iPhone, iPod updates pad Apple margins; Belgian iPhone; more

[AppleInsider]

Apple's new 16GB iPhone is as much a move to restore comfortably high profit margins as to spark sales, according to one report. Also, Belgium's main carrier may support the iPhone this year, and the chief creator of Linux has chastised Apple's approach to Mac OS X.

New iPhone, iPod capacities seen boosting margins

If prices for flash memory have stabilized or dropped since Apple first released the iPhone, the new 16GB model could prove to be a true cash cow for Apple, says a new analysis by Silicon Alley Insider.

The research points to an earlier iSuppli cost breakdown for the iPhone, which revealed that manufacturing costs accounted for only 50 percent of each unit before factoring marketing and sales into the equation. Assuming prices have remained the same for the NAND flash storage in the device -- an unlikely situation given Apple's admitted oversupply conditions, the report notes -- the 16GB iPhone's retail price would have increased disproportionately to its actual production costs.

An 8GB iPhone would cost $258 to make in October, leaving a 35 percent margin; however, the new model would cost only $40 more at $298. More than 40 percent of the handset's cost would be unaccounted for even before including near-certain price drops, the report makes clear.

The examination makes no attempt to break down prices for the 32GB iPod touch, though an October iSuppli analysis suggested that the $299 8GB model cost just $155 to produce at the time. Adding the $120 at October flash memory prices needed to reach the price of today's 32GB iPod would raise the manufacturing cost to $275, which would leave 45 percent of the new player's cost to other costs as well as profits.

Belgium a candidate for iPhone in 2008

The head of Mobistar, Belgium's second-largest cellular carrier, on Tuesday said a deal may be possible to offer the iPhone through the provider.

Company chief Benoit Scheen didn't estimate a specific timeframe but noted that the opportunity depended largely on Apple. As Belgium isn't the iPhone maker's highest priority, any Belgian release would likely follow only after those of larger countries, the executive said.

Linux creator criticizes Mac OS X

In an interview with Australia's Sydney Morning Herald, Linux founder and namesake Linus Torvalds has taken Apple to task for what he says is a hostile programming environment, even though it may be a stronger operating system than its most obvious alternative.

"I think Leopard is a much better system [than Windows]," Torvalds said. "[However,] OS X in some ways is actually worse than Windows to program for. Their file system is complete and utter crap, which is scary."

Importantly, the developer also attacked the philosophy behind both Mac OS X and Windows in equal measure. The OS is a shell meant to be an "invisible" means of getting to applications, he said. For hardware manufacturers, Linux is said to be a better alternative that is customizable for specific applications or very low-power devices like media players. With most commercial operating systems, however, the need to drive profits often distracts from improving performance or other important but less alluring components of the software.

To Microsoft and Apple [the OS is] a way to control the whole environment... to force people to upgrade their applications and hardware," Torvalds explains.

[McDavies]

"To Microsoft and Apple [the OS is] a way to control the whole environment... to force people to upgrade their applications and hardware," Torvalds explains."


Still running my 867 12" Powerbook. Granted I only do word processing and family photos on trips. .

[vinney57]

I just wish Torvalds would say what he really thought.

[Bobo Decosta]

I doubt Mobistar will be able to get a deal done with Apple as in Belgium it is by law forbidden to sell a phone with a subscription. My guess Mobistar wants to ride the iPhone hype and hopes people will switch to Mobistar in advance. Belgium is one of the few countries where every phone is sold unlocked.

Or this means unlocked phones are coming to europe.

[etandrib]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

"I think Leopard is a much better system [than Windows]," Torvalds said. "[However,] OS X in some ways is actually worse than Windows to program for. Their file system is complete and utter crap, which is scary."

Apple seems to think so too. Which is probably why they are developing ZFS actively and it will probably show up in 10.6. I've actually never had any problems with HFS+ but I'm not a heavy programmer either. I'm looking forward to the features of ZFS though.

On his other complaint about the operating system being a lock in - I don't see how linux is any different. It is a platform and you are working on either a windows, linux, or os x platform. That is the lock -in. It is part of development. I'm glad that Apple leaves all the legacy crap behind. It reduces bloat and makes things more stable. I'm a happy OS X user and Linux distros still are not as attractive an option. I mean come on... it is free and they can barely give it away. Maybe in time it will be useable but for now it doesn't pass the "my mom can use it test" so I'm not going to support it.

[daniel84]

Originally Posted by Bobo Decosta

I doubt Mobistar will be able to get a deal done with Apple as in Belgium it is by law forbidden to sell a phone with a subscription. My guess Mobistar wants to ride the iPhone and hype and hopes people will switch to Mobistar in advance. Belgium is one of the few countries where every phone is sold unlocked.

Or this means unlocked phones are coming to europe.

This is very true. I'm very excited nonetheless. This is the first real news I've herd about the iPhone in Belgium, except for jailbroken ones.

[badtux]

Sour grapes on the part of Linus, I think. The success of Mac OS X sucked the air out of desktop Linux, because it runs all those good ole' Unix programs that Linux runs if you want to be geeky, but provides a much better desktop environment for doing so. As in, it just *works*. I finally gave up on Linux on the desktop when I tried to do some audio work, and half the programs wouldn't work because they needed the KDE sound system, half the programs wouldn't work because they needed the GNOME sound system, and half the programs wouldn't work because they needed some other weird sound system... and none of these three different sound systems would co-exist on the same system at the same time without fighting over the hardware so that you never knew whether hitting the 'record' button on Audacity would result in actual sound getting recorded. **** that. I want something that just *works*. Which isn't desktop Linux, or, for that matter, Windows (the Windows USB sound system is sad, sad, sad, to the point where most vendors have their own proprietary USB drivers to bypass the Windows USB system... which keep getting knocked out by Windows updates, meaning you *still* don't know whether hitting the 'record' button will actually work or not!).

If Linus wants to remedy the situation, he's going to have to weigh in on the "Desktop Wars" in Linux-land. But thus far, all he says about it is "I like choice." Bah humbug, choice is fine, but if it don't work, who gives a ****?

[gar]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Belgium a candidate for iPhone in 2008

Damn, that's less then 12km south of me.
KPN, Vodafone or T-Mobile, hurry up.

Linux creator criticizes Mac OS X
[snip]

With most commercial operating systems, however, the need to drive profits often distracts from improving performance or other important but less alluring components of the software.

To Microsoft and Apple [the OS is] a way to control the whole environment... to force people to upgrade their applications and hardware," Torvalds explains.

I understand what he says about Microsoft.
But he is talking crap about Mac OSX.

My 400mhz G3 Pismo went through 4 OSX upgrades before it died on me (stroke).
Every incarnation of OSX, from 10.1 to 10.4, the machine responded faster, until a point, after I upgraded it to Tiger, it felt almost as fast as OS9.

Both my current 2.33ghz 15" MBP and 2.8ghz iMac feel faster under 10.5 than 10.4.
I know 10.5 needs more resources and slowing some processes down, but if the resources are available, Leopard feels snappier.
So as far as I can see improving performance is still high on Apples agenda.

[jpferreira]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

the chief creator of Linux has chastised Apple's approach to Mac OS X.

things are not looking good, eh? just a few months ago linux was the major alternative [windows mobile]. now we have android and the 'almost' perfect os x...

things turned out to be not as easy as you expected, right linus?

[Bobo Decosta]

Originally Posted by gar

Damn, that's less then 12km south of me.
KPN, Vodafone or T-Mobile, hurry up.

I think you will have the iPhone before we Belgians do because Belgium is a no show for locked phones, in holland it's common practice. One of your carriers just keeps it mouth shut until they can guarantee the deal.

[Lemmy Caution]

"...manufacturing costs accounted for only 50 percent of each unit before factoring marketing and sales into the equation."

Yeah, and frontloaded R&D costs apparently don't figure into this equation at all. Tool.

[drumpat01]

HEY LINUS!!! Not everyone wants to have to program their own computer to get it to work correctly and with out problems. This why you only have a 1% market share. I proudly have a linux box running Ubuntu BUT its STILL more buggy than any OSX I've ever owned. Not to mention it looks better.

[jcassara]

Originally Posted by badtux

Sour grapes on the part of Linus, I think.

Well, just consider the source: a "benevolent" socialist dictator.

[Mr. H]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

The research points to an earlier iSuppli cost breakdown for the iPhone, which revealed that manufacturing costs accounted for only 50 percent of each unit

Oh. My. God. Why do you guys keep on saying this over and over? Do you hope that if you say it enough times, it'll be true?

The iSuppli cost breakdowns "reveal" estimated component costs. They do not attempt to account for the cost of manufacture.

On to the Linus quote:

It would have been nice if he'd actually backed-up the "filesystem is complete and utter crap" comment with an explanation of what the hell he was talking about. From my point of view, HFS+ is one of the best filesystems out there (and no, I'm not just saying that because I'm a Mac user, those that know me will know I have plenty bad to say about Apple and OS X).

[Ephilei]

I used Linux on my only computer. When I realized I needed a laptop, I bought a Mac just because I didn't want to give MS money for a bundled OS (that was before Dell sold Ubuntu). I fully planned on installing Linux, but thought I might as well try out OSX for a day. Then a day became a week. Then a week . . . My problem with Linux was that I occaisionally made a mistake, and that mistake ruined something big that took a week to fix. In the mean time I was stuck using Windows on campus computers and that sucked. Ironically, Linux moved to me from Windows to OSX.

In a sense, Linux isn't a lock-in because Linux is not an OS - it's a kernel. If want to migrate away from Ubuntu, you can always switch to Suse, or Red Hat, or Gentoo, or . . . If you want to migrate to non-Linux OS, no beans.

I wonder what Linus' beef is with HFS? I can't think why Ext3 is better. But 10.6 will probably move to ZFS anyway which I'm excited about. Honestly, WinFS was way sexy too before MS abandoned it. My fantasy in a file system is with unlimited, arbitrary tagging as well.

[Mr. H]

Originally Posted by Ephilei

My fantasy in a file system is with unlimited, arbitrary tagging as well.

HFS+ in 10.4 and later already has that ability.

[Adders]

Originally Posted by badtux

The success of Mac OS X sucked the air out of desktop Linux, because it runs all those good ole' Unix programs that Linux runs if you want to be geeky, but provides a much better desktop environment for doing so..... I finally gave up on Linux on the desktop when I tried to do some audio work, and half the programs wouldn't work because they needed the KDE sound system, half the programs wouldn't work because they needed the GNOME sound system, and half the programs wouldn't work because they needed some other weird sound system... and none of these three different sound systems would co-exist on the same system.
If Linus wants to remedy the situation, he's going to have to weigh in on the "Desktop Wars" in Linux-land. But thus far, all he says about it is "I like choice." Bah humbug, choice is fine, but if it don't work, who gives a ****?

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. I too went through a phase of using Linux and got a lot of entertainment out of it in a purely nerdy fashion, but in the end found it simply too anarchic to actually really get any serious work done on it, for similar reasons as yourself.

It's interesting hearing Linus' criticism of both OS X and Windows, describing them as a means for Apple and Microsoft to control the environment. I'd say a controlled environment gives the best opportunity for stable and productive programs. Yes, I'm sure in both cases there are many people who'd give an arm and a leg to have a glimpse of the source in either case, but equally both companies give pretty comprehensive integration guidelines, which are probably a damn sight more useful than just looking at pages of code.

The thing that debilitates Linux so much is that the situation with all the distributions is much akin to the worst days of the browser wars, with Netscape and Microsoft chucking in their own new propietary tags at their pleasure, leaving web developers the headache of trying to write code that keeps all of the browsers happy. Thankfully, the advent of the W3C has gone a long way to curing these ills, meaning browsers are now competing more over the efficiency of the user interface, security and performance rather than messing with the (X)HTML standards.

The teams that produce the range of Linux distros need to form their own equivalent of the W3C and start standardising the distros complete with integration guidelines for application developers - in other words start controlling the environment - in order to have a chance of delivering the stability needed to get the level of interoperability between applications on the platform that Mac and PC users take for granted.

Then again, I could be wrong.

[anantksundaram]

See below. Sorry.

[anantksundaram]

What's Linux? Why should I care?

Can anyone name major, paradigm-shifting software developments that have come out of Linux? (Please spare me the teary-eyed stuff about the beauty of "collective development" etc a la the Wikipedia model).

And, considering that many people see it as an alternative to Windows, would you please include in that an argument why it has a market share of about 1%?

[Adders]

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

What's Linux? Why should I care?

Can anyone name major, paradigm-shifting software developments that have come out of Linux? (Please spare me the teary-eyed stuff about the beauty of "collective development" etc a la the Wikipedia model).

And, considering that many people see it as an alternative to Windows, would you please include in that an argument why it has a market share of about 1%?

No, I quite agree. I think I covered my views on the current problems with the Linux platform in my last post. Personally, I'm happy with the Mac, merely proposing a strategy that the Linux fans in the world might consider to develop their 1% share of the market (although in fairness, based on the stats on the W3C page for OS use on the web, it's more like 3-4%)

Equally though, it's a bit unfair to write off open source development, PHP,MySQL and Apache being possible proposals for a paradigm shift in web server technology among others.

[nvidia2008]

Wow. Agree a lot with this thread's sentiments. I tried SUSE in 2005 / 2006 and just gave up in the end. Tried to install Ubuntu in Parallels a few months ago and didn't know what the hell was going on. Better the devil you know.

I've set up about 5 WinXP2Pro boxes recently with 2 hard drives on Raid 1 (mirrored), and it has never corrupted in about 5 months now, touch wood.

And here's the kicker: Parallels seems to work well with Time Machine. Imagine you have Time Machine. For Windows.

[loloeroket]

We give Linus too much of attention. He thought he would kick Bill Gates out from #1 in the OS impersonation biz but became #3 with the raise of Mac OS X (represented by Steve Jobs).

Now on the technical level, Linux is interesting for labs but running linux on mission critical environment is a huge problem because the non integration between Hardware and software. IMHO it was already a big issue with Windows but when a server is failing your linux doesn't understand what's going on, which is not the case with a Mac Server. Not to mention the ability to power on/off a XSERVE/XRAID remotely. Not to mention Apple Hardware superior design, I am not talking about the looks here.
That's why after running Windows servers with crappy Windows (which requires a monthly reboot in the best case scenario), trying Linux I am now using Mac OS X as servers. We can benefit from all the Open Source solutions on top of top quality servers, top quality OS.

For me linux is good to recycle all old computers with a console machine, very useful to test solutions in dev environment. Of course the linux approach is to equip tons of "boxes" as fail over so when one fails, there is always another to take the relay. It's a conception not mine.

Now as some of you said previously, to give a linux box as desktop computer is the best way to train a generation of geeks or computer haters!
Sorry but Linux is not ready for prime time yet. Windows is dead until Microsoft go back to white board. Still they proved there inability in doing so in the past and in case they would be successful it would take them 10 years to reach prime time, so I am sorry Linus to disappoint you but as much as I find your contribution invaluable, you are not in you league here. We are dealing with bigger scale here. And Mac OS X, MAc OS X Server iphone, Apple TVs are showing the way to modern era of OS that has no equivalent today. If you consider GPS systems in cars, their interface sucks, those people who design this type of products have no clue on how making their system intuitive to everybody. Until Apple TV, TVs menu sucked big time, not to mention phone before the iphone. I can give plenty of other examples excerpt from our day to day life to illustrate this hardware-software integration. That's why it is clear from beginning that a Windows or a Linux OS are simply an old fashion way to talk to interact with computers.

I believe Linus understood he may take him 30 more years to reach #1 hence his critics !!

My 2 cts...

[adamthecarny]

Originally Posted by Bobo Decosta

I doubt Mobistar will be able to get a deal done with Apple as in Belgium it is by law forbidden to sell a phone with a subscription. My guess Mobistar wants to ride the iPhone hype and hopes people will switch to Mobistar in advance. Belgium is one of the few countries where every phone is sold unlocked.

Or this means unlocked phones are coming to europe.

I suspect selling phones with an extremely good incentive to be with a certain carrier will be enough for Apple. If it would save you $50 a month to be with (Mobistar) then wouldn't that be enough for the majority of people to subscribe with them? Or perhaps a couple hundred dollars up front?

Then Apple can receive their kickbacks from (Mobistar) based upon iPhone subscribers, no negative implied, and avoid the experience dilution that can come about with a user base distributed over numerous networks. (Particularly those that may not support certain features).

Implementation of such a system would be hard, perhaps sell the (unocked) iPhone with say a $300 premium, with an oh so coincidental $300 rebate from Apple after signing with (Mobistar)?

Theres the incentive to be with Mobistar, at no extra cost to Apple or Mobistar to implement. Not saying it should be done, rather that it could be.

[doemel]

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

What's Linux? Why should I care?

Can anyone name major, paradigm-shifting software developments that have come out of Linux? (Please spare me the teary-eyed stuff about the beauty of "collective development" etc a la the Wikipedia model).

And, considering that many people see it as an alternative to Windows, would you please include in that an argument why it has a market share of about 1%?

You, sir, don't have a clue. The main reason for the weak market share of Linux is to be seen in the optionitis that plagues the Linux world, i.e. the lack of consolidating forces to relieve users outside the geek realm of the unneccessary choices you have to make.

[ikir]

Originally Posted by gar

I understand what he says about Microsoft.
But he is talking crap about Mac OSX.

My 400mhz G3 Pismo went through 4 OSX upgrades before it died on me (stroke).
Every incarnation of OSX, from 10.1 to 10.4, the machine responded faster, until a point, after I upgraded it to Tiger, it felt almost as fast as OS9.

Both my current 2.33ghz 15" MBP and 2.8ghz iMac feel faster under 10.5 than 10.4.
I know 10.5 needs more resources and slowing some processes down, but if the resources are available, Leopard feels snappier.
So as far as I can see improving performance is still high on Apples agenda.

TOTALLY AGREE with you :-)

[freelander51]

Originally Posted by adamthecarny

I suspect selling phones with an extremely good incentive to be with a certain carrier will be enough for Apple. If it would save you $50 a month to be with (Mobistar) then wouldn't that be enough for the majority of people to subscribe with them? Or perhaps a couple hundred dollars up front?

Then Apple can receive their kickbacks from (Mobistar) based upon iPhone subscribers, no negative implied, and avoid the experience dilution that can come about with a user base distributed over numerous networks. (Particularly those that may not support certain features).

Implementation of such a system would be hard, perhaps sell the (unocked) iPhone with say a $300 premium, with an oh so coincidental $300 rebate from Apple after signing with (Mobistar)?

Theres the incentive to be with Mobistar, at no extra cost to Apple or Mobistar to implement. Not saying it should be done, rather that it could be.

Your scenario would not work as belgian law forbids to ceate a financial incentive for 'coupled' sales. So the 300$ mail in rebate would just simply not work. Granted, mobistar has an excellent EDGE network -and is incidentally part of the Orange Group, which helps matters I guess.

However BASE (the 3rd operator) has national EDGE coverage as well, whereas Proximus (the leader) does not (very good 3G though).

My guess is that a Belgian deal will be as complicated as can be as the handset will have to be sold unlocked and at the same price for everyone. One could stipulate that you can only bu the handsets in the mobistar centers, so brace yourelf for some hard selling of services, but at the end of the day I would be in my right to ask for a naked handset, walk out of the shop and put my present SIM card in it.

Anyway the only difference between an official iPhone carrier and a non-official is the absence of visual voicemail, which to me is a nice-to-have feature but not a core criterion

[JonasLondon]

Originally Posted by loloeroket

We give Linus too much of attention. He thought he would kick Bill Gates out from #1 in the OS impersonation biz but became #3 with the raise of Mac OS X (represented by Steve Jobs).

Now on the technical level, Linux is interesting for labs but running linux on mission critical environment is a huge problem because the non integration between Hardware and software. IMHO it was already a big issue with Windows but when a server is failing your linux doesn't understand what's going on, which is not the case with a Mac Server. Not to mention the ability to power on/off a XSERVE/XRAID remotely. Not to mention Apple Hardware superior design, I am not talking about the looks here.
That's why after running Windows servers with crappy Windows (which requires a monthly reboot in the best case scenario), trying Linux I am now using Mac OS X as servers. We can benefit from all the Open Source solutions on top of top quality servers, top quality OS.

For me linux is good to recycle all old computers with a console machine, very useful to test solutions in dev environment. Of course the linux approach is to equip tons of "boxes" as fail over so when one fails, there is always another to take the relay. It's a conception not mine.

Now as some of you said previously, to give a linux box as desktop computer is the best way to train a generation of geeks or computer haters!
Sorry but Linux is not ready for prime time yet. Windows is dead until Microsoft go back to white board. Still they proved there inability in doing so in the past and in case they would be successful it would take them 10 years to reach prime time, so I am sorry Linus to disappoint you but as much as I find your contribution invaluable, you are not in you league here. We are dealing with bigger scale here. And Mac OS X, MAc OS X Server iphone, Apple TVs are showing the way to modern era of OS that has no equivalent today. If you consider GPS systems in cars, their interface sucks, those people who design this type of products have no clue on how making their system intuitive to everybody. Until Apple TV, TVs menu sucked big time, not to mention phone before the iphone. I can give plenty of other examples excerpt from our day to day life to illustrate this hardware-software integration. That's why it is clear from beginning that a Windows or a Linux OS are simply an old fashion way to talk to interact with computers.

I believe Linus understood he may take him 30 more years to reach #1 hence his critics !!

My 2 cts...

I TOTALLY agree with your and other's statements about
a) having tried Linux for the sake of geekyness,
b) left it frustrated because either audio stuff was incompatible, or servers were a pain to configure*
c) I could never support that kind of "not one installation is the same" - yes, true, there are thousands of friendly people out there willing to help you if you've got a problem with Linux (or Windows). But the reality is, all these installations vary so much by versions, add-ons, plugins, extra packages etc. that it becomes a NIGHTMARE to support others. On the Mac, I establish a iChat Video-Conference in 2 Minutes and I'm sharing their screen if it's not solved on the phone. You choose!

*the real Linux geeks are going to say I just lacked the skills - and that's probably true.
My case in point however is this: On a OS X Server machine (we run only XServe's now - with a reboot for some major installation perhaps every six months - not bi-weekly as on Windows Server 2005 because of security patches btw), a moderately educated guy can install, configure, and maintenance the OS X Server system by himself.

Heck, my parents could take care of setting up email accounts, users and home folders or create another web site. On the server admin and reliability side, Mac OS X wins clearly for us (=that's my work team btw, not my parents and I...).

On the "desktop" side - if you're into Audio, Mr. Linux - have you seen Logic Studio 8? Case closed. Apple wins. And if you don't like Apple Logic 8(it's a world better than 7, try it!), there's Ableton Live (haven't seen it on Linux...), which is used by probably half of the mega-successful producers and DJs today.

Final Cut Studio 2 with Color (formerly a $25,000 software before Apple integrated it into FCS2) and Shake (formerly $10,000+ for a seat - now $500 after Apple took over) - let's not go there - it blows the competition away at a fraction of the price. Granted, Shake is available on Linux, but it costs more than the FCS2 package PLUS Shake on OS X...

Hardware and file-system - "a crap file-system" WHAT is the Linux guru on about?!

I have not done defragmentation on my drives (OS X soft-RAID) in FOUR years! I have also not had any file-system corruption... how is this"crap"? "Crap" is a very extreme, unprofessional way of talking about your copetition anyway. I would never say Linux is "crap", nor is Windows Vista crap (that was a difficult thing to put in writing though, as the security-warnings drive you bonkers). But they're far from the user-friendliness and the overall "getting-things-done-factor" that Apple OS X 10.5.1 offers me (or Tiger, I liked it all along).

For the Windooze camp - we can still successfully run all current professional applications in their newest form (Adobe CS3, Apple Final Cut Studio 2, ...) on the most modern OS (10.5.1) on a 5-year old PowerBook G4.... try that with Vista Premium.

Oh, of course, all the new Macs run Windows XP and Vista, in many cases faster than the Dell's out there. And we haven't touched design yet, and we don't have to.

Enjoy your Macs folks and Welcome on over Linux and Windows people, give it a try for a week, two weeks, ....
Jonas

PS: I like most of the things Apple brings out, but I am not using their hard- and software because I am an Apple-fanboy or only care about superior design and usability.

I use it because it allows me to spend 99% of my time doing productive, fun things that deliver professional results - from fail-proof Servers to HD-Video-Editing with professional-level Color correction and special effects. The 1% is the time I spend on installing NEW software, not partitioning my hard-drive or defragmenting like the bad old days of M$.

[nvidia2008]

Originally Posted by loloeroket

...which is not the case with a Mac Server. Not to mention the ability to power on/off a XSERVE/XRAID remotely. Not to mention Apple Hardware superior design, I am not talking about the looks here.
That's why after running Windows servers with crappy Windows (which requires a monthly reboot in the best case scenario), trying Linux I am now using Mac OS X as servers. We can benefit from all the Open Source solutions on top of top quality servers, top quality OS....

Have you tried much NetBoot+NetInstall? I was blown away by it. There is the nasty DHCP "interface not found" or something like that bug for 10.5 Server fresh install. Other than that, OS X Leopard Server is rather impressive.

I know Linux has NetBoot etc. but I get the impression that it is nowhere near what OS X does with images (even on Leopard Client).

Windows server admins are really different. They think differently (as in from Mac users & admins), and are there to be happy to babysit beige boxes.

I notice that Mac Server admins, honestly, start to focus on solving the problems and improving things rather than be content that
"they as admins are so needed because nobody else knows WTF is always going wrong with the Windows server and desktop boxes".

[nvidia2008]

Originally Posted by JonasLondon

... I use it because it allows me to spend 99% of my time doing productive, fun things that deliver professional results - from fail-proof Servers to HD-Video-Editing with professional-level Color correction and special effects. The 1% is the time I spend on installing NEW software, not partitioning my hard-drive or defragmenting like the bad old days of M$.

Perfect example of a level-headed Mac Admin... what I mentioned in my previous post. Call me a fanboy or n00b, but when your mobile phone is going off the hook every hour because of someone in your office downloading a Trojan or something else...

[Mr. H]

Originally Posted by nvidia2008

but when your mobile phone is going off the hook every hour because of someone in your office downloading a Trojan or something else...

I think you picked the wrong example there. There's nothing (within reason*) that an OS can do to protect against Trojans. Technically, all OSes are equally vulnerable, it's just that there are more Windows Trojans than anything else because of Windows' market share.


* A few possibilities are:

• Only allowing signed programs to run on the OS.
• Keeping all non-signed programs in a "sandbox".
• Analysing the program with a cunning algorithm before running it to try and determine whether it wants to do nefarious things, and not running it if there's any doubt.

[bluedalmatian]

Linux is first class as a server OS but on the desktop it doesnt even come close.
You'd be suprised how much of the worlds infrastructure is running Linux quietly behind the scenes,(servers, embedded devices etc) but as a workstation OS it doesnt stand a chance in its current state.

[irnchriz]

Originally Posted by Mr. H

I think you picked the wrong example there. There's nothing (within reason*) that an OS can do to protect against Trojans. Technically, all OSes are equally vulnerable, it's just that there are more Windows Trojans than anything else because of Windows' market share.


* A few possibilities are:

• Only allowing signed programs to run on the OS.
• Keeping all non-signed programs in a "sandbox".
• Analysing the program with a cunning algorithm before running it to try and determine whether it wants to do nefarious things, and not running it if there's any doubt.

'it's just that there are more Windows Trojans than anything else because of Windows' market share'

That old chestnut!

When will you get it into your head, it is technically possible to infect OS X if you install the offending program and give it root access. However this has not happened 'in the wild'

Due to legacy compatibility, windows has more holes in it than a string vest. Leaving more opportunities for rogue software to be run by the user or run without the user knowing.

As to Mr. Torvalds

As a server base its ace (we run it as a base for vmware to run multiple MS 2003 server installs)

Linux Desktop is basically done for free and as the saying goes 'if you pay peanuts...'

[Walter Slocombe]

I agree with most of what has been posted here, its not fanboyish ravings either, its well reasoned and sound "in the field" experience.

I spent a while on Linux, and it was a breath of fresh air, but ultimately it was that which sent me on to Apple.

-

Now! "Crap" I'd love to know what he defines "crap" as? in my neck of the woods it's "sh1t" and to be honest, no matter how much I respect LT, to me at least, it sounds like he is talking a LOT of "Crap"

[Olternaut]

Originally Posted by jpferreira

things are not looking good, eh? just a few months ago linux was the major alternative [windows mobile]. now we have android and the 'almost' perfect os x...

things turned out to be not as easy as you expected, right linus?

But android is linux. I thought the point of linux was to have as he said an open source operating system, decentralized, that runs in the background so the applications become more important. If android succeeds then linus torvolds succeeds.

[Mr. H]

Originally Posted by irnchriz

'it's just that there are more Windows Trojans than anything else because of Windows' market share'

That old chestnut!

When will you get it into your head, it is technically possible to infect OS X if you install the offending program and give it root access. However this has not happened 'in the wild'

Due to legacy compatibility, windows has more holes in it than a string vest. Leaving more opportunities for rogue software to be run by the user or run without the user knowing.

I think you need to go back and re-read my post over and over until you get it into your head that:

• I understand (unlike most people) the difference between Trojans, Worms and Viruses.
• I clearly stated that there is nothing an OS can do to protect against Trojans, and that therefore all OSes are equally susceptible to them.

There are more Trojans for Windows than other platforms - fact
This is because Windows has a higher market share - fact
It does not reflect upon the technical merits/detriments of Windows or other OSes - fact

A Trojan is a program that makes users think they want it, so the user installs it and runs it. Then it does nasty things instead-of/in-addition-to the things the user thought it would do. The Trojan tricks the user and there's nothing an OS can do about that.

[auxio]

I think that the investors and "on the surface" computer users here are missing the point about Linux. Yes, it's more anarchic and can be more archaic to use in a lot of ways. I wouldn't recommend it to any casual computer user who doesn't care about the internal details of their computer (unless it's been pre-configured for everything they need).

However, the big excitement about Linux is for small companies who want to create new devices and prototype hardware easily without getting bogged down in royalties, licensing issues, and trying to get support from Microsoft or Apple.

I worked on some custom hardware in the past, and I can tell you that working with Linux was a breath of fresh air compared to trying to get Microsoft's attention with regard to upcoming hardware support in Windows CE. Firewire industrial camera support isn't there yet? Just write it in yourself in Linux or hold your breath waiting for Microsoft to care if you're not a big company. Using a custom LCD display? Not going to happen on Windows or Mac OS unless someone before you has pushed for it.

And for application development, I agree about the lock-in. I remember a few years back I was at the ADC talking to the Apple engineers about using Java for an application which needed to run cross-platform, and getting access to some of the native stuff specific to Mac OS X from Java, and it was like I was an alien. As soon as you mention the words "cross platform", people start to tune out.

Obviously, I understand that in the world of business, it doesn't make sense to help people support platforms other than your own. However, as someone who simply enjoys creating new technology, it's frustrating to hit the "business wall". That's where Linux is more enjoyable to use, and why it's the most popular platform for embedded systems and devices. Most of you probably already have one or more devices in your home which run Linux, but you just don't see it.

[akhomerun]

I don't get why Linus thinks that OS X follows the Windows approach to bloat.

It has required more RAM as time has gone by, but between OS 10.0-10.5 each upgrade has been faster and more responsive. Many of you here have said this through personal experience. But really, if you can't afford $40 a GB to upgrade your RAM to run OS X, then maybe you are just too cheap for a commercial OS.

As far as the file system being a mess, 99.9% of users can't tell the difference. And it's not like Apple isn't looking at ZFS.

Linux has its own problems that are much more severe than the direction Apple and Microsoft are going in.

[macinthe408]

What Linus says about OS's in general affect about 98% of the computer using population.

In fact my grandpa the other day, while emailing a picture of himself playing Bingo and waxing his 1988 Buick Electra, was pissed off at how long it took to attach said pictures.

He attributed the delay to "that gosh darn file system in OS X! If I were using Linux, it would have been faster by 0.16 seconds."

It's like the Toyota Camry: Yes, it's the ugliest car in the world and doesn't handle well in the turns at Laguna Seca. But that affects about, oh, 12 of us in the whole wide world.

Linus needs to "change the world" and quit bitching when he doesn't. Didn't he say he was going to do that, like, 12 years ago?

[JonasLondon]

Originally Posted by macinthe408

...
In fact my grandpa the other day, while emailing a picture of himself playing Bingo and waxing his 1988 Buick Electra, was pissed off at how long it took to attach said pictures.

He attributed the delay to "that gosh darn file system in OS X! If I were using Linux, it would have been faster by 0.16 seconds."

...?

ROFL!!

[Koose1]

Originally Posted by Lemmy Caution

"...manufacturing costs accounted for only 50 percent of each unit before factoring marketing and sales into the equation."

Yeah, and frontloaded R&D costs apparently don't figure into this equation at all. Tool.

R&D never figures into the cost of a producing any product. Besides that, it is logically and theoretically inconsistent to do so. As a side note, in-house R&D must be expensed in the period incurred and is never capitalized unless it for certain types of software - that is the only exception. However, products can be made potentially for many years.

The reason for not tying R&D expense to any product is that the fruits of R&D can become evident in multiple products down the line or in none. The benefits of R&D remains open indefinitely. In theory, R&D is essentially a sunk cost. Seriously, if we were to look at things from your point of view, then the application of R&D to product cost could potentially be duplicated and this would result in major inconsistencies. Also, what kind of cost do you associate it with? Is it a fixed cost or variable cost? It is fixed. Is it a product cost or a period cost? It is a period cost. Plus, it is an indirect cost since it cannot be really be traceable to a single product (again, the number of products that ultimately will benefit from the research is indeterminable).

Other period costs like sales and marketing should really not factor into product costs either. Since these are administrative costs as well as period costs, they can only factor into units sold during the period in determining net income by product line (if such costs can be traced to the product).