Linux and Mac OS X 172
William J writes "Here is an article with an interesting slant on the relationship between the Mac OS and Linux. The author suggests that Gnome and KDE developers can learn from the Mac GUI. Worth quoting: 'It is amazing to me that an OS which was developed largely by volunteers (and which is essentially free) can run with unprecedented stability on the same hodgepodge of PC hardware on which another company has spent billions of dollars in R&D costs and is still unable to produce a product which can run for more than a few days without crashing -- and it costs hundreds of dollars.'"
Proposal (Score:5, Insightful)
What the heck is the point of this article? OS X is more polished than KDE/Gnome, Windows is not so stable, you can use Linux as a server for Macs... News at eleven!
Re:Proposal (Score:3, Informative)
That's why it's here.
KDE and Linux (Score:2)
That's the whole thing about Linux, KDE and Gnome... You're not limited to one combination of hardware and software. All these articles which put KDE and Linux together are missing that point.
Re:KDE and Linux (Score:2)
Re:KDE and Linux (Score:2)
Re:KDE and Linux (Score:2, Informative)
Is FreeBSD fully compliant? No. No free unix implementation is. But FreeBSD (and I assume the other *BSDs as well) is a lot more compliant than some commercial unices I've used.
Re:KDE and Linux (Score:2)
Thoughts?
Re:KDE and Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
There are two kinds of standards: informal de facto standards and formalized official standards.
Linux certainly is not the formal official standard for anything, not even for itself, since you are not allowed to define a thing in terms of itself. POSIX is the formal standard because it went through a formal standardization process. There's an actual document reviewed and approved by experts after much discussion that says what POSIX is.
Is Linux an informal de facto standard? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what your definition is. It may be a standard for a kernel, but your system is much more than a kernel, it's an amalgamation of software from several different projects. So you end up with software that says it needs this version of a kernel and that version of a libc and you're still not sure you won't have to crowbar it into place unless you're running the exact same distro version that the packager used.
The aim of POSIX is to get beyond all of this. If you have a POSIX compliant system, and the software claims POSIX compliance as well, you are virtually guaranteed that the software will work. That's great! (POSIX is actually a set of standards, so my referal to it as a single standard is merely semantic shorthand)
But I want to respond to your unwritten question. If my powers of telepathy still operate sufficiently, I can tell that your real question is "when will Linux finally become a standard?" Okay, may telepathy is a bit rusty, it might not be you thinking this, but I'm definitely picking it up from someone. The answer is, "Linux should never become a standard." The reason is simple: standards and implementations of the standards are two very different things. Eventually Linux may implement POSIX so well that it becomes a "reference" implementation, but it will never be the standard itself.
Think about the web for a bit, and you'll understand. Because of a variety of bizarre circumstances, including certain recessive genes in most web developers, implementations have gained the status of standards. And the result is chaos. Web sites aren't written to standards, they're written to specific implementations of the standards. Unless you're using one particular browser released by a company in Washington, you will *never* be able to access every web site claiming standards conformance. The situation is even worse in word processing land where MSWord is the standard.
I don't want to see those situations occur in Unix. So please write your software to the POSIX standards instead of to the Linux implementation.
Re:KDE and Linux (Score:1)
Good post by the way. I have been fighting the
BTW, did you know Windows NT/2000/XP is a POSIX compliant OS? No BS. I haven't been able to run any POSIX software on any of them but it's in the white papers (not that it means anything).
Peaces.
Re:Bzzt. Yourself Look it Up (Score:1)
Linux is not UNIX, it's a Unix-like operating system. BSD is UNIX, and since OS X is based on BSD and NeXTSTEP/OpenStep it is indeed UNIX. I'm not sure how Posix compliant OS X is, or even doubt Apple makes any claims that it is.
One thing I do know is that Macs are the standard in a lot of industries, such as the one I work in, publishing.
Re:Bzzt. Yourself Look it Up (Score:1)
Subject: Main Unix flavors.
6.3) Main Unix flavors.
The following is very much an early '90s view.
Until recently, there were basically two main flavors of Unix:
System V (five) from AT&T, and the Berkeley Software Distribution
(BSD). SVR4 is essentially a merge of these two flavors. End
'91, OSF/1 from the Open Software Foundation was released (as a
direct competitor to System V) and may (future will tell) change
this picture.
The following lists the main releases and features of System V,
BSD and OSF/1.
System V from AT&T. Typical of Intel hardware. Most often
ported Unix, typically with BSD enhancements (csh, job
control, termcap, curses, vi, symbolic links). System V
evolution is now overseen by Unix International (UI). UI
members include AT&T, Sun,
Newsgroup: comp.unix.sysv[23]86. Main releases:
- System III (1982): first commercial Unix from AT&T
- FIFOs (named pipes) (later?)
- System V (1983):
- IPC package (shm, msg, sem)
- SVR2 (1984):
- shell functions (sh)
- SVID (System V Interface Definition)
- SVR3 (1986) for ? platforms:
- STREAMS (inspired by V8), poll(), TLI (network software)
- RFS
- shared libs
- SVID 2
- demand paging (if hardware supports)
- SVR3.2:
- merge with Xenix (Intel 80386)
- networking
- SVR4 (1988), mainstream of Unix implementations, merge of
System V, BSD, and SunOS.
- From SVR3: sysadmin, terminal I/F, printer (from BSD?),
RFS, STREAMS, uucp
- From BSD: FFS, TCP/IP, sockets, select(), csh
- From SunOS: NFS, OpenLook GUI, X11/NeWS, virtual memory
subsystem with memory-mapped files, shared libraries
(!= SVR3 ones?)
- ksh
- ANSI C
- Internationalization (8-bit clean)
- ABI (Application Binary Interface -- routines instead of traps)
- POSIX, X/Open, SVID3
- SVR4.1
- async I/O (from SunOS?)
- SVR4.2 (based on SVR4.1ES)
- Veritas FS, ACLs
- Dynamically loadable kernel modules
- Future:
- SVR4 MP (multiprocessor)
- Use of Chorus microkernel?
Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD). Typical of VAXen, RISCs,
many workstations. More dynamic, research versions now than
System V. BSD is responsible for much of the popularity of
Unix. Most enhancements to Unix started here. The group
responsible at UCB (University of California at Berkeley) is
the Computer System Research Group (CSRG). They closed down
in 1992. Newsgroup: comp.unix.bsd. Main releases:
(much reorganized wrt dates and releases, hope it's converging)
- 2.xBSD (1978) for PDP-11, still of significance? (2.11BSD
was released in 1992!).
- csh
- 3BSD (1978):
- virtual memory
- 4.?BSD:
- termcap, curses
- vi
- 4.0BSD (1980):
- 4.1BSD (?): base of later AT&T CRG versions
- job control
- automatic kernel config
- vfork()
- 4.2BSD (1983):
- TCP/IP, sockets, ethernet
- UFS: long file names, symbolic links
- new reliable signals (4.1 reliable signals now in SVR3)
- select()
- 4.3BSD (1986) for VAX, ?:
- 4.3 Tahoe (1988): 4.3BSD with sources, support for Tahoe
(32-bit supermini)
- Fat FFS
- New TCP algorithms
- 4.3 Reno (1990) for VAX, Tahoe, HP 9000/300:
- most of P1003.1
- NFS (from Sun)
- MFS (memory file system)
- OSI: TP4, CLNP, ISODE's FTAM, VT and X.500; SLIP
- Kerberos
- Net1 (?) and Net2 (June 1991) tapes: that portion of BSD which
requires no USL copyright
- 4.4BSD (alpha June 1992) for HP 9000/300, Sparc, 386, DEC, others;
neither VAX nor Tahoe; two versions, lite (~Net2 contents plus,
fixes and new architectures) and encumbered (everything, requires
USL license):
- new virtual memory system (VMS) based on Mach 2.5
- virtual filesystem interface, log-structured filesystem, size
of local filesystem up to 2^63, NFS (freely redistributable,
works with Sun's, over UDP or TCP)
- ISO/OSI networking support (based on ISODE): TP4/CLNP/802.3 and
TP0/CONS/X.25, session and above in user space; FTAM, VT, X.500.
- most of POSIX.1 (esp. new terminal driver a la SV), much of
POSIX.2, improved job control; ANSI C headers
- Kerberos integrated with much of the system (incl. NFS)
- TCP/IP enhancements (incl. header prediction, SLIP)
- important kernel changes (new system call convention,
- other improvements: FIFOs, byte-range file locking
Official 4.4BSD release was expected within 6 months of above.
The Open Software Foundation (OSF) released its Unix called OSF/1
end of 1991. Still requires an SVR2 license.
Compatible/compliant with SVID 2 (and 3 coming), POSIX,
X/Open, etc.. OSF members include Apollo, Dec, HP, IBM,
- OSF/1 (1991):
- based on Mach 2.5 kernel
- symmetric multiprocessing, parallelized kernel, threads
- logical volumes, disk mirroring, UFS (native), S5 FS, NFS
- enhanced security (B1 with some B2, B3; or C2), 4.3BSD admin
- STREAMS, TLI/XTI, sockets
- shared libs, dynamic loader (incl. kernel)
- Motif GUI
- Release 1.3 (Jun 94)
- Based on MACH 3.0 Micro-kernel
- Conformant with current draft of Specification 1170
(considered for standardization in X/Open's Fast Track process)
- Data Capture I/F, Common Data Link I/F,
- ISO 10646 and 64-bit support.
- OSF/1 MK (mikrokernel) based on Mach 3.0
This list of major flavors should probably also include Xenix
(Microsoft) which has been the basis for many ports. Derived from V7,
S III and finally System V, it is similar externally but significantly
changed internally (performance-tuned for micros).
Two very good books describe the internals of the two main flavors.
These are:
- System V: "Design of the Unix Operating System", M.J. Bach.
- BSD: "Design and Implementation of the 4.3BSD Unix Operating System",
Leffler, McKusick, Karels, Quaterman.
For a good introduction to OSF/1 (not quite as technical as the
previous two), see: "Guide to OSF/1, A Technical Synopsis",
published by O'Reilly. On SunOS, "Virtual Memory Architecture in
SunOS" and "Shared Libraries in SunOS" in Summer 1989 USENIX
Proceedings.
A good set of articles on where Unix is going is "Unix Variants"
in the Apr 92 issue of Unix Review. Other good sources of
information include the bsd-faq file, and many of the newsgroups
mentioned in the text.
Subject: Brief notes on some well-known (commercial/PD) Unices.
>From: "Pierre (P.) Lewis" <lew@bnr.ca>
Date: Tue Aug 15 15:14:00 EDT 1995
X-Version: 2.9
6.6) Brief notes on some well-known (commercial/PD) Unices.
(I am not at all satisfied with this section, unfortunately I
have neither the time nor the documents to make it much better
(wrt contents). Should only list Unices known by a reasonably
wide audience. Small and non-US Unices welcome, e.g. Eurix. In
need of reformatting)
This section lists (in alphabetical order) some of the better
known Unices along with a brief description of their nature.
Unfortunately, it's out-of-date almost by definition...
(sorted alpha, ignoring numbers and other chars)
AIX: IBM's Unix, based on SVR2 (later up to SVR3.2?) with varying
degrees of BSD extensions, for various hardwares. Proprietary
system admin (SMIT). Both 850 and Latin-1 CPs. Quite
different from most Unices and among themselves.
Newsgroup: comp.unix.aix.
- 1.x (for 386 PS/2)
- 2.x (for PC RTs)
- 3.x (for RS/6000), paging kernel, logical volume manager, i18n;
3.2 adds TLI/STREAMS. SV-based with many enhancements.
4.1 is latest (includes support for PowerPC?)
- AIX/ESA, runs native on S/370 and S/390 mainframes, based on OSF/1.
AIX was to have been base for OSF/1 until Mach was chosen instead.
I hope this subsection is converging
AOS (IBM): 4.3BSD port to IBM PC RT (for educational institutes).
Don't confuse with DG's proprietary OS of same name.
Arix: SV
A3000UX (Commodore): 68030-based SVR4 Unix (?) for the Amiga.
A/UX (Apple): SV with Berkeley enhancements, NFS, Mac GUI. System 6
(later System 7) runs as guest of A/UX (opposite of MachTen).
Newsgroup: comp.unix.aux.
- 2.0: SVR2 with 4.2BSD, system 6 Mac applications.
- 3.0 (1992): SVR2.2 with 4.3BSD and SVR3/4 extensions; X11R4,
MacX, TCP/IP, NFS, NIS, RPC/XDR, various shells, UFS or S5FS.
System 7 applications.
- 4.0 will have/be OSF/1. But I hear Apple has decided to drop
A/UX (will go for AIX now that they're together with IBM on
the PPC)
3B1 (680x0): SV-based, done by Convergent for AT&T.
Newsgroup: comp.sys.3b1.
BNR/2: stands for BSD Net/2 Release? Includes NetBSD/1, FreeBSD.
BOS for Bull's DPX/2 (680x0)
- V1 (1990): SVR3 with BSD extensions (FFS, select, sockets),
symmetric MP, X11R3
- V2 (1991): adds job control, disk mirroring, C2 security,
DCE extensions
- There's also BOS/X, and AIX-compatible Unix for Bull's PPC
workstations. How it relates to above two is unknown.
386BSD: Jolitz's port of Net/2 software. Posix, 32-bit, still in alpha
(now version 0.1).
BSD/386 (80386): from BSDI, with source (augmented Net2 software)
Newsgroup: comp.unix.bsd.
Chorus/MiXV: Unix SVR3.2 (SVR4) over Chorus nucleus, ABI/BCS.
Coherent (Mark Williams Company): For 80286. Unix clone compatible with
V7, some SVR2 (IPC). V4.0 is 32-bit. Newsgroup: comp.os.coherent.
Mark Williams closed down early '95.
Consensys: SVR4.2
CTIX: SV-based, from Convergent
D-NIX: SV
DC/OSx (Pyramid): SVR4. Newsgroup: comp.sys.pyramid.
DELL UNIX [DELL Computer Corp.]: SVR4
DomainIX: see DomainOS below.
DomainOS (Apollo, now HP): proprietary OS; layered on top is BSD4.3 and
SVR3 (a process can use either, neither or both). Development now
stopped, some features now in OSF/1 (and NT). Now at SR10.4.
Name for SR9.* was DomainIX. Newsgroup: comp.sys.apollo.
DVIX (NT's DVS): SVR2
DYNIX (Sequent): 4.2BSD-based
DYNIX/PTX: SVR3-based
EP/IX (Control Data Corp.): for MIPS 2000/3000/6000/4000; based on
RISC/OS 4 and 5, POSIX-ABI-compliant. SVR3, SVR4 and BSD modes.
Esix (80386): pure SVR4, X11, OpenLook (NeWS), Xview
Eurix (80?86): SVR3.2 (Germany)
FreeBSD: 386bsd 0.1 with the patchkit applied, and many updated
utilities.
FTX: Stratus fault-tolerant OS (68K or i860-i960 hardware)
Generics UNIX (80386): SVR4.03 (Germany)
GNU Hurd (?): vaporware from the Free Software Foundation (FSF):
Unix emulator over Mach 3.0 kernel. Many GNU tools are very
popular (emacs) and used in the PD Unices.
HELIOS (Perihelion Software): for INMOS transputer and many other
platforms.
HP-UX (HP): old from S III (SVRx), now SVR2 (4.2BSD?) with SV utilities
(they have trouble making up their minds).
- 6.5: SVR2
- 7.0: SVR3.2, symlinks
- 7.5
- 8.0: BSD based? for HP-9000 CISC (300/400) and RISC (800/700),
shared libs
- 9.0: includes DCE
Interactive SVR3.2 (80x86): pure SVR3. Interactive has been bought
by Sun; will their system survive Solaris?
Idris: first Unix clone by Whitesmith. A small Unix? For INMOS
transputer and others?.
IRIX (SGI): Version 4: SVR3.2, much BSD. Version 5.x (current is 5.2)
is based on SVR4. Newsgroup: comp.sys.sgi.
Linux (386/486/586): Unix under GPL (not from FSF, though). Available
with sources. POSIX compliant w/ SysV and BSD extensions. Being
ported to Alpha/AXP and PowerPC (ports for 680x0 Amigas and Ataris
already exist; a port is also being done to the MIPS/4000).
Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.{admin,announce,development,help,mi
MacBSD, ?: works on Mac II (directly on H/W).
MachTen, Tenon Intersystems: runs as a guest under MacOS; 4.3BSD
environment with TCP, NFS. Scaled down version: MachTen Personal.
MacMach (Mac II): 4.3BSD over Mach 3.0 microkernel, X11, Motif, GNU
software, sources, experimental System 7 as Mach task. Complete
with all sources (need Unix license).
Mach386: from Mt Xinu. Based on Mach 2.5, with 4.3BSD-Tahoe
enhancements. Also 2.6 MSD (Mach Source Distribution).
Microport (80x86): pure SVR4, X11, OpenLook GUI
Minix (80x86, Atari, Amiga, Mac): Unix clone compatible with V7.
Sold with sources. Being POSIXified (sp?). For PCs, and surely
many others (eg. INMOS transputer). Newsgroup: comp.os.minix.
MipsOS: SVish (RISC/OS, now dropped, was BSDish)
more/BSD (VAX, HP 9000/300): Mt Xinu's Unix, based on 4.3BSD-Tahoe.
NCR UNIX: SVR4 (4.2?)
Net/2 tape (from Berkeley, 1991): BSD Unix, essentially compatible with
4.3BSD, includes only sources free of AT&T code, no low-level code.
See 386BSD and BSD/386 above.
NetBSD 0.8: is actually 386bsd in a new suit. Ported to [34]86, MIPS,
Amiga, Sun, Mac. What is relation to Net/2?
- 1.0 came out in '94.
NEXTSTEP (Intel Pentium and 86486, Hewlett-Packard PA-RISC, NeXT 68040):
BSD4.3 over Mach kernel, own GUI.
- 1.x, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 3.0, 3.1 (old)
- 3.2 (current version,
Intel Pentium and 86486,
Hewlett-Packard PA-RISC,
NeXT 68040)
- 3.3 (shipping; SPARC-version available)
- 4.0 (to be announced, will include Sun SPARC version and
will be OpenStep compliant
- no NEXTSTEP for PowerPC or DEC Alpha yet announced (are there plans?
NEWS-OS (Sony)
- 3.2
OSF/1 (DEC): DEC's port of OSF/1. I think this is now (4/93) available
on DEC's latest Alpha AXP (64-bit machine).
OSx (Pyramid): Dualport of both SysV.3 and BSD4.3. Newsgroup:
comp.sys.pyramid.
PC-IX (IBM 8086): SV
Plan 9 (AT&T): announced 1992, complete rewrite, not clear how close to
Unix it is. Key points: distributed, very small, various hardwares
(Sun, Mips, Next, SGI, generic hobbit, 680x0, PCs), C (not C++ as
rumors had it), new compiler, "8 1/2" window system (also very
small), 16-bit Unicode, CPU/file servers over high speed nets.
SCO Xenix (80x86): Versions for XT (not robust!), 286, 386 (with demand
paging). Today bulk of code is from System V. Stable product.
SCO Unix (80x86): SVR3.2 (stopped taking USL source at this point).
Sinix [Siemens]: System V base.
Solaris (Sparc, x86):
- 1.0: essentially same as SunOS 4.1.1, with OpenWindows 2.0 and
DeskSet utilities.
- 1.0.1: SunOS 4.1.2 with multiprocessing (kernel not multithreaded);
not for 386
- 2.0: (initially announced as SunOS 5.0 in 1988) based on SVR4
(with symmetric MP?), will include support for 386; with
OpenWindows 3.0 (X11R4) and OpenLook, DeskSet, ONC, NIS. Both
a.out (BSD) and elf (SVR4) formats. Kerberos support. Compilers
unbundled!
- Solaris is OpenStep compliant (non-NeXT, but with NEXTSTEP API)
with latest (1994?) version.
- Sun will ship its OpenStep-implementation with project DOE for
Solaris. First versions will be for SPARC-based Suns, but a
version for Solaris 2.4 for x86 and PowerPC will appear later.
SunOS (680x0, Sparc, i386): based on 4.3BSD, includes much from
System V. Main Sun achievements: NFS (1984), SunView (1985), NeWS
(1986, postscript imaging, now in OpenWindows), OpenLook GUI standard,
OpenWindows (NeWS, X11, SunView!). Newsgroup: comp.sys.sun.*.
- 3.x: SV IPC package, FIFOs
- 4.0.3: lightweight processes, new virtual mem, shared libs
- 4.1: STREAMS & TLI, 8-bit clean?, async I/O, ms-dos file system
(continues as Solaris -- see above).
UHC (80x86): pure SVR4, X11, Motif
Ultrix (DEC): based on 4.2BSD with much of 4.3.
Newsgroup: comp.unix.ultrix.
- 4.4 is latest
UNICOS (Cray): System V base. Newsgroup: comp.unix.cray
- 5.x, 6,x, 7.0
UnixWare Release 4.2 [Univel]: SVR4.2; over NetWare. Univel no longer
exists.
UTEK (Tektronix)
- 4.0
VOLVIX (Archipel S.A.): UNIX-based OS built around a communication
based, distributed, real-time micro-kernel. SVR3.2 system calls,
BSD4.4 file/network system calls (VFS, FFS). Also NFS and X11.
Vanilla VOLVIX is for transputers.
Xenix (80x86): 1st Unix on Intel hardware, based on SVR2 (previously on
S III and even V7). Newsgroup: comp.unix.xenix.
Re:KDE and Linux (Score:1)
Re:KDE and Linux (Score:1)
My intention was not to bitch at KDE or Gnome, and I hope you didn't take it that way. But being the minority OS user, we sometimes have to shout to get recognition.
Can't connect to Windows? (Score:4, Informative)
> Macs (OSX or 9) on the network or vice-versa.
I don't want to be tough, but I've had no problems getting my Mac to load Windows servers via SAMBA. I do it every day, and I'd hardly say I'm an expert at SAMBA. So I'd say that rather than this being an OS X or Windows limitation, this guy may just "lack the skills to pay the bills". What was the point of the article again?
Re:Can't connect to Windows? (Score:1)
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. At work here we have several Macs of varying ages (1 B&W G3, 2 G4's, and a 7500 with G3 upgrade card) and an NT (4) Server box on an 10/100 Ethernet network. Just by plugging in the Macs, we can see the network, including all the printers and an image setter and the NT box just fine. The NT box can't see the Macs without first installing the Macintosh Services for NT and the AppleTalk services (and Apple is moving away from AppleTalk).
Also any Mac right out of the box can read and write to DOS and ISO9660 disks, but Windows can't read Mac format disks without installing special software. So which system is more compatible out of the box?
Blame MS!
Re:Can't connect to Windows? (Score:1)
However, as the article describes, he was unable to see the Mac from Windows. At the moment this requires installing tools that should be included and easily accessible in OS X but are not.
So, not to be tough, but you are a bit off base here.
People accomplish things (Score:4, Interesting)
Really, people don't need management to accomplish something. Given the resources (money and time) people can and will do productive things for society.
Re:People accomplish things (Score:5, Insightful)
Before the Linux hype, it was quite common knowledge (or, at least, opinion) that Free Software is not only great because of its unbeatable price or even the "philosophic" implications (that come down to "be kind to your customers" when restricted to licenses), but because of its quality, which in turn is directly related to the freedom of programmers - at least as important as the freedoms of software users.
Not only do people not need management, they can build better things without worrying about deadlines (leading to "good enough" solutions), corporate politics, marketability etc. Free programmers can focus on doing the Right Thing, which is often not possible in a corporate environment. The results of this are where the pride of the free software movement should come from, not the sympathy of venture capitalists or IBM or Apple.Re:People accomplish things (Score:2)
Agreed, and to illustrate your point, look at what happened when Linus was under heavy pressure to release 2.4. We got an unstable mess that clearly would have benefited from a few more months of development...
Re:People accomplish things (Score:2)
Porting Aqua (Score:2)
The advantages of this are
(a) you have sound user interface design for free
(b) you have an instant installed base familiar with the user interface
(c) you have many applications which can be ported possibly with a minimum of effort.
Something like this would definately put it up Apple. But it does make sense. If people can rush off and build
Re:Porting Aqua (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:Porting Aqua (Score:2, Interesting)
o Apple licensed the nefarious Amazon one-click patent, giving Amazon a precedent with which to bludgeon smaller companies.
o Apple crippled their DVD writing software to disallow mastering for replication.
o Apple used legal threats on non-for-profit skinners.
o Apple screwed over the clone vendors.
And that's just off the top of my head. I'm not thrilled about buying Microsoft, but I wouldn't feel particularly good about supporting another company with a monopoly (can you get Mac OSX for a clone? No. Then they have a monopoly) which leverages their software to sell overpriced hardware. It's obvious that if Apple were sufficiently competent, they would be another Microsoft. But while Apple is ruthless, predatory, and sells out its users just like MS, they're not as good at it.
Re:Porting Aqua (Score:2)
Re:Porting Aqua (Score:1)
SGI, Sun, et al, also hold monopolies in their space. But both Microsoft and Apple hold monopolies where the government actually has a right to be concerned--in the consumer market.
What is a monopoly? (Score:2)
In a commodity market, differentiation is a major way to lure customers. "Computers" is the commodity here, and the Mac is just one part of the market for computers. Apple protects those things by which they attempt to differentiate their products. Love it or hate it, that does not constitute monopolist action.
Re:Porting Aqua (Score:1)
So who is forcing Apple to bundle MacOS with their computers? Or did you mean you're forced to buy MacOS if you buy an Apple computer? Well, since it's their computer, they can sell it any damn way they like. It would be a bit like complaining you can't buy a Ford car with a GM engine in it. It just doesn't make sense, unless you're a whining idiot.
Re:Porting Aqua (Score:1)
And in this and in the case of the S360 architechture, IBM tried litigating against makers of compatible hardware. And in the case of the ISA bus, they strongarmed Micro Channel adopters into paying "back royalties" for the use of ISA, strangling MCA in its cradle.
But I agree with the idea you present that PCs are open systems and Macs are closed. This, ultimately, will lead to Apple's undoing or absorption into Bill's empire (which has already partially happened).
Re:Porting Aqua (Score:1)
It's not nonsense at all. Go look it up for your self.
When IBM built the first PC, they used off the shelf parts to keep the cost down and to make sure it didn't compete with their mainframes. They were in direct competition with the Apple II at the time.
While most of the IBM PC used commonly available parts, IBM wasn't about to let others make one, so they designed their own BIOS and got a patent on the design. It took Compaq to reverse engineer IBM's BIOS and make the first IBM compatible computer. If you look it up you will see that IBM fought all the clone makers in court.
Bill Gates knew this was going to happen, so he got IBM to let him sell his own version of IBM-DOS as MS-DOS. The only reason IBM let him do this is because they believed no one else could run it, because they held the patent on their PC design.
This is history. IBM never allowed people to make PC clones. This was part of the reason they went to Apple with the PowerPC CPU. Does Ford let other car makers make Mustangs?
Re:Porting Aqua (Score:1)
What you are using is not even logic, since a Chevy is not a Mustang, is it? Therefore Ford does indeed have a monopoly on Mustangs since Chevy can't make a Mustang. They do not have a monoply on cars however. Plus I made no apologies about Apple... I was talking about IBM idiot! Sheesh!
Re:Porting Aqua (Score:1)
Ummmm OK, Mister Anonymous Coward. I happen to a Mac user however...
Evil Apple...NOT! (Score:1)
Apple's licensing of Amazon's one-click service doesn't do anything other than make Apple's online store easier to use for their customers. Amazon has a patent on that technology whether Apple licenses that technology or not, so it really makes no difference. Besides, you seem to forget that Apple's DELAYING the release of QuickTime 5 indefinitely because of the MPEGLA's licensing scheme for MPEG 4 -- not because Apple doesn't want to pay the MPEGLA for the technology, but because they don't want any content providers (including Apple, I admit) to have to pay streaming fees to the MPEGLA. I think it all evens out in the end.
Apple's legal threats on skinners I don't care much for, but as a business Apple has every right to want to protect their intellectual propertey. If they've spent millions of dollars designing a hot new interface for their operating system, why should anyone else be able to rip it off at whim?
Apple "screwed over" the clone vendors because they had to. The clone licensing deal was a badly engineered move, and Apple wasn't competetive enough at the time to resist being clobbered by the clone makers. If Apple had gone under, the clone makers would have gone under as well anyway. Steve Jobs did what he had to do to ensure the health of the company.
Now let's name a few of the GOOD things Apple as a company has done.
o Open-sourced Darwin. Sure, it isn't Aqua/Carbon/Cocoa, but it's a good start.
o Released a free speech, free beer Quicktime Streaming Server that runs on multiple platforms.
o Contributed PPC optimizations to GCC, which benefits LinuxPPC just as much as it does OS X.
o Given away sophisticated developers tools so freeware and shareware developers can program for OS X easily and cheaply. Let's see Microsoft try that.
And of course Apple's continuing to develop high-quality, innovative products. They could become another Microsoft if they had the chance, maybe, but the fact is that they're NOT, and they won't be for a long time simply because of market pressures. Don't let anti-business "open source" zealotry get in the way of reason and understanding facts here.
Regards,
Jared
Re:Evil Apple...NOT! (Score:1)
While it's true that Amazon has the patent, it didn't really have much to go on in enforcing it. Now, a smaller company being threatened by Amazon for using an obvious business technique of storing credit card information can be further intimidated by the fact that Amazon can point to Apple as having thought the patent legitimate enough to license it. While the details are secret, I'd bet that Apple had to pay a minimal sum to Amazon, if anything at all--Amazon was probably so glad to have this precedent to point to that they gave the license to Apple for free.
Re:Evil Apple...NOT! (Score:1)
Re:Porting Aqua (Score:2, Interesting)
That's a really funny definition of "monopoly." By your logic, Sun has a monopoly on Solaris, SGI has a monopoly on IRIX, HP has a monopoly on HPUX, and IBM has a monopoly on AIX. Monopolies = bad, so Sun, SGI, HP, and IBM are all evil, and will be until they port their big iron OSes to your peecee. "I want 4Dwm! Open-source it, SGI! Give it to me free, or else yer nothin' but a dirty monopolist!"
Aqua is a work of art. Believe it or not /., some people in the world actually believe in intellectual property.
Apple is not predatory. It's too small to be predatory. Its attack of the clones happened only after a radical shift in management. I think the term there would be "non-suicidal," not "predatory."
How does Apple sell out its users? I've had a mac.com email address for the longest time (Mac owners get them for free - how evil of Apple to offer such nasty tie-ins!), even though I've rarely used it, and I've not gotten a SINGLE piece of spam to it. Ever.
As has been covered so many times here before, more expensive hardware != overpriced hardware. You get what you pay for. This is a myth that really needs to get shot down - I don't see why so many obviously smart geeks have such a terrible time understanding this. Some people in the world are actually not content with cheap-ass high-MHz beige commodity boxes built by soulless vendors like Dell, Gateway, etc. who just don't give a shit about their product and who WOULD sell their customers out to gain any edge they could in the cutthroat Wintel market.
I'm not an Apple apologist, but I am a Mac/Linux user and I will go to certain lengths to defend the company against the heaps of obvious bullshit piled upon it. I agree that a large and powerful Apple would not be a pretty sight. I would be most content with Apple at around 10-15% market share.
Re:Porting Aqua (Score:1)
That might have been true back when Apples came with SCSI, but they are now no better than Wintel commodity hardware, except that they use a PowerPC. They have IDE interfaces (and not even the fastest or highest capacity ones), ATI video, and other things that PC users can purchase off the shelf for far less money.
Just because they have a standard (read: limited) platform and control what commodity hardware goes in the box doesn't mean it isn't overpriced.
Re:Porting Aqua (Score:3, Interesting)
For Linux users I can understand why getting to the guts of the computer and the OS is so important. It's part of the computing experience for that market. Linux users LIKE getting to the very core of their computers. I don't understand why they have to bash Apple and it's users just because Apple doesn't consider them part of their target market demographic. Why would Apple market to people who don't want to spend money on anything? They are a company whose goal is to make money and they can't make money off a free OS and low margin computer components.
I don't go around bashing Linux because it doesn't meet all of my computing needs. It's a good OS for what it's intended to do, but it doesn;t come close to meeting my needs or the needs of millions and millions of other computer users... users being the operative word.
Macs just work out of the box. Ceratin people want that.
Linux only works if you configure it to work the way you want it to and have the technical knowledge to do that. Certain people want and need that from their OS and computer.
Windows has lots of games and is ubiquitous. Very few people really want Windows but it is the only option they know. It seems to meet their needs reasonably, but then again their standards and expectations of a computer might be a bit lower than Mac or *NIX users.
So, if the macintosh doesn't fit your criteria for a computing environment, DON'T BUY ONE OR USE MAC OS! Stop complaining about the price of their hardware and buy the system you need. You're just wasting energy and the time of other people.
Re:Porting Aqua (Score:1)
o Neither Windows nor Linux require users to get "in the guts" of their computer. The difference is that with Wintel, at least users have that option.
o Where did you get any Linux bigotry out of my post? I'm using Windows right now.
o Plenty of PC clones just "work out of the box."
o There are Linux distributions that don't require any more technical knowledge to operate than the MacOS. Not enough, mind you, but they exist
o I didn't buy or use Mac OS. It's just that Apple gets away with stuff that would make Microsoft blush, just because they're the underdog. That's not fair. If you feel like I'm wasting your energy, that's your problem. I didn't make you reply.
Re:Porting Aqua (Score:1)
Just what is it that Apple is getting away with that would make even the robber barons of Microsoft blush?
Re:Porting Aqua (Score:1)
I really feel sorry for the people that have to use Windows on a regular basis. I know people that have to reformat their harddrives everyfew weeks because of problems.
Don't even get me started on Windows' "features." Since OS X's public release, there has been 1 (one) security related problem. It was promptly fixed by Apple. We have security holes found weekly in Microsoft products. And I am really sick of CodeRed and nimda attacks filling up my apache logs.
I use a Mac because I can get my work done without having to fight with the OS.
Re:Porting Aqua (Score:2)
Ok, please provide a list as to these out of date selling points and reasons why Mac users are so out of touch.
Re:Porting Aqua (Score:2)
What bothered me about your original post was the tired, old "Mac users are out of touch" comment.
I have 4 Macs. They work exceedingly well for me. They're getting a little old, but they're still good for the web design that I do. Video editing, well, not so great by current standards.
I do graphic design and video editing for a living. I need Photoshop and Final Cut Pro running at peak efficiency. Photoshop has always been more stable and in most (though not all) cases faster than in Windows. There is no Final Cut Pro for Windows, so there goes any compelling reason for me tu purchase a Wintel machine.
Do you see the point here? Purchase the system that best matches your professional and personal needs. You apparently REALLY don't want a Mac. Fine. Don't get one. I have no need for a Wintel box except to mess around with Linux and teach myself some new things.
Re:Porting Aqua (Score:2)
To quote the original post:
BTW, I second most of what you said. For example, there are so many turnkey PCs out there, that mentioning it as a Mac selling point is laughable. But you'll see a lot of Mac sales points that ceased being valid 10 years ago. The people still using them are really that out of touch.
Mac users are, I'm assuming, the people who use these no longer valid sales points. Is that not what your sentence implied? You don't hear many Wintel people defending the Mac with ANYTHING let alone ten year old sales rhetoric.
Also, 10 years ago there were no PowerPC Macs, 486's were the top of the line consumer offering from Intel and Windows was still in it's infancy. The Mac had a much larger marketshare back then. They didn't really need to make any dubious claims as to the performance benefits of the Mac over Wintel.
You have proven nothing other than you like to be argumentative. It's fine with me. I actually enjoy playing semantics.
Re:Porting Aqua (Score:2)
It would be much more fun if you weren't an AC also.
Re:Porting Aqua (Score:2)
Apple crippled their DVD writing software to disallow mastering for replication.
I reply:
I fail to see any problematic "crippling" of DVD production in Apple's current hardware.
If you were referring to the fact that iDVD [apple.com] will not export a master image (to a DLT tape for example) - Apple has to differentiate DVD Studio Pro [apple.com] from their free software.
If you were referring to the fact that the SuperDrive can only produce DVD-R 5-general disks, and not authoring disks, I also fail to see that as a problem, as all of the DVD manufacturing services I have checked will accept a general disk as a media source.
It is true that disks produced in this way can not be protected with CSS and macrovision, (an author would need to make a master on a DLT, or an authoring DVD-R rather than on a superdrive to add these protections ) but I feel that many on Slashdot would see this as an advantage in that it increases the amount of unprotected, legally viewable under Linux (or [Free,Open,Net]BSD ) available in the world
Re:Porting Aqua (Score:1)
When one removes a feature to "differentiate" one substantially identical piece of software from another, those in the industry call that crippling.
Re:Porting Aqua (Score:1)
They had too, or risk being sued by Amazon
o Apple crippled their DVD writing software to disallow mastering for replication.
Also to avoid lawsuits
o Apple used legal threats on non-for-profit skinners.
Nothing wrong with protecting their intellectual property.
o Apple screwed over the clone vendors.
As the owner of a Mac clone I have to say I was disappointed, but it was hurting Apple the same way it hurt IBM.
Re:Porting Aqua (Score:1)
Re:Porting Aqua (Score:2, Interesting)
MacOS X OTOH has had a lot of critism [asktog.com].
Not all that much people are familiar with Aqua.The number of people familiar with GNOME and/or KDE is probably larger? I admit I don't have any numbers to back this up except for the fact that there are more machines out there running GNU/Linux rather than Macintosh, add to this that MacOS X was released not so long ago and I may just be right.
Either how, the number is probably not going to be worth the bother.
GnuStep should allow for this without actually porting Aqua. The advantage of this strategy is that you get to keep XRe:Porting Aqua (Score:1)
Actually, because of OS X, BSD now has triple the desktop market share of Linux. [osopinion.com]
Re:Porting Aqua (Score:1)
Re:Porting Aqua (Score:1)
You are implying that Tog would like Gnome or KDE better. I think he would find just as many, if not more faults with both of them. Just because he doesn't like Aqua doesn't get away from the fact that much of it is based on many of his ideas from when he worked on the Macintosh!
I use Gnome on my Linux box, but I enjoy Aqua much better.
Re:Porting Aqua (Score:2)
But of course MacOS X may change its appearant philosophy in the future.
Re:Porting Aqua (Score:1)
You can still see the signs of it, too - just take a look through the Foundation and AppKit header files. They're filled with platform specific definitions wrapped in #ifdefs.
Because you'd get sued off the face of the planet (Score:1)
Also, the Carbon (and Cocoa) APIs are not part of Aqua, think of Aqua as the MacOS's window manager (in fact, that's eactly what it is). You seem to be talking about a port of the entire proprietary "front-end" to the OS, for which you'd also need the QuickTime and Quartz layers as well, which now house some of the essential MacOS services, even if they are accessed indirectly though Carbon and Cocoa. This "Aqua on Linux" would mean who needs OSX's $149 proprietary interface, API, and kernel? No one, if you can get a just-as-good for free. Apple only holds a 5% market share and they're very careful to make any move, however aswome it would make the world, that will put them out. Apple can't create cool stuff if they're out of business.
After what happened with the MS Windows GUI vs. MacOS GUI back in the 80s, can you really blame then for guarding their IP like hawks? Had that turned out differently, we might all be rooting for Miscrosoft to "relieve the industry of the monopilizing Apple computer". Think about it.
...and yes, I am a die hard Mac fan. 'nuff said.
Has WIlliam J even used OSX? (Score:2, Interesting)
Has the submitter even used OSX? I've been using it daily since October and it has only crashed on me once. The majority of OSX users do not rebooted their Macs, they just put them to sleep. Remeber, Macs have instant wake-up from sleep, unlike Windows or Linux.
OSX uptime is typcially measured in weeks, not days.
Re:Has WIlliam J even used OSX? (Score:1)
Has LeapingGNomeArs even read the article? (Score:1)
Linux uptime is typically measured in months not weeks.
Re:Has WIlliam J even used OSX? (Score:1)
Dude I think he was talking about Windows..
Re:Has WIlliam J even used OSX? (Score:1)
/presses the power button
/sees "Writing hibernation file to disk"
/machine powers down
/powers machine up again
/waits 15 seconds
/is back at the desktop
oh look, we can do that too....
Re:Has WIlliam J even used OSX? (Score:1)
That's nice. Fifteen seconds is kind of a long way from "instantaneous", though. Also, I'm pretty sure "sleep", which the poster you're quoting said, and "hibernate", which you did, are different things. My G4 takes four seconds to wake from sleep. At least that's how long before my Sony CRT is powered back up so I can see something. Four seconds isn't instantaneous either, but it's a bit better than 15 seconds. I've heard people with Titanium Powerbooks say when they wake it from sleep by opening the lid, it's up and running by the time they have the lid open. What's the wake from sleep time like on the box you're using?
Re:Has WIlliam J even used OSX? (Score:1)
Re:Hibernate vs. Sleep (Score:1)
it was in 98 revision 1, but was a bit... choosy about working.
The submitter made a misleading quote... (Score:2, Informative)
This was in fact a reference to Windows, not Mac OSX.
On the subject of Windows stability. If you're not using that crap VIA puts out, but instead use tested Intel solutions, it is not an issue. Since my migration to Windows 2000, I have had a total of eight memory dumps. That is since my initial use of Windows 2000, RC2. As a desktop OS in the Intel world, nothing comes close(available software versus stability). Eight memory dumps over twelve systems in a period of Three years seems like a good track record to me.
I will probably be modded to hell for posting anything positive about Windows, but these are the facts.
Re:The submitter made a misleading quote... (Score:1)
Your opinion seems to me that it is based on reason instead of anti-MS trendiness.
I have been trying to think of a way to break it to everyone that Windows CAN be reliable, though I'll limit my claims to versions based on the NT code base.
It seems like every time you try to mention that properly configured, and with tested hardware, windows isn't all that bad, you are called a microlemming or some such term and modded for being a troll or something. Windows is much happier with 128 or 256 MB of ram. With the price of RAM these days, why not get a few extra 128MB modules?
My NT Server 4 box had been running for two months without a reboot*. I use it for memory-intensive applications like graphics work and visual studio programming (insert bloated application joke here).
* Well, I did have to take it down yesterday to apply the two new IE hotfixes...
(Of course everyone will love that last sentence.)
Re:The submitter made a misleading quote... (Score:2)
Personally I think it's MS that has fooled everyone all of the time. They have actually convinced the general public that they are creating innovative products when in fact they are either stolen or copied from from smaller competitors who are soon out of business once their "air supply has been cut off".
Re:The submitter made a misleading quote... (Score:1)
Re:The submitter made a misleading quote... (Score:2)
Reliability and Open Source (Score:2)
In any case, the author betrays a certain ignorance of how commercial software gets developed. Products that have reliability as their primary goal are few and far between. A bigger priority is features. Features help sell the product, and market-driven products tend towards nasty feature bloat. You can see this in all Microsoft products. And elsewhere -- I know little about the Copeland/Gershwin debacle [apple.com], but folks working at Infinite Loop at the time assure me that feature bloat did more to destroy that product than anything.
Open source products, by contrast, are driven by consultants and "Free Software" enthusiasts who just want software that works. Which is not to say there's no feature bloat there either, as any user of EMACS or KDE can testify. But since the process is driven by the people who actually do the work, there's a more realistic notion as to what features are actually practical. And with the source open to everybody, there's a more objective idea of how reliable the software actually is.
Developing the GUI (Score:1, Interesting)
Open source development models are great at a lot of things, lousy at others. Agreeing where to go or what to do or how best to do it is something the OSS model has failed miserably at.
What OSX proves is just how essential it is to have engineers working under a single umbrella, with a single vision, and a single set of user interface guidelines. There is no technical reason why Linux should be so much harder to use than OS X - the failings are all due to the failure of the OSS GUI teams to coalesce around a single vision .
Re:Developing the GUI (Score:1)
Linux folks can't deal with the truth! (Score:1)
I hope the predictions of its demise are premature (Score:1)
lol
Chris
The Future of Computing (Score:2, Insightful)
Linux, by it's very nature, will never be a consumer OS. The fragmentation involved in a non-managed open-source computing project will never translate into a unified technology easily marketable to Joe Shmo, the average consumer.
On the other hand, Apple has managed to do an extraordinary (and unprecedented job) of brining a UNIX-based OS (Darwin) to the masses. The fact of the matter is, my grandmother, who has owned an iMac for three months now, can use OS X. I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell, even if I set up a standard distribution, GNOME, and graphic login, she could consistently and flawlessly use Linux.
Apple should be congratulated -- not condemned -- for bringing what is, at it's core, an open-source OS to the masses. Darwin, and Apple, represent what I hope will be the salvation of computing from the monopoly that is Microsoft.
Linux power users, sysadmins, and academics should work along with those in charge of the consumer segment of the mac market to bring us a world in which consumers and home users use Macs, power users, servers and sysadmins run Linux, and the business (ie white collar) world runs desktop Wintel boxes. Because yes, as much as we all might hate to admit it, Microsoft does have a place in a post-monopolistic world: regardless of what most of we uberusers maintain, large corporations (which, for better or for worse, form a good part of the structure on which our society functions) will always be reluctant to give end users anything less than a robust commercial interface. Macs will be too expensive, Linux will always be too cutting-edge; Wintel boxes running a variant of Microsoft Office will provide the middle ground for businesses seeking stability, low prices, and standardization -- something that they will never get from proprietary Apple hardware and/or open-source Linux software.
Computing today too often reminds me of a sort of religious fanaticism. Everybody has their religion, and everybody else is just downright wrong. As in the real world, pluralism is the value that should and hopefully will triumph. We should work towards a vision in which Linux has a 80% server share (with the remainder going mainly to other UNIXes), a 10% power desktop share, and a 30% academic share. Such a world would have consumers running 80% Macs and business end-users running 80% Wintel. We need to give up on the idea that OSes need to be "swiss army knives" (or Gerber multitools, if you prefer) capable of and suitable to any task. There is an array of OSes, an array of tools out there. I use a Mac for Digital Video and Photography, Wintel for writing papers and grants, doing CAD, and contact management, and I have a Linux box sitting under my desk that I use as a file/web/mail server and occasionally for workstation tasks. The face of tomorrow's computing, of Linux, of Windows, and of the Mac will hopefully be founded upon that view.
I welcome your comments and await replies,
Shylock
YDL 2.1 download (Score:2)
Now that I have XWindows running on OSX, I don't really need Linux. The apps I used the most, GIMP, Nedit, and Bluefish run well in OSX.
Damn, OSX is too cool for words.
If you haven't had the chance, skip down to the store and play with one of the OSX boxes there, or find a friend who has it. It is fun.
Assuming competition where there isn't much (Score:2)
I can hear the responses - "Hello? Windows?" - but to me this is a skewed perspective. Windows is dominant because Windows is dominant, and because MS was ruthlessly competitive when it counted and Apple was in huge denial about the consequences of not licensing the Mac OS. MS has taken advantage of the herd instinct to win desktops, but the very existence of thriving "alternative OS" communities like Mac, Linux, etc. should be a clue that the natural order of the world is not "one OS shall rule them all."
I believe that the current MS dominance is just the first chapter in computing history. Someday, Windows will be on the wane and multiple OS's will share the world's desktops using interoperability standards like XML, Samba, SOAP, and other wonderful technologies to seamlessly interact. It's a dream, but I believe it will come true. Can't we all just get along?
Re:What IS the fucking deal with Apple? (Score:1)
Beyond that, there's already tons of great desktop software available for OS X, with more and more coming out all the time. Between OS 9 and OS X, the Mac platform has so much more desktop-oriented software than Linux, it's not even funny. If you think Linux is a more viable desktop OS than Mac OS X at this point in time, then *you're* the one who's been doin' some real powerful smokin' lately.
Jared
Re:What IS the fucking deal with Apple? (Score:1)
Re:What IS the fucking deal with Apple? (Score:1)
Re:What IS the fucking deal with Apple? (readme) (Score:1)
"Ah, you're the one swearing, shouting and spitting. I hope you're saying that to yourself."
Point taken.
"And I should care because.....?"
Because you are denoucing Apple for chrarging money for software. They fucking need to make money. That's what companies do.
"Linux is a kernel, checking e-mail involves applications. Sane people don't expect electricity to come out of their water faucet either."
My point is that Linux IS a kenel as you said. Setting up peices of an OS is something Grandma cannot do. She's confused when her ISP disconnects her or MS comes out with a new version of Outlook express. The only reason she can run a computer is that someone took the pains to make it easy for her. Those pains cost money. Could you hook my grandma up with a Linux box that will boot into a gui, never make here use a console, will allow here to plug and unplug USB devices (and have them work), and make the system stay current with no human intervention. I don't think so. Not without months of tweaking. "Non sequiturs aside, Linux isn't a niche product. Heck, it's not a product at all. If you can't understand that, you're not fit to comment on it, are you?"
Sorry, I didn't notice that I had to watch my EXACT word selection around here. The Linux kernel is ONE of many COMPUTING PRODUCTIVITY SOLUTIONS. It is free while MacOS costs money. I thought I had established that. And yes, Linux is currently limited to the niche maket of those who feel like dealing with it's setup shennanagins. You get what you pay for (unless you are buying MS products). MacOS is computing for those who don't care, Linux is.
"Oh joy, more ignorant "Linux is a CLI" nonsense. OK, it's clear that you don't know Linux from a hole in the ground, just like your grandma. At least grandma doesn't flaunt her ignorance."
Did I say it was? I was talking about MacOS X. Linux is a kernel that is traditionally accessed through a CLI. Yes, there are GUI shells. I'm saying that in order to install them without a cli you must have another OS, GUI, or bought package from RedHat or Yellow Dog.
"Hold on, you're reciting the vapid EvangeLista tripe, and have the gall to call me a zealot? Puhhhlllleeeeaaaaasssseeeee!"
I was saying that I can respect yu as lond as you don't go out trashing other OSs. Don't be an ass. You combonation is as much Linux as my brew of MacOS X is UNIX. Mine just came prepackaged while you built your OS. Linux is a great core as is Unix, just don't be an ass and argue you kernel bullshit when you know damn well that I'm talking about everything above the core. Any my calculator is just fine. It told me that free software is an infinitly better deal. Unfortunatly dollar value tends not to convert well to productivity.
Re:What IS the fucking deal with Apple? (readme) (Score:1)
Yet another mis-understanding... Sigh... I said Linux is a kernel. The MacOS X is a GUI on top of a version of Unix. That shell took pains to make. The pains and money are for MacOS X GUI.
"Those kinds of devices already exist, and yes, many of them are running Linux. If it takes only a few months to create a product like that, it's doing a hell of a lot better than Apple! After 10 years of trying, OSX should be better than perfect, and it isn't."
My point exactly! A few months = $120. Hell yeah. The problem is that Apple not only pulled together an OS from free sources, they also wrote a substantial amount of their own code. The product you spoke of would have to be built on it's target machine. Moving it to another system would never work without tweaking.
The Linux kernel is ONE of many COMPUTING PRODUCTIVITY SOLUTIONS.
Yet again with the words. What I mean is that the OS talks to the hardware. I would sure as hell get nothing done if I had to punch in macine code for every task I wanted the hardware to perform.
And I know that's BS. A little advice, it's not too smart to try to fool someone who knows the subject matter.
Please show me somewhere where they give away for free Linux install packages on bootable CD-ROM that contain drivers for every stupid thrown-together config and boots into a polished GUI. IT DOESN'T EXIST! If it does please point me in that direction and I'll happily switch my homebrew Linux boxes to their version.
Mine just came prepackaged while you built your OS. That's not true.
What do you run off of then? Please tell me.
First of all, "core" has a very specific meaning, and I doubt that you mean that. Again, I urge you to research before you start writing, because it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about. And if you can't conduct a civil conversation, I'll leave you to swear at yourself.
I guess core isn't an OK word either. Instead of picking at my language as Linux zealots tend to do, understand that main and core are synonyms, the kernel is the main part of an OS. You ignore my points and dodge questions. Stay still and behave for some nice Q&A. I'm not attacking you (anymore) or your choice in OS. My sole point is that Linux and MacOS should be respected for what they are. I'm sorry if you feel treatened by me or the fact that a commercial OS is coming too close to being exactly what you want. (Which I would also like to know) Just don't resort to your sly personal attacks. For those it's much more fun to have an outright swearing and pissing contest. I would like to know what you have against Apple. I look forward to some sort of nice resopnse. Also, instead of saying: do your research, throw those exact facts in my face. It's helpful to me and more satifying for you.
Re:What IS the fucking deal with Apple? (readme) (Score:1)
Re:What IS the fucking deal with Apple? (readme) (Score:2, Informative)
BZZZZZZ!! Wrong! From Getting Started With Darwin [apple.com]
Q: What is Darwin, and how does it relate to Mac OS X?
A: Darwin is an open source, UNIX-based operating system built on BSD 4.4 and Mach 3.0 which forms the core of Mac OS X. Darwin is primarily what is called the "core operating system" (i.e, the kernel, drivers, and command-line utilities common to UNIX distributions), but a Darwin release includes several other pieces, including the compiler toolchain, a security framework based on CDSA, and parts of the Mac OS X "Core Foundation" framework. When we say a "Darwin system", we usually mean one built only using Open Source code, though technically every "Mac OS X" system is also a Darwin system, since it is built on top of Darwin.
Q: How hard is it to port BSD or Linux applications to OS X?
A: Given Mac OS X's strong BSD roots, this is actually very easy. Thousands of existing BSD and Linux applications (as well as Solaris, SCO, etc...) have already been ported to Mac OS X. Our dedicated Darwin developers are constantly striving to simplify portability, since they use these applications themselves and frequently are the first to encounter any problems. With their help, portability will surely get easier over time.
If you are interested in porting BSD or Linux applications to Mac OS X yourself, here are some common gotchas:
The latest GNU configure supports Darwin, so check to see if your package is using an up-to-date version (currently version 1.2). Usually, it's just a matter of typing "./configure ppc"
On Mac OS X, "GCC" is called "CC," and some common libraries and headers (e.g. "-lm", "stdio.h") are implicitly included in the System.framework, which can confuse hard-coded Makefiles. You can always create a symbolic link from GCC to CC (i.e. "ln -s /usr/bin/cc /usr/local/bin/gcc")
Our dynamic library mechanism (dylib) and executable format (Mach-O) differs considerably from other UNIX implementations, so applications that require detailed knowledge of runtime and user loadable modules may need to be modified.
We currently offer limited support for POSIX threads, so some thread-intensive applications may encounter problems. We are working to address this over time.
Re:What IS the fucking deal with Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
> you're claiming that >>OSX has "a large application base"? ROFL!!!
> What are you smoking?
Okay, you asked for it
1) Most Mac applications ever written. I've found very few that don't run well under the Classic environment. This includes popular commercial packages and tons of shareware and freeware.
2) New and ported Carbon and Cocoa Mac OS X applications. This is increasing in number daily, especially since the development tools are free. Again, this includes popular commercial packages and tons of shareware and freeware.
3) Most Java J2SE applications, and J2EE applications if you obtain the necessary libraries. The first Airport utilities that were in use on OS X were Java apps originally created for Windows. OS X has the best Java 2 on the desktop.
4) Various Unix applications, many Open Source or GNU, ported for OS X/Darwin. Some of these beloved programs come with OS X, such as the Apache web server and Emacs. Others (like an X server or postgresSQL) are available for the download.
5) If you care to plunk down around $200 (ranges from about $99 for DOS to $249 for Windows NT, per operating system) for Virtual PC 5.0, you can run most any Windows, DOS, or Linux application.
6) Go to "http://www.versiontracker.com/macosx/index.shtml
In short, OS X can pretty much run whatever you want it to run. I've been using it for nearly a year now. It is great, and getting better all the time.
OS X: the Apple of Mothra's Aqua eye.
Re:Hundreds of millions of dollars (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:Apple Laptop Keyboards Unacceptable for Unix Us (Score:1)
Unix Users Cannot Use Apple's ADB Keyboards
????
You meant to say "Unix users who have trained themselves that the Caps Lock key makes a convenient CTRL key and are not willing to change Cannot Use Apple's ADB Keyboards."
Can't you type? Every computer I've had in the last ten years, the CTRL keys were to the left and the right of the space bar, usually one to two keys away from the bar. On the PowerBook's keyboard, guess where the CTRL key is? To the left of the space bar. It lacks the right hand CTRL in order to give the user the standard inverted T arrow keys.
I'm typing this on a PowerBook G4 (best damn machine and operating system ever --- err, except for maybe OS/2). Most of the day I am either working one Linux boxes via SSH. I've never had a single problem suspending or killing the foreground process or exiting the shel, CTRL-Z, CTRL-C, and CRTL-D respectively.
You can't blame a company for one 'broken' key when YOU are the one who has trained himself into a corner. It won't be that hard for you to retrain yourself that the CTRL key is to the right of the space bar. Besides, what kind of idiot decides to not buy what is arguably the best two series of laptops just because the Caps Lock key is slightly flawed?
Or maybe try remapping the damn key? (Score:1)
Geez