Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

BSD User's Review Of OS X

Hemos posted more than 12 years ago | from the time-for-the-your-check-up dept.

Apple 406

Lally Singh writes: "Getting bored with the latest distribution? Or getting tired of searching for drivers for your 8 bit soundblaster (in)compatible? Then listen to one BSD user's opinion of Mac OS X. And stop complaining about the hardware. Give a Powermac or one of the portables a chance before knocking on it."

cancel ×

406 comments

fp (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168238)

os x is crap

Re:fp (1)

pjbass (144318) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168255)

Have you used OS X? Do you have any idea of its features (how Aqua renders itself, for one)? Before you make statements like yours, please back them up by being informed.

Re:fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168286)


pjbass is gay

Re:fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168293)

Much like BSD is. These fucking stupid BSD users just can't seem to get out of the early 90's, eh? Even the article's author doesn't know how to use meta tags and puts all the bullshit keywords in plain text. Lame. If I had a gun, and a bullet for every BSD user (along with point-blank range to said BSD users skulls), the world would be a better place. :-)

Re:fp (1)

Skyfire (43587) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168344)

If you studied search engine theory, you would note that many modern search engines (such as Google) ignore meta tags because people put useless things in them.

Re:fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168383)

Perhaps. But this should not, and does not, negate my argument that BSD users are mostly inept faggots living in the early 90's.

Re:fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168468)

"search engine theory" oh please, heh. Everythings "something theory". I study "make mundane shit sound important by adding theory to the end of everything theory".

Re:fp (-1)

evil_spork (444038) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168434)

You are an AC so I claim your first post as my own. Nice try, fuckwit.

Who cares? (-1)

insomniac (33758) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168240)

Not mefp.

Hardware (3, Funny)

Phroggy (441) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168244)

And stop complaining about the hardware. Give a Powermac or one of the portables a chance before knocking on it.

Does this mean knocking on the iMacs without first giving them a chance is perfectly acceptible? ;-)

Re:Hardware (2)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168420)

Heh.

It says PowerPC on the cardboard. So I think it's a PowerMac. Sort of.

You know that grandmas and college students like the name iMac more than PowerMac.

A good boost for Apple and *BSD. (3, Interesting)

pjbass (144318) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168246)

I'm glad to see that OSX is shaping up to what it promised. I saw it in beta and on its first official release on my buddy's dual-G4, and did nothing but drool. It's pretty. And it's pretty quick too. I'm glad to hear that someone who has better access to it and knows what to look for in the OS gave his thumbs up. Apple needs this boost, and it never hurts for BSD to chalk up another feather in its cap.

ep (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168248)

This early post for Ida!

Re:ep (-1)

insomniac (33758) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168333)

default.ida? baha

Sorry..

Stephen King, author, dead at 54 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168249)


Horror/fiction writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine house this morning. I'm sure we'll all miss him - even if you didn't read his books you've probably enjoyed one of his movies. Truly an American icon.

Re:Stephen King, author, dead at 54 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168257)

please modify the story. Make the cause of death "heatstroke." thx.

Re:Stephen King, author, dead at 54 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168265)

If it's true (and why you chose to post it here is beyond me, but that's besides the point), post a URL, fucknuts.

Re:Stephen King, author, dead at 54 (0)

sporkraper (465743) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168384)

She's* been posting this trash for months. If there was a URL, would you really want to follow it?

*Used female pronoun instead of assuming subject is male. Perhaps we should be randomly picking male or female pronouns when there is no information available, instead of using a male one or one for your own gender.

An bwtter OS is a SIMPLE OS! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168262)


Let's face the facts, the best computers are simple to use.

And here is the simplest computer around, and the interface is perfect because we are all born with it - the interface is human DRIVE. The computer works like this: I stick my pee sprout in your mom's poop chute for 1, and I stick it in her pee hole for 0.

poop chute = 1
pee hole = 0

Sometimes I stick it in her mouth, but that is for parity.

Sometimes complex operations can take a long time to complete, but that's okay! We're looking for simplicity here, not speed. And waiting for this interface isn't that bad.

This simple computer is very susceptable to visuses. In fact, it comes pre-loaded with several.

For review:

poop chute = 1
pee hole = 0

This computer also fits into Microsoft's .Net strategy - namely, pay per use. It costs $10 per computation, or 15 minutes, whichever comes first.

poop chute = 1
pee hole = 0

Re:An bwtter OS is a SIMPLE OS! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168304)

You do realize that a woman's "pee-hole" is only about a millimeter wide, don't you? You must have an amazingly tiny penis to be able to fit it in there.

Of course, you meant her vagina. The urethral opening is a different thing from the vaginal opening, you moron.

Re:An bwtter OS is a SIMPLE OS! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168466)

Learn something every day. Thanks!

*BSD is dying (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168270)

*BSD is dying

Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when last month IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on top of of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last [sysadminmag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick nd its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

*BSD is dying

mod this up - on topic! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168362)

finally, a bsd is dying post is on topic and insightful!!

mod up now jackass moderators!!

Re:*BSD is dying (0)

sporkraper (465743) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168449)

Nice troll, butt....

It's too damn old. I have been seeing this for a long time (and I didn't find it convincing ever).

You crapped out on the linkage. The first 2 paragraphs pretty strong, but the rest has no links! Why not a link to the different strains of OpenBSD that you mention, as well as Walnut Creek. For one final trollish jab, you could make the word dead in those bold phrases point to a disgusting dead guy at rotten.com.

Don't bother now. No one will care. Write a new troll.

Does is use the new interface? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168271)


My favorite interface? The C.U.M.

You know, the cum in-her-face?

and it's dotted, ladies and gentlemen! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168272)

A new record?

Why? (-1, Flamebait)

supabeast! (84658) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168276)

"And stop complaining about the hardware. Give a Powermac or one of the portables a chance before knocking on it."

I'll try that around the same time Apple brings their price/performance ratio in line with X86 PCs. Apple hardware is too slow, too limited, and grossly overpriced. I'll stop complaining about their hardware when they make cheap systems based on AMD processors, and stop charging twice what they should for all the other components.

Re:Why? (1, Informative)

jeffy124 (453342) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168308)

Apple hardware is too slow

Based on what? The MHz? The G4 500 Mhz performs roughly the same as PIII 1 Ghz. I heard a rumor recently that may explain this MHz myth on why Apple's chips haven't hit the GHz barrier yet: Intel and their x86 competitors (AMD, etc) count both the rising edge and falling edge of the clock cycle, while Motorola (makers of the Apple CPUs) count only the rising edge.

Re:Why? (1)

Skyfire (43587) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168322)

It's only as fast as a PIII 1 Ghz on certain tests, especially Graphics ones... and ones designed so they can beat Intel processors, but Apple never compares there hardware in ads to AMD... wonder why?

Re:Why? (1)

jeffy124 (453342) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168356)

Maybe so, but the tests i'm talking about are ones a co-worker of mine had done using the same C program compiled on a Linux box and an OS-X box, both compiled using gcc. The program itself is proprietary, but I can say it involved a rather complex math algorithm. The timing element was a wallclock. Result was approximately the same amount of processing time.

Re:Why? (0, Flamebait)

supabeast! (84658) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168372)

I know all about the differences between a 500Mhz RISC chip with a massive cache versus a 1Ghz CISC chip with a tiny cache, you pretentious fuck. Just because Apple can win a few benchmarks doesn't beat mean that their chips are anywhere near as fast as Intel/AMD chips all around, especially in gaming performance, one of the most important arenas for PC performance. The G4 CPU is a great processor, it just isn't nearly great enough to justify what Apple charges for it.

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

mhoward736 (193180) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168428)

Gaming performance one of the most important arenas for PC performance?

Get real.

What matters most is what YOU use the computer for. If its as a gaming machine, fine buy Intel. If you need to work with Photoshop all day buy a Mac, the price difference per MHz is irrelevant if you make your money doing this type of work. Need to compile stuff fast? How about a AMD or Alpha. Need to run Oracle with very high reliability, use SPARC/Solaris. Need to process as million records a second for a billing application, use an IBM Mainframe. Want to edit home movies, buy a Mac.

Get it right, its USEABILITY that matters not MHz.

Find the best machine for a task and then worry about MHz.

My personal opinion is that the best machine for a geek to play with linux, games, fool around with hardware etc has to be an x86 box because of the all round flexibility for a great price. In a business though? I don't care if costs $1K or $100K more if its more useable for the given task then the extra cost is almost irrelevant.

Re:Why? (0)

sporkraper (465743) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168437)

Your UID is proof that inflammatory cretin trolls existed before RISC was invented;.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168451)

Jesus, you're really an asshole, aren't you? Fuck you.

Re:Why does it Hertz so much. (2, Informative)

ian_po (234542) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168379)

Hertz is Hertz.

It means times per second. It refers to a full clock cycle, up down and back around, including rising and falling edges.

Worst rumor ever. And I only use a mac at home.

Re:Why does it Hertz so much. (2, Informative)

tauntalum (221678) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168425)

Hertz is Hertz.

It means times per second. It refers to a full clock cycle, up down and back around, including rising and falling edges.

I believe the guy was referring to fetches on the rising and falling edge of the bus clock. AMD does this, maybe others do too?

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

tshak (173364) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168390)

Apple hardware is too slow
Based on what? The MHz? The G4 500 Mhz performs roughly the same as PIII 1 Ghz. I heard a rumor recently that may explain this MHz myth on why Apple's chips haven't hit the GHz barrier yet: Intel and their x86 competitors (AMD, etc) count both the rising edge and falling edge of the clock cycle, while Motorola (makers of the Apple CPUs) count only the rising edge.


Actually, although the G4 is clearly a superior chip then a PIII, or even an Athlon Thunderbird, the price performance ratio is what is in question.

You're right - mhz rating has NOTHING to do with it. It's completely irrelevant if processor A at nmhz outperforms processor B at nmhz. What does matter, is if processor A at $n outperforms processor B at the same price. Anyone can go out and build a super optimized chip that runs at 500mhz and outperforms another chip at 2ghz, but what's the point if it costs 10times as much?

To quantify my point with a relevant example, here's a rough comparison:

If I spend $77 [newegg.com] for an Athlon 1.0Ghz, I don't care if a $349 [maczone.com] G4 500mhz get's similar scores on benchmarks.

Re:Why? (2, Interesting)

tm2b (42473) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168309)

"Insightful?"

Anybody who complains that Apple hardware prices are high hasn't been pawing attention for a couple of years.

Compare the price/performance of an iMac with similarly powered x86 systems. Compare the price of an iBook with similarly powered portables.

They're very competitive these days.

Re:Why? (2)

jchristopher (198929) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168454)

Compare the price/performance of an iMac with similarly powered x86 systems.

You shouldn't have picked the iMac :)

I'll bite -"Fastest" iMac, $1499. 700 mhz G3, 256 MB, 60 GB drive, cheesy ATI graphics card, ethernet, CDRW, FireWire.

Now let's stroll over to Dell.com. They sell a computer called the 8100, for $1459. Pentium IV 1.5ghz, 256 MB RAM, 60 GB drive, vastly superior GeForce2mx video, ethernet, CDRW, Firewire. 17" monitor, bigger than iMac. I won't even start on it's ZERO PCI slots or lack of upgradability on the video and sound.

Out of those two systems, I know which one I'd like to own.

Note: I have not even addressed Athlon systems, which have an even better price/performance ratio.

Don't even get me started on the higher priced G4, their pricing is a horrible joke.

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168431)

My G4 Titanium 400 is just as fast at Word, IE, Excel, Outlook, FTP, etc as the 1000 and 1133 P3s in the office.

It's a hell of a lot more stable than WinNT 4 or Win2000 too. And it's only 100 bucks more than the 733MHz IBM A21s that we bought at the same time.

The price/performance ratio is in line with X86.

A few notes. (3, Insightful)

pjbass (144318) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168455)

Just a side-note: one of the most reliable and robust processors available right now for large applications (talking about mission-critical, server farm grade) is the Power architecture. This is an architecture made by IBM. A very robust RISC architecture. It's the processor in an IBM RS/6000 and other RS series servers. It just so happens to be the same architecture that Apple uses, just a version of it (PowerPC). The fact is that these processors ARE superior in their respective arenas.

Also, the other fact that Apple has to deal with (which in turn jacks up price) is the ability to produce the processors to meet demand. When the G4 debuted, Apple and Motorolla could not meet the demand. My buddy waited a few months extra for his dual G4. The inability to mass produce, something that Intel and AMD have the luxury of, will certainly jack up costs due to the obvious extra work required to produce the same output. This is probably, IMHO, one of the biggest contributors to Apple's price difference. But, (even being an Intel employee), I am thouroghly impressed with the G4's performace. I can't wait to see how the Intel Itanium aligns itself with the G4.

Slashdotted Already. Here's a Mirror (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168283)

Google has a cached copy here [google.com] . Interesting read.

The slashdot effect is really getting out of control. Has Taco thought about mirroring linked content on /. servers?

Re:Slashdotted Already. Here's a Mirror (0)

Dr. Fred (473161) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168352)

(1, Informative)?? Would the admins please try out mirrors before giving out "Informative" points to obvious Trolls like this.

Ignore the Parent Comment (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168368)

Please grow up, Dr. Fred [slashdot.org] . You are obviously trying to troll, and not doing a very good job at it, at that. Please find better ways to spend you time. I hovered over the link, and it's obvious to me that the link is legitimate, unless you are insinuating that google is unsavory in some way.

Re:Ignore the Parent Comment (0)

Dr. Fred (473161) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168432)

Before telling me to grow up, you should click the damn link and find out for yourself you fool. Of course it looks like a legitimate link, that's what I thought when I clicked it at first. Oh and please ignore the other posts that complain about this so-called 'mirror', they must all be trolls. If you're the retard who posted this, then you can go screw yourself instead of calling legitimate readers trolls.

Re:Slashdotted Already. Here's a Mirror (0)

fermion (181285) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168354)

this seems to be bad link...mod it down to -1

Re:Slashdotted Already. Here's a Mirror (0, Troll)

Corrado (64013) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168358)

**PORN WARNING**

I don't know how they did it, but this is a big picture of a couple of guys getting it on. It also crashed Netscape by opening lots of windows. If you go here, turn off Javascript first.

**PORN WARNING**

GROW UP!! Quit Trolling (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168375)

Your comment is silly and off-topic. You obviously have multiple accounts and a lot of time on your hands.

Mod Parent Down (Troll, -1) (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168456)

If that guy considers that link porn, he needs to take a serious look at his sexuality. This would mark the first time I've heard an OS review called porn.

Maybe this guy (like many Slashdot readers) needs to get a (sex) life.

Re:Slashdotted Already. Here's a Mirror (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168359)

A link to gay porn gets an "Informative" mod up... huh? Could you please at least check the link before doing that?

DON'T click on that link (0, Offtopic)

tEbIng (43203) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168360)

it's NOT a cached copy of the article, it's pr0n.

Re:Slashdotted Already. Here's a Mirror (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168361)

Nasty redirect link in prent... Turn on your runnaway app catcher in KDE!

mod up !! thanks for the mirror! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168371)

this was a useful link to mirror to!!

thanks AC!

Re:Slashdotted Already. Here's a Mirror (1)

jchristopher (198929) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168381)

Not only did you cleverly manage to work a porno link into the thread, you managed to get modded up for it, too. Congratulations!

STUPID MODERATORS (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168385)

The above link leads to a cached copy of comp-u-geek.net, using a known hack of Google's cache feature. Follow the link if you don't believe me, or try this experiment:
  • Do a google search for something.
  • Click on the "Cached" link to see the cached version of the page.
  • The URL for this page will be something like http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:ABCDEFGH:url. com/path.html where "ABCDEFGH" is a random-looking mixture of upper- and lowercase letters, which look like a hash key of some sort.
  • You can change the URL appearing after this hash key, but it will lead to the same site as the original link. This allows trolls like the above upmodded person to hide a link to goatse.cx or comp-u-geek.net or adequacy.org as an innocent looking cache link.
Of course, all you mods are too busy shooting heroin to even check the links before you hand out the informative mods. Morons.

Quit Being Gay (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168408)

You are obviously trolling. Whoever decided to attack the (working, perfectly legitimate) link to a cached copy of OS X article has way too much time on their hands. Obviously, someone with multiple accounts has been posting repeatedly trying to discredit the post.

I'm sorry, but your troll isn't going to work. All anybody needs to do to see that you're wrong is click on the link. I'll be vindicated and you'll be proven wrong, you troll!

TROLL (0, Offtopic)

Phroggy (441) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168400)

Please mod down.

Re:Slashdotted Already. Here's a Mirror (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168415)

Who ever moderated this up to +2 Insightful should lose moderator access for life.

Re:Slashdotted Already. Here's a Mirror (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168453)

Why? Those guys were SEXY!!!!

windows user's review of OS X (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168289)

The reason OS X sucks monkey balls isn't because of the crappy mouse that comes with all Apple boxes, it isn't because BSD is maintained by a bunch of commies, and it isn't because Mac networking isn't real plug-and-play like Windows networking.

The real reason OS X sucks is that the hardware required to run it costs 3x more than the hardware to run Windows. Who the fuck buys 500MHz boxes for $3000?? A bunch of morons. I can buy 6 1.4GHz Athlon boxes for that price. And what if something breaks or you want to upgrade?? Sorry, that'll be $100 for 16MB SDRAM. That's what happens when you buy closed architecture.

And don't try to tell me that a 500MHz Mac is faster than a 1.4GHz x86 box. Do a google search for the benchmarks and you'll see that opcode for opcode x86 is faster. 32 bit xor on G3's takes 4x longer than an Athlon and 5x longer than a P4.

Re:windows user's review of OS X (2)

jchristopher (198929) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168374)

And what if something breaks or you want to upgrade?? Sorry, that'll be $100 for 16MB SDRAM. That's what happens when you buy closed architecture.

You're trolling, but just to clarify in case anyone already doesn't know, every current Apple computer takes "PC standard" memory, (SO-DIMMS in the laptops, regular SDRAM for the desktops) and has for quite a while.

There is enough shit wrong with Apple that's true, we don't need to make up more :) Thanks.

sorry TROLL (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168392)

You are wrong man. They don't use standard DIMMs, they use Funky D RAM or something. You can't pop a standard DIMM into a G3 box.

Re:sorry TROLL (0)

sporkraper (465743) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168472)

LC3, not G3. Wipe the come stain off your box and look again.

Re:windows user's review of OS X (-1)

CmdrTaco on (468152) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168412)

Dude you over-did it. Tone down on the trolling to make it believable.

CC? (4, Insightful)

jessemckinney (398160) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168290)

This guy did not use the developer tools that came with OS X. They are downloadable from the apple site. I don't think that I can believe what this guy says if he can't even get the right set of tools.

*BSD is dying (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168291)

*BSD is dying

Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when last month IDC confirmed that *SD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on top of of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last [sysadminmag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick nd its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

*BSD is dying

Making up (0, Offtopic)

Johnny Mnemonic (176043) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168292)

for your earlier troll, Hemos? I wish I could moderate the editors--then my frontpage would be more (+2 Insightful) and less (-1 Troll).

mod this up... (1)

brulman (183184) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168340)

I think Hemos took some of the earlier comments to heart...

Then go to K5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168447)

I wish I could moderate the editors

You can. You're just not looking at the right weblog. Go to Kuro5hin [kuro5hin.org] and moderate all the stories you want.

my girlfriend (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168294)

my girlfriend and i have been dating for almost two years. over the last year, she has packed on about 20-30 extra pounds! what should i do? how can i tell her that it's gross without hurting her feelings?

Re:my girlfriend (3, Funny)

l3377r0lld00d (446065) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168339)

You're a geek! Shut the eff up and be happy you even have a woman in the first place!

Consumer Unix (3, Interesting)

LeyDruid (124591) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168296)

I'm having fun with OS X on my new 866 G4 tower (plus dual-booting LinuxPPC ;-) . It's fairly quick on my machine, but I'm looking forward to the 10.1 speed jump.

OS X doesn't get everything right, but I think its probably the closest any Unix variant will come to the general consumer's desktop. OS X is a usable Unix distro, but has the niceties that most home users expect, and really require. Yes, translucent buttons on top of a port scanner are a requirement. Sure, its nice to grep for things, but my next-door soccer mom neighboor isn't going to. But I can use SSH to administer my website. This duality makes OS X the most usable OS - almost. Not enough native apps yet. :-p

Later,
Goss

Apple hardware is actually pretty nice! (5, Interesting)

Zorkon (121860) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168299)

Contrary to popular belief in the x86 world (of which I was a part until recently), Apple hardware is not only very spiffy looking, it's very well engineered IMHO.

After a series of problems with 4 Sony Vaio notebooks (two PCG-748s, a Picturebook, and a PCG-F630), my girlfriend and I decided to look for alternative mobile computing solutions. Both of us being Unix/Linux users, we were drawn to the Apple Powerbooks/iBooks (the new model, not the clamshell).

The notebooks feel solid. They have excellent battery life (I got 4.5 hours on a charge at the Ottawa Linux Symposium, while surfing wirelessly the whole time). The G3 and G4 processors feel fast. You don't have to have a 1 GHz Intel beast in your notebook - performance isn't measured solely by MHz, and especially not across different chip architectures!

Sure, I had some minor complaints - only one mouse button for instance. But both YellowDog and LinuxPPC allow you to easily remap keys to mouse buttons. Guess what? That Apple key, and the "enter" key, on either side of the spacebar, just above the mouse pad on a G4 Titanium make excellent mouse buttons! Not to mention full USB support for external keyboards/mice when "docked". Built in antennas for wireless networking reduce the cost of a wireless network card... here in Canada, an 802.11b wireless card typically runs around $220 Cdn, whereas the Apple Airport (OEMed Lucent 802.11b card) runs about $140. And the G4 Titanium's screen is simply the most georgeous thing out there IMHO.

Price-wise Apple hardware isn't all that bad these days. Sure, the G4 Titanium is expensive when compared to a Dell Latitude. But the G4 Ti is the top of the line Apple - it has more in common with the Dell 8100 series... and when you compare those two, the difference is $50-$100 Cdn.

Ultimately, it's up to the individual user to decide which notebook best suits them. But at least give an Apple notebook a chance before dismissing it. They are really quite nice (and quite popular with the Linux coder crowd at the Ottawa Linux Symposium - there were many, many, many Powerbook G4s, and a few iBooks).

MODERATORS: This is an obvious troll (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168329)

Everybody knows that people who use computers don't have girlfriends. This should be an obvious indication that the poster is shamelessly trying to take advantage of the average moderator's ignorance. Hopefully, you aren't an average moderator. Use your brain. Mod this troll down to the ground.

Re:Apple hardware is actually pretty nice! (1, Flamebait)

pinkpineapple (173261) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168353)

Very well engineered my arshe! I bought a TiG4 recently just too find out that the temperature of the sucker goes well beyond what my table top can stand. I took the laptop by one end and the battery dropped on the floor! Next, I found out that the keys are still marking the LCD screen when you close the lid. And finally, the decals on the laptop transfer to the base frame when you close the machine, so you can read PowerBook G4 on the bottom, mirrored. I don't mention the problems I had with a Cube G4 since these are well know, neither the underpowered 256KB cache /66MHz memory bus on the new iBooks making these machines unable to run a bloatware ala MacOS X. What were you saying about well engineered?

Re:Apple hardware is actually pretty nice! (3, Interesting)

jchristopher (198929) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168357)

Sure, the G4 Titanium is expensive when compared to a Dell Latitude. But the G4 Ti is the top of the line Apple - it has more in common with the Dell 8100 series... and when you compare those two, the difference is $50-$100 Cdn.

I agree, the Ti is an awesome laptop, but let's allow it to stand on it's own merits. It STARTS at US $2599. I just configured a Dell 8100 for $2,148.00 through their 'small business' store.

$450 is nothing to sneeze at, and will buy you a shitload of memory, giant hard drive, case, docking station, whatever. The Dell also has the best laptop video card avaiable (GeForce2go) whereas the Mac has the older ATI graphics.

So Apple is not quite there yet on price, but they are getting closer with the portables. Unfortunately, the G4 tower and iMac are getting further away...

Re:Apple hardware is actually pretty nice! (2)

irix (22687) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168443)

They have excellent battery life (I got 4.5 hours on a charge at the Ottawa Linux Symposium, while surfing wirelessly the whole time).

So you were one of the people with the Mac portables at OLS. I was quite surprised to see so many of them around.

They look so nice - almost makes me want to go and buy one myself. When is that OS X 10.1 release date again? ;)

just as soon as.... (2, Informative)

jchristopher (198929) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168301)

And stop complaining about the hardware.

I'll stop complaining about their hardware as soon as they stop charging $350 to UPGRADE from a GeForce2mx to a GeForce3 and selling 256 MB sticks of memory for $400.

I have no problem with Apple charging a premium for their nice cases, friendly OS, and good quality motherboards. I DO have a problem with them using "clone-PC" quality commodity parts and charging for them as if they engineered them in their own R&D department.

Re:just as soon as.... (0)

l3377r0lld00d (446065) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168369)

But if the general box interested you, you could buy it and then get say 1GB RAM 3rd party for a few bucks...

OR you could cut your nose off to spite your face...

Now that's a Slashdot skill if there ever was one...

Kwitcherbitchen (5, Insightful)

sg3000 (87992) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168399)

You sound like a computer geek...go buy your GeForce3 and extra memory third party. It's easy enough to add this stuff to any Mac made in the last 10 years.

You're displaying a common misunderstanding about marketing -- things are generally priced based on what people will pay for them, not based on what they cost. Don't like it? Tough. That's capitalism.

Apple is charging you a premium for the convenience of buying it from them. They're not the only company that charges for the convenience: ever bought popcorn at the movies? Do you pay a 1000% markup on Coke at a fast food place? Did you know that most liquor companies bottle the exact same stuff in a generic bottle and sell it for half the price as a "house brand"? My company charges about $10k for a bottom of the line PC if you insist that we sell you one to go with our multi-million dollar telephone switch. And customers pay it, because it's simpler that way.

Same thing.

Um... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168409)

Then don't buy RAM from apple? New world Macs take industry standard RAM modules. Go find some cheap sticks on pricewatch.

What does your comment have to do with OS X from a BSD users perspective?

Too late to be good... (1, Interesting)

pinkpineapple (173261) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168302)

I have been using MacOS X since the first ports, and before that OpenStep. I still have a slab running at home. Still a nice system after all these years. I got hooked to objective-c the first day I tried it. The language and the OS where well integrated. The beautiful interface and high-quality of the whole system was a nice achievement. Not like MacOS X unfortunately. Nothing seems to make sense in the gut of the architecture. You have a mixture of C for kernel and foundation, add a little bit of embedded C++ for the IOKit and addtional drivers, drop some C++ with a CodeWarrior PowerPlant on top in what is known as the Finder (a cross between Destop manager and MacOS 9 Finder), then of course, objective C framework renamed Cocoa to go with the trend and add Java in case you get bored to the mix. You end up with this hideous monster of bloatware, hard to program system, slow as hell for loading all the libraries. In short : a kludge. So you know what I did: I installed linux on my PowerMac instead and then things got useable and snappy again. Linux could have even run without the 512MB of RAM I had to put in there ot run OS X. Oh! and finally, I can play DVDs with ut region code, and burn any type of CDs too BTW. And I won't get IE to crash all the time, and Quicktime reminding me to buy the upgrade everytime I watch a movie. Things are so much better now.

Re:Too late to be good... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168334)

That's pretty close to the truth.

Cheers,

--fred

Pretty cool (2, Informative)

ebw (5903) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168303)

OS-X seems fairly cool from the little I've seen of it. I was especially happy to see that a full Java 2 implementation is available on it.

Apple did a good job with this.

One thing to check out is the Gnu/Darwin project here : http://gnu-darwin.sourceforge.net/

ebw

Re:Pretty cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168405)

Warf warf warf! Apple did a pretty good job with what??? Java 2?

Have you tried running a Java2 app on OS X yet? I did, and it looks really ugly. With the aqua look&feel sticking in Metal size buttons. And try any Java2D app to crash the app. IE doesn't run Java by default and when it does it's not really nice neither. In short, just a bad port of the Sun VM.

No thanks, I'll stick with Linux. At least the blackdown people are doing a nice job. And they don't even get paid.

*BSD is dying (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168305)

*BSD is dying

Yet another crippling bombshell hit th beleaguered *BSD community when last month IDC confirmed that *SD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on top of of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last [sysadminmag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick nd its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

*BSD is dying

OSX is great (2)

MrBlack (104657) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168315)

I saw OSX for the first time the other night at my brother's house. It seemed quite fast (on a relatively old iMac). It is also most certainly a UNIX. The command prompt is right there with all the commands I know and love (like 'man' ;^)). My brother also had an early MONO running on it. Very cool. The developers tools (which come on a seperate CD) look quite interesting. Nice GUI builder ala visual basic with object c behind (I think). Overall....I'm jealous!

You're missing the point (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168324)

Here is my ass
Which you may kiss.
Take time and aim well
You don't want to miss.

For if you aim low
And your lips they do fall
Then you will find
You'll be sucking my balls.

If you aim high
Despite your true heart
Sucks to be you
Now you're eating my fart.

*BSD is dying (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168325)

SD is dying

Yt another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when last month IDC confirmed that *SD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on top of of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last [sysadminmag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

*BSD is dying

OS X fun (1)

Windplume (262613) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168328)

My first experience with OS X was when the network
guy at school brought in a copy for us(Comm Center Aides) and him. It's very pretty,but you can't get a shell up fast enough for my liking,and classic stuff takes FOREVER to load. There's also some really obvious bugs, like the screensaver one (moving mouse brings up a login box,but if you don't login and close the box,there's a rectangular patch frozen to what the screensaver was when you brought the box up). Seriously, how hard is that to notice. OS X will be awesome once some kinks get worked out. It's a prettyfied BSD.

When I was your age (0, Offtopic)

SnapperHead (178050) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168338)

Not everyone had access to an OC-2048, and most servers where 800 mhz, so we would have to wait 4 hours before we could reach a site due to the slashdot effect. You kids are spoiled, your connection are so quick, it gets there before you needed it ... damn wipper snappers.

Don't ask ... :)

Cost (0, Flamebait)

SilentChris (452960) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168355)

"And stop complaining about the hardware. Give a Powermac or one of the portables a chance before knocking on it."

Sorry, can't afford it. Really. Has anyone seen the prices of Macs lately? I swear, I think at least $100 goes toward the candy coating.

Re:Cost (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168421)

Get a job. Christ.

*BSD is dying (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168366)

*BS is dying

Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when last month IDC confirmed that *SD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on top of of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost mor market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known ll along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last [sysadminmag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick nd its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

*BS is dying

Drivers? (0, Flamebait)

Grim Grepper (452375) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168389)

Or getting tired of searching for drivers for your 8 bit soundblaster (in)compatible?

I'm sorry? Now, before you mod me as a troll, hear me out. Of course Mac OS X doesn't have driver problems, but it's because the hardware selection in Macland is very poor. Why should they have driver problems? There are so few peripherals out there for Macintosh computers. What good is it having "working drivers" if there is so little hardware available in the first place?

Re:Drivers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168422)

It's amazing how true your comment is. No hardware to buy (that is why they had the Cube for a while, no need for slots ;-)

Oh, and no games neither, so the Mac is a sure way and to get a computer, and to save money.

Fundamental? (5, Insightful)

"Zow" (6449) | more than 12 years ago | (#2168391)

Okay, I've just started reading and already I've hit:

As a member of the BSD faithful I want to have access to the fundamental tools that I find with the other major BSD platforms, like a web and database server, compilers and network utilities.

I guess the author & I have a different idea of "fundamental". My idea of a fundamental is being able to dd to a raw device. I'll grant that compilers and network utilities can be fundamental depending on the application, but web & db servers? Besides, it's not like you couldn't get all four of those under MacOS. I think OS X is much more impressive under the hood as opposed to just the benefits of adding a CLI.

There, I've said my peace - flame away.

-"Zow"

*BSD is dying (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168410)

&nbsp *S is dying

Yt another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when last month IDC confirmed that *SD accounts for less than a frction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on top of of the latst Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last [sysadminmag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick nd its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

*BSDis dying

I've used it since Alpha code (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168413)


I work for a specialty consulting firm in Dallas - our specialty is that we deal almost exclusively with Macs. We have a networking division, a developer/programming division, and a help desk branch that we contract out to large companies. I work in the development side, mostly in interface development for custom databases we write.

Aplle send us their code early and often - I was running a version of OSX almost two years ago - when it was still very much a hybrid of the prior release. The forked resource allocation was in place, but relatively simple stuff (like IP routing) were added gradually in small pieces.

I've discovered that OSX - from both a user perspective and an "under the hood" view - is quite simply the best OS they've come up with. They're WAY ahead of alot of what Microsoft is trying to do with, say, Active Directory. The whole concept of a central distributed database is taken to a whole new level with OSX, by taking the concept of "user" and applying it to the underlying OS.

Think of it in these simple terms ... something like roaming profiles for a PC - every user has his/her own unique settings, web sites, even mouse scroll speed. But none of this stuff is set by the user. The OS "watches" the user and figures it out on it's own. But this information isn't stored in a profile or a registry, it is actually distributed across the network in a split-plained HXT file to all other computers running OSX.

And how big is that network? Potentially as big as the Internet, again, determined your habits as the OS wathces you. If you only work in your soho, your manipulated profile will probably only stay in the building. If you travel all over the county and browse the internet alot, your user profile could be sitting on a computer in San Jose even though you live in Pittsburgh. But if you travel to Los Angeles, you'll get the San Jose copy when there.

Apple's concept for this new interface is what they're calling the "cumulative user manipulation." The C.U.M. interface right now is travelling all over the net, in short little batches like spreading seed. It's swallowed by remote nodes, called "sister objects" in the C.U.M. heirarchy.

Like I've said, I've been CUMing for almost two years now and have no desire to stop. OSX rocks, and I think it will re-establish Apple's desktop dominance.

I'm holding off on buying for now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2168419)

I was thinking of buying an Apple as my 2nd home system, but I've been holding off for awhile. I seem to recall reading an interesting post from a fellow Slashdotter who had some rather sobering facts about BSD's possible decline (if somebody would be kind enough to dredge it up and post it, I would appreciate it). Those numbers have me wondering if I shouldn't stick with a proven Intel solution and stick to Linux -- contrary to the BSD numbers, Linux appears to be as healthy as ever.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...