|
Description
I firmly believe there is no reason why Ubuntu can't work together with a company like Apple. I would love to see some of apple's proprietary software ported to Linux. A more user friendly way of accessing Apple hardware would be nice too. The idea behind such a merger would be the idea of kicking Microsoft when it's down. With how poorly Vista is doing, now is the time to team up with all of Microsoft's rivals and kick Microsoft off it's high horse.
Tags:
(none)
Attachments
No attachments.
Duplicates
Comments
|
josephcmiller2 wrote on the 8 Mar 08 at 20:32
| |
Apple doesn't appear to be a large supporter of *free* (as in speech) software. I think that this is a bad move and against the Ubuntu movement. Ubuntu isn't supposed to be just a replacement of another operating system, it is a *different* operating system. Apple is just another proprietary vendor like Microsoft, they simply make better software.
|
|
bigdufstuff wrote on the 8 Mar 08 at 21:20
| |
Do you understand Free software? How does teaming up with non-Free providers help free software? Until Apple changes their license this is a horrible idea.
|
|
cheesehead wrote on the 8 Mar 08 at 21:29
|
Linux is not is not OS X. Nor Windows. Each have different strengths and weaknesses.
Why would we want Apple's buggy, bloated, proprietary tools on Linux? What, exactly, are they willing to *give* away that we can't already do?
They may look cool, but bling is cheap. Really free and community-driven software is much more valuable.
|
|
Mad_Duck wrote on the 8 Mar 08 at 21:37
| |
Consider that if you read the fine print on iTunes/iPods licensing (or the 3 year lock-in with AT&T on the US iPhone), what you're allowed to do and not allowed to do with physical stuff & DRM'ed proprietary software that you have bought & paid for could almost bee the textbook definition of 'Draconian'
|
|
spyyder wrote on the 8 Mar 08 at 22:33
| |
Why so stubborn about Apple guys, they have more market share than Ubuntu for a reason! This anti-mac anti-windows attidute has got to stop. These companies own computing because they are doing something right, either mimic, or be just another lame OS.
|
|
xvedejas wrote on the 8 Mar 08 at 22:50
|
The reason not to work with Apple should be obvious; they never would want to. Anything helping Ubuntu could possibly move their customers over, and they don't want that. If if working with them could help us, it would never happen.
And Ubuntu doesn't need to mimic another OS to be great. The point of this site is to come up with great ideas that are new so that Ubuntu is beyond the other OS's. There's more than one way to be great, Ubuntu is going towards the way the users want it to go, not the way Apple or MS want it to go.
|
|
MarcusMaximus wrote on the 8 Mar 08 at 23:24
| |
Agreed, this is a HORRIBLE idea. From using Linux I've discovered that literally everything a Mac can do, Linux can do better. Ubuntu should NOT team up with Apple, what it should do is what it seems like they've been trying to do, make it more user friendly and try to drastically reduce the need of using the shell.
|
|
Auzy wrote on the 9 Mar 08 at 00:31
|
I worked at an Apple premium reseller. And internally, I know a lot of people laugh at Linux (fact). So no chance.
We could learn something off them though. The reason Linux will never catch up to OSX is that it plays more politics then a united states president eg:
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/3868/
That idea proves that most linux people are so closed minded that they will not support anything if it even hints at helping closed source companies a bit (they will only start whinging when their brand new computer doesn't work).
And some peoples logic has just really gotten out of whack me thinks. Apple looks at the big picture, while a lot of vocal linux users want things to stay the same. At the moment, we would actually slow Apple down.
And I'm not saying that to start a flamewar, but when linus said Linux is about having "fun" years ago, people seem too obsessed turning this into some kind of political statement/movement rather then doing what they think makes sense.
So I award you -1, but its not because I hate the idea, its just Apple would not be silly enough to take Linux politics on board.
|
|
Auzy wrote on the 9 Mar 08 at 01:15
| |
And like I said, thats just my opinion.. so everyone has a right to argue against it, but I just feel we need to be more flexible
|
|
kd7tck@msn.com wrote on the 9 Mar 08 at 01:59
| |
The goal of this idea wasn't to give up open source philosophy but rather to work with others to crush a monopolistic corporation. Even if the merger is temporary, it would be worth it so the computer market becomes more diversified. I would love to see people move over to something else other than windows, I would prefer it be linux but mac is almost as good. Why so much hatred for the company that made the window based gui environment popular when microsoft still only used command prompts. It's okay to make software not open sourced as long as the software works great. Which by the way Apple's does. I only get angry when the software doesn't work and the company charges a ridiculous amount of money for it and still doesn't release it into the public sphere. I still can't believe people won't give up a little for a short time to gain a great deal.
|
|
rouge568 wrote on the 9 Mar 08 at 04:56
|
Yet should that be the goal we are striving for? To crush Microsoft? What have they done? There are no big scandals- no embezzlement, harsh working conditions, and their operating system is by no means a pile of s***. See, it works. Not too many OS's can claim that much.
The whole point of opensourced software is that anyone can improve it, to the goal of making a better program for people to use. See, opensource developers don't wake up in the morning and think "Hmmm... how can I take Microsoft down?". They think "Hmmm... how can I fix that menu maze that is confusing my users?". I have no problem with Microsoft. I use Linux because I'm thrifty and it works well for what I need to do. If I needed to use Apple software, I would get a Mac. (but see idea 3443 for getting Mac apps on Linux.) I'm all with Auzy when (s)he said that people are turning into this a "political statement/movement." Truer words were never spoken.
|
|
XSP wrote on the 9 Mar 08 at 06:43
|
Why do people think that Linux is a business? While companies distribute Linux, the core, the essence, is just a bunch of computer hackers doing what they love. They will never team up with a corporation and genuinely resent the idea of closed source software.
Linux is about freedom. Compromising it for any reason is an abomination which is why companies like Novell and Linspire are hated among the Linux purists. The reason this will never happen is simple. They would never agree to do anything "for free" or be willing to release the source for their contributions. Apple only releases the source for things they are legally required to release.
Microsoft and Apple make their money by locking their customers in. Linux generates revenue from support and contributions. Linux isn't about destroying Apple or Microsoft. As a matter of fact, Linus Torvalds could care less about either company and we should be the same. We don't need someone to tell us how things should be done. We can do it ourselves. It's like you're saying we need someone to hold our hands because we can't cross the street ourselves. It's insulting even to suggest it.
Apple users who try Linux often say they love it, but want it to be more like OS X. Microsoft users who like it want it to be more like Windows. Why can't people just wrap their minds around the fact that Linux is completely different and stop trying to make it something that it isn't? And no, this isn't an elitist attitude, it's a concerned one. Giving up my freedoms for features isn't a trade off that I am willing to make.
|
|
jiu wrote on the 9 Mar 08 at 11:43
| |
the simple idea of spending energy kicking someone's butt is outside the scope of free software as I understand it. It's about collaboration, not about squashing competitors.
|
|
kd7tck@msn.com wrote on the 9 Mar 08 at 19:33
|
Why do people think that Linux is a business? While companies distribute Linux, the core, the essence, is just a bunch of computer hackers doing what they love. They will never team up with a corporation and genuinely resent the idea of closed source software.
Linux is about freedom. Compromising it for any reason is an abomination which is why companies like Novell and Linspire are hated among the Linux purists. The reason this will never happen is simple. They would never agree to do anything "for free" or be willing to release the source for their contributions. Apple only releases the source for things they are legally required to release.
Microsoft and Apple make their money by locking their customers in. Linux generates revenue from support and contributions. Linux isn't about destroying Apple or Microsoft. As a matter of fact, Linus Torvalds could care less about either company and we should be the same. We don't need someone to tell us how things should be done. We can do it ourselves. It's like you're saying we need someone to hold our hands because we can't cross the street ourselves. It's insulting even to suggest it.
Apple users who try Linux often say they love it, but want it to be more like OS X. Microsoft users who like it want it to be more like Windows. Why can't people just wrap their minds around the fact that Linux is completely different and stop trying to make it something that it isn't? And no, this isn't an elitist attitude, it's a concerned one. Giving up my freedoms for features isn't a trade off that I am willing to make.
--xsp
Wow, why so extreme. By the way the purists make up less than 10 percent of linux users. Most want open source but have no problem if companies make closed source software that runs on linux. As more of the world converts to linux, as it will, companies will want to start making software to run on it. To make money of course, as long as the OS is open source why can't closed source software be made for it. All I'm after is more freedom. The freedom not to be forced to buy a computer with windows on it, or the freedom to be able to buy open or closed source software for linux. You state I desire Apple to release their source code, no I would prefer they do not. The freedom to make something closed or open source is vital. A creator/s of software should be able to choose and not feel pressured to make it open or closed source. When windows pressures people into making something closed or when linux geeks pressures them into making it free that isn't right. All I ask is for unity in the computer world and a more diverse choice on what a programmer and end user can do. If end users have all the rights what about the company that creates the software; shouldn't they have the right not to disclose how it was made. They after all did create it, don't music artists deserve to own their material. Without having those damn record labels steal their share or some pipsqueak windows user steal their work off bittorrent. The record labels and internet users are really treating the artists like crap right now. Lastly you said apple would never do anything for free; of course they won't. I want them to make lot's of money.
One day there will be no more windows, apple or linux. With how the software industry is evolving everything seems to be converging into a universal system. Where everything is interoperable with everything else. One day far from now you will walk into a store buy a computer with any OS and that OS will run any other software in existence. Companies will make even more money from software then, because there suddenly is a larger audience to sell to. Of course open source will always remain a choice because of the linux purists, the freedom to choose is the most important freedom of all. To choose open or closed. Teaming up with others to break monopolies is a good thing. Even if others make money off it.
|
|
jorgejhms wrote on the 11 Mar 08 at 02:02
|
I'ts not extreme. Its just the defence of the ideals that have permit us to grow in all these years. I have no problem if you want to use propietary software in you computer. But it is my problem if you want to turn a Free Software Project like Ubuntu into a propietary one. It's the esence of the whole project and our community, than offer a 100% free OS. It is not 100% free rigth now, but in the future it could be. Is another way to do things. And it its very important that stay like these. Because, in the future, when like you say, will be one OS, I would like it will be free, because if it isn't, there we all we'll be under the domination of a big corporation, whitout the posibility of doing a simple thing like these, say our opinion.
Also, it is not a mather of number. If just 1% of the world wants to be free, would be great. If there are more, they are all welcome.
PS. Excuse my bad English. I'm from Perú.
|
|
Eldmannen wrote on the 20 Mar 08 at 17:34
|
Leave your proprietary software at the door.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Apple can shove their proprietary software where the sun don't shine.
|
|
neon wrote on the 23 Mar 08 at 05:57
| |
Holy...I shudder to think about this....
|
|
guyminuslife wrote on the 26 Mar 08 at 05:38
|
I voted down the proposition, but philosophically I agree wholeheartedly with the poster. There are two kinds of idealism the Linux community can support. There's the copyleft-pushing, Stallman-worshiping, making-money-selling-software-is-evil kind of idealism, and then there's the kind of idealism that supports Linux because it's a free-as-in-beer, adaptable, technically promising platform whose "ends" are curbing monopolistic software business practices, and making computers more affordable around the globe. The former seems to see free software as an end in and of itself, the latter sees it as a means to effect social change.
I can't really find fault with the former group because they've done so much to develop Linux. Linux would be nowhere without the purists. But the philosophy of open-source for open-source's sake will never find much traction in a layman audience. But the main reason I am attracted to Ubuntu in particular is that Shuttleworth seems to be more of the second kind of idealist. (Maybe it comes from him being from South Africa.) My problem is that the purists will consistently put dogma ahead of what I think should be the real ends of the platform.
|
Post your comment
|
