS
"Thrusted Computing" of it's source code.

Not selling Macs again, just pointing out differences.

Kevin