Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

How much is that software in the Windows?

Filed under
Linux
Microsoft
Mac

Or the Mac?

Recently I’ve been trading geekery with a gent in Pennsylvania who is in the process of moving a personal website from remote hosting to self-hosting. He’s a Mac guy and he bought a copy of OS X Server to run on his Mac Mini.

I was curious about this server software, so I looked into it. Seems like a nicely packaged product, typical Mac ease of use and polished user interface. The web server part of it runs on a modified version of Apache. List price is $499 and the best street price I could find after a brief search was $349.99.

Three hundred fifty bucks. Three. Hundred. Fifty. Dollars.

And that’s the discount price. I’m sure there are lots of people paying five benjamins to buy it directly from Apple.

My reaction to this reminds me of when Windows Vista was first released, and to buy the full (i.e. non-upgrade) system at retail cost up to $400 – and the way Microsoft controls their prices, discounters were practically nonexistent.

Rest Here




Windows partisans get touchy

dwasifar.com: Two days ago I posted a fairly innocuous bit of self-analysis, looking at the change in my own attitudes about the cost of software over the last few years of being a Linux user. It’s critical of the Windows ecosystem, and to a lesser extent the Mac ecosystem, but it’s pretty mild criticism as I go. I’ve written far harsher posts on that subject. But for some reason this one is attracting some fairly vitriolic Windows defenders in the comments section.

rest here

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

More in Tux Machines

today's leftovers

Proposed: A Tainted Performance State For The Linux Kernel

Similar to the kernel states of having a tainted kernel for using binary blob kernel modules or unsigned modules, a new tainting method has been proposed for warning the user about potentially adverse kernel performance. Dave Hansen of Intel has proposed a new "TAINT_PERFORMANCE" for the kernel that would proactively print a warning message about not using the kernel for any performance measurements. Dave explained in his RFC announcement, "I have more than once myself been the victim of an accidentally-enabled kernel configuration option being mistaken for a true performance problem. I'm sure I've also taken profiles or performance measurements and assumed they were real-world when really I was measuring the performance with an option that nobody turns on in production. A warning like this late in boot will help remind folks when these kinds of things are enabled." Read more

Scientific Linux 7.0 x86_64 BETA 3

Fermilab's intention is to continue the development and support of Scientific Linux and refine its focus as an operating system for scientific computing. Today we are announcing a beta release of Scientific Linux 7. We continue to develop a stable process for generating and distributing Scientific Linux, with the intent that Scientific Linux remains the same high quality operating system the community has come to expect. Please do not install Pre-Release software in your production environment. Read more

Ubuntu 14.10 (Utopic Unicorn) Now Features Linux Kernel 3.16.1

"The Utopic kernel has been rebased to the first v3.16.1 upstream stable kernel and uploaded to the archive, ie. linux-3.16.0-9.14. Please test and let us know your results," says Canonical's Joseph Salisbury, after the latest Ubuntu Kernel Team meeting. Read more