The probability that Windows Server takes large amounts of share from Linux/BSD + Apache remains remote. There is a lot of growth for Windows Server but mostly for workgroup servers.
Apache gained 1% share in January. That said, I run Apache on Windows rather than IIS sometimes.[quote]
I don't know about that. It's been gaining over time. One very small setback doesn't change that.
Quote:
No, netscape did not. First, the only reason that IE really gained share was because Netscape said they were going to start charging for their browser. Second, Netscape made most of their money from servers which they sure as heck weren't giving away. Also, all of Netscape's technology was largely built off work done at NCSA by the principles.
Of course they did. The reason why IE gained marketshare was because it went to a free model, when everyone else had tocharge. That's the old monopoly profits talking. Netscape charged from the very beginning. I paid $39.95 for it when it first came out, and even got a Netscape cap.
It was only after IE made little momentun against it that MS decided to give it away.
As is well known in economic theory, a so so free product often can drive a good but paid product out of existence.
This isn't the only time MS has done this.
You also forget that MS lost the case against them over this.
Quote:
Netscape destroyed itself by both claiming to want to start charging for their browser and not improving that browser much until after IE started eating it for lunch. Both Netscape and MS indulged in non-standard extension to their browsers.
You've gotten history backwards. Totally.
Quote:
Really? MOST of the PC World?
Read almost any article about IE vs almost anything else.
Quote:
I said I don't mind if it happened. Not that I necessarily wanted it to. Which is better than wishing ill on Linux like you do.
I'm realistic. This is a world where things compete in the marketplace. I back one, that, of necessity means that I DON'T back another.
Quote:
Gee, I wonder where I wrote that? Oh, nowhere. I said that MS HAD that power and from a consumer perspective we did rather well.
I didn't say you wrote it. You were hinting it though. It's just a fact.
Quote:
So, you cannot name another computing company that you think would have done a better job than evil old MS eh?
That's not a sly question. It's a pointless one. We're talking about a company that does have that power. What's the point in bringing up something that never existed? Do you want to write a book about alternative history?
I already said, in response to this question, that I wouldn't want to see any company in that position. That should be a good answer. I even included Apple. That should have been a GREAT answer.
Quote:
MS is one of the more aggressive companies looking to innovate. I'm sure that you can't see that but they have been either through their own research (they do quite a bit) or acquisition.
That's one of the biggest jokes going around, MS innovating.
Quote:
Try developing Java on OSX. I need to buy a new laptop because of Apple's policy toward Java.
That's not an answer to the previous point.
Quote:
Say what? CP/M was more than $40. Name any other commercial operating system you could get for $40.
You were talking about thousands for OS's. I don't remember any personal computer OS that cost anywhere near that. Most early machines came with the OS, and updates were free. Same thing for programs.
Apple only started to charge anything with System 7, because they saw MS making so much money over it.
Quote:
So, it should be easy then to name another company in the 80s that was doing that. MS made two things extremely cheap: Operating systems and office suites. Wang was selling word processing machines for over $5000 when the PC could do it for far less.
MS didn't make anything cheap in the 80's. IBM made the OS cheap. MS followed along.
It wasn't MS that was responsible for that. MS didn't even come up with the idea of a computer OS. If They weren't lucky, and a bit underhanded, they wouldn't even of had the OS for IBM, as we all know. They would have been relegated to making the Basic program for IBM for which they were hired in the first place, and today, MS might not even be around.
MS didn't even come up with the first word processing program. XYWrite, and Wordperfect were much earlier and far more popular until Windows came out. electric Pencil was one of the first easy to use word processors, and there were some very good ones for the Atari, Amiga, Commodore, etc., before Apple hired MS to write Word for them.
Quote:
Oh get real...those TCO numbers are relevant for businesses but not households where the initial capital costs are the main barriers to entry.
Yes, they are relevant for business. business and government still buys at least 50% of PC sold. But even for individuals, the Mac is a good buy. You can poll the people here.
Quote:
Their motives are the same as any other company...to make money. The upside to MS is that their business strategy is geared toward making computing a commodity product. Commodity products are typically cheaper.
Yes, they absolutely are. And they should be. I've had to defend Apple on this point as well. I don't argue with it.
Quote:
Given that my professional career started during this transition period I cannot imagine a better outcome than what MS has provided for the masses. NONE of the other companies at the time, despite opportunity, did what MS consistently did: drive computing costs down while maintaining a working business model.
Not Atari (dead), not Commodore (dead), not Apple, not IBM, not DEC, not Sun...no one.
We can thank IBM for that. I remember the reviews of the first IBM PC. Almost to a man, they said that the Apple II was equal, or possibly even a slightly better machine, but that the PC would sell because of three things.
I B M
Nowhere was MS mentioned as the reason.
The original IBM PC, in its basic version was $1,600 without a monitor, of course. Pretty cheap for it's time from a company such as IBM, about the same price as the Apple II, but with far more cache.
Once Phoenix clean roomed IBM's BIOS, the race was on. Imagine if IBM decided to not allow MS to sell PC-DOS?
Quote:
The point is that in the hands of any other company it would have been far worse.
It could have been, but it might have been better. We just don't know! There's no way to know, and what matters is what did happen, and what we do know.
Quote:
Ivory tower experts perhaps. Yes, I've heard it said but not one can point to a better model that gets us to where we are today.
I guess if an expert disagrees they live in an ivory tower, but if they agree, they don't?
Quote:
BS. Look at the unix market when it was dominant. A bazillion flavors of unix from a bazillion different vendors and prices were idiotic across the board.
BS yourself Vinea. Why even say that? You're talking about mainframe and mini computer manufacturers. not only did they all have their own flavor of Unix, but they all had their own processors, etc.
The PC world is very different. Now, everyone uses the same chip families. There is a price mindset. Competition would drive software prices down, not up.
Quote:
Most things killed themselves. Atari...killed itself. Commodore...killed itself. You forget Dell, Gateway, Micron and the other clone makers. You forget how quickly the cost of computing dropped. You forget how quickly real computing power expanded. Without that common platform we wouldn't have had PC based gaming and the HUGE explosion in GPU capabilities because everyone else had their own homegrown graphics capabilities which absolutely killed SGI and pretty much gave everyone a $25,000 SGI class workstation on their desktop with a $150 graphics card.
There was bad management in numerous companies. That's true. But with a lot of these companies, it was the PC that drove them out of business ultimately. They simply couldn't compete against that. They were too small.
Advances were coming no matter what. And as I said, it's been considered that they slowed down with the advent of the PC (as opposed to the pc).
MS has had bad management as well. They've lost billions on other businesses.
Quote:
We were very lucky to have MS and Gates at that important point in history.
I'm still waiting for something of intrinsic development value to come out of your thought process on being glad Linux runs Flash slow as well.
Both platforms cut down the time to market for both platforms and gives Adobe a broad pool of free QA developers to help them fix this junk.
It's very simple. I back OS X. I'd like to see it take much more marketshare that it has.
So everything that hinders that progress is something I'd rather not see. If Windows hinders that, I smile at Vista's problems. If Linux distro's have driver problems and such, I smile at that.
I'm just being honest. I don't believe in pretending to think otherwise.
But in answer to Vinea, I did say that I think the ideal situation for the computer world in general would be about an even split between Windows, OS X and some form of Unix, Linux based or otherwise.
There can't be that little money if they're paying accountants to handle it all! Isn't AI one of the most visited Apple sites? There's a good ammount of advertising (far more than Daring Fireball) being delivered to a key demographic (tech enthusiasts happy to pay for premium products), so I would think revenue is pretty healthy.
And what about these paid webmasters? If they're incapable of developing a mobile version of the site, maybe it's time to hire a new webmaster. Moderators almost never get paid for any forum, so I don't think that's a valid comparison.
here is advertising, and so there is money. but there isn't money like you can find in a Newegg, or some other online retailer. The WSJ charges $99 a year ($49 if you subscribe to the print version). The Times has stated that it's losing money on its online site where they don't charge a fee.
Daring Fireball had less Ads, but it's also a far smaller site. Basically a few small articles a day, with no forums or anything else.
At least lately he has listened to me when I berated him for putting up that hysterical article about Apple owning all of multitouch, and put up the one I posted here also.
It's very simple. I back OS X. I'd like to see it take much more marketshare that it has.
So everything that hinders that progress is something I'd rather not see. If Windows hinders that, I smile at Vista's problems. If Linux distro's have driver problems and such, I smile at that.
I'm just being honest. I don't believe in pretending to think otherwise.
That's not quite right. I think it's silly to equate a Linux gain as an Apple loss or a Linux loss as an Apple gain. There is some of that, but not much, and for the most part, they're not serving the same markets anyway, I don't think most of the people that use Linux would really consider Apple. Not only that, Apple gets several benefits from the Linux ecosystem by using many of the projects whose existence or much of the continuing maintenance was done by Linux users and for the benefit of Linux users.
If no one came here, who would the Ads be speaking to? How much could AI charge? What would be the purpose of the site?
I can't answer to how many Ads, or what kinds. I'm just saying that sites must be paid for somehow.
If there are no Ads, and no one pays a subscription fee, how do YOU propose to pay the expenses?
AI is going to need to have a business model that works in the real world. I hate to tell you but the overabundance of ads drives people to block them all. I can't read the main page of AI on my work-supplied winmobile stupidphone because there is sooooo much ad content I can't wade through it all to find the headlines. I'm not going to click on any of the ads anyway. Not on my Mac and esp. not from my winmobile stupidphone.
This is like saying my I owe it to my local NBC affliate to watch 8 minutes of their ads for 22 minutes of content. With my DVR I watch almost zero ads and still get the 22 minutes of content. If they are going to stick with that business model they are going to have some serious problems. Same with AI, esp as Safari gets better adblocking and flashblocking software options.
I could click the affiliate links from the Mac Price Guide page, but mostly that requires me to share browsing and purchasing information with these shady characters:
That's not quite right. I think it's silly to equate a Linux gain as an Apple loss or a Linux loss as an Apple gain. There is some of that, but not much, and for the most part, they're not serving the same markets anyway, I don't think most of the people that use Linux would really consider Apple. Not only that, Apple gets several benefits from the Linux ecosystem by using many of the projects whose existence or much of the continuing maintenance was done by Linux users and for the benefit of Linux users.
I'd say most Linux folks want both platforms, but don't want to pay for what they perceive as a OS X toll in hardware fees.
However, seeing as I'm neither a Mac or Linux guy, but as a NeXT guy, I value both equally for their strengths and weaknesses.
Having both is a boon.
I'm glad I no longer touch Windows. It limits my profit options, but it also destroyed my variety of skillset options.
That's not quite right. I think it's silly to equate a Linux gain as an Apple loss or a Linux loss as an Apple gain. There is some of that, but not much, and for the most part, they're not serving the same markets anyway, I don't think most of the people that use Linux would really consider Apple. Not only that, Apple gets several benefits from the Linux ecosystem by using many of the projects whose existence or much of the continuing maintenance was done by Linux users and for the benefit of Linux users.
If we look at the fact that there will be a certain number of computers sold each year, and that each system will sell a certain percentage of that, then we can easily see that there is a back and forth movement in marketshare.
Right now, Windows is slowly losing marketshare, and OS X is slowly gaining. Linux is up for grabs here, because no one really has good numbers for that,
But, except for the few that use more than one system, the vast majority choose one.
Whichever one they choose means one less user on another system. Even though some people don't believe that marketshare has anything to do with the number of developers of good software, drivers, hardware etc, we know that it does. OS X has many more developer now than it had when it was on the way down, and many were bailing ship.
I have nothing against Linux, even though Torvolds is an ass (as many in the Linux community state as well).
But realistically, I've read in numerous places from many in the computer journals that Linux is really OS X's biggest threat. I believe that. I feel it too.
I've seen more than a number of high profile Linux users over the past few years make the move to OS X, and they've stated the same thing.
As long as Apple sells a big enough percentage of computers as a portion of its dollar sales and profits, they will not license OS X. The higher cost of Macs sadly makes some think that it's not as good a buy as it is.
I know a few Linux users who think that, and have turned to Linux on old Macs, or cheap PCs. Those are lost OS X sales. upon rare occasion one will come back, being frustrated with the limits that Linux has.
I do therefor, see this as a competition, and, as an OSX user, and an Apple investor, I'd rather see all of them come back.
How would that not happen if OS X wasn't better to them, and Linux worse?
I don't want to see Linux disappear. but don't forget that not all those open source projects are for Linux. Many are for Windows, and others for OS X, or even Darwin.
AI is going to need to have a business model that works in the real world. I hate to tell you but the overabundance of ads drives people to block them all. I can't read the main page of AI on my work-supplied winmobile stupidphone because there is sooooo much ad content I can't wade through it all to find the headlines. I'm not going to click on any of the ads anyway. Not on my Mac and esp. not from my winmobile stupidphone.
This is like saying my I owe it to my local NBC affliate to watch 8 minutes of their ads for 22 minutes of content. With my DVR I watch almost zero ads and still get the 22 minutes of content. If they are going to stick with that business model they are going to have some serious problems. Same with AI, esp as Safari gets better adblocking and flashblocking software options.
I could click the affiliate links from the Mac Price Guide page, but mostly that requires me to share browsing and purchasing information with these shady characters:
At least the Amazon affiliate information is self-contained.
Let's put it his way, a few people block all the Ads, most don't.
The problem is that everyone is scrambling to find a way to pay for things.
I asked before, how do you propose to pay for all the expenses?
The old business model worked for decades. It's only a problem now because of technology. Not watching the Ads may be good for you, but it doesn't help them pay the bills.
If you don't trust clicking on any of them, then what else do you propose?
Saying that you don't want to do something is fine, but it doesn't solve the problem.
When I got my iPhone I had to buy a copy of Windows XP and Microsoft Office for Outlook.
I set it up to dual boot and installed iTunes.
I only boot into Windows to sync or install updates.
iTunes doesn't work with Linux.
Safari doesn't work with Linux.
You can't check the iTunes store with Linux.
You can't visit MobileMe with Linux.
I might consider buying a Mac but I derive a great deal of pleasure from creating a PC from a bunch of parts I put together.
I love the first time your creation passes POST and sits there waiting for an OS, somehow walking into a store and buying one just doesn't deliver the same satisfaction.
Using Flash involved running Firefox in 32bit emulation on a 64bit system.
Ads aren't bad, because someone has to pay for this stuff we all like.
This is like the argument about "free" Tv and pay Tv. You pay for it one way or the other.
Would you rather pay for it by seeing a few Ads, or by having to pay a subscription fee for every site you visit?
Do you want to pay a subscription for AI if they don't have Ads? If so, how much? $25 a year? $50 a year? $100 a year?
How many other sites and services do you want to pay for on the web?
Should you always be charged a penny or so whenever you click on a page? Would that be better than Ads?
How do you propose that anything other than commercial sites that are selling you something to begin with, pay for themselves?
How about $1,000 (or more) a year paid into some universal fund?
Have to agree with you Mel but only in part, especially re Flash ads.
Until I installed Click To Flash, I thought that most of the ads, particularly videos were 'Flash'. However, most of the sites I visit don't have Flash ads and if any, only one on the page.
So 'my' concern' and thus my choice to install Click To Flash is it really worth it? This is particularly true using my Macs, but for the iPhone, I don't want to see any ads whatsoever.
Now this just came to a surprise, but when I wrote a script to turn on/off 'Click To Flash' I was a little perplexed that when I thought I had turned it on, I was still seeing ads in spots that I shouldn't be seeing. Well, it turns out that Macworld, for example, superimposes an ad image over its turned off Flash spot after a few seconds. See Additional Comment below
So, now I have to question, is the Flash ads that prevalent that one should block them all the time. Although I feel that most sites that don't employ the technology are significantly cleaner, Apple being the best. However, for those that demand Flash, certainly its rather limited usage is not a profound reason to support it for advertising, that is.
Additional Comment
I just reopened Safari and was surprised to see that AppleInsider had 3 Flash spots, whereas before I am sure there was never more than one. Now it has switched one of the Flash spots to a regular ad.
Current Flash Usage Per Page
9to5mac 0
Anandtech 1
AppleInsider 3
Ars Technica 1
David Alison's Blog 0
Engadget 0
LeopardTracker 0
Mac OS X Hints 0
MacDailyNews 0
Macsurfer 1
MacUpdate 0
MacUser 0
Macworld 2-3
Microsoft 1
Tidbits 1
TÚAW 0
Version Tracker Mac 0; Windows 2; iPhone 0; Palm 0
ZDNet 1
Note Adobe Flash Professional page has a small 'Flash' bar via Click To Flash, but it is only a TYPE headline. Weird.
P.S. FYI, here is an interesting posting on Mac OS X Hints back in 2003 titled, "Stop all advertising banners in web browsers" in which RobG comments, "Here's my obligatory webmaster comment ... if you block all ads all the time, those sites that rely on ad revenue may eventually start charging for access (see recent warnings on Macintouch, MacSurfer, etc.). I leave most ads enabled, only blocking pop-ups and highly annoying Flash ads, and occasionally buy stuff via click-throughs just to support my favorite sites ... one could argue the merits of the advertising-supported web model forever, though, and this hint does provide some good solutions to blocking highly annoying ads." http://www.macosxhints.com/article.p...blocking%2Bads
We weren't talking about AI in particular, but if you don't like to see any ads at all, you don't have to use any site that has them. To block all ads then continue to take a benefit from commercial sites that use them as a means of operation is on the hypocritical side.
This is ridiculous. I know, absolutely, 100%, that I will not purchase anything or subscribe to anything through an online ad. Therefore, the ad serves no purpose to me, except making my browsing experience less enjoyable.
Likewise, me looking at ads on the internet has absolutely no benefit for the advertiser, nor for the site. Therefore, me not looking at ads on the internet has absolutely no negative effect.
If we look at the fact that there will be a certain number of computers sold each year, and that each system will sell a certain percentage of that, then we can easily see that there is a back and forth movement in marketshare.
Right now, Windows is slowly losing marketshare, and OS X is slowly gaining. Linux is up for grabs here, because no one really has good numbers for that,
But, except for the few that use more than one system, the vast majority choose one.
Whichever one they choose means one less user on another system. Even though some people don't believe that marketshare has anything to do with the number of developers of good software, drivers, hardware etc, we know that it does. OS X has many more developer now than it had when it was on the way down, and many were bailing ship.
That's a little like saying a sale for Seiko or Casio is a loss for Rolex, an extreme example, but I don't see anything that would say on a macro scale that Linux is getting anything other than a few customers on the margins, the budget constrained, such as some of your examples, generally aren't going to go for Macs.
Quote:
I have nothing against Linux, even though Torvolds is an ass (as many in the Linux community state as well).
I don't understand your fixation on Torvalds in this discussion. He only works on a small part of the platform. Do you use Macs because you respect Jobs, or do you use them because they do what you want? I hear that Jobs can be kind of a dick too, but that has little bearing on what software I use.
Quote:
I don't want to see Linux disappear. but don't forget that not all those open source projects are for Linux. Many are for Windows, and others for OS X, or even Darwin.
But I can't think of any open source software made originally for Windows and heavily maintained by Windows users that makes it into Apple's stock operating system. But with Linux, there are several that follow the bill with respect to Linux users that are installed within OS X or are available on the install DVD.
Have to agree with you Mel but only in part, especially re Flash ads.
Until I installed Click To Flash, I thought that most of the ads, particularly videos were 'Flash'. However, most of the sites I visit don't have Flash ads and if any, only one on the page.
So 'my' concern' and thus my choice to install Click To Flash is it really worth it? This is particularly true using my Macs, but for the iPhone, I don't want to see any ads whatsoever.
Now this just came to a surprise, but when I wrote a script to turn on/off 'Click To Flash' I was a little perplexed that when I thought I had turned it on, I was still seeing ads in spots that I shouldn't be seeing. Well, it turns out that Macworld, for example, superimposes an ad image over its turned off Flash spot after a few seconds. See Additional Comment below
So, now I have to question, is the Flash ads that prevalent that one should block them all the time. Although I feel that most sites that don't employ the technology are significantly cleaner, Apple being the best. However, for those that demand Flash, certainly its rather limited usage is not a profound reason to support it for advertising, that is.
Additional Comment
I just reopened Safari and was surprised to see that AppleInsider had 3 Flash spots, whereas before I am sure there was never more than one. Now it has switched one of the Flash spots to a regular ad.
Current Flash Usage Per Page
9to5mac 0
Anandtech 1
AppleInsider 3
Ars Technica 1
David Alison's Blog 0
Engadget 0
LeopardTracker 0
Mac OS X Hints 0
MacDailyNews 0
Macsurfer 1
MacUpdate 0
MacUser 0
Macworld 2-3
Microsoft 1
Tidbits 1
TÚAW 0
Version Tracker Mac 0; Windows 2; iPhone 0; Palm 0
ZDNet 1
Note Adobe Flash Professional page has a small 'Flash' bar via Click To Flash, but it is only a TYPE headline. Weird.
P.S. FYI, here is an interesting posting on Mac OS X Hints back in 2003 titled, "Stop all advertising banners in web browsers" in which RobG comments, "Here's my obligatory webmaster comment ... if you block all ads all the time, those sites that rely on ad revenue may eventually start charging for access (see recent warnings on Macintouch, MacSurfer, etc.). I leave most ads enabled, only blocking pop-ups and highly annoying Flash ads, and occasionally buy stuff via click-throughs just to support my favorite sites ... one could argue the merits of the advertising-supported web model forever, though, and this hint does provide some good solutions to blocking highly annoying ads." http://www.macosxhints.com/article.p...blocking%2Bads
I agree. I'm certainly not saying that Flash Ads are the most wonderful thing. mostly, I ignore the movement and flashes of colors etc.
The only ones that really bother me are the very rare (I've only seen three so far) ones that actually move into the text space of the article itself, and stay for tens of seconds. THAT'S annoying! Otherwise, I don't find flashing, moving Ads annoying. Ignoring them is very easy. I don't understand why some people seem to have such problems with them. I can only assume that people with ADD have trouble keeping their eyes where they want them to be, and wander over to these Ads.
I do keep the pop-up setting though. Opening an entire page is just wrong.
But RobG is saying exactly what I'm saying. Web sites need income. It's one way or the other.
The problem is that people seem to think that the digital world, because it's so easy to steal things there, should always be totally free. Free of fees, free of advertising to pay for it.
This is ridiculous. I know, absolutely, 100%, that I will not purchase anything or subscribe to anything through an online ad. Therefore, the ad serves no purpose to me, except making my browsing experience less enjoyable.
Likewise, me looking at ads on the internet has absolutely no benefit for the advertiser, nor for the site. Therefore, me not looking at ads on the internet has absolutely no negative effect.
You're wrong in that. It's been shown that even just seeing an Ad for a second is enough to bias you towards the the product, even if you think otherwise.
But, you can be selfish if you want to be. There are always some.
Thinking that you can get something for nothing is a common component of greed, and fraud.
So you block all Ads. If enough people do that, then you will either be paying for many sites directly, or will not have most sites to go to at all.
That's a little like saying a sale for Seiko or Casio is a loss for Rolex, an extreme example, but I don't see anything that would say on a macro scale that Linux is getting anything other than a few customers on the margins, the budget constrained, such as some of your examples, generally aren't going to go for Macs.
Well, of course it is. most people have only one watch. They will decide to go expensive or cheap, but in the end most people will still have only one watch.
From what I remember, many people actually sve up for something they really want. They also buy on credit, though I usually advise against that.
Buying into a Mac or Linux involves more than just the upfront cost.
Quote:
I don't understand your fixation on Torvalds in this discussion. He only works on a small part of the platform. Do you use Macs because you respect Jobs, or do you use them because they do what you want? I hear that Jobs can be kind of a dick too, but that has little bearing on what software I use.
He has far more influence than that. He personally stopped the 3.0 project, because he felt the 2.xxx was good enough. He also has a major say in licensing, and personally approves much of what goes into the kernel, which is all Linux is, for those out there who still don't know that.
He also make off the cuff remarks that are criticised both within the Linux community, and without. Remarks that are, more often than not, ill thought out. Often those are derogatory when pointing to Apple, the Mac and OS X. That annoys me as well.
I bring him up as so many bring up Jobs in the context of Apple, or Gates in the context of MS.
Quote:
But I can't think of any open source software made originally for Windows and heavily maintained by Windows users that makes it into Apple's stock operating system. But with Linux, there are several that follow the bill with respect to Linux users that are installed within OS X or are available on the install DVD.
[/quote]
There are some. but there are many open source projects just directed to OS X, though some of them filter out to Linux and even Windows later on.
I like Flash. Clearly, if it comes to iPhone, it will be optional. Everything has its advantages and disadvantages, that's life. Deal with it. It's not like you don't have a choice. There are plenty more annoying thing in this world than Flash - like war, hunger, crime, disasters, and f**king idiots who put 1000 watt stereos in their car, roll down the windows, and play hip hop turned up to 11 just to annoy me.
Comments
The probability that Windows Server takes large amounts of share from Linux/BSD + Apache remains remote. There is a lot of growth for Windows Server but mostly for workgroup servers.
http://news.netcraft.com/
Apache gained 1% share in January. That said, I run Apache on Windows rather than IIS sometimes.[quote]
I don't know about that. It's been gaining over time. One very small setback doesn't change that.
No, netscape did not. First, the only reason that IE really gained share was because Netscape said they were going to start charging for their browser. Second, Netscape made most of their money from servers which they sure as heck weren't giving away. Also, all of Netscape's technology was largely built off work done at NCSA by the principles.
Of course they did. The reason why IE gained marketshare was because it went to a free model, when everyone else had tocharge. That's the old monopoly profits talking. Netscape charged from the very beginning. I paid $39.95 for it when it first came out, and even got a Netscape cap.
It was only after IE made little momentun against it that MS decided to give it away.
As is well known in economic theory, a so so free product often can drive a good but paid product out of existence.
This isn't the only time MS has done this.
You also forget that MS lost the case against them over this.
Netscape destroyed itself by both claiming to want to start charging for their browser and not improving that browser much until after IE started eating it for lunch. Both Netscape and MS indulged in non-standard extension to their browsers.
You've gotten history backwards. Totally.
Really? MOST of the PC World?
Read almost any article about IE vs almost anything else.
I said I don't mind if it happened. Not that I necessarily wanted it to. Which is better than wishing ill on Linux like you do.
I'm realistic. This is a world where things compete in the marketplace. I back one, that, of necessity means that I DON'T back another.
Gee, I wonder where I wrote that? Oh, nowhere. I said that MS HAD that power and from a consumer perspective we did rather well.
I didn't say you wrote it. You were hinting it though. It's just a fact.
So, you cannot name another computing company that you think would have done a better job than evil old MS eh?
That's not a sly question. It's a pointless one. We're talking about a company that does have that power. What's the point in bringing up something that never existed? Do you want to write a book about alternative history?
I already said, in response to this question, that I wouldn't want to see any company in that position. That should be a good answer. I even included Apple. That should have been a GREAT answer.
MS is one of the more aggressive companies looking to innovate. I'm sure that you can't see that but they have been either through their own research (they do quite a bit) or acquisition.
That's one of the biggest jokes going around, MS innovating.
Try developing Java on OSX. I need to buy a new laptop because of Apple's policy toward Java.
That's not an answer to the previous point.
Say what? CP/M was more than $40. Name any other commercial operating system you could get for $40.
You were talking about thousands for OS's. I don't remember any personal computer OS that cost anywhere near that. Most early machines came with the OS, and updates were free. Same thing for programs.
Apple only started to charge anything with System 7, because they saw MS making so much money over it.
So, it should be easy then to name another company in the 80s that was doing that. MS made two things extremely cheap: Operating systems and office suites. Wang was selling word processing machines for over $5000 when the PC could do it for far less.
MS didn't make anything cheap in the 80's. IBM made the OS cheap. MS followed along.
It wasn't MS that was responsible for that. MS didn't even come up with the idea of a computer OS. If They weren't lucky, and a bit underhanded, they wouldn't even of had the OS for IBM, as we all know. They would have been relegated to making the Basic program for IBM for which they were hired in the first place, and today, MS might not even be around.
MS didn't even come up with the first word processing program. XYWrite, and Wordperfect were much earlier and far more popular until Windows came out. electric Pencil was one of the first easy to use word processors, and there were some very good ones for the Atari, Amiga, Commodore, etc., before Apple hired MS to write Word for them.
Oh get real...those TCO numbers are relevant for businesses but not households where the initial capital costs are the main barriers to entry.
Yes, they are relevant for business. business and government still buys at least 50% of PC sold. But even for individuals, the Mac is a good buy. You can poll the people here.
Their motives are the same as any other company...to make money. The upside to MS is that their business strategy is geared toward making computing a commodity product. Commodity products are typically cheaper.
Yes, they absolutely are. And they should be. I've had to defend Apple on this point as well. I don't argue with it.
Given that my professional career started during this transition period I cannot imagine a better outcome than what MS has provided for the masses. NONE of the other companies at the time, despite opportunity, did what MS consistently did: drive computing costs down while maintaining a working business model.
Not Atari (dead), not Commodore (dead), not Apple, not IBM, not DEC, not Sun...no one.
We can thank IBM for that. I remember the reviews of the first IBM PC. Almost to a man, they said that the Apple II was equal, or possibly even a slightly better machine, but that the PC would sell because of three things.
I B M
Nowhere was MS mentioned as the reason.
The original IBM PC, in its basic version was $1,600 without a monitor, of course. Pretty cheap for it's time from a company such as IBM, about the same price as the Apple II, but with far more cache.
Once Phoenix clean roomed IBM's BIOS, the race was on. Imagine if IBM decided to not allow MS to sell PC-DOS?
The point is that in the hands of any other company it would have been far worse.
It could have been, but it might have been better. We just don't know! There's no way to know, and what matters is what did happen, and what we do know.
Ivory tower experts perhaps. Yes, I've heard it said but not one can point to a better model that gets us to where we are today.
I guess if an expert disagrees they live in an ivory tower, but if they agree, they don't?
BS. Look at the unix market when it was dominant. A bazillion flavors of unix from a bazillion different vendors and prices were idiotic across the board.
BS yourself Vinea. Why even say that? You're talking about mainframe and mini computer manufacturers. not only did they all have their own flavor of Unix, but they all had their own processors, etc.
The PC world is very different. Now, everyone uses the same chip families. There is a price mindset. Competition would drive software prices down, not up.
Most things killed themselves. Atari...killed itself. Commodore...killed itself. You forget Dell, Gateway, Micron and the other clone makers. You forget how quickly the cost of computing dropped. You forget how quickly real computing power expanded. Without that common platform we wouldn't have had PC based gaming and the HUGE explosion in GPU capabilities because everyone else had their own homegrown graphics capabilities which absolutely killed SGI and pretty much gave everyone a $25,000 SGI class workstation on their desktop with a $150 graphics card.
There was bad management in numerous companies. That's true. But with a lot of these companies, it was the PC that drove them out of business ultimately. They simply couldn't compete against that. They were too small.
Advances were coming no matter what. And as I said, it's been considered that they slowed down with the advent of the PC (as opposed to the pc).
MS has had bad management as well. They've lost billions on other businesses.
We were very lucky to have MS and Gates at that important point in history.
I wonder!
I'm still waiting for something of intrinsic development value to come out of your thought process on being glad Linux runs Flash slow as well.
Both platforms cut down the time to market for both platforms and gives Adobe a broad pool of free QA developers to help them fix this junk.
It's very simple. I back OS X. I'd like to see it take much more marketshare that it has.
So everything that hinders that progress is something I'd rather not see. If Windows hinders that, I smile at Vista's problems. If Linux distro's have driver problems and such, I smile at that.
I'm just being honest. I don't believe in pretending to think otherwise.
But in answer to Vinea, I did say that I think the ideal situation for the computer world in general would be about an even split between Windows, OS X and some form of Unix, Linux based or otherwise.
There can't be that little money if they're paying accountants to handle it all! Isn't AI one of the most visited Apple sites? There's a good ammount of advertising (far more than Daring Fireball) being delivered to a key demographic (tech enthusiasts happy to pay for premium products), so I would think revenue is pretty healthy.
And what about these paid webmasters? If they're incapable of developing a mobile version of the site, maybe it's time to hire a new webmaster. Moderators almost never get paid for any forum, so I don't think that's a valid comparison.
here is advertising, and so there is money. but there isn't money like you can find in a Newegg, or some other online retailer. The WSJ charges $99 a year ($49 if you subscribe to the print version). The Times has stated that it's losing money on its online site where they don't charge a fee.
Daring Fireball had less Ads, but it's also a far smaller site. Basically a few small articles a day, with no forums or anything else.
At least lately he has listened to me when I berated him for putting up that hysterical article about Apple owning all of multitouch, and put up the one I posted here also.
I'd pay you just to shut up.
Oh, it's so very good that you're back!
What would we do with you?
You are surely AI's conscience, and steadfast righter of wrongs.
And so I salute you sir!
I am abashed!
You are saying that users are responsible for propping up AI's business model?
How many click-through ads am I supposed to be looking at per day? How many Flash banners with dancing silhouettes advertising toxic mortgages?
We are responsible for it, aren't we?
If no one came here, who would the Ads be speaking to? How much could AI charge? What would be the purpose of the site?
I can't answer to how many Ads, or what kinds. I'm just saying that sites must be paid for somehow.
If there are no Ads, and no one pays a subscription fee, how do YOU propose to pay the expenses?
It's very simple. I back OS X. I'd like to see it take much more marketshare that it has.
So everything that hinders that progress is something I'd rather not see. If Windows hinders that, I smile at Vista's problems. If Linux distro's have driver problems and such, I smile at that.
I'm just being honest. I don't believe in pretending to think otherwise.
That's not quite right. I think it's silly to equate a Linux gain as an Apple loss or a Linux loss as an Apple gain. There is some of that, but not much, and for the most part, they're not serving the same markets anyway, I don't think most of the people that use Linux would really consider Apple. Not only that, Apple gets several benefits from the Linux ecosystem by using many of the projects whose existence or much of the continuing maintenance was done by Linux users and for the benefit of Linux users.
We are responsible for it, aren't we?
If no one came here, who would the Ads be speaking to? How much could AI charge? What would be the purpose of the site?
I can't answer to how many Ads, or what kinds. I'm just saying that sites must be paid for somehow.
If there are no Ads, and no one pays a subscription fee, how do YOU propose to pay the expenses?
AI is going to need to have a business model that works in the real world. I hate to tell you but the overabundance of ads drives people to block them all. I can't read the main page of AI on my work-supplied winmobile stupidphone because there is sooooo much ad content I can't wade through it all to find the headlines. I'm not going to click on any of the ads anyway. Not on my Mac and esp. not from my winmobile stupidphone.
This is like saying my I owe it to my local NBC affliate to watch 8 minutes of their ads for 22 minutes of content. With my DVR I watch almost zero ads and still get the 22 minutes of content. If they are going to stick with that business model they are going to have some serious problems. Same with AI, esp as Safari gets better adblocking and flashblocking software options.
I could click the affiliate links from the Mac Price Guide page, but mostly that requires me to share browsing and purchasing information with these shady characters:
- www.anrdoezrs.net
- clickserve.cc-dt.com
- www.kqzyfj.com
- www.tkqlhce.com
- www.jdoqocy.com
At least the Amazon affiliate information is self-contained.That's not quite right. I think it's silly to equate a Linux gain as an Apple loss or a Linux loss as an Apple gain. There is some of that, but not much, and for the most part, they're not serving the same markets anyway, I don't think most of the people that use Linux would really consider Apple. Not only that, Apple gets several benefits from the Linux ecosystem by using many of the projects whose existence or much of the continuing maintenance was done by Linux users and for the benefit of Linux users.
I'd say most Linux folks want both platforms, but don't want to pay for what they perceive as a OS X toll in hardware fees.
However, seeing as I'm neither a Mac or Linux guy, but as a NeXT guy, I value both equally for their strengths and weaknesses.
Having both is a boon.
I'm glad I no longer touch Windows. It limits my profit options, but it also destroyed my variety of skillset options.
That's not quite right. I think it's silly to equate a Linux gain as an Apple loss or a Linux loss as an Apple gain. There is some of that, but not much, and for the most part, they're not serving the same markets anyway, I don't think most of the people that use Linux would really consider Apple. Not only that, Apple gets several benefits from the Linux ecosystem by using many of the projects whose existence or much of the continuing maintenance was done by Linux users and for the benefit of Linux users.
If we look at the fact that there will be a certain number of computers sold each year, and that each system will sell a certain percentage of that, then we can easily see that there is a back and forth movement in marketshare.
Right now, Windows is slowly losing marketshare, and OS X is slowly gaining. Linux is up for grabs here, because no one really has good numbers for that,
But, except for the few that use more than one system, the vast majority choose one.
Whichever one they choose means one less user on another system. Even though some people don't believe that marketshare has anything to do with the number of developers of good software, drivers, hardware etc, we know that it does. OS X has many more developer now than it had when it was on the way down, and many were bailing ship.
I have nothing against Linux, even though Torvolds is an ass (as many in the Linux community state as well).
But realistically, I've read in numerous places from many in the computer journals that Linux is really OS X's biggest threat. I believe that. I feel it too.
I've seen more than a number of high profile Linux users over the past few years make the move to OS X, and they've stated the same thing.
As long as Apple sells a big enough percentage of computers as a portion of its dollar sales and profits, they will not license OS X. The higher cost of Macs sadly makes some think that it's not as good a buy as it is.
I know a few Linux users who think that, and have turned to Linux on old Macs, or cheap PCs. Those are lost OS X sales. upon rare occasion one will come back, being frustrated with the limits that Linux has.
I do therefor, see this as a competition, and, as an OSX user, and an Apple investor, I'd rather see all of them come back.
How would that not happen if OS X wasn't better to them, and Linux worse?
I don't want to see Linux disappear. but don't forget that not all those open source projects are for Linux. Many are for Windows, and others for OS X, or even Darwin.
What's wrong with that?
AI is going to need to have a business model that works in the real world. I hate to tell you but the overabundance of ads drives people to block them all. I can't read the main page of AI on my work-supplied winmobile stupidphone because there is sooooo much ad content I can't wade through it all to find the headlines. I'm not going to click on any of the ads anyway. Not on my Mac and esp. not from my winmobile stupidphone.
This is like saying my I owe it to my local NBC affliate to watch 8 minutes of their ads for 22 minutes of content. With my DVR I watch almost zero ads and still get the 22 minutes of content. If they are going to stick with that business model they are going to have some serious problems. Same with AI, esp as Safari gets better adblocking and flashblocking software options.
I could click the affiliate links from the Mac Price Guide page, but mostly that requires me to share browsing and purchasing information with these shady characters:
- www.anrdoezrs.net
- clickserve.cc-dt.com
- www.kqzyfj.com
- www.tkqlhce.com
- www.jdoqocy.com
At least the Amazon affiliate information is self-contained.Let's put it his way, a few people block all the Ads, most don't.
The problem is that everyone is scrambling to find a way to pay for things.
I asked before, how do you propose to pay for all the expenses?
The old business model worked for decades. It's only a problem now because of technology. Not watching the Ads may be good for you, but it doesn't help them pay the bills.
If you don't trust clicking on any of them, then what else do you propose?
Saying that you don't want to do something is fine, but it doesn't solve the problem.
I'd say most Linux folks want both platforms, but don't want to pay for what they perceive as a OS X toll in hardware fees.
However, seeing as I'm neither a Mac or Linux guy, but a NeXT guy, I value both equally for their strengths and weaknesses.
Having both is a boon.
I'm glad I no longer touch Windows. It limits my profit options, but it also destroyed my variety of skillset options.
That's interesting. So what DO you use? You aren't saying that you are typing your posts on a Next, are you?
When I got my iPhone I had to buy a copy of Windows XP and Microsoft Office for Outlook.
I set it up to dual boot and installed iTunes.
I only boot into Windows to sync or install updates.
iTunes doesn't work with Linux.
Safari doesn't work with Linux.
You can't check the iTunes store with Linux.
You can't visit MobileMe with Linux.
I might consider buying a Mac but I derive a great deal of pleasure from creating a PC from a bunch of parts I put together.
I love the first time your creation passes POST and sits there waiting for an OS, somehow walking into a store and buying one just doesn't deliver the same satisfaction.
Using Flash involved running Firefox in 32bit emulation on a 64bit system.
Ads aren't bad, because someone has to pay for this stuff we all like.
This is like the argument about "free" Tv and pay Tv. You pay for it one way or the other.
Would you rather pay for it by seeing a few Ads, or by having to pay a subscription fee for every site you visit?
Do you want to pay a subscription for AI if they don't have Ads? If so, how much? $25 a year? $50 a year? $100 a year?
How many other sites and services do you want to pay for on the web?
Should you always be charged a penny or so whenever you click on a page? Would that be better than Ads?
How do you propose that anything other than commercial sites that are selling you something to begin with, pay for themselves?
How about $1,000 (or more) a year paid into some universal fund?
Have to agree with you Mel but only in part, especially re Flash ads.
Until I installed Click To Flash, I thought that most of the ads, particularly videos were 'Flash'. However, most of the sites I visit don't have Flash ads and if any, only one on the page.
So 'my' concern' and thus my choice to install Click To Flash is it really worth it? This is particularly true using my Macs, but for the iPhone, I don't want to see any ads whatsoever.
Now this just came to a surprise, but when I wrote a script to turn on/off 'Click To Flash' I was a little perplexed that when I thought I had turned it on, I was still seeing ads in spots that I shouldn't be seeing. Well, it turns out that Macworld, for example, superimposes an ad image over its turned off Flash spot after a few seconds. See Additional Comment below
So, now I have to question, is the Flash ads that prevalent that one should block them all the time. Although I feel that most sites that don't employ the technology are significantly cleaner, Apple being the best. However, for those that demand Flash, certainly its rather limited usage is not a profound reason to support it for advertising, that is.
Additional Comment
I just reopened Safari and was surprised to see that AppleInsider had 3 Flash spots, whereas before I am sure there was never more than one. Now it has switched one of the Flash spots to a regular ad.
Current Flash Usage Per PageNote Adobe Flash Professional page has a small 'Flash' bar via Click To Flash, but it is only a TYPE headline. Weird.
P.S. FYI, here is an interesting posting on Mac OS X Hints back in 2003 titled, "Stop all advertising banners in web browsers" in which RobG comments, "Here's my obligatory webmaster comment ... if you block all ads all the time, those sites that rely on ad revenue may eventually start charging for access (see recent warnings on Macintouch, MacSurfer, etc.). I leave most ads enabled, only blocking pop-ups and highly annoying Flash ads, and occasionally buy stuff via click-throughs just to support my favorite sites ... one could argue the merits of the advertising-supported web model forever, though, and this hint does provide some good solutions to blocking highly annoying ads." http://www.macosxhints.com/article.p...blocking%2Bads
Users completely blocking all ads isn't simply "not propping up" - it's completely sabotaging.
We weren't talking about AI in particular, but if you don't like to see any ads at all, you don't have to use any site that has them. To block all ads then continue to take a benefit from commercial sites that use them as a means of operation is on the hypocritical side.
This is ridiculous. I know, absolutely, 100%, that I will not purchase anything or subscribe to anything through an online ad. Therefore, the ad serves no purpose to me, except making my browsing experience less enjoyable.
Likewise, me looking at ads on the internet has absolutely no benefit for the advertiser, nor for the site. Therefore, me not looking at ads on the internet has absolutely no negative effect.
AI is going to need to have a business model that works in the real world.
That I can tell, it is working so far, though things can change.
What do you suggest as an alternative that would work in the future?
If we look at the fact that there will be a certain number of computers sold each year, and that each system will sell a certain percentage of that, then we can easily see that there is a back and forth movement in marketshare.
Right now, Windows is slowly losing marketshare, and OS X is slowly gaining. Linux is up for grabs here, because no one really has good numbers for that,
But, except for the few that use more than one system, the vast majority choose one.
Whichever one they choose means one less user on another system. Even though some people don't believe that marketshare has anything to do with the number of developers of good software, drivers, hardware etc, we know that it does. OS X has many more developer now than it had when it was on the way down, and many were bailing ship.
That's a little like saying a sale for Seiko or Casio is a loss for Rolex, an extreme example, but I don't see anything that would say on a macro scale that Linux is getting anything other than a few customers on the margins, the budget constrained, such as some of your examples, generally aren't going to go for Macs.
I have nothing against Linux, even though Torvolds is an ass (as many in the Linux community state as well).
I don't understand your fixation on Torvalds in this discussion. He only works on a small part of the platform. Do you use Macs because you respect Jobs, or do you use them because they do what you want? I hear that Jobs can be kind of a dick too, but that has little bearing on what software I use.
I don't want to see Linux disappear. but don't forget that not all those open source projects are for Linux. Many are for Windows, and others for OS X, or even Darwin.
But I can't think of any open source software made originally for Windows and heavily maintained by Windows users that makes it into Apple's stock operating system. But with Linux, there are several that follow the bill with respect to Linux users that are installed within OS X or are available on the install DVD.
Have to agree with you Mel but only in part, especially re Flash ads.
Until I installed Click To Flash, I thought that most of the ads, particularly videos were 'Flash'. However, most of the sites I visit don't have Flash ads and if any, only one on the page.
So 'my' concern' and thus my choice to install Click To Flash is it really worth it? This is particularly true using my Macs, but for the iPhone, I don't want to see any ads whatsoever.
Now this just came to a surprise, but when I wrote a script to turn on/off 'Click To Flash' I was a little perplexed that when I thought I had turned it on, I was still seeing ads in spots that I shouldn't be seeing. Well, it turns out that Macworld, for example, superimposes an ad image over its turned off Flash spot after a few seconds. See Additional Comment below
So, now I have to question, is the Flash ads that prevalent that one should block them all the time. Although I feel that most sites that don't employ the technology are significantly cleaner, Apple being the best. However, for those that demand Flash, certainly its rather limited usage is not a profound reason to support it for advertising, that is.
Additional Comment
I just reopened Safari and was surprised to see that AppleInsider had 3 Flash spots, whereas before I am sure there was never more than one. Now it has switched one of the Flash spots to a regular ad.
Current Flash Usage Per Page
P.S. FYI, here is an interesting posting on Mac OS X Hints back in 2003 titled, "Stop all advertising banners in web browsers" in which RobG comments, "Here's my obligatory webmaster comment ... if you block all ads all the time, those sites that rely on ad revenue may eventually start charging for access (see recent warnings on Macintouch, MacSurfer, etc.). I leave most ads enabled, only blocking pop-ups and highly annoying Flash ads, and occasionally buy stuff via click-throughs just to support my favorite sites ... one could argue the merits of the advertising-supported web model forever, though, and this hint does provide some good solutions to blocking highly annoying ads." http://www.macosxhints.com/article.p...blocking%2Bads
I agree. I'm certainly not saying that Flash Ads are the most wonderful thing. mostly, I ignore the movement and flashes of colors etc.
The only ones that really bother me are the very rare (I've only seen three so far) ones that actually move into the text space of the article itself, and stay for tens of seconds. THAT'S annoying! Otherwise, I don't find flashing, moving Ads annoying. Ignoring them is very easy. I don't understand why some people seem to have such problems with them. I can only assume that people with ADD have trouble keeping their eyes where they want them to be, and wander over to these Ads.
I do keep the pop-up setting though. Opening an entire page is just wrong.
But RobG is saying exactly what I'm saying. Web sites need income. It's one way or the other.
The problem is that people seem to think that the digital world, because it's so easy to steal things there, should always be totally free. Free of fees, free of advertising to pay for it.
Ain't gonna happen!
This is ridiculous. I know, absolutely, 100%, that I will not purchase anything or subscribe to anything through an online ad. Therefore, the ad serves no purpose to me, except making my browsing experience less enjoyable.
Likewise, me looking at ads on the internet has absolutely no benefit for the advertiser, nor for the site. Therefore, me not looking at ads on the internet has absolutely no negative effect.
You're wrong in that. It's been shown that even just seeing an Ad for a second is enough to bias you towards the the product, even if you think otherwise.
But, you can be selfish if you want to be. There are always some.
Thinking that you can get something for nothing is a common component of greed, and fraud.
So you block all Ads. If enough people do that, then you will either be paying for many sites directly, or will not have most sites to go to at all.
You lose either way.
That's a little like saying a sale for Seiko or Casio is a loss for Rolex, an extreme example, but I don't see anything that would say on a macro scale that Linux is getting anything other than a few customers on the margins, the budget constrained, such as some of your examples, generally aren't going to go for Macs.
Well, of course it is. most people have only one watch. They will decide to go expensive or cheap, but in the end most people will still have only one watch.
From what I remember, many people actually sve up for something they really want. They also buy on credit, though I usually advise against that.
Buying into a Mac or Linux involves more than just the upfront cost.
I don't understand your fixation on Torvalds in this discussion. He only works on a small part of the platform. Do you use Macs because you respect Jobs, or do you use them because they do what you want? I hear that Jobs can be kind of a dick too, but that has little bearing on what software I use.
He has far more influence than that. He personally stopped the 3.0 project, because he felt the 2.xxx was good enough. He also has a major say in licensing, and personally approves much of what goes into the kernel, which is all Linux is, for those out there who still don't know that.
He also make off the cuff remarks that are criticised both within the Linux community, and without. Remarks that are, more often than not, ill thought out. Often those are derogatory when pointing to Apple, the Mac and OS X. That annoys me as well.
I bring him up as so many bring up Jobs in the context of Apple, or Gates in the context of MS.
But I can't think of any open source software made originally for Windows and heavily maintained by Windows users that makes it into Apple's stock operating system. But with Linux, there are several that follow the bill with respect to Linux users that are installed within OS X or are available on the install DVD.
[/quote]
There are some. but there are many open source projects just directed to OS X, though some of them filter out to Linux and even Windows later on.