Apple to start behaving like Microsoft?!

[Zhick]

While Sascha maybe exaggerates a bit, I still agree that apple is and always has been at least as bad as microsoft. God forbid they'd have a monopoly like microsoft has, things would be way worse for us. They've always tried to lock up their products as much as they could... and did everyone already forget they practially invented drm for music?
A friend of mine used to be an extreme apple-zealot (I think he still owns eight iPods (used to be more) and of course both iPhones and an iMac) but even he has started to realize that apple is not as good as they pretend to be.

But damn, the new MacBook looks sexy with it's all-aluminium-body..

[Thetargos]

Regarding my CUPS comment, the fact that Apple took the project also meant that some hardware manufactureres have started to deliver printer drivers specifically made to work with CUPS wich means they work on OS X as well as Linux...

I share the opinion that Apple is actually a bit worse than Microsoft (more tyrannic) and that does indeed restrict their users much more than Microsoft does (MS has actually learned a few tricks from Jobs, it would seem, though).

I like their products, I despise their lock-ins and thus I refuse to buy them. Also Apple is in reality a hardware company, not so much a software company (though the software that drives and enable their hardware is regarded by most people as "sexy"), and hence lock their software to their hardware exclusively (and pretty much the other way around as well)

[Sacha]

I wasn't exaggerating it's just that if you read djeano's comments you'd think I said something that I didn't. I didn't say Apple doesn't accept patches at all. They aren't accepting good patches from developers of the original project. Regardless of whether they fit their direction or not. Then they won't send many patches back to the original project (yes I know they send some but it's mostly dribble). Read comments from the KHTML developers and see how they complain about the patches being useless and not working.
This effectively crushes/destroys the original project.

The project then goes 100% in Apple's direction. You say you can fork it (fork the forked project, lol). Yes, that's true. Though, the original project that had much support was abandoned, so what's the chance of a new fork surviving without support?

Example:
If I buy the rights to compiz, buy some of the lead developers and then make a version with OSX features (ties in to OSX), using OSX font-rendering and heaps of other OSX junk but never port these back to Linux -- what are you going to do? Did I 'save' compiz? No, I killed it.
This is what Apple is doing.
Though you argue that because it is now a part of a more dominant OS (in terms of marketshare), the project gets more coverage. Unfortunately, the coverage is only directly at OSX.

[deanjo]

I wasn't exaggerating it's just that if you read djeano's comments you'd think I said something that I didn't. I didn't say Apple doesn't accept patches at all. They aren't accepting good patches from developers of the original project. Regardless of whether they fit their direction or not. Then they won't send many patches back to the original project (yes I know they send some but it's mostly dribble). Read comments from the KHTML developers and see how they complain about the patches being useless and not working.
This effectively crushes/destroys the original project.

The project then goes 100% in Apple's direction. You say you can fork it (fork the forked project, lol). Yes, that's true. Though, the original project that had much support was abandoned, so what's the chance of a new fork surviving without support?

Example:
If I buy the rights to compiz, buy some of the lead developers and then make a version with OSX features (ties in to OSX), using OSX font-rendering and heaps of other OSX junk but never port these back to Linux -- what are you going to do? Did I 'save' compiz? No, I killed it.
This is what Apple is doing.
Though you argue that because it is now a part of a more dominant OS (in terms of marketshare), the project gets more coverage. Unfortunately, the coverage is only directly at OSX.

So apple is responsible for maintaining the original? lol, seriously is it apple's responsibility to incorporate the patches into the original product? I don't think so. The fact is that khtml was left with little development for a long time, Apple then forks it and now khtml has to play catch up. In fact I remember khtml devs telling Apple to go screw themselves when Apple suggested changes before even starting webkit. khtml devs then painted themselves into a corner and now they have to find a way out.

[Sacha]

I'd tell them to go screw themselves too. You should read about what they did.

[deanjo]

I'd tell them to go screw themselves too. You should read about what they did.

Don't have to read on it, I know exactly what happened on BOTH sides of the story.

[superppl]

But damn, the new MacBook looks sexy with it's all-aluminium-body..

Lets write to Asus. Tell them to make their new awesome-possum shiny laptops out of titanium, and to use bulletproof materials on the screen.
Now that would look sexy!

[Sacha]

Lets write to Asus. Tell them to make their new awesome-possum shiny laptops out of titanium, and to use bulletproof materials on the screen.
Now that would look sexy!

Also remind them to have a curved edge so it is comfortable as well. Those aluminium block Macbooks have steep edges that are no good to rest on.

[energyman]

Apple is even worse than MS, viciously attacking bloggers and news sites posting 'leaked' news.

[Sacha]

With Apple's latest MacBook and MacBook Pro, a new port is found. It is a 'mini-Display Port'. Display Port is already smaller than the plastic connector, so why do we need a smaller port? Display Port is a recognised standard whereas only Apple uses this new 'mini-Display Port'.
The difference between Mini-Display Port and the standard Display Port?

It only supports up to 2560x1600 whereas the DisplayPort supports up to 4096x2160!
It doesn't support HDMI!
It doesn't support audio!
It doesn't support an auxiliary channel (USB or touch screen, for example, would have another cable).
They're the only ones manufacturing it, but there are no adapters available (to HDMI, S-Video, DisplayPort, etc).
No improvement in 3mm difference.

So why does Apple use this port and only this port in their new MacBook's and MacBook Pro's forcing people to use their mDP? The adapters. To buy an adapter for mDP off the only company who sells them, Apple, will cost $30 for a miniDisplayPort to DVI and $99 for the dual link adapter.

Quote from Apple's website:

Connect via Mini DisplayPort.

The LED Cinema Display attaches to your new MacBook, MacBook Pro, or MacBook Air using the new industry-standard Mini DisplayPort connector. Other display connectors have you lining up pins or fumbling with screws. But the Mini DisplayPort connector is easy in, easy out.

Oh really? Industry-standard? Only Apple uses them and only Apple's latest MacBooks have them. The port was never sent to SETA and there is no alliance with any other company. There is no definition that could be used to call this a 'industry-standard.'
Other display connections... lining up pins and fumbling with screws? What about the standard DisplayPort? Isn't it exactly the same but with more features and an industry recognised standard?

This is an outright lie on their company website. It can't even be disputed.

Quote from a former Apple user:

I realize that I'm showing myself to be a geezer by remembering this, but Apple did this crap a long time ago and I REALLY hated it then. Even more reason to stay away from their hardware now.

When Apple first came out with color Mac's in 1987 they used a D-sub/DA-15 connector for their video, instead of the then standard VGA connector. Apple's monitors were horribly expensive at the time, and a market of adapters quickly sprung up. I was doing desktop support at the time, and was plagued by this until finally moving into the back-office arena. It was a real huge pain in the ass. Not only that, but they changed the standard when the Quadra 700 came out, doing a sync-on-green or some such that caused a whole new type of adapter to come out.

So, 21 years later, they are still up to the same old crap. Customers suffer, IT curses them for being non-standard, and Apple wonders why they only have 8.9% of the market....They should have just stuck with DisplayPort. While annoying in its infancy, it is at least a recognized industry standard that is more likely to be adopted and cause less headache later on.

P.S.: Before one of you Apple Fanboys flames me for being a soulless spawn of Gates, realize that I first started using a Mac in February of 1984, have personally owned five. I just got sick and tired of the proprietary crap, especially after the Mac clone debacle, and switched to Windows/Intel-standard hardware where I have more of a choice and control over the system I use.