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.
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
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.
I'm very much the same...
I started off on an Amstrad CPC, which finally gave up in 1997, when it got smashed by a stupid relative. I then moved to a PC and dual booted between RH5/6/7/8 and Win 95/98/NT/2000 before finally getting pissed off with things never quite working right... saved up, bought a Mac, and now I'm the most sorted computer user I know...
I can do everything I want, and not worry about people doing things their own way, cause I can finally handle it all.. well, apart from Office documents, as I refuse to buy it... but OpenOffice/Aqua will be my friend there.
Join the Free Software Foundation
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.
It's so not the same.
:)
command-option-escape is kicking your annoying guest out the house.
"killall 'Internet Explorer.app'"
That's stabbing him in the eye first
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise. - William Shakespeare
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 then moved to a PC and dual booted between RH5/6/7/8 and Win 95/98/NT/2000
Wow that's a lot of operating systems on one computer.
When MacOS X for Intel/AMD architectures?
Next Tuesday.
Yes. It is reason #65,934,834,989.
Reason #1 is: It would be the stupidest thing ever done in this universe or any other.
dalamcd
moer liek CELtroid prime!!@1!
- type 'e' in the search box and hit return
- cmd a to select all
- cmd delete to trash them
this has the advantage too that you can see what you are about to trash, you cmd z to undo that move to the trash, or you can pick thru your trash and selectively put back any files you didn;t mean to trash. try doing that with rm -r *e*nice you have both options tho..
I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
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/
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.