Ubuntu is based on Debian GNU/Linux, a free (as in free beer and free speech) Linux-based distribution and the free GNOME desktop environment. Therefore it keeps the phylosophy of the two, being itself also free. Summarizing, this means that the user can legally modify and copy the system at will, without having to pay anyone for doing so. When things break, it is great to be able to look at the source code, find the problem and fix it yourself; of course, this is not something that end users will ever do, but I have found this situation valuable many times (not under Ubuntu though).
Mac OS X, on the other hand, is a proprietary OS with the exception of the core kernel whose source code is published as free sofware (I don't know the license details though). This means that you must pay for a license in order to use it, and even then you cannot mess with its internals — its source code — nor redistribute it. Given that Mac OS X comes prebundled with new Apple machines, this is not so important because you'll rarely feel the need to look at its code (I certainly don't care as long as it works). However, if you want to jump to a new major version, you must pay for it. For example, if I got an iMac now, I'd have to pay around 200€ in mid-2007 to get the Mac OS X 10.5 family pack (5 licenses); I'm not implying that it's not worth it though.
I know the free software ideals very well and like them but, sincerely, freedom is something that end users do not perceive in general. And I won't base the decision on which OS to run on my computer based on this criterion alone; that's why the iBook is stuck with Mac OS X ;-) Really, I've lately come to think that what really matters are free and open standards (i.e. communication protocols, document formats, etc.), not the software packages themselves.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
The ease of upgrading a free OS is one of the major reasons of switching back from OS X to NetBSD on my iBook. As much as I like OS X, I'm certainly not going to shell out for a new version every year or so.
This wouldn't be a problem if I could just keep using it, but the OS X community as well as Apple itself doesn't give a damn about supporting older versions of OS X. I started noticing this as I couldn't upgrade to Safari 2, XCode 2 etc. Also, they changed the .dmg file format. Mounting a .dmg under Panther sometimes results in some weird "corrupted file error -64" dialog box (great "userfriendly" errormessage, don't you think? There are loads of those in Finder). Took me a while to find out that it was my OS that was to blame.
Wait a while, you'll see support for your version will gradually fade out. Whenever you ask a question on IRC, the first thing people tell you to do is "upgrade". And then they won't help you (regardless whether the version of the OS is the cause of your problems).
-- One disgruntled OS X user
I'm fine with paying money for a new version of the OS. It only happens every 18 months or so and typically constitutes a substantial improvement not just in the OS itself but the applications too.
The previous commenter does bring up a good point about the backwards compatibility, but such a thing can go too far. Many of the problems in Windows stem from their commitment to background compatibility.
There needs to be a balance, although I don't think $150 every 18 months is such a huge investment to support really awesome work by Apple. Then again, I get student discounts, so ...
I'm sorry, but I have to be picky and point out that it's free as in free speech NOT as in free beer. If you are going to quote please do it properly or at least thing about what you've written, you almost had me stop reading your otherwise interesting piece of text.
-- kind regards
I don't understand why you say Ubuntu is not free as in "free beer" TOO. It is obvious that it is free as in "free speech"; but I have never paid for it, thus it is also cost free.
Because the definition clearly says otherwise. Read about what FSF has to say about free software at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
I understand what you are saying but it's obvious that you have read the original definition somewhere , tried to quote it, and got it wrong.
You said "thing" instead of "think" in your earlier comment. You should proofread.
Post a Comment