Slashdot Mirror
Jordan Hubbard Gives Last Intervew For Apple
acaben writes "MacSlash has posted what Jordan Hubbard says will be his last interview for Apple. Apple's Engineering Manager for the BSD Technology Group talks about the new BSDPorts initiative, his thoughts on working for Apple and Apple's Open Source strategy, and how Mac users new to Open Source can get involved and contribute to the community. He also gets delightfully geeky in comparing the differences between Darwin's VM envirnoment and FreeBSD's and explains that Darwin was built with things like working with Final Cut Pro in mind."
Geez. No offense to any of you, but wasn't it just up until last year when Apple products were only used by designers and retards? Hell, you can't even go for a beer with any OBSD boys without a few Macs pop out of their case onto the table.
/rant
I know this is just a rant, but someone's got to comment on Ms. Feiss.... I'll leave that for you.
HURD - Hurd's Under Research & Development
So in other words: Don't imagine a beowolf cluster of these things!
omnia tua castra sunt nobis
Think of JH's move to Apple as his opportunity to spread the gospel to a wider audience than FreeBSD (of all OS's).
don't geeks go in for, ah, technical details?
Where was the technical detail in saying "Darwin's VM system has to take into account different memory usage patterns"?
(I enjoyed the article, I guess, but "geeky"?)
--Matthew
Uh, why don't you just use any SCSI- or FCAL-connected array that you want then? You could use all the same SCSI disk arrays (with hardware RAID, etc.) that you use with any FreeBSD box with any Mac OS X box. And yeah, it doesn't have ECC. It doesn't have redundant power supplies. It doesn't have a lot of stuff. The product is in its infancy! Apple is just BEGINNING its enterprise strategy...and even at this early stage, people who would NEVER have bought ANY Apple hardware before are now snapping it up, for enterprise datacenters no less! For Oracle development! For biosciences computing! And you know what? We're deploying Mac OS X Server, Solaris, AIX, Linux, and Windows 2000/.NET, but NOT FreeBSD.
And since Mac OS X has vastly eclipsed the number of FreeBSD systems in use, or will ever have in use, I'd say that's a "wider audience". Even "wider than a goasemon's asshole", as you put it.
I hope you really are trolling and that you don't believe what you say, because you apparently have no idea what you're talking about. For a good, usable GUI on top of ANY UNIX, BSD or otherwise, Mac OS X/Mac OS X Server is the only game in town. Sure, Mac OS X has a long way to go. But it's done the most for UNIX (and BSD) adoption that any UNIX (or BSD) ever has. And soon, Darwin will be synced with FreeBSD 5.x functionality, so then, by your logic, Mac OS X will be infinitely better than FreeBSD, since it will be everything FreeBSD is (with the exception of the hardware it runs on), PLUS a real productivity OS that normal people can actually use! Then there's the whole Server side of the equation, where I can feel free to update my core OS and do security patches on OS X Server without going through the test-and-backout nightmare my Solaris/AIX/Linux colleagues do. Or reshare NFS filesystems out via SAMBA with the click of a button. And it only gets better.
Hardware-wise, you spouted off a bunch of shit about run-of-the-mill AMD hardware. No thanks, I'll pass. Then you spouted off a bunch of shit about 64-bit processors...you may want to take a look at the IBM PowerPC 970..., which, by many accounts, may trounce the passé 64-bit processors you list.
If you want to stick with the commandline (which has nothing to do with Mac OS X's main markets) or the Gnome/KDE amateur hour, go for it.
apple's hardware? overpriced, and inferior target for programming. x86 is better because of being ubiquitous. all the other high end stuff is more scaleable. apple is just - stupid.
Hasn't the Mac vs. PC argument gotten tired yet? I thought we were talking about Apple's BSD-based OS...
Yes, there's more PCs. A shitload more. So many more that it's ridiculous. So what?
Apple OS. OS 9 and below was an industry last place horrorshow. No need to talk of that.
Sure had a lot of users...*
*Note: just because Windows has more users doesn't mean make the millions of Mac OS users a small number.
OS X picked the wrong kernel
In your opinion.
implements 95 APIs
?
And since one of the APIs is BSD, which you seem to love...
doesnt even get games on it to speak of
You keep contradicting yourself. You talk of Jordan Hubbard as a sellout because he "left" FreeBSD, but now you're obviously talking about Windows, which belongs to the biggest "corporate" titan of them all! And now you're bringing up games...games are a big market, but I give a rat's ass about games.
and uses a crappy, slow kernel
Some people would say that the hardware abstraction is a worthy tradeoff...
makes users pay for service packs Calling 10.2 a "service pack" implies that it has the same content as Windows service packs. Mac OS X had been out for a year and a half with no paid updates. A year and a half. That's plenty within a reasonable timeframe to charge for an OS update. If Apple had called it 10.5 or OS XI, would it have made any difference? And for those who argue that OS X before 10.2 was pretty much a "beta" and Apple shouldn't have charged for it, well, I'd argue that Windows before 98 (in the consumer sector where over 50% of people still run 98) were "beta" too. Additionally, no one, including Apple, forced anyone to run OS X. Everyone could have used, and still can use, OS 9.x if they are so inclined. Mac OS X 10.1.x was good for many, and 10.2.x began the real push to Mac OS X. One paid upgrade every year and a half seems fine with me.
This guy has been posting the same rant for over a year. Always posts as an AC.
He's just some lame ass that likes to bait Mac users - admittedly a task similar to shooting fish in a barrel.
Then, you may eat your foot for a mid-afternoon snack.
-braxton
Actually, that was one way that clustering could happen on the NeXT. However, there were others-- a number of others. PDO doesn't really scale well; tends to lead to packet storms. Other architectures are preferable.
There have been a handful of stories that talk about the [very competitive, btw] clustering capabilities of the XServe.
I think that's a pretty fair assessment of one of the reasons I went to Apple, thanks.
I did actually change my threshold down low enough to see the original article from that silly "Tsarkon" person and have to say that I haven't laughed so hard in a long time - I should read the trolls more often. He must have an odd working history if he's accustomed to selling his soul in exchange for mere employment (mine is still safely locked in a safe deposit box in Berkeley and Apple has never even expressed an interest in it, perhaps I should be offended).
In any case, FreeBSD remains a great server solution and I've said this from the very beginning. I even took a fair amount of fire during the early 90's for saying that FreeBSD shouldn't even try to focus on the desktop because we had no chance there and weren't the kind of developer community who were likely to ever focus on the needs of the desktop community anyway. The ports collection is great and I'm very proud of it, of course, but that's merely a convenient taxonomy for geeks to use in organizating and installing software, it's not something your mother is ever going to use.
I think history has subsequently proven that being server-centric was exactly the right route for FreeBSD to take, but that doesn't mean I and other Unix hackers had no INTEREST in the desktop, merely that we never saw FreeBSD as a reasonble vehicle for going there. Mac OS X is an entirely different proposition and I think the growing number of Tibooks you see at USENIX conferences every year pretty much speaks for itself. If our anonymous Tsarkon fellow wants to use Windows instead then more power to him (or maybe her - who knows?).
- Jordan Hubbard co-founder, the FreeBSD Project. Director, UNIX Technology. Apple Computer