Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Apple's retreat from open source isn't all bad
>
> Steve Jobs is no Linus Torvalds, says Neil McAllister
>
>
http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/0/6CE589C35BA247C1CC2571C7001761D0?OpenDocument
>
>
>
> Professor Nicholas Negroponte's technological dance with the developing
> world
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | By 2010, One Laptop Per Child will sell a laptop for $50 precisely
> | N6500 today to governments of developing countries...
> `----
>
> http://www.vanguardngr.com/articles/2002/features/gsm/gsm114082006.html
I would have agreed that Mac wouldn't need to go OpenSource except that
despite the nice looking interface and pretty cases, it doesn't seem to
excite the computer buying public. The moto 'Software just works' doesn't
really sum up what everyone wants from a PC.
Going OpenO would open it up to a new generation of developers who could
inject some much needed innovation into MAC itself or it's applications. It
doesn't need to go with Linux to do this. Mac is already a secure system,
the site I looked at on Mac virus's said they are just 40 main virus's that
are all dealt with now. Plus the macro virus's from guess who's Office
suite, so you have to switch off the auto macros.
So my argument for going OpenO on the Mac is only so that the Mac can
benefit from new applications and ideas. It's a bit like PDAs where they
give you the obvious software, calendar, spreadsheet, address book, more
address books, but then you want to do something outside of what the
manufacturers supplied, and your stuck. There aren't enough options.
I must say though that I still fancy the Mac Pro. I don't know what it's
like as a computer, I just love the fact that it's huge and has a mega big
cooling fan that looks powerfull enough to take your arm off. It also has
an amazing sound, bit like a jet engine when it's idling. I would like to
see the Mac gaining popularity just so that I can justify buying one.
|
|
