Slashdot Mirror


Jordan Hubbard moves to new OpenDarwin.org

bootc writes "Last week we heard the news that Jordan Hubbard was leaving the FreeBSD Core Team. I received an email about the new OpenDarwin.org web site and had a look around, just to find that our friend Jordan was member of the OpenDarwin Core Team!" Apple has consolidated its Open Source web site, including Darwin, under its developer site, while the Internet Software Consortium is hosting the independent OpenDarwin.org, which will develop OpenDarwin with the developer community and collaborate with Apple to merge OpenDarwin technologies into Darwin and Mac OS X.

114 of 247 comments (clear)

  1. I wonder by abrink · · Score: 1

    I wonder how much Apple is "contributing" towards him.

    1. Re:I wonder by Spencerian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, Jordan is an Apple employee, too. So he gets paid to have fun and contribute to the FreeBSD family. A nice arrangement.

      Seems that the w00ts go to you for being first poster...

      --
      Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
    2. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
      If it was possible to advance OSX sans helping BSD, apple would do it.

      What? No one's forcing Apple to contribute back to BSD. If they wanted to, they could keep all the changes to themselves. It's not like FreeBSD is licensed under the GPL or another viral license.

    3. Re:I wonder by doubtless · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wonder how much Apple is "contributing" towards him.

      Why does this even matters? He gotta support his life anyhow, it's a nice thing when one can support open source and make a living out of it at the same time.

      --
      geek page at KY speaks
    4. Re:I wonder by MoneyT · · Score: 2

      Read the book "The Hacker Ethic" and you will discover that it is possible for a companies bottom line to be contributing to the good of the market and not profits.

      In apple's case, the more ties they have in the opensource world, the more resources they have availible to them, the better off they are when the market changes, and they can be at the front as the company with money to throw at the ideas that are being developed.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  2. Interesting News by Spencerian · · Score: 2

    I think Jordan is moving around in a Survivor-style alignment to the most-abundant version of BSD. He likely gets the advantages of working with what he knows, but also being able to show results as users play with the results in Darwin and Mac OS X.

    Oh...and I think I got first post. What was that phrase...oh yeah...w00t!

    --
    Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
    1. Re:Interesting News by FatRatBastard · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'd say it's not that rare to have both. I will say that UNIX is a hell of a lot easier to master though. My sig other didn't come with man pages.

    2. Re:Interesting News by SPiKe · · Score: 1

      But I thought that chicks dig Unix...?

    3. Re:Interesting News by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Why is Darwin counted as 'BSD'? Last time I looked it was a Mach-derived microkernel with a BSD personality layered on top. Linux has a better claim to being 'BSD' if you define it that loosely.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    4. Re:Interesting News by scumdamn · · Score: 3, Funny

      When I read "sig other" I didn't quite understand and went looking at your sig and everyone else's in the thread before I realized it was an abbreviation.

    5. Re:Interesting News by Spunk · · Score: 2, Funny

      My sig other didn't come with man pages.

      Congrats, I'm still trying to catch SIGOTHER.

    6. Re:Interesting News by Suppafly · · Score: 2

      maybe because mach is basically bsd as well?

    7. Re:Interesting News by connorbd · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      You are demonstrably a troll, and here's why:

      -Apple's internal stuff hadn't lost credibility; we were going crazy waiting for Copland (which died of a very painful case of runaway second-system effect).
      -Rhapsody did ship, as OS X Server. The only problem was that it was realized during the development process that not giving developers an easy way to convert Classic apps to OS X was Not A Good Idea, and the consumer release had to be delayed to create Carbon. Somewhere in there Gil Amelio got bounced and Steve Jobs reclaimed full control.
      -Tru64 Unix is Mach-based as well. More to the point, Solaris is Unix-branded, and though Linux isn't Dennis Ritchie considers it part of the family. By that standard, if it quacks like a duck...
      -The mention of Linux userfriendliness is, to put it charitably, anachronistic in the context you're talking about.

      Your understanding of history is faulty, your understanding of the present is not much better, and the only intelligent thing in your entire post is describing Microsoft's sales tactics as "slamming".

      (Well, that and I find the term Macastrati a hysterically funny term for people who have come over to the Mac side because of Eunuchs^h^h^h^h^h^h^hUnix, though I'll leave it up to them of the world if they wish to accept it...)

      /Brian

    8. Re:Interesting News by Ed+Avis · · Score: 2

      I understand why _Apple_ want to market OS X as being 'BSD'... what I don't understand is why the BSD crowd seem so eager to award it that label, when they wouldn't do the same for other operating systems which are much more closely related.

      If Mac OS X goes under the 'BSD' section on Slashdot, why not the GNU HURD? And why not Linux? Is there any criterion for an operating system being 'BSD' other than what its vendor claims?

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
  3. Re:Is it just me or... by BenTheDewpendent · · Score: 1

    i think it may be bcause its apple related.

  4. Darwin? We want Aqua!! by g_bit · · Score: 1

    Anybody can come out with a strain of Free BSD! When the hell are they gonna release the source to Aqua? At least the parts that aren't licensed from other companies (like Adobe).

    IMHO, it's the lack of a good desktop (KDE is OK) that's keeping *nix from becoming the premiere desktop and Aqua could help a lot.

  5. any relation to by Phosphor3k · · Score: 1, Funny

    L. Ron?

    BSD is crawling with Code Thetans! Someone get me an E-Meter!

  6. Is Darwin better than FreeBSD in any way? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From an OS point of view (not GUI) is Darwin better than the BSDs in any technical way?

    1. Re:Is Darwin better than FreeBSD in any way? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      That's a trick question, you know that right?


      FreeBSD is a fine OS, there isn't a whole ton of things you can point at and say are intrinsicly wrong with it. There are some religion issues and a handful of ticky tacky things that some of us might want different but it's pretty darn good. It's very well engineered.


      Darwin is maybe a more modern design. It uses Mach as a microkernel and 4.4 lites as a BSD support subsystem. Internally it is very different. Better? I wouldn't say that. The microkernel design appeals to everyone's sense of aesthetics and design but to make it perform well you often have to break the model some.


      I'm inclined to believe that while the monolithic BSDs are all fine products then future of where BSD is going is probably microkernel based. In that sense Darwin is probably a better place to be. That's just guessing though.

    2. Re:Is Darwin better than FreeBSD in any way? by r00tarded · · Score: 1
      There are some religion issues

      its a daemon not the devil! sheesh!

    3. Re:Is Darwin better than FreeBSD in any way? by andrewski · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem with NeXT was that it was way too fucking expensive to get a machine. I'm sorry, but it's true. The performance of a Mac with the cost of a high-end SGI is not a recipe for massive business.

      Oh, does anyone have a real reason for disliking Mach, or did you just hear somebody say that it's the CORBA of microkernel design and just start parroting that? Mach is quite robust and does it's job well.

  7. Here's my lame attempt at humour by alt.sex.fetish.jesus · · Score: 2, Funny

    Okay...hmmm...something funny to go for the coveted +5 score. How about:

    I've decided to fork a *BSD tree into my own offering. I'm going to call it "The Darwin Awards". Why? Because, "BSD is dying". Ba-dump-ba!

    1. Re:Here's my lame attempt at humour by alt.sex.fetish.jesus · · Score: 1

      The sad fact is, around here there is a fine line between a (-1, troll) and a (+1, funny). I wanted to 'splain it to the moderators. ;-)

  8. Re:x86 by flynn_nrg · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm not sure if you are serious about this. Darwin has been running on x86 since day one!

    Read about it here

  9. Re:OT: Story icon by piecewise · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I just think it's amazing that there's a hexley.com!

    --
    The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
  10. Re:Darwin? We want Aqua!! by billvinson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We have a good *nix with the premier desktop...

    It is called Mac OS X :)

    Seriously, Aqua and Quartz are definitely slower than KDE or GNOME. That is partially due to some of the effects, but it is also due to their youth. Aqua, Quartz, and OS X as a whole has gotten better with each release and I am looking forward to Jaguar (10.2).

    I don't think Apple will open source any of the GUI components as it doesn't have much of an upside for them. The reason Aqua is so nice to look at is that it is uniform. Once it is given away for everyone to change up, we all know what will happen. Everyone would have their own agenda on where to take it. This will destroy the uniformity and make aqua no better than KDE or GNOME (neither has a look as clear, well defined or consistent as OS X). Don't get me wrong, they are nice and I would love more code to be released, but GNOME and KDE don't even come close to comparison to the OS X user experience.

    Bill

  11. Re:Darwin? We want Aqua!! by NumberSyx · · Score: 5, Informative

    IMHO, it's the lack of a good desktop (KDE is OK) that's keeping *nix from becoming the premiere desktop and Aqua could help a lot.

    I seriously doubt Apple will ever release Aqua, there are too many advantages to keeping it in house, the biggest reason being control. Apple is primarily a hardware company and they, like Sun, use software to sell thier hardware. If Aqua were released to an open source license, it would be ported to other platforms, at which point at least one reason for buying an Apple system is gone. Who would spend $1800 on an iMac when you could get similar functions from a $800 Celeron system.

    I personally think we may, in the future see some x86 OEM do something similar with Linux. Have an open source core (command line only), with a proprietary GUI on top (only sold and supported with thier hardware, no retail version), but make it easy to run X Windows concurently in rootless mode, so all the hardcore Linux users can still use thier favorite programs. I suspect someone could sell alot of hardware this way, if done right and done well.

    --

    "Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
    -Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development

  12. Re:Darwin? We want Aqua!! by PeterClark · · Score: 1, Informative

    We have Aqua. Or about 95% of the look. (Not the underlying technology, but then, does it matter?) Want it? First, use KDE. I say this because I know that there is an Aqua window decoration theme that has translucent unfocused titlebars. If there's a Sawfish window decoration with similar capabilities, speak up. Next, get Aqua themes for KDE and GNOME/GTK. You may have to tweak them a bit so that they are identical, but that shouldn't be too difficult. Grab some OSX icons off the net, play with KDE's kicker until it looks like the dock, and you've got Aqua!

    Of course, if you really wanted to be clever, you could patch the kicker source code to get that "bouncing icon" effect that OSX has. If you want to be even more clever, you can patch KDE so that window menus are displayed in the desktop menu, thus giving you that genuine Mac experience. (This might already be the case in KDE3; I'm still running 2.2.)

    :Peter

  13. Apple isn't about to give Aqua away by maggard · · Score: 5, Informative
    When the hell are they gonna release the source to Aqua? At least the parts that aren't licensed from other companies (like Adobe).
    1. Aqua depends on the Quartz rendering layer (Display PDF)
    2. Apple developed Quartz (Display PDF) in-house specifically in order to avoid paying licensing fees to Adobe like Next was for Display postscript
    3. The PDF spec is open for anyone else to develop their own implementation, just like Apple did
    4. Apple's implementation of Display PDF is apparently fairly MacOS X-specific and while chunks of it could likely be retargetted it's supposedly not a candidate for a direct port
    5. Apple considers the Aqua GUI their trade dress and are quite vigorous about defending it
    So, instead of whining at Apple to give away their goodies how about actually supporting the projects out there with the same aims? And instead of looking to rip-off their interface howzabout showing some initiative and coming up with a distinct sperate one - goodness knows there's enough folks happy to criticize the Aqua GUI.

    When did Open Source become gimme gimme gimme?

    --
    I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
    1. Re:Apple isn't about to give Aqua away by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      Open Source never BECAME gimme gimme gimme, its been that from the start. All it is is the duplication of already existing proprietary software with very little to no innovation. I mean how many distinct ways can you make a GUI to begin with? How many other people besides those of us on slashdot even WANT to learn a new GUI?

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    2. Re:Apple isn't about to give Aqua away by larry+bagina · · Score: 1
      When did Open Source become gimme gimme gimme?

      When did Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton become black?

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  14. Re:Darwin? We want Aqua!! by BlueGecko · · Score: 5, Insightful
    We have Aqua. Or about 95% of the look. (Not the underlying technology, but then, does it matter?)
    No, looks are everything! So I took off this Porsche Boxter chasis and stuck it on a Chevy Lumina, and I was wondering if you'd be interested...

    On a slightly more serious note, it's very clear you haven't used OS X. Looks are NOT everything. If you honestly believe that the KDE 3 user experience is on par with Mac OS X, then I truly hope you stay out of usability testing. It's getting better all of the time, as is GNOME, but it's just not there yet. For example, the KDE configuration system is far more complex than System Preferences. Sure, it's because you get a lot of extra customization, but it overwhelms newbie users. (And, on a similar note, any user who really wants to customize things that badly in OS X need merely get the TinkerTool Panel installed and he can configure a number of out-of-the-way system settings.) KDE lacks any functionality close to an iDisk, and you cannot configure things such as webserving with the click of a button like you can in OS X. The excedingly simple directory structure of OS X is completely lacking in all Linux distros. (I.e., while the full structure is, of course, there, the user needn't worry about it. ~/Preferences houses all the user's prefs, /Applications holds all of the pretty Aqua apps which can simply be dragged there to install and to the trash to remove, etc. "./configure ; make ; make install" just cannot compare to this, and even .rpms and .debs are nowhere close, in my opinion.) Font managing is trivial, upgrades can be performed with a single button click or automatically while you sleep, etc., etc., etc.

    Just because it looks like a duck does not mean that it quacks like a duck.
  15. Actually, we have something closer. by pschmied · · Score: 4, Informative
    GNUStep though not terribly similar in looks to aqua, is technologically very close to the modern NeXT-style development.

    Don't believe me? Check out these screenshots:

    GNUMail on Linux/GNUStep

    GNUMail under Aqua/MacOS X


    Don't write off GNUStep just because they haven't reached the popularity of KDE or GNOME. I think that with Apple's dominance in the UNIX market place, that we may see GNUStep become increasingly important.

    -Peter

    1. Re:Actually, we have something closer. by JasonAsbahr · · Score: 1


      Wait, how are they doing that? Dynamic linking GNUStep apps to the Cocoa frameworks?

    2. Re:Actually, we have something closer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Man, it all sure looks nicer in Aqua.

    3. Re:Actually, we have something closer. by Suppafly · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Whats so great about the fact that gnumail has been ported?

    4. Re:Actually, we have something closer. by lcracker · · Score: 2, Informative

      GNUStep and Cocoa are both OpenStep compliant to various extents, you just recompile.

      All you really have to do to take GNUStep -> Cocoa is rebuild the interface with Interface Builder and recompile. Going the other way isn't necessarily so easy because Cocoa developers are inclined to use various bits of OS X that aren't available in GNUStep, like Carbon for example.

    5. Re:Actually, we have something closer. by larry+bagina · · Score: 2, Interesting

      what's great isn't that it was ported to cocoa, it's that it was recompiled for cocoa.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    6. Re:Actually, we have something closer. by rweir · · Score: 1

      I don't know if it's your server or my browser (Galeon 1.2.0), but those links are spitting out perl code rather than .pngs.

    7. Re:Actually, we have something closer. by mbbac · · Score: 1

      Dude, you can't even figure out how to host PNG files. What makes you think you're qualified to comment on user interfaces?

      --

      mbbac

  16. GNUstep by greygent · · Score: 2, Informative

    For those sorry lot amongst you who don't use OS X, perhaps you should look into the GNUstep project and help them out.

    The more done this project is, the more likely you'll see Mac OS X Cocoa developers compiling GNUstep stuff for the Linux folks. If the GNUstep folks so far, Apple might be willing to start open sourcing bits and components of their GUI.

    I was one of the ones that wondered why the GNUstep folks even bothered, but who's piping down now?

    In any case, I don't bother, I use OS X already.

    1. Re:GNUstep by greygent · · Score: 2

      I think you completely missed my point on this. I was saying that I was one of the people who wondered why the GNUstep folks were even bothering, when I was proven foolish by the Apple/NeXT merger. Suddenly, a whale's assful of old school OPENSTEP programmers, have bright new jobs.

  17. New Icon by loconet · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I believe slashdot will need a new icon image for Open Darwin's Hexley

    --
    [alk]
    1. Re:New Icon by hazyshadeofwinter · · Score: 1

      ASCII Graphic rendition:
      403 Forbidden You don't have access to this document on this server.

      --
      Click here if you just like to click on shit.
    2. Re:New Icon by epukinsk · · Score: 2

      They just need to add a disgustingly excessive drop shadow in the GIMP, and it'll be ready for slashdot!

      -Erik

  18. Re:Darwin? We want Aqua!! by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 5, Insightful
    A few corrections.. hope you don't mind...., Sure, it's because you get a lot of extra customization, but it overwhelms newbie users. (And, on a similar note, any user who really wants to customize things that badly in OS X need merely get the TinkerTool Panel installed and he can configure a number of out-of-the-way system settings.)

    Talking of usability testing, do you have any data to back this up? It's true the KDE Control Centre is bizarrely designed, but in fact it's being restructured for KDE3.1

    KDE lacks any functionality close to an iDisk, and you cannot configure things such as webserving with the click of a button like you can in OS X.

    Incorrect. There is no centralised free disk service like the iDisk, but on the other hand remember you effectively pay for the "free" mac.com services when you buy a Mac. If you want, you can pay me and I'll give you some FTP space. You'll then find you can browse your "mikeDisk" direct from Konqueror like a normal filing system, and also all your apps will be able to load and save to it directly - you need never know it's on a remote disk. What, you want even more power? Then try InterMezzo, which is a caching, conflict resolving offlineable remote drive system. Not only do you get network transparecy, but also you can disconnect at any point and continue working.

    Oh, I almost forgot, there is a KDE panel applet that includes a small webserver, that can be switched on or off with a mouseclick. I think it's included with KDE3 or if not then with 3.1

    The excedingly simple directory structure of OS X is completely lacking in all Linux distros.

    Switch to root and try again. The whole UNIX directory structure is there, the finder simply hides it. Fine - I can make a version of Konqueror that hides it all as well, would that make it easier to use? Perhaps. I don't know to be honest. It might be something to look into.

    You're right in terms of software management, but it's being worked on. Font management is also improving.

    What matters is the process - OS X is simply a way of locking you into proprietary Apple hardware and kit. All platforms have their strengths and weaknesses, and the weaknesses you mentioned in Linux are being resolved fast. I could name a lot of weaknesses in OS X too, which I believe Apple are on the verge of solving. So what? What matters is - are you the one in control 5 years from now?

  19. Nice Try by The+Grip+Reamer · · Score: 1

    Fact: Darwin is *BSD.

    Fact: Thanks to OS X, it is now deployed more widely than GNU/Linux.

    Fact: Your argument has been skewered.

    I use OS X, OpenBSD, and PPC-based Linux systems. I love 'em all in their own way.

    1. Re:Nice Try by glenstar · · Score: 1
      And... let's not forget WindRiver's embedded FreeBSD offerings... potentially putting FreeBSD in everything from PDAs to cable modems.

      Conclusion: FreeBSD is *not* dying... in fact, it is *gaining* popularity.

    2. Re:Nice Try by quannump · · Score: 1

      Fact: Thanks to OS X, it is now deployed more widely than GNU/Linux.

      are you forgetting about Red Flag Linux?

      --

    3. Re:Nice Try by connorbd · · Score: 2

      By that logic, BSD isn't BSD either, as the entire AT&T codebase had been removed by 1995 (4.4BSDlite). OS X is as BSD as NeXTStep was.

      /Brian

  20. Re:Darwin? We want Aqua!! by infiniti99 · · Score: 2

    IMHO, it's the lack of a good desktop (KDE is OK) that's keeping *nix from becoming the premiere desktop and Aqua could help a lot.

    There is so much to say in response to this one sentence. Where to begin?

    Look, KDE not lacking in anything that is "keeping *nix from becoming the premiere desktop". If we want Linux to take over the world, then we need specialized apps, like games and Adobe products. MacOS X users love to talk all day about how they are running Windows/Mac/Linux software all at the same time. The power of OS X is in the applications. As far as the UI goes, I personally can't stand it. It is too limited and too slow. KDE is much more configurable and fully open-source to boot.

    Now, there is no reason that *nix can't be a good desktop system for your average user. Apple proves this. Linux/KDE may not be for the average user, but that's fine. I like the power. Each to his own.

    Linux/KDE has the desktop. It doesn't have as many desktops as Microsoft or Apple, but who cares? It doesn't have to take over the world to be viable.

    Sorry about the rant. From your post, it seemed like you were saying KDE was not good enough and if Linux had Aqua it would change everything. IMO, this is simply not true. Anyhow, Aqua is not a fantasy, it exists. Go get a Mac, or get your mom a Mac. It's right there, and its lack of existence on x86 is not holding anything back.

  21. Re:Darwin? We want Aqua!! by rbeattie · · Score: 2


    I agree. Please see my .sig.

    -Russ

    --
    Me
  22. Re:Darwin? We want Aqua!! by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 1
    There is no centralised free disk service like the iDisk, but on the other hand remember you effectively pay for the "free" mac.com services when you buy a Mac.

    Huh? There's never any fees though and you can have as many accounts as you want. Your statement is like saying you effectively pay for "free" Linux when you buy an x86 machine.

    mark
    --

    If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
  23. Re:Hard Times for *BSD by glenstar · · Score: 2, Insightful
    We all know *BSD keeps losing market share but why? Is it the problematic personalities of many of the key players? Or is it larger than their troubled personalities?

    FreeBSD is not as "user-friendly" as Linux... and by that I mean it is slightly more complicated to use Ports (cd /usr/ports/net/vnc; make && make install) than to walk through a package tree with GnoRPM. Well, actually it isn't more difficult but might be *perceived* to be more difficult. Want to recompile your kernel under FreeBSD? Edit a text file, run config on it then cd to the appropriate directory and compile... no make menuconfig here.

    The interesting thing to me is that all of the "hardcore" *nix developers out there are now screaming for a desktop solution akin to Windows. Seems that some people have lost their way in regards to the command line and good old knowledge being necessary to make their machines perform.

  24. Re:x86 by JordanH · · Score: 1
    • not day one!!

      but you are mostly correct, Darwin ran on x86 fairly soon after it's release.

    I had always assumed it had been "since day one" because it was a fallout of porting the FreeBSD stuff to Mach, etc.

    If it's not a fallout of the porting effort, why do they support x86 at all? Is this to help the Open Source development community surrounding Darwin, or is it possibly the case that Apple is hedging their bets and thinking of going x86 themselves at some point in the future?

  25. Re:Darwin? We want Aqua!! by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

    Aqua shmaqua.

    While the Aqua look is nice, it has and can be duplicated. The fact of the matter is that the real advantage is with the underlying rendering layer. There is no way an X based system is going to be able to present a look and feel of any design, no matter how good that is going to be able to compete with the flat out sophistication of Quartz.

  26. Re:Darwin? We want Aqua!! by Jonathan · · Score: 3, Informative

    Huh? There's never any fees though and you can have as many accounts as you want. Your statement is like saying you effectively pay for "free" Linux when you buy an x86 machine.

    No -- the point is the very real costs of maintaining the ftp servers are paid by Apple out of its income. Transparent ftp connectivity is already part of KDE, the problem is that there can be no centralized server without *somebody* paying for it.

  27. Suck it GNU hippies by Bitter+Old+Man · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    It's funny watching you open source knobbers get all worked up over OS X. Talk about being jealous...

    Apple debuts the most technologically advanced windowing system ever, and it's:
    "Aqua/Quartz is so slow! And it doesn't support network transparency! And Aqua is so candy-coated and ugly! Hahahah!" Meanwhile 2,000 different Aqua themes appear on the various themes sites within days.

    Apple bases their OS on FreeBSD, something that ALL geeks are supposed to be keen on, and it's:
    "They've bastardized the tree hierarchy, and used a microkernel. Microkernels are so slooow."

    Apple brings third-party developers like Adobe and MS onto the bandwagon - developers which Linux has been trying and failing to emulate since day one - and it's:
    "We never needed that proprietary crap anyway, Gimp is 500% better than Photoshop and OpenOffice kills MS Office and... and... and your mom!"

    Apple includes Apache, NFS, and Samba connectivity and it's:
    "Enabling/disabling my daemons with one click is so inflexible. I want more configurability."

    Apple retains their trademark simplicity in plug & play. Mice, keyboards, scanners, you name it Just Work. The open-source community replies:
    "You can do that today in ObscureLinuxDistro 8.3. You just have to make sure you've got x, y, and z modules loaded, use modprobe for this otherwise type cat /proc/modules and you'll see a list of modules. Now go into the XFree86 config file and make sure you see these lines, and..."

    Once again, open source software finishes last place in technology and usability, and its zealotry continue to deny it. Get out of the basement and into the real world, pizzafaces. Your mom.

    1. Re:Suck it GNU hippies by jdavidb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Microkernels are so slooow.

      If the GNU people say that, then why are they building a microkernel-based OS called HURD?

      I know the community can't be completely represented with generalizations, but to take myself as an example, I haven't complained about any of the things you've mentioned. My only concern is licensing.

      If Aqua's good (and I believe it is), we'll build one.

    2. Re:Suck it GNU hippies by Lars+T. · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hrrm, is the development speed of HURD so slow because it's a microkernel? ;-)

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    3. Re:Suck it GNU hippies by Noodlenose · · Score: 2
      "You can do that today in ObscureLinuxDistro 8.3. You just have to make sure you've got x, y, and z modules loaded, use modprobe for this otherwise type cat /proc/modules and you'll see a list of modules. Now go into the XFree86 config file and make sure you see these lines, and..."

      I utterly agree. I am trying for the last three days to install Slakware on an old PII and for somebody who is used to Apple's Simplicity, It just sucks so much. It's interesting, without a doubt, but you know how frustrating it is if you're not able to just plug in your ADSL Model and go? No, it's patch this, patch that, find that obscure library and that driver which is still in Alpha and recompile the kernel.

      In OS X I just whacked the blooming thing into the USB port and - hey presto.

      Sorry, Linux, 0 points for ease of use.

    4. Re:Suck it GNU hippies by jdavidb · · Score: 2

      That's probably part of the reason, yes. That doesn't necessarily mean the microkernel selection was a bad choice or anything. The question is if the cost in time is made up in gains elsewhere (features, efficiency, maintenance, or something).

      Actually, I believe the primary reason a microkernel architecture was chosen for GNU and HURD was because then a normal debugger could be used on the servers that compose the kernel. :)

    5. Re:Suck it GNU hippies by coolgeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      BOM, you hit the nail smack on the head! Stated differently, Linux is for people that want to do stuff *to* their computer, OS X is for people that want to do stuff *with* their computer. For me, both paradigms are appropriate for different challenges, that's why I use/tweak on both.

      --

      cat /dev/null >sig
    6. Re:Suck it GNU hippies by asobala · · Score: 1

      It is, actually, according to rms

    7. Re:Suck it GNU hippies by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2
      WTF were you doing trying to use Slackware? Oh, I know, you never actually wanted to give Linux a chance anyway, you'd rather be a cheap corporate mouthpiece for Apple.

      If you'd actually spent more than 2 minutes researching your new OS then you'd have found that every piece of literature on the subject says Slackware is highly technical, not meant for newbies and (i quote) "great for people for whom computing is a hobby".

      You know what? Go out, buy SuSE 8 (for a PC dammit, PPC support is still experimental), and then install it on a PC. It worked perfectly, first time for me, no hassle.

      Quit dicking around and pretending you can comment on something you clearly didn't put any effort into finding out about before you started.

    8. Re:Suck it GNU hippies by scrytch · · Score: 2

      Funny how everyone who makes the mildest defense of Microsoft gets accused of being a paid astroturfer, while this troll gets modded up to a 5.

      I had replies to some of these points, but I don't really think it deserves it until the author is capable of speaking like a civilized human.

      --
      I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
    9. Re:Suck it GNU hippies by Erik+K.+Veland · · Score: 1

      Why on earth would you want to close a program when the last window is closed? This isn't Windows. Nor Mac OS 9.

      And per Apple's interface guidelines a program should open a new window if it has none where appropriate. Check your Finder, Internet Explorer, TextEdit.

      --
      "I tend to think of OS X as Linux with QA and Taste", James Gosling, creator of Java
    10. Re:Suck it GNU hippies by evilviper · · Score: 2

      Amen.

      The one thing I feel should be said is this:
      It's not up to GNOME, KDE, or any other application developers to give you a great system configuration interface. The ability to configure everything you might need to configure is the job of RedHat, SuSe, Debian, Slackware, etc.

      Why the hell does everyone expect KDE to be able to set your IP Address when you could be using dhclient, pumpd, etc.? If you want to be able to configure NFS with the click of a button, yell at RedHat/SuSe for not including a GUI/CLI program that knows what RedHat installed, and knows how to configure it.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    11. Re:Suck it GNU hippies by Noodlenose · · Score: 1
      the reason for choosing slackware was it's alleged compability with older machine. The setup was easy enough, and the machine booted fine. It's just the recompilation of a uptodate Kernel with the necessary patches that I find difficult, which for a Newbie I think is legitimate.

      Another reason for using slackware was to learn about the ins and out of Linux, which again Slackware is supposed to be good for.

      You see, I gave this some thought, so don't always assume that everybody who has problems with this rather userunfriendly OS is an automatic dickhead.

      Dirk

  28. Re:Darwin? We want Aqua!! An iDisks !! by Maserati · · Score: 1
    Just a minor quibble. An iDisk is just a share mounted with WebDAV. Windows calls it Web Folders. Do either KDE or Gnome have WebDAV built into their file manager ?


    In addition to support for WebDAV in the Finder, OS X has a mod_dav enabled copy of Apache. The link is to an O'Reilly article on setting up a WebDAV folder in OS X.

    --
    Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
  29. Re:x86 by masteroveride · · Score: 1

    Now the next logial step from the x86 port of darwin is the port of OS X to the x86. I know this doesn't seem too special, but I am personally fed up with windows and I would love to see a stable well supported OS (Besides Linux) that looks beautiful. Apple could put a serious dent into Microsoft's market share and it would be the first OS that I would by off the shelf in years.

    --
    eh, food for thought...
  30. Re:Darwin? We want Aqua!! by shawnce · · Score: 1

    Hey AC... care to give examples of how Apple is "nixing development" of Darwin on x86?

    The source is sitting their do what you want with it.

  31. Re:Security problems plaguing FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ah, another troll...

    Just for the record, the article's first paragraph actually states:

    "Welcome to Security Alerts, an overview of recent Unix and open source security advisories. In this column, we look at buffer overflows in OpenSSH, Squid, Listar/Ecartis, slrnpull, and IRIX's syslogd; problems in Sudo, MHonArc, and Mosix; and a local root hole and denial-of-service attack vulnerability in FreeBSD."

    Of these, the only issues that are FreeBSD issues as opposed to issues in theird party software are the IO descriptors and syncache/syncookies problems. The others would almost certainly apply to any unix they were run upon, with the obvious exception of IRIX syslogd - and IRIX is a SysV implementation...

    HAND.

  32. Aqua, Quartz, GNUStep, KDE, GNOME by theolein · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Apple will obviously not open source Quartz or allow copies of it's Aqua GUI. The reasons are obvious and have been discussed often enough. There's nothing wrong with that. They need the money and, at the least provide Darwin as an alternative commercially supported Unix to Linux(IBM, RedHat, SuSE etc). Their attention to their Desktop is important, as this provides a real alternative to MS' enormous monopoly, and perhaps even more importantly the Quartz/Aqua GUI provides (at least for PPC) a standard interface for applications. I'm not a big fan of Aqua but it does provide a standard on the platform. This is one of the reasons, I think, for MS' monopoly on the desktop. Think of it as crap or good, but it does make it easier for an application designer to design a GUI. Same for Apple. The controls all look the same and the API's are standard. Linux needs something like this as well. Both GNOME and KDE are good but their lack of intercompatibility with one another does no service to Linux. Choice is good but perhaps sometimes it also leads to confusion, in this case for instance amongst normal users who have difficulty understanding how to use the right mouse button, never mind understanding whether QT3 or GTK is better.

  33. ObjC vs. C# by theolein · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Having started to use ObjC on OSX, which is obviously supported on Darwin and GNUStep as well, I found it similar in it's ease of use to Java. No one owns ObjC and unlike C# you can compile it with GCC. No one is going to hijack ObjC, but can you say the same about C#.

    It's not much of an argument, but it's worth thinking about.

  34. Re:x86 by smaug195 · · Score: 1

    How is it compared to Linux? What about BSD? The real question for me is how user friendly is the install. :)

  35. Re: GNUpdate by lintel_user · · Score: 1

    I must say...it does sound like they are addressing a need. Why hasn't anyone picked up on this? This should be out there...being tested!

  36. Re:Darwin? We want Aqua!! by BlueGecko · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Talking of usability testing, do you have any data to back this up?
    Sun's GNOME Usability Test made that point, and KDE's panels are similar enough to GNOMEs that I assumed the comparison was fair.
    Oh, I almost forgot, there is a KDE panel applet that includes a small webserver, that can be switched on or off with a mouseclick. I think it's included with KDE3 or if not then with 3.1
    It's not on my KDE 3 system, but that may be because I left out a package or something. Even if it is, though, my point doesn't really stand changed; KDE is improving with leaps and bounds, but it's just not entirely there, yet.

    Re. transparent file access: that wasn't really my point. The iDisk in OS X is extremely thoroughly integrated, such that applications assume that it's there and you can easily send a file to your iDisk even if it's not mounted. Further, the very structure of the iDisk is critical for much of this to work properly. iPhoto assumes that a folder named Photos exists on your iDisk (just like your home directory, I might add), and HomePage assumes that it will find photos there if for your photos page. KDE doesn't need a central service to dupliate this functionality, but a standard disk format and easy way to essentially point to the iDisk (kDisk?) server of your choice would be a really simple and actually very nice addition.

    Switch to root and try again. The whole UNIX directory structure is there, the finder simply hides it. Fine - I can make a version of Konqueror that hides it all as well, would that make it easier to use? Perhaps. I don't know to be honest. It might be something to look into.
    I know it's still there; hell, I rely on it being there in some of the apps I write that in turn call the standard Unix tools in /usr/bin. The key is that the USER doesn't need to know, EVER. The /etc files are entirely obsoleted by NetInfo. Applications the typical user needs can be placed anywhere on the disk without any problem, and can be installed and deinstalled simply by drag and drop. I actually run with all files and directories exposed, but still find the OS X structure far easier for general apps.

    Again, I appreciate that everything is improving, but you've got to understand that it's not quite there yet. That was my only point, and I honestly look forward very eagerly to when KDE and friends are on-par or surpass Apple's offerings. That's the point where no one will any longer be able to deny that open source desktops are around the corner.
  37. Re:Darwin? We want Aqua!! by NumberSyx · · Score: 2

    Not only will that never, ever happen, but it would be a really bad idea for software written for a Dell to not run on a Gateway.

    This is a good point, but on the otherhand, why should Dell care if its software ran on a Gateway or not. More likely it would be the other way around, Dell is too entrenched in the Windows world. Gateway, is scrambling for market share and far more likely to try something like this. HP/Compaq is a possibilty and MicronPC is a profitable privately held company, so there is no board of directors or stockholders to satisfy.

    The whole point of this business model is to sell hardware and as long as the user can do basic things like watch DvD/Video, burn CD's, listen to music, surf the web, send/recieve email, instant message, create documents of various types and connect to a Windows based network, probably too much more wouldn't be neccessary or could be dealt with by releasing a free SDK and letting the OSS Hackers do what they do best. As an example, it did not take long to port X Windows to OS X, once that happened Gimp and several other programs followed, Apple got a whole lot of runnable software with little work or cost on thier part. This would be even easier because it is Linux at its core, no real port is neccessary beyond getting X Windows running in rootless mode after that the user installs the proper libraries and virtually every program available under Linux is now usable without changing a line of code. I see no problems here, it seems to me everyone wins.

    --

    "Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
    -Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development

  38. Speaking of 'Knowledge of Unix and a Girlfriend' by The+Monster · · Score: 2, Funny
    Ever notice what happens when you type
    man woman
    at a Unix prompt?

    man: woman not found
    Which explains so much....
    --

    [100% ISO 646 Compliant]
    SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.

  39. Re:x86 by Cadre · · Score: 2
    If it's not a fallout of the porting effort, why do they support x86 at all? Is this to help the Open Source development community surrounding Darwin, or is it possibly the case that Apple is hedging their bets and thinking of going x86 themselves at some point in the future?

    In the Darwin Q&A they sort of explain why they maintain support for x86. From the article they say:

    "We're simply making Darwin, the underlying operating system of Mac OS X, a better system by using x86 as a test bed to ensure architectural soundness and to reap the benefits from applying portable software coding practices."

    It's a good answer and it makes sense, but I wouldn't discount your theory about hedging their bets. Jobs is known for screwing companies (switching to NVidia from ATI) and going to new hardware, and it's pretty well known that he isn't very happy with Motorola right now.

    --
    All editorial writers ever do is come down from the hill after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
  40. Darwin is expensive? by theolein · · Score: 1

    If you check you'll find that Darwin, the OS in the main subject here is open source, runs on x86 and supports GNOME, X11 etc and is free, similar to Linux. If you have problems with that but still insist on using MS software, bootlegged or legal as I know a lot of third world countries do, then I don't think there's much anyone can do for you. However if you're basing your post on your use of Linux on x86 just reread the first sentence.

    Sorry to interrupt your fanatic posting.

  41. Re:Darwin? We want Aqua!! by Ilan+Volow · · Score: 2

    Great post, Bill. I agree completely with everything you said. You get a pat on the back at the next TriLUG meeting.

    --
    Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
  42. Sorry, C# is an ECMA standard by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 5, Informative

    You can go off and write your own C# tools anytime you like. As long as you conform to the ECMA documents, you can claim that your tool deals with C#. Micorosft invented it but does not own it.

  43. Re:Darwin? We want Aqua!! by tin_the_fatty · · Score: 1

    Because the $1800 iMac is much nicer hardware than the $800 Celeron?

    My Powerbook G4 goes to sleep everytime I close the lid, and comes back to life instantly upon opening it. My HP laptop running Win2000 often refuses to wake up after a sleep, or after waking up refuses to go back to sleep.

    I use KDE on my desktop workstation. As a programmer/developer who rely mainly on mozilla, multiple term windows, bbedit/kate, emacs/vi, KDE has the advantage of excellent virtual desktop support. I am happy under both environments, and not convinced that Aqua the UI has overwhelming advantage over KDE.

  44. Re:Darwin? We want Aqua!! by NumberSyx · · Score: 2

    Because the $1800 iMac is much nicer hardware than the $800 Celeron?

    I agree with you on all your points, the problem is most people will not know the difference and will choose the cheaper hardware, especially if the label says 1 Ghz.

    --

    "Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
    -Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development

  45. Re:Speaking of 'Knowledge of Unix and a Girlfriend by Green+Light · · Score: 1

    I like typing cat door better.

    --
    "Send an Instant Karma to me" - Yes
  46. Re:Darwin? We want Aqua!! by justsomebody · · Score: 1

    As a longtime MOX user I can tell you're worng. You describe a lack of system features and usabillity, that's not true.

    I'm using it back from the first beta and to say the trouth I don't like it. Everything is so painfully slow and suited to customed design.

    ...The iDisk in OS X is extremely thoroughly integrated
    Yes I know I can mount iDisk but how painfull that operation is. Everything you run on that system is waiting. Is being slow is userfriendly then yes I agree with you. On the other hand you can always mount any ftp disk on any unix computer just as it is there. Ever tryed ftpfs?

    .... I actually run with all files and directories exposed
    You gotta be kidding, with all invisible files you run with them exposed.

    Secondary, yes MOX has web server, with what lacks of configuration, one at least one part of controling is in control panel, one is divided between few locations on NetInfo and one is accesible only in console mode.

    As for file system. Go in terminal mode and use terminal commands to move between parts of file system. File system looked from point of some root user can be described as a nightmare. Even in Aqua run sherlok and try to find some Laserwriter. You'll otice how many times on different locations same files appear.

    Preferences you describe as so golden are thrown all over the system, there is no more Preferences folder like it used to be. Now there is 5 different prefferences folders for every account you use, not to mention some applications store preferences inside .app folder, what makes them impossible to see because Finder doesn't show inside this folders.

    ...The /etc files are entirely obsoleted by NetInfo.
    First time you'll install sambaX you will notice how nice is to add another place for preferences /etc. Yeah, that's great.

    To create a startup deamon you need. Try you'll almoust find your self programming a new piece of software at least compared to any other unix I know.

    Applications you brag, well they just arent as easy to copy all over as they used to be, ain't that true. Small ones yes but something bigger. That's one of main differences between hfs and ufs. Hfs had internal catalog of files you moved, and where you moved, with ufs that option just isn't working, is optional for desktop icons that MOX has always preloaded but not for everything.

    ...and can be installed and deinstalled simply by drag and drop
    You gotta be kidding, or you don't know. NOT ANYMORE now it's just like any other system as I described to you. If you don't believe just run a snaphot file of harddisk before and after installing.

    I admit MOX looks great, .... for one or two hours, then interface just gets painfull and boring. ... and SLOOOW

    I guess all I wanna say is, I like simplicity of MOX but not enough to exchange for complexity of others.

    --
    Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
  47. Re:Darwin? We want Aqua!! by andrewski · · Score: 1

    Uhhh, because Apple wants to have an incentive for poeple to buy their products. It's called SURVIVAL!

  48. Re:Darwin? We want Aqua!! by NumberSyx · · Score: 2

    A better point to make would be why would you want to have linux as your base system?

    Why not ? At its base (no GUI), Linux is small, fast, dependable, secure and highly configurable. Why start from scratch, when Linux or *BSD can be had for free ?

    Why must everyone think linux is something that it isn't,

    What do you mean ? Right now, Linux stands as one of the best operating systems available. Of course there also *BSD. Beyond Linux or *BSD, there are not many options.

    great that is.

    No doubt, Linux is great.

    --

    "Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
    -Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development

  49. Re:timeline... by repetty · · Score: 2

    Jordan is not Apple's bitch. He's a grown man. Apple didn't make him do anything - he made up his own mind.

    You can grouse about it all you want.

    --Richard

  50. Re:timeline... by Ratso+Baggins · · Score: 1

    I din't say anyone was forced to do anything, just it happened...

    --

    --
    "we live in a post-ideological world..." - Billy Bragg.

  51. Re:Darwin? We want Aqua!! by nutshell42 · · Score: 1
    Sun's GNOME Usability Test made that point, and KDE's panels are similar enough to GNOMEs that I assumed the comparison was fair.

    Almost every problem they reported was GNOME-only. Perhaps they'd found other things when testing KDE but from my own experience with friends KDE is more newbie-friendly

    In addition they sat Mac and Windows users in front of GNOME Systems and the issues were more or less my-other-system-behaves-different stuff and would have been there too if they tested OS X with Windows and GNOME-users

    --
    Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
  52. OK, C# is an ECMA standard by theolein · · Score: 1

    Where's the compiler? Where's the API's. Apart from the mono project(and look how far they've gotten), who has even attempted to write a runtime for this? How useful is C# (even if you have the runtime and the compiler) if you have no classes and API's? I don't remember MS opening up any of the .Net API's without which (at the moment in any case) C# is about as useful as intercal.

    1. Re:OK, C# is an ECMA standard by Jon+Pryor · · Score: 1

      As someone else stated, it's a standard, not a product. The C# Standard merely describes the C# language.

      Where are the APIs? That's a different standard. ECMA-335, to be precise, and it describes a set of APIs to program against, as well as what the intermediate language is, the semantics the the IL, how it should be executed... In short, most of what you would need to know in order to execute a .NET program.

      The one downside is that ECMA-335 doesn't define the entire library to .NET; it's missing Windows Forms, ASP.NET, and other large parts of the library. But that doesn't prevent the developer community from re-implementing these libraries. In fact, people are working on these libraries as part of the Mono Project.

      - Jon

  53. Re:Darwin? We want Aqua!! An iDisks !! by nitehorse · · Score: 2

    Actually, yes, Konqueror (from KDE3) has an integrated webdav:// ioslave.

    -clee

  54. Look what happened to Unix by fluor2 · · Score: 1

    Don't split up into various "organizations" that in the end would, potentially, kill eachother because of stupid disagreements. You only pave the way for Microsoft.

  55. Re:Darwin? We want Aqua!! by connorbd · · Score: 2

    Well, I can sort of see why nobody uses it -- it looks interesting, but really strange and a long way from finished. The crufted-together development process reminds me uncomfortably of the strange beast that is Inform (www.gnelson.demon.co.uk/inform), and it really looks like it's a long way away from being ready to go.

    /Brian

  56. OS X Loses and Wins by omegadva · · Score: 1

    I felt forced to respond to the ad hominem attacks of the OS X afficianados. I use both OS X and Linux in my work as a physician and sometimes write code. (buzz.sourceforge.net)

    Bottom line is that KDE3 with Mosfet Liquid, Connectiva Crystal Icons, Freetype2 with antialiasing turned on is more functional and aesthetic than OS X for most things.

    When comparing make sure you compare Apples to Linux Apples ;-)
    OS X: iMac G4 800mhz with 1 gig of ram, GeForce 2 MX 32 meg DDR - Nvidia drivers
    KDE3: Dell 4100 1.13ghz PIII with 1 gig of ram, GeForce 2 Go 32 meg DDR - Nvidia drivers

    Where Aqua Wins:
    Final Cut Pro, MS Office

    Where Aqua Loses:

    GUI:Closing all the windows of a program does not close the program. Clicking the
    Dock for a running program with all windows closed does nothing other than bring
    up the menubar at the top of the screen. Hence a one click operation in any other GUI
    is a 3 to 5 click operation spread out out over the screen.

    Browsing the web is slow or incompatible (IE or Omniweb). Fizzilla may change this.

    Where Linux/KDE3 Wins:
    Konqueror Browser
    Kmail
    OpenDX

    Where Linux Works:
    Codeweavers Office
    Codeweavers Crossover

    Where Linux Fails:
    Editting Video at the level of Final Cut Pro
    Software testing: Bugs that you must avoid live in more Linux programs than in OS X.
    That said, there are many bugs to avoid in OS X.

    If you don't believe me, see screenshots at buzz.sourceforge.net

    1. Re:OS X Loses and Wins by daviddennis · · Score: 2

      I checked out the screenshots, and personally I think the anti-aliased type rendering on MacOS X still looks significantly better than the KDE version. All according to taste, I suppose.

      The latest Mozilla for MacOS X has excellent compatibility - I have yet to see a site I can't view in it.

      I'd just use Clover-Q to quit applications. Sometimes it's handy to have an application hang around after its last window is gone. Close all your OmniWeb windows and click on a link outside of OmniWeb (assuming you have it as your default browser) and the link will come right up; this is a Good Thing.

      The other factor is that, quite frankly, I simply don't have the time to learn all that's needed to install anti-aliasing on Linux. I tried a few months back with no joy. Perhaps if it's built into an existing Linux distribution now it would be time to try again on my work Linux system. But for my personal systems, I have to say that I'm awfully happy with MacOS X.

      D

  57. Re:Darwin? We want Aqua!! by infiniti99 · · Score: 2

    Believe me, I know about the average user. You're right, they don't need an open source or highly configurable GUI, and apparently you don't either. So I must ask you this: what is the problem with MacOS X? It is available right now and suits your needs.

    What I don't understand is the point you are trying to make. All I was trying to say in my previous post was that Aqua on Linux would be of little use. The Linux users (me) don't care about Aqua, and the Aqua users (you) don't care about Linux. So you go get a Mac, and I'll use SuSE Linux. I fail to see the problem here.

  58. Something funny about Mac threads by Dokushoka · · Score: 1

    They always have the highest amout of replys below my threshold, which is pathetic cause mine is set at zero. All these trolls make stupid, uneducated posts about macs and its obvious that they haven't used one since 1989! over 50% of the posts are bogus!

  59. Re:Darwin? We want Aqua!! by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2

    You have to buy a Mac to use the mac.com services, they are paid for out of the Apple hardware sales.

  60. Re:Darwin? We want Aqua!! by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2
    I don't see how Aqua is more technically sophisticated than X really. Aqua isn't network transparent, or themable, or particularly keyboard friendly. It's not hardware accelerated. It looks nice,and, er, that's about it. It's also a CPU hog.

    I guess I'm saying that X, as in the extended accelerated XFree version, isn't all that bad.

  61. Re:Darwin? We want Aqua!! by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 2

    No you don't. I use my mac.com account on my Windows box at work. Yes, they are paid for by Apple, who makes money from hardware sales among other things. But you don't need a mac to use it, only to sign up. And you can sign up for as many accounts as you want. So in that sense it is pretty free.

    mark

    --

    If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
  62. Re:Darwin? We want Aqua!! by cbowland · · Score: 1
    Aqua is not necessarily slower than KDE or Gnome. It all depends on the hardware (obviously). I have a Sunblade at work and alternate between KDE and Gnome (cause CDE sucks!) but given a choice, I would use a new G4 anyday. KDE and Gnome on Sun hardward are seriously slow, much more so than the imac os x machine I am using to post this comment.


    Given all that, I agree with you. The answer to the question KDE or Gnome is AQUA!

    --

    Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
    Teach him to eat and he will fish forever.

  63. Re: GNUpdate by ChipX86 · · Score: 1

    People are more than welcome to test it! Just keep in mind that it is not ready for daily use quite yet. It's almost there, but not quite. Feel free to join the listservs if you want to keep up on development, ask questions, or contribute to anything.

  64. Helping Hoarders by leandrod · · Score: 2

    Those who refuse to learn History are bound to repeat it – as a farce. Can’t remember who said that, nor exactly in which words.

    BSD was hoarded by proprietary vendors before, and this almost killed free software at that time. That’s why copyleft, being so restrictive, got so popular: so that free software wouldn’t be hoarded again.

    The same goes for X. XFree hackers even refused a deal to have it GPL’d by the X Group. It’s a kind of idealism, but one which endangers the very continuance of the freedoms we all have come to cherish.

    --
    Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
    DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
    GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
  65. Re:Darwin? We want Aqua!! by Van+Halen · · Score: 1

    I don't speak for the previous poster, but I believe this is what he was getting at: You probably know someone who has a Mac. There is nothing stopping you from going over to your friend's house, signing up for an iTools account, and then using it to your heart's content from a PC. Your friend can invite all his friends to do the same, all at no extra charge. Sure, someone has to buy a Mac to get it done, but Apple does not charge any more per account. That was the only point. Whether you consider that "free" is another matter altogether.

  66. Re:Darwin? We want Aqua!! by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 2
    Unless you mean to imply that you can use the service without signing up for it, logic would seem to be on his side.


    I did not say you only have to buy a Mac to sign up. You don't have to.

    It's not like you need to prove you own a Mac when you sign up, or give some serial number. You just have to, at some point in your life, have access to a Macintosh with an Internet connection for 5 minutes.

    Go to a library or the Apple store or a friend's house, sign up, and there you go.

    mark
    --

    If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
  67. Re:Darwin? We want Aqua!! by mbbac · · Score: 1

    "Incorrect. There is no centralised free disk service like the iDisk, but on the other hand remember you effectively pay for the "free" mac.com services when you buy a Mac. If you want, you can pay me and I'll give you some FTP space. You'll then find you can browse your "mikeDisk" direct from Konqueror like a normal filing system, and also all your apps will be able to load and save to it directly - you need never know it's on a remote disk. What, you want even more power? Then try InterMezzo, which is a caching, conflict resolving offlineable remote drive system. Not only do you get network transparecy, but also you can disconnect at any point and continue working."

    iDisk uses WebDAV which is an open standard and uses HTTP over port 80. This means that it gets around firewalls. It also means I can access my iDisk from my Win2000 box at work, I just can't access it natively except through Office 2000 (because Microsoft couldn't be bother to make Win2000 fully WebDAV compliant). Mac OS X is fully WebDAV compliant so I can access my iDisk just as I would a local disk. It's also integrated into the save dialogs.

    --

    mbbac

  68. Re:More OS X flamebait by Ricofencer · · Score: 1

    Er, since when has ANY Linux developer wanted to emulate MICROSOFT?!?!

    Look at the GNOME development team. Can you say Miguel? I thought you could. He has stated, and at times I agree, that Microsoft has some good technology. The fact that they cram it down the user's throat with a firehose is a different matter.

  69. Nice troll by metamatic · · Score: 1

    If you really know where you can get a 1.x GHz Celeron system with digital flat panel display and DVD-R burner for $800, please let us all in on the secret.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    1. Re:Nice troll by NumberSyx · · Score: 2

      If you really know where you can get a 1.x GHz Celeron system with digital flat panel display and DVD-R burner for $800, please let us all in on the secret

      You entirly missed the point of my post, which was an answer to the question of why we will never see Aqua ported to the x86 platform. Right now no Celeron systems w/DvD burner is available for $800, but that does not mean we will never see one. The way prices fall in the x86 world, I wouldn't be suprised to see such a system next year some time.

      --

      "Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
      -Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development