>>>>Why are Apple refusing to give Be the information they need to get
>>>>running on G3 motherboards?
>>>Since the LinuxPPC people can get their OS running on Apple hardware
>>>without anybody holding their hands, then so could Be if they were
>>Sure, Be could hack their way onto Apple's machines, but that's a bit
>>expensive(read time and resource consuming) than buying the required
>>information from Apple....for unlike Linux, the BeOS is almost entirely
>>supported by a single company. There's also the legal complications
>>which exist for Be that don't for Linux....afterall, it's a lot easier
>>for Apple to sue Be than suing the numerous coders for Linux. Not
>>saying they would, but it's something the folks at Be have to think
>>about. Then there's the m*stand....should Be just work around
>>Apple's reticence or should Be
>>refuse to knuckle under and make a stand??
>>>As I understand it, they see a bigger return if they embrace
>>>Intel, so that's what they're doing.
>>Certainly Be does see a big market up in the Intel area, but that
>>wouldn't force them to drop PPC support...and I doubt anyone could argue
>>that Apple's non-cooperation is anything but discouraging...
>Oh, cut me some slack... Think that OF isn't documented, think again.
>Hell, they had Linux booting on iMac's a few weeks after their release.
>If a handful of hackers could port LinuxPPC, Be could if it wanted to.
Let's face it, it's inevitable that Apple is going to face the music
and embrace Linux *, not just "allowing" it on its hardware.
I've not figured out how or when, but I do know the _why_.
It's only a matter of time before either a Linux hardware or software
company is big enough or sly enough to buy/merge Apple. For a number
of different reasons. Having Apple's GUI/multimedia tech accessible
would do wonders for the Linux community, especially the side that
expects to make money. 8-)
And there is no doubt that Apple is "in play" as the investors say.
I mean, this is a company that doesn't even have an official CEO! (or
whatever position(s) that Job is currently filling.) I suppose the big
reason for that is the bad reputation Apple's corporate culture has.
That's why Apple may 'die" yet. (When I say "die," I mean no longer in
both hardware and software. AKA "Apple As We Know It.")
All the potential suiters are much more business oriented than Apple
is. On paper, a Dell (Linux, Wintel business stuff)/Apple (for home
Internet appliances) combo would be great, but it just wouldn't work
out. (Given Gateway's interest in Amiga, maybe Gateway/Apple?)
Apple is already working with Unix, so it would make perfect sense to
use Linux exclusively (Mac/Linux duel boot?). It would help Apple make
huge inroads into business and give it no end of good PR.
Unfortunately, so would have licensing the MacOS ten years ago.
That's why it's likely and outside force is going to _make_ Apple
do it. Apple has a HUGE potential in the home area network field. The
iMac proves that. And with specific use devices, it doesn't matter so
much that something isn't Wintel. Just look at what's happening with
Corel and its Linux boxen. (They rilly look like the future of the PC
to me--they could serve as a Netgateways for the overall networked
ICQ#: 9393354 * "Whenever you find that you are on the side of
the majority, it is time to reform." -- Mark Twain