Linux vs Windows vs Mac

[Max™]

You can install RAM in non-retina MacBook Pros, you just need to get a Phillips screwdriver to open it up (and a spudger helps to disconnect the battery). It's not actually difficult at all once you're inside. MacBook Airs and the new retina Pro have the RAM soldered, so, while you can similarly open the machines up, you won't get too far trying to swap RAM.

O.o

Sockets are bigger and thicker than soldering the chips directly to the board. If you open one up, you quickly find that they're basically a small board with a huge battery attached. I would imagine this is not uncommon in the Ultrabook space (though I do think it's a mistake with the retina MBP).

Yeah, didn't know that about the ultrabooks either, still just strikes me as absurd given how vast the gap between the first computer specs I remember being blown away by and the ones we have today is.

I have a 2.4 Ghz dual core system with 4 GB of ram and a 160 GB HDD, that would have been unimaginable to slap together for $150 a few years ago, and it's already facing competition from just barely above entry level portables. Luckily I can pick up cheap parts here and there and keep it as quick as I want for as long as I want.

A 256 GB SSD and 16 GB of ram would seem like a lot last year, but nowadays for a lot of higher end graphics and video work it's standard or worse. I know a lot of apples are bought for shoopan and video editing, seems like a bum deal to me.

[Steax]

I too dislike with how the RAM is now soldered on the board. Not sure why they did that.

I don't think 16GB of ram is necessary unless you do really major video/graphics work. I previously worked with large files (over 200MB or so) in photoshop, never had an issue with 4GB memory. Same for video (unless you're working with ridiculous resolutions). I'm sitting on a 16GB machine right now and I pretty much have to deliberately strain it to use anything past 12GB.

[KnightExemplar]

I too dislike with how the RAM is now soldered on the board. Not sure why they did that.

I don't think 16GB of ram is necessary unless you do really major video/graphics work. I previously worked with large files (over 200MB or so) in photoshop, never had an issue with 4GB memory. Same for video (unless you're working with ridiculous resolutions). I'm sitting on a 16GB machine right now and I pretty much have to deliberately strain it to use anything past 12GB.

I am not a professional Video Editor, but Sony Vegas gets about 45 seconds or so on "preview" settings for a RAM-only prerender with 8GB of RAM while editing 1080p video. Its more important to have higher-end equipment anyway (multiple CPUs and a high-end GPU) because you want to view the stuff in realtime, not spend time prerendering video over and over. (2nd Generation i7 + NVidea 560Ti is *almost* good enough to do realtime rendering for basic Crossfades... I can see why people get dual Xeons for this sort of work professionally)

Basically, Video Editing seems more bound by CPU / GPU power right now, as opposed to RAM size.

16GB+ of Ram is very useful for Web Servers that want to keep Gigabytes of data cached in RAM. But for home use, I can't think of a real use, even with Video Editing.

[Endless Mike]

About desktops not being justifiable: Easy component replacement, ergonomics

Admittedly, the latter would be moot with a "luggable all-in-one" in briefcase format like the Dell XPS 2010. A detachable keyboard and the handle folding out to raise the monitor to a comfortable height were a great idea.

Component replacement is a legitimate argument, but at that point it's a question of whether you want to compromise for portability or not. Ergonomics is irrelevant since any laptop, even the cheapest netbook, will be able to have a monitor, keyboard, and mouse connected to it. My work computer is a laptop in a dock connected to USB mouse and keyboard and a pair of monitors.

Yeah, didn't know that about the ultrabooks either, still just strikes me as absurd given how vast the gap between the first computer specs I remember being blown away by and the ones we have today is.

I have a 2.4 Ghz dual core system with 4 GB of ram and a 160 GB HDD, that would have been unimaginable to slap together for $150 a few years ago, and it's already facing competition from just barely above entry level portables. Luckily I can pick up cheap parts here and there and keep it as quick as I want for as long as I want.

A 256 GB SSD and 16 GB of ram would seem like a lot last year, but nowadays for a lot of higher end graphics and video work it's standard or worse. I know a lot of apples are bought for shoopan and video editing, seems like a bum deal to me.

Like I implied, I don't necessarily think the retina MBP is the best choice for a lot of people - or even a good one - but I'd imagine that for those who actually do a lot of video editing on the go, it's probably a business expense, at which point, they're replacing every two or three years, anyway. I don't think I would suggest one to an average consumer looking for a computer. (My general suggestion, as you might have seen in the Hardware subforum, for a general use laptop is either a 13" MacBook Air or a Lenovo Thinkpad T4**/5** depending on OS preference.)

[KnightExemplar]

About desktops not being justifiable: Easy component replacement, ergonomics

Admittedly, the latter would be moot with a "luggable all-in-one" in briefcase format like the Dell XPS 2010. A detachable keyboard and the handle folding out to raise the monitor to a comfortable height were a great idea.

Component replacement is a legitimate argument, but at that point it's a question of whether you want to compromise for portability or not. Ergonomics is irrelevant since any laptop, even the cheapest netbook, will be able to have a monitor, keyboard, and mouse connected to it. My work computer is a laptop in a dock connected to USB mouse and keyboard and a pair of monitors.

Just note, the cheapest netbook is going to have issues watching high-def videos. To be able to play High-Definition video from highly compressed video files (ie: high-profile MP4 files), you'll need a decent CPU or a decent graphics card. Pick one or the other. Youtube doesn't seem to use high-profile MP4s, but I've come across them while watching Anime Music Videos. Also other video sites like Hulu or Crunchyroll can lag on the slower laptops... as well as a number of Flash-based websites. CPU speed still matters at the low end believe it or not. You can't just buy the cheapest CPU / GPU combination and expect things to work smoothly all the time.

Spoilered for somewhat off topic.

Spoiler:

Because of that... I'm not entirely sure how to approach this. Mobile Processors are always weaker than their desktop equivalent, but Intel has done some confusing stuff recently. The lowest-end laptop that probably works well is going to be a Mobile i3 processor. However, Intel has put out Sandy Bridge Celerons and Pentiums that run at a higher clock than the mobile processors. (I'm ignoring Atoms because those definitely don't play high-def videos without lag)

So... HP has a $350 Pentium. NewEgg seems to have the best 2nd Generation i3 laptop deal, which would be this model for $400. Passmark says that the i3 Mobile has the fastest speed... but its only clocked at 2.4GHz, while the Pentium is clocked at 2.8GHz. Neither processor can be overclocked and both are the same generation chip with the same number of cores. The i3 has hyperthreading though, so I guess the benchmark has that on. I'm more curious as to the single-threaded speed however... it seems like passmark is benchmarking multithreaded speed...

Anyway, so its pretty close for Desktops vs Laptops at the low end / casual user. But as soon as you add even a basic Graphics card, or any peripheral really (ie: Capture Card)... Desktops overtake Laptops. I guess portability beats out customization for the casual user.

On the other hand... you can get a gaming-quality PC for around $1000. I'll use this desktop as a comparison. Core i7 3770k with a GeForce GTX 560 Graphics Card for $1050. However, I can't find any similarly powered Mobile Graphics Card at all... let alone one at that cost. (GTX 560 scores 2,715 on Passmark. Most Mobile Graphics Cards have an 'M' on the end of their name). And for those with a Mobile Graphics card thats in the same league (ex: MSI's GT70 laptop with GTX 670M Graphics) cost $1500 new. Just browse the prices... and pay attention to the graphics card benchmarks. This high-end will cost you $500 more.

Laptops have less space... so they have less fans. Therefore, laptop graphics cards need to perform well despite worse cooling conditions. Then they have to use less power because they're designed to not eat up the entire battery. With less power and less cooling, they're simply always going to perform worse. (And those that perform similarly to a desktop solution are going to need better technology to overcome the innate disadvantages).

At the low end... Desktops / Laptops are more similar. At the high end however, there is no comparison. You simply can't buy a laptop today that is as powerful as a $1000 Desktop... they simply don't exist. Those that come anywhere close are going to be well over $1500.

[Arariel]

OS preference may be a dealbreaker, a hard one if you prefer OSX and a soft one if you don't and need to add the cost of a retail windows license to any perceived "Apple Tax".

Comparing just the hardware to similarly priced all-in-ones, iMacs usually come behind in features (touchscreen, Blu-Ray) and often in performance. They may be ahead in implementation of the basics (usually design consistency, material, build quality, input devices. Often screen and audio).

I can't find it at the moment, but I've read a statement by a Corsair representative that something in the league of a Mac Pro Case would be cost-prohibitive to manufacture if you don't have Apple's numbers or standardisation (high-end cases are a small and fractured market). IIRC he projected a $600-800 asking price for the case alone if one could magically create the demand.
To my knowledge, Mac Pros are built with too many quirks that you could just get a used case and easily fill it with off-the-shelf hardware so there's no real option.
Of course, most people aren't willing to pay a fair price for something this extravagantly engineered.

Apple's component upgrades on the other hand are objectively lousy deals, rather than simply hard-to-justify luxuries.

Other than that, considering Apple's second-rate software, I guess there's not really a good reason.

Of course. My other points are independent of software freedom although they often coincide - e.g. modularity becomes more attractive compared to integration when you can freely use other people's stuff.
Gnome 3 and Unity sacrifice open-endedness and easy tweakabiliy, but Linux itself is modular.
If Unity doesn't work for you, you still have Gnome Shell, KDE, XFCE, LXDE, Enlightenment, Cinnamon or Mate. And that's just the more known complete desktop environments, with maybe a hundred actively maintained window managers the possibilities are endless if you prefer minimalism or want to roll your own.

Yes, those are consequences of software freedom, and not the end goal itself.

This is a totally different discussion, but no, it's not, because for the vast majority of people it's barely defensible to purchase a desktop at all.

Faster and more powerful for less money. I mean, you can build an okay, usable, new computer for what, $200? Then the cost of keeping your computer 'modern'. You're fresh out of luck if you want to upgrade a laptop. If you have a family computer, it probably won't leave the house that much and might as well be a desktop.

You can install RAM in non-retina MacBook Pros, you just need to get a Phillips screwdriver to open it up (and a spudger helps to disconnect the battery). It's not actually difficult at all once you're inside. MacBook Airs and the new retina Pro have the RAM soldered, so, while you can similarly open the machines up, you won't get too far trying to swap RAM.

I thought those required those special pentawhat'sit screws?

[Steax]

It's funny whenever you call Apple making "second-rate software". If OS X weren't hardware-tied, and maybe not even hardware-subsidized, I still think it'd have considerable market share - it's just as good as various Linux and Windows systems. iOS is also quite potent.

[Arariel]

It's a locked-down, overrated BSD ripoff. Along with iOS. Really, the only Apple software that doesn't completely suck has been ripped off of BSD-licensed software.

[Steax]

I always wondered how you justify calling it "ripoff". I'm not sure which BSD license it used, but the current BSD license allows anyone to use it as long as they keep the original disclaimers and copyright statements, and I don't expect it to be very different. How's that any different from taking other open-source software, modifying it extensively, and selling it? It's not like Apple just rebranded it or something, either.

In the last thread, you only asserted that it was a ripoff because, well, why not, apparently. You never actually explained how you call it a ripoff.

And, like many other OSes, it doesn't matter if their provided applications are crap. People don't complain that Notepad is crap because they can just download and install a replacement. That said, I'd like to know more on your opinion on why they're "crap". Take, say, Keynote. Or Pages. Or Safari/Webkit. Or iCal, or Mail, or what have you.

How is OS X in any way locked down? iOS is, yes. That's a whole other story (though you can jailbreak it). OS X has no locking down.

[Max™]

??

[Steax]

Yes, OS X contains bits of BSD. It's massively modified, and has a lot of things built on top of it to suit its needs.

Now, I was confused what Arariel meant for "rip-off", so I looked it up and found a fairly standard definition to be "overpricing." Would that imply that OS X is an overpriced version of BSD (which I would call a horrible conclusion)? I don't know, so I asked how he/she justifies it being called a "ripoff".

[Max™]

Well, yeah, it is overpriced, but that's a general issue with closed-source for-profit software, hardly unique to Apple.

[Steax]

I'm not even sure if you could call it overpriced, to be honest. It's obviously hardware-subsidized, but they did do a lot of work on top of it, and upgrades are a ridiculously cheap $20 now for Mountain Lion.

And even so, OS X isn't BSD. They aren't interchangeable, and so you can't really just make a (honestly, no pun intended) apple-to-apple comparison if you want to call it "overpriced".

Actually, since we're talking software, OS X apps are amazingly cheap. Even the office suite apps are $20. There are some expensive bits, like Final Cut Pro at $300, but then again that's for "serious" use; Adobe's alternative, Premier Pro, is $800. And then you have the benefit of things passing through the App Store, like auto-updates and always free upgrades.

[Max™]

All operating systems are functionally interchangeable, OS X is no different. So yes you can compare apples to apples.

The only important distinction between any OS these days comes down to personal preferences, everything else is either a comparison of downsides, or an imaginary argument attempting to imply that there are things one OS can do which another can not, which is crap for anything but a completely uninformed user.

[Steax]

You're doing a really good job at skewing my statements towards something you can attack.

Arariel called it a "BSD ripoff". That's something way more specific than "it's an expensive OS". I was comparing OS X to BSD, not OS X to all OSes in general.

[Max™]

You're doing a really good job at skewing my statements towards something you can attack.

Arariel called it a "BSD ripoff". That's something way more specific than "it's an expensive OS". I was comparing OS X to BSD, not OS X to all OSes in general.

Well, it does indeed contain quite a bit of open source software, and comparing OS X to any other BSD/partially BSD based OS is only invalid because you assert that it is so.

[Steax]

By calling OS X a ripoff of BSD is, with my literal understanding, calling them roughly equivalent, but then charging too much for OS X. I disagree on the equivalence part. According to this superuser question, only part of BSD is used in part of OS X's kernel. It exists, but doesn't make BSD and OS X equivalent.

[Max™]

I assume you know what Darwin is?

[Steax]

That'd be a valid assumption to make, yes?

[Max™]

Darwin is the core of OS X as I understand it, and contains code from various other open source projects, BSD among them.
Edit:

BSD

The Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) portion of the kernel provides the POSIX API (BSD system calls), the Unix process model atop Mach tasks, basic security policies, user and group ids, permissions, the network stack, the virtual file system code (including a filesystem independent journaling layer), several local file systems such as HFS/HFS+, the Network File System (NFS) client and server, cryptographic framework, UNIX System V inter-process communication (IPC), Audit subsystem, mandatory access control, and some of the locking primitives.[3] The BSD code present in XNU came from the FreeBSD kernel. Although much of it has been significantly modified, code sharing still occurs between Apple and the FreeBSD Project.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU

More than I thought.


I think that is Arariels point.

Mine is that they are equivalently useful.

[Steax]

Yes... I just linked to an article that linked to that page, exactly 4 posts ago.

It's less than I thought, for me. It also includes significant parts of other projects. And those elements alone don't define the kernel.

For context, I dislike it when open-source proponents call companies out for "ripping off" their things, when the company already put a lot of effort into it (and are giving back to the community reasonably). I don't call it a rip-off if it's extensibly modified to the point of them no longer doing the same things, and no longer cross-compatible.

OS X is not cross-compatible with BSD. OS X is not "a form" of BSD. It has its parts, but it's not the same.

[Max™]

Yes... I just linked to an article that linked to that page, exactly 4 posts ago.

Yeah, I hate the layout of that site so my eyes start to dodge around. I actually missed the wiki link due to it.

It's less than I thought, for me. It also includes significant parts of other projects. And those elements alone don't define the kernel.

For context, I dislike it when open-source proponents call companies out for "ripping off" their things, when the company already put a lot of effort into it (and are giving back to the community reasonably). I don't call it a rip-off if it's extensibly modified to the point of them no longer doing the same things, and no longer cross-compatible.

OS X is not cross-compatible with BSD. OS X is not "a form" of BSD. It has its parts, but it's not the same.

OS X and BSD still share code, but I wasn't making the point Arariel was, though I disagree that OS X doesn't do the same things, it's modified enough that they aren't violating the original BSD license permissions. That in no way implies that it isn't doing the same things.


How's this, without the work done at Berkeley and the development of BSD over the years, OS X as we know it would not exist, yes?

[KnightExemplar]

How's this, without the work done at Berkeley and the development of BSD over the years, OS X as we know it would not exist, yes?

Do you honestly not understand the point of the Open Source BSD license? If you care about copyleft crap, go on and use GNU stuff. The BSD license (as well as the BSD community) is very clear on how other people can use their kernel. It literally says, you can use it for whatever, (including selling it for a profit) as long as the original copyright is on it.

Its like people who sell PFsense appliances ( http://www.hacom.net/catalog/mars-iib-f ... -1u-server ). The non-copyleft Open Source crowd welcomes people who use their work, even if they profit off of it. Its a truly open system. Similarly, the Darwin Kernel was explicitly licensed so that closed source modifications can be made to it.

I dunno of any unbiased introductions to the subject. But BSD vs GPL license has been a flamewar since the dawn of internet-time. Here's the first link on Google to get you started though.

All operating systems are functionally interchangeable, OS X is no different. So yes you can compare apples to apples.

This was seriously in response to Steax who was bringing up Final Cut Pro?

I mean, the difference between $300 and $800 isn't much to a company. (And I expect filmmakers probably use even more expensive tools that support render farms or whatnot). But for a casual video editor, the fact that say... Final Cut Pro doesn't work at all in Linux or Windows (its a Mac OSX only application) is a pretty significant argument.

I mean really, as long as Operating Systems have different APIs (ie: DirectX 11 for Windows, Cocoa for Mac and ... .rpms or .debs for Linux I guess?), no operating system is actually interchangeable. Similarly, Android Apps are not interchangeable with iOS apps.

[Max™]

How's this, without the work done at Berkeley and the development of BSD over the years, OS X as we know it would not exist, yes?

Do you honestly not understand the point of the Open Source BSD license? If you care about copyleft crap, go on and use GNU stuff. The BSD license (as well as the BSD community) is very clear on how other people can use their kernel. It literally says, you can use it for whatever, (including selling it for a profit) as long as the original copyright is on it.

Calm down there, cocheese, I was just saying that claiming OS X isn't built on BSD is incorrect. You're adding the rest of the crap, chillax.

[Steax]

I never said OS X isn't built on BSD.

Yes, OS X contains bits of BSD. It's massively modified, and has a lot of things built on top of it to suit its needs.

Now, I was confused what Arariel meant for "rip-off", so I looked it up and found a fairly standard definition to be "overpricing." Would that imply that OS X is an overpriced version of BSD (which I would call a horrible conclusion)? I don't know, so I asked how he/she justifies it being called a "ripoff".

[Max™]

Yes, you said it "contains bits" which are "massively modified" as though that meant it wasn't really a BSD core anymore.

Shit, from what I can tell, OS X qualifies for Unix licensing again.

[Steax]

I'm going as far to say that because, in the programming sense, they are no longer equivalent. You can't run OS X apps on BSD. That for me is enough to say "no, they are not the same things".

[Max™]

I'm going as far to say that because, in the programming sense, they are no longer equivalent. You can't run OS X apps on BSD. That for me is enough to say "no, they are not the same things".

That's just because of the actual parts which are OS X, the gui and api differences.

Porting a BSD application to OS X is much more straightforward, for obvious reasons.

[Steax]

Indeed. It's mostly because of Cocoa and Objective-C. Of course OS X retains the ability to use BSD applications, like many others. That's one of its core strengths.

Honestly, I don't care why it's incompatible. It's just incompatible. It's no longer the same thing, it introduces new layers which programs can use, and new functionality on top of all that.

It isn't a simple "rip-off" or "clone" of BSD, branded and brought to market. Which was what I assumed Arariel was implying, so I guess we should wait for a response.

[Max™]

Word.

[Iranon]

Many things contain bits of BSD. People who released their code under the BSD license consented to having evil proprietary stuff done to and with it.

Want your free software to be used by everyone, because many eyes on and standardisation of the basics benefit everyone? Use a liberal license like the BSD or MIT license.
Not willing to release something only to have some jerk lock it down, put it in a shiny box and sell it? Use a copyleft license like the GPL.

Whether "Free Software" should just give users and developers the greatest possible freedom, or whether it should take steps that the software itself remains free is a matter of faith.
Both approaches enable what the other sides see as an abuse of freedom:
BSD-licensed things are prone to be crowded out by spin-offs that don't give back (you can make an awesome modification to BSD-licensed code that makes everyone want your version, then relicense the whole thing under a proprietary license or the GPL without giving back).
GPL-licensed software can be used offensively to kill commercial interest in a field or harm competitors.

[Max™]

Note that I don't actually go so far as to join a church of GPL or BSD, I prefer not giving Apple or Microsoft money for various reasons, I'm not going to consider someone a heathen for doing so, if asked I will of course express my views regarding them, but you can always tell me to fuck off. Similarly, I am not going to go so far as to hate on a licensing standard.

I mean, the difference between $300 and $800 isn't much to a company. (And I expect filmmakers probably use even more expensive tools that support render farms or whatnot). But for a casual video editor, the fact that say... Final Cut Pro doesn't work at all in Linux or Windows (its a Mac OSX only application) is a pretty significant argument.

Are you sure FCP doesn't do render farms?

Huh, Cinellera does, that doesn't sound right.

[Copper Bezel]

For context, I dislike it when open-source proponents call companies out for "ripping off" their things, when the company already put a lot of effort into it (and are giving back to the community reasonably). I don't call it a rip-off if it's extensibly modified to the point of them no longer doing the same things, and no longer cross-compatible.

Yeah, although I guess it depends on which way that "rip off" is intended - a rip off to BSD or a rip off to the consumer. I mean, GNU / Linux is a rip off of Unix, but that certainly doesn't make it an inherently inferior product.

How is OS X in any way locked down? iOS is, yes. That's a whole other story (though you can jailbreak it). OS X has no locking down.

Well, there are things about the OS that work in a particular way you can't change, certainly, more so than in Windows (excluding 8, which is an unknown at the moment but seems more limiting in that sense.) And there are features of the OS that only Apple-approved apps can call on.

[Steax]

I plucked Final Cut Pro out of this list of apps because it was the most expensive (and we were talking about overpriced software). I don't know how popular it is, though Wikipedia does give interestingly high figures.

I honestly don't think anything's worth calling a "rip-off" - it's often just a load of unnecessary negativity.

How is OS X in any way locked down? iOS is, yes. That's a whole other story (though you can jailbreak it). OS X has no locking down.

Well, there are things about the OS that work in a particular way you can't change, certainly, more so than in Windows (excluding 8, which is an unknown at the moment but seems more limiting in that sense.) And there are features of the OS that only Apple-approved apps can call on.

I'm not sure how significant those are - any sources? I know a lot of OS X apps that do a lot of deep digging and hackery, and sandboxing is only for apps sold through the App Store. I guess that's a form of locking down, but it's nowhere as strict, enforced or complete as iOS.

[KnightExemplar]

Huh, Cinellera does, that doesn't sound right.

For a free piece of software, it is pretty good. But it isn't of the quality of any of the professional programs I've used. It tries to be of course, but its missing things like anti-aliasing the corners of layers.

Cinellera is the best example of what happens with open source programs. It is buggy when clips are expanded into each other, and you can get fully corrupted files occasionally when it crashes. It also doesn't detect the amount of memory it could malloc, so when your computer runs out of RAM it just crashes on the spot. (leading to more corrupted file problems).

On the other hand, Cinellera supports both Render Farms and Motion Tracking... and you'll be hard pressed to find a program under $1000 that does. Because these features are fun to program. Solving tricky malloc bugs that corrupt your save file is not a fun problem. (BTW: I didn't know that Windows Vista and 7 had transactions at the filesystem level. Such a feature would clearly solve the corruption problem). Anyway, Cinelerra's source code is a mess since it uses its own windowing system. So its not exactly fun to work with either.

Another problem is that the Linux Video Editing community is split right now. Cinelerra may be open source, but the leader of the project isn't completely cooperative with the community. Thus, the split between CinelerraCV (currently based on Cinelerra 2) and Cinelerra 4.3 (the latest version). Contributing code to the Community Version is a bit of a dead end, because they're so far behind HeroineWarrior's releases. And good luck contacting HeroineWarrior directly (aka, that is why the Community Version started up in the first place).

These are the reasons why the Lumiera and Saya projects were started. But these are still in the initial stages of development.

----------------

Anyway, Render Farms are not necessarily the way to go right now IMO. Its cheaper and more productive to have a CUDA-based or OpenCL-based renderer, or Intel QuickSync. Sony Vegas uses CUDA, Premier uses CUDA. Final Cut uses OpenCL. A bunch of lesser non-linear editors uses QuickSync.

Most people have a powerful video card before they get a render farm. Its weird: Cinelerra supports Render Farms, but not GPU acceleration.

[Endless Mike]

I plucked Final Cut Pro out of this list of apps because it was the most expensive (and we were talking about overpriced software). I don't know how popular it is, though Wikipedia does give interestingly high figures.

I honestly don't think anything's worth calling a "rip-off" - it's often just a load of unnecessary negativity.

How is OS X in any way locked down? iOS is, yes. That's a whole other story (though you can jailbreak it). OS X has no locking down.

Well, there are things about the OS that work in a particular way you can't change, certainly, more so than in Windows (excluding 8, which is an unknown at the moment but seems more limiting in that sense.) And there are features of the OS that only Apple-approved apps can call on.

I'm not sure how significant those are - any sources? I know a lot of OS X apps that do a lot of deep digging and hackery, and sandboxing is only for apps sold through the App Store. I guess that's a form of locking down, but it's nowhere as strict, enforced or complete as iOS.

He is right. Notifications and iCloud can only used by applications distributed through the Mac App Store. I learned this when TweetBot released the alpha of their Mac app, which doesn't have iCloud integration at the moment (though they said they will be releasing it through the Mac App Store and intend to include it). I'm sure there's other examples.

http://tapbots.com/blog/tweetbot/tweetbot-for-mac

[Steax]

Oh, right, I forgot about those. Some digging reveals the possibility that Notification Center is available for everything (it'd be a massive pain for browsers implementing HTML5 Notifications), but Apple's own push service is AppStore-only. iCloud support seems to be spot-on, though.

I guess we'll have to wait for Mountain Lion.

[Arariel]

Others have already pointed out how Mac OS X is locked down with regards to those applications. Going along a different route, can you change the DE? Or even do something as simple as get rid of the Dock? Even in Windows you can change the DE (apparently it's called a shell replacement).

Mac OS X and iOS are ripoffs of BSD-licensed software in the same way that some director who takes half the footage from Night of the Living Dead (a public domain work), inserts it in his own work, and then not only sells it, but also begins restricting people from redistributing it through copyright law, claiming it as his own work. Sure, it's legal and some of the work was his, but it's still ripped off of the original. Perhaps your view differs from mine; that's understandable. But I see them as hypocritical scum, willing to profit off the work of others while in the meantime preventing their peers from benefiting from their work. And Steve Jobs, the man who once quoted Picasso as saying 'good artists copy, great artists steal', was especially quick at claiming other people had stolen Apple's works, or 'wholesale ripped them off'.

[Steax]

"Others" have only pointed out that 2 new OS X features (of a new OS that hasn't even been released yet), neither of which are critical gamebreakers (alternatives exist), are limited to appstore-only apps. That's far from "locked down". There are ways to remove, disable or otherwise avoid the dock. I'm not sure about the DE.

So I take it you're against people using the BSD license at all, and anyone not using/self-enforcing copyleft is hypocritical scum? Alright, then our views differ completely, and should probably go off in another thread. To me, that's just preventing innovation.

[Max™]

Yeah, that's a bit much even for me.

I mean, had the point been "Apple benefiting from open source software and community projects while using fucking stupid patent laws in an attempt to force other companies out of markets makes them hypocritical scum" I'd be behind you all the way, but whether you or I or anyone else likes it, BSD does allow certain things to be done with it. If you dislike it, don't use that license?