Slashdot Mirror
Interview with Jordan Hubbard About DarwinPorts
Gentu writes "OSNews hosts an interview with Jordan Hubbard (of Apple, OpenDarwin, and FreeBSD fame) where they discuss DarwinPorts and how they compare to Fink. There is also a hint from Jordan that there might be some of the FreeBSD 5.x advancements to be found in Mac OS X 10.3 (Panther) that is coming out, reportedly, this autumn."
The interviewer didn't ask for Hubbard's reasoning for leaving a dying free OS to join a dying company.
yes I'm joking
Trolling is a art,
Ñ'
Why so bitter?
First of all, it may very well be a free upgrade.
Second, if you don't think it's worth it, nobody is going to force you to get the newer version.
I for one am glad that Apple is heavily updating the operating system. It's a new OS and it's by far my favorite, but it still needs a lot of work to be perfect.
Why yes, it probably will cost $130 for the upgrade to 10.3 (Panther). Of course, there is no requirement to upgrade. If the new features are worth the price, then do it. I know that I will be upgrading.
I agree, that is a bit steep for a 1-year upgrade, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt on pricing before we start vilifying them. As for cost, I thought Mac-heads were supposed to be used to paying 2-3 times typical cost for stuff. (NO, that's NOT flamebait!)
The question is also, can you keep using 10.2 when 10.3 comes out? I suspect so. In fact, I kind of like the way this works - they release a new upgrade every year, but probably the last 3-4 years of upgrades work perfectly. This way, though, there is a *new* version of Mac OS out whenever you upgrade. That's pretty cool. So the only people who really get gouged are people who feel like they have to have an updated OS every year, which you couldn't even get from M$ if you wanted it. (Yeah, service packs don't count ;))
I've been using Macs since 1984, but I've given up now. The only reason I'm keeping my Mac is to run legacy apps.
Interesting, I wouldn't even touch the damned things until 10.2 came out...
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Telling Apple to start selling software for the Intel platform is just like suggesting that Coca Cola "expand" into apparel manufacture. It may very well prove lucrative, but it's totally not what the company is all about.
Ñ'
What I suspect you are really saying is that you would like to run OS X but don't want to to shell out the cash to buy the required hardware. What you fail to realise is that a soon as you take OS X and make it available on the huge variety of Intel-based platforms, it does not "Just Work!" anymore. Any amount of time spent trying to find the right drivers for Linux or Windows will tell you that. There is a lot to be said for having control of the OS and the hardware on which it runs.
If you want OS X, get a job and get a Mac like the rest of us had to.
Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise. - William Shakespeare
Because I doubt apple would do any better than Microsoft of keeping up with all the various hardware you can get for i386 compared to the rather sparse selection that is available for PPC... especially HW that is "apple-approved".
They do have Darwin ported.. (it's not really useful as it only supports very limited hardware..)
You also have to keep in mind.. if they're building an OS for their hardware, it's much easier to keep wraps on bug issues, etc.. If they were to move to intel, they'd have SOOO many device drivers to write, etc..
Just when you make it idiotproof, some idiot builds a better idiot.
I think it is important to point out that the 2-3 times the *typical* cost will also yield you 2-3 times the *typical* stability and usability of comparable machines. Maybe there is an Apple luxury tax, but Apple users are more likely to be satisified.
Heute die Welt, morgen das Sonnensystem!
as someone who uses computers for both research and creative purposes and at the same time need compatability with the masses (i.e. M$office compatability) I have finally made the decision to switch from my current dual boot windoze/linux config to mac. I can now run all the professional level music production software I need for work, my free linux apps, research group unix software and M$office on one system without the need for reboots / emulators etc...
I had been trying linux/openoffice/wine for some time, but to me mac osx is the ideal solution (despite the cost)
If I want a Unix with spotty peripheral support and availability of applications, my choices are Linux and MacOS.
Spotty peripheral support? The only reason Windows has better peripheral support than either of those two is that hardware vendors supply drivers, and they supply drivers for the OS with a 90% installed base -- Windows.
But more and more peripherals are being supported under Linux and MacOS X. Some by reverse-engineering, but many hardware vendors are now stepping up to the plate and providing Linux and MacOS X drivers.
If you want to support Linux or MacOS X, then only buy hardware from those manufacturers that provide drivers. For instance, HP has open source (BSD license) drivers available for CUPS, LinkSys provides drivers for Linux (at least) for some of its products, etc.
If you don't like that OSes other than Windows have inadequate or missing driver support -- use your OS of choice and VOTE WITH YOUR WALLET and buy peripherals from vendors that provide Linux or MacOS X drivers, rather than whine and complain that Linux and MacOS X have spotty peripheral support. Or, better yet, get down and dirty and start reverse engineering products and coding your own open source drivers.
My journal has hot
What siskbc said.
Mac OS upgrades are typically more interesting than Linux or even Windows upgrades as Apple tends to make it a point to add a significant change in performance and luxury to the operating system. Since Mac OS X is still relatively young, the changes you may see in 10.3 will be striking--or, to some people, a "Duh!" move.
For one, the Finder is the butt of jokes, and needs multithreading and greater power.
Second, I think Samba needs more work.
This summer, Apple fans should expect to see some serious shit. Strong rumors of the PowerPC 970 chip will probably come true (amidst NDAs) from WWDC as super-Mac hardware may finally arrive with all the system bus, cache, and 64-bit power that's needed to return Macs to compare reasonably to Pentium systems. Next, Mac OS X matures, and goes 64-bit compatible (if it's not already there).
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
You guys obviously didn't hear about the seeded developer testing of a "White box" from Apple. The case was welded shut to avoid intrusion, and reportedly contained an Athalon chipset. OS X IS ported to i386 and IS working. I don't see why Apple holds back, but it sure is cool to know that they have an ace up their sleeve...
"...these observers report that Apple has been serious enough about its ace in the hole to seed a few lucky civilians with prototype boxes - delivered heavily swaddled in layers of cloak-and-dagger security, natch. Specifically, recent testers report taking delivery of Athlon-powered boxes that Apple had assiduously welded shut to prevent prying eyes from ogling whatever other gremlins might be lurking inside these nondescript beige chassis." -MacEdition
I got nothin'.
Or, better yet, get down and dirty and start reverse engineering products and coding your own open source drivers.
Unless you live in the USA in which case reverse engineering could get you thrown in jail -- because congress is sure that by reverse engineering you must either be a terrorist or a thief.
Whew! I feel better.
--
Slashdot: Group session for Nerds.
Next time I go to a birthday party I'm gonna tell the person I give a present to that it's GPL-licensed. That way, if they actually use the present, they have to go give it away.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
I got pissed when I found that my extensive VHS collection would not work in my DVD player. WTF? DVD is supposed to be better, right? Those bastards at Samsung are screwing me!
Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise. - William Shakespeare
If you think I'm kidding, you can rest assured that your Linux distro includes something, somewhere, that came into existance as a result of Apple's work, whether directly or indirectly. Yeah... you know fully well that things get ported from one free software project to another. That's the whole point. (Ever seen the BSD license on something in your Linux distro? Yeah. That's right!) And if it wasn't "copied" as code, it was "copied" in theory.)
I was an advocate of various Linux distros for a long time, until I finally tried FreeBSD. This was relatively recent: 3.3-RELEASE had just shown up in stores and I bought a boxed set that included the FreeBSD handbook. Not ten minutes passed after installation completed on one of my machines and I was hooked. Since that moment, I can't stand the SysV style that most Linux distros have adopted. SysV is just too complicated... all kinds of directory structures stretching on for infinity, and WHY?! FreeBSD puts everything at your fingertips. (No offense to Linux advocates and developers, as I continue to use Linux on many machines at home and at work. But I really do wish that BSD-style admin stuff would show up in more Linux distros... If I had the time to do it myself, I would have done it a long time ago. But as you know: 1, setting up a truly intuitive environment is difficult; and 2, I'm wasting all my time posting junk all over /. and don't have any time left to do useful stuff.)
Back to OSX... No, I have not switched to "the dark side" yet. I am waiting for Apple to natively support x86, which shouldn't be too complicated considering that the software they used to build the operating system is relatively portable. I would be all over an x86 Apple iBook. It is the hardware that currently prevents me from switching.
Oh yeah... and keep up the good work, Jordan.
Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise. - William Shakespeare
I think you could have abbreviated that to "The finder is BUTT" without losing any accuracy. Seriously, I think Windows Explorer is better, and that must have been difficult for Apple to accomplish.
Second, I think Samba needs more work.
Well YOU just won the understatement of the year award! Samba implementation on the mac has been pretty spotty. I've had some issues with disconnects between the "apple" username and the "BSD" username, with the result that I simply couldn't use samba for certain user accounts. That has to change. Also, I can't mount stuff by hand really well from command line with mount -t smbfs. If I do, it will recognize it and give me a mounted volume icon. But then, if I go to eject it, it hangs with the SBOD (spinning beachball of death), and I have to force quit finder. Not cool.
Also, if they would change the way they do aliases/links, that would be good. It should be integrable with unix, and now it's not. I want to be able to create an alias under Mac OSX, and then, when I mount that volume under samba from a linux/windows machine, I want it to be navigable (if the alias is a directory). Right now, apple aliases don't work like that, and just show up as a file in samba. Not so good. I want aliases, in the future, to be implemented pretty much as symlinks.
So when you get down to it, FIX SAMBA!!! ;)
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Here, for your reading enjoyment, is the text of the last time I responded to this question. (And here is the link.) Please distribute this text/link to every nerd on earth so that we can dispense with this question once and for all.
The lack of clones is the major problem with Apple? Sure, it keeps prices high and marketshare low. It's true. It is the worst thing about the platform.
And yet, it is also the one single thing that makes them unique in the market and gives them value. The vertical integration they have (hardware/os/iapps) allows them to a) innovate their product line faster and more radically than some other hardware/software makers and b) allows them to sell an entire end-to-end solution (like firewire-imovie-idvd-superdrive) with a user experience better than anyone elses. These things are at the core of what makes Apple Apple. Take them away - take away the vertical integration by doing clones - and what you get is cheaper boxes and much rejoicing...and a dead/dying platform within 2 years because it has lost that which made it valuable to begin with.
Bonus point: Why should anyone care? Certainly Mac users should care, but others should, too. Apple has an influence on the personal computer industry that is vastly disproportionate to its marketshare. They innovate. Others follow. Therefore, a healthy Apple is good for the industry. Mac clones = bad for Apple = bad for the pc industry.
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
I hear this a lot, but to be honest I don't see it as a showstopper. There may be a billion and one hardware devices available for the PC, but that doesn't mean Apple has to write drivers for them all.
I really can't imagine it's beyond Apple to ship a version of OS X for i386 that supports maybe ten different motherboards, five graphics cards, five sound cards, ten printers and maybe a few things like scanners and firewire cards. If they were to do this, retailers could immediately start building systems for (say) £600 that screamed past G4 systems twice the price. I suspect this market would take off extremely quickly; and of course, as it did, OEMs with any sense would start writing drivers to ship with their devices.
I know as geeks what we all really want is to take OS X home and install it on our existing computers; but I don't think it's too unreasonable that we should have to upgrade some of our hardware at the same time - or of course write drivers for the hardware we already have!
When MacOS X for Intel/AMD architectures?
Next Tuesday.
the 8600 is less than 100mhz, so that may have something to do with it, i have a powermac 9100 that has 12 dimm slots and takes up to 1.5gb memory. it smokes on os9.2.2 :) seriously though, the 8600 is a dinosaur and 64 megs of ram is inadequate for anything above os 8.6, unless you are a wizard with extension, and that is probably not the case.
that 8600 can be ugraded to a viable machine. my 9100 can get a processor upgrade into g4 territory for a couple hundred (a bit expensive for my wallet), take 1.5gb ram, has 6 pci slots and plenty of room for 5.25 and 3.5 drives. the 8600 on the other hand takes Apple SIMMs and is not something worth salvaging as a mac machine. put linux on it and have some fun. the 8500 i play with with debian runs way better than my old ibm, which stacks up even in megahertz, disk space (ide on x86, scsi on ppc) and ram (32mb). they are identical for all intents and purposes, but powerpc architechture will always do better.
that is not a 300mhz machine, either. maybe 300watts, but that is upgradable to 400
Good joke, wrong crowd. All Mac freaks know that Apple releases stuff on Tuesdays (typically). For at least 2 months now, and probbably more, both a new 15" Aluminum Powerbook and a new iPod have been coming.
Alas, not this Tuesday. Maybe NEXT Tuesday. Of course, nowadays the popular money is on Apr 28 (a Monday???), but who really knows.
Wow man, you really like to post this, don't you... http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=59343&threshol d=0&commentsort=3&tid=179&mode=thread&cid=5644317. If you have been waiting for that file copy for the weeks since you've last posted, may I suggest killing that process? In the mean time, come up with some new material to add to our discussion, Mr. Troll.
today is spelling optional day.
Jordan Hubbard is very much involved in FreeBSD. He is not the leeader but he is a core developer with CVS write access. His involvement with Mac OS X and FreeBSD helps both in ways that are invisible (most of the time) to the end user.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
Find out where the DEC guys who wrote FX32 are working. If they are at apple, you have your answer.
FX32, for those that don't know, was an add-on to NT for Alpha, that ran x86 binaries natively. And it was awesome. Although this will be sort of the reverse of that, the mindset is the same.
"As for cost, I thought Mac-heads were supposed to be used to paying 2-3 times typical cost for stuff."
You lack historical perspective.
What THIS Mac Head is used to is getting his OS for free. I didn't pay for OS 5, 6, or 7.
What happended to the good old days when you could just wander into the local mom & pop Apple retailer with a couple blank floppies and they would gleefully (and legally) dup it for you?
This Mac Head was quite accustomed to paying $0.00, thank you.
Apple did that with the first round of clones and it went a long way towards killing them off. Apple makes anywhere between 20-30% in margins on every bit of hardware they sell depending on the particular product. For more expensive products like the super high end PowerMacs that is a fat wad of cash. They tend to make even more on their low end systems because they use much more commodity parts. If all the Macs sold in a year averaged $1800 a piece even a 20% margin would be a $360m profit on a million Macs sold.
Now let's say they make some sort of margin off licensing clones out. Say the margin is 20% but the average price of the clone systems is $1100, that is only $220m for a million Macs sold over a year. That is a 39% drop in margins. If the average price of clones is $800 that is a 56% drop in margins to $160m for a million Macs over a year. You'd have to pull a pretty fancy marketing campaign to sell 39% or 56% more Macs to make up for the reduced margins on the clones. Cheaper Macs might sell a little better than expensive Macs but there is STILL going to be the stupid "Macs don't have any software and can't be upgraded" stigmas attached which heavily influences sales.
Selling clones also kicks Apple in the ass in the fact a cheapo version of a PowerMac is going to outsell an Apple PowerMac simply because it is cheaper. So not only does Apple NOT get a sale of their high margin PowerMac they get a crap licensing return from the clone maker.
PowerComputing and UMAX put a serious dent in Apple's bottom line because the licensing fees didn't make up for the loss in Apple branded sales. If the Gap licenses out their logo to someone who sells the same exact clothes WITH the Gap logo for half the price how long do you think they'd stay in business? Letting a company outsell you with your own product is a dumb business move.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=3559
That would be great... one could have a system by which there are "competing" packages for certain roles (vi vs emacs,etc.)
Then, whichever package gets chosen more stays. Of course, one would need somehow to fork it so that the forks could compete... but, given OSS politics, that shouldn't be too hard to do. (Lucid Emacs, anyone?)
Sigmentation fault - core dumped
Ah, Mohammad Saeed al-Sahhaf! We were wondering where you had got to...
Actually, the way Apple and MacOS (Classic and X) do aliases is far superior to the way symlinks or shortcuts work. An alias in MacOS still tracks it's target until it's moved to a different filesystem. You won't gate a broken link until you delete the target. With Symlinks/Shortcuts, you move the file once, it's gone. I'll stick with my aliases, thanks. (Oh, yeah, and if you make an alias, the Terminal/shell treats it as a symlink.)