Symphonious

Jeremiah Foster writes about Apple closing the source to the OS X kernel on Intel. I the statement:

Without the ability to modify kernel source serious developers will not touch the Apple platform, maybe that is why the OS X server is not making significant inroads into the server community.

Firstly, serious developers don't really care about kernel source unless they happen to develop kernels or kernel modules. Most developers, both fun loving and serious, develop well above the kernel level and don't need access to its source code. Even the link between serious developers and those that are so passionate about open source kernels, that they refuse to use an OS whose kernel isn't open source is tenuous at best. The kernel is one very small, albeit central, part of OS X and the vast majority of the OS is and has always been closed source.

The connection between the number of developers and the adoption of Apple's server platform specifically is also strange. There's a great range of server software available for OS X, including the Linux staples, Apache, MySQL, PHP, Perl, Python and Ruby on Rails so it is hard to imagine that the lack of adoption of OS X server is particularly because of a lack of software. The fact is that Mac OS has and still is viewed as a consumer OS is significantly hurting OS X's adoption, as is the lack of a clear, long term roadmap from Apple. The truth is that there's a great number of reasons that OS X server isn't taking off, but the least significant of them is the fact that the kernel isn't open source.

Perhaps the question is‚ will Apple have enough innovation to maintain a pipeline of consumer products to remain vital?

Current trends point to yes. If and when being open source becomes important for Apple they are well placed to be able to do that, having gained experience and a lot of tough lessons in building open source communities. Right now, being open source is not a key selling point for Apple's key markets and so they won't hesitate to close source when it suits them.

Someone, I forget who, pointed to an old article on Ask Tog, Keyboard vs. The Mouse, pt 1. I found it particularly interesting to read that:

• Test subjects consistently report that keyboarding is faster than mousing.
• The stopwatch consistently proves mousing is faster than keyboarding.

I've always been of the mind that GUIs are faster than command lines for any task which you don't do often enough to know off by heart. I imagine the same applies in this case - any task you perform often enough to learn the keyboard shortcut off by heart is faster by keyboard shortcut, otherwise using the mouse is faster. Unfortunately, this means that when you begin using a new command frequently, you have to go through a period of slower use in order to learn the keyboard shortcut, after which you should be faster.

However, the article suggests, but doesn't outright state, that keyboard shortcuts are always slower which I find really quite odd. Perhaps that's not what's meant by the article, or perhaps I'm suffering from the two second amnesia and keyboard shortcuts really are always slower. I'm particularly intrigued to see if anyone has actual user data that shows that keyboard shortcuts are faster, and when they are.