Mac OS X vs. Linux: Five Things Apple Should Do
by Chuck Toporek04/03/2001
In a nutshell, Apple needs to get its act together and get with the times. For years, Apple has been operating in a closed-world environment. Apple's hardware and operating systems have been, for the most part, proprietary, and Apple even had a lock on its developer community. Sure, Steve's hip, but in order to become a true contender in today's open source, give-me-everything-I-want-for-nothing world, Apple needs to loosen the reigns and start looking at ways to bring more folks into the Apple fold, rather than discourage them from using and developing for the platform.
The only way Apple can unseat Linux as a server platform is if OS X is ported to the Intel architecture, but it does have a second chance at taking over the desktop market. If Apple really wants to compete on the desktop, it needs to lighten up a bit and loosen the reigns. And if they really want to add some fiber to Steve's diet, they could take on Linux and win. Here's how:
- Port OS X to x86.
- Is Mac OS X Threatening Linux? (on Slashdot)
- OS X on x86 Discussion on Slashdot
- Sign the petition to prod Apple into porting OS X to Intel
- Darwin on Intel
- Truly make Mac OS X an open (or free) operating system.
- Make the development tools open source.
- Quit taking money from Microsoft...
- ...and give the money to Sun.
This should be a no-brainer for Apple; it is for everyone else:
Since the underlying architecture of Mac OS X (i.e., the Mach 3 kernel, Darwin, and BSD) is already open, why not make the rest of it (i.e., the GUI)? This one's a bit tougher because it'll eat into Apple's profit margin, but Apple should consider doing this.
Since the kernel components (Mach/BSD/Darwin) already run on Intel, you would think it would be fairly easy for Apple to port the interface. From a business standpoint, I can see why Apple hasn't ported the Mac OS to Intel in the past, but now it makes more sense. Apple wants people to run its operating system on Apple hardware, but that's a narrow way to think these days. True, dedicated Mac aficionados recognize the value of Apple hardware and will continue to purchase it if it's priced competitively. But if people want to run the Mac OS on non-Apple equipment, then why not let them? Of course, the downside is that those people who migrate from Windows to OS X would then have to purchase software to run on their newfound operating system. It's a toss-up, but one that I think most people would make if it means having a more stable operating system.
If you're going to give the tools away, you may as well give the source for the tools away, too. This way developers can customize tools and perhaps improve the tools by adding new components and features that tie in with GNU development tools.
Every good Mac user knows that Microsoft has done next to nothing to support the Mac platform. The most obvious example is that Office products continue to be a year or two behind the eight ball when it comes to getting a new Mac version, and even then they're bloated and often incompatible.
For example, when Office 97 came out for Windows, Microsoft made it impossible for Mac users to properly view Word and Excel files with older versions of Office for the Mac. Word files had to be saved as RTF to be useful for people working in a cross-platform environment. When Office 98 came out for the Mac, Mac users were forced to upgrade because older versions of Office would not recognize files created with Office 98.
A more recent and somewhat deadly mistake was Microsoft's release of Office 2001 for the Mac. Uh, hello...is anyone out there? Did someone at Microsoft not get the memo about Carbon? Yes, that's right, Microsoft released Office 2001 just in time for beta testers of Mac OS X to realize that Office 2001 isn't compatible with Apple's new operating system. Of course you know what this means: Anyone who wants to use Office 2001 with Mac OS X will have to run it in Mac OS X's Classic environment or wait for a Carbonized version and pay for the upgrade (just another opportunity for Microsoft to put the screws to us).
The list of Microsoft mistakes goes on, so why take Microsoft's money? Apple should cut its ties with Microsoft--we don't need them!
Why Sun, you say? Don't they have enough money? Last summer, Sun Microsystems acquired a product called StarOffice, which is a free suite of Office-like applications. StarOffice runs on Windows 95/98/NT, Linux, Solaris, and a Mac version is coming soon (word has it that the Mac version will be released when StarOffice hits version 6).
Apple should take the money it received in payola from Microsoft and announce a plan to support funding for development of StarOffice for the Mac (then actually write Sun a big fat check).
