Slashdot Mirror
Tim Cook Assures Employees That It Is Committed To Mac and 'Great Desktops' Are Coming (techcrunch.com)
Apple CEO Tim Cook has assured the employees that the company is committed to the computer lineups and that a desktop computer is certainly on the way. From a report on TechCrunch: "Some folks in the media have raised the question about whether we're committed to desktops," Cook wrote. "If there's any doubt about that with our teams, let me be very clear: we have great desktops in our roadmap. Nobody should worry about that." Cook cites the far better performance of desktop computers, including screen sizes, memory, storage and more variety in I/O (ha) as a reason that they are "really important, and in some cases critical, to people." So no matter how you feel about the state of the Mac at the moment, you have new machines to look forward to. No mention of whether that meant iMac or Mac Pro or both, but at the very least it's encouraging to those of us who couldn't live without a desktop computer.
Maybe it will be a REAL pro machine this time?
it's all BS.
Put up or shut up.
Thats the only thing that matters apparently.
"Some folks in the media have raised the question about whether we're committed to desktops," Cook wrote. "If there's any doubt about that with our teams, let me be very clear: we have great desktops in our roadmap. Nobody should worry about that."
It means nothing until they back it up with real products that people can buy. Apple is clearly capable of making great desktop computers but they have kind of taken their eye off the ball lately since most of their revenue comes from the iPhone. I haven't seen a lot of innovation from Apple in the PC market for a while now and I'd say they've had more misses than hits. I think their desktop PCs are fine but not everything they could be.
Hope they have addressing the underspec'd macbook 'pro' (more like consumer-plus) on the roadmap too
...seeing how many ports and upgradeable options they can remove.
Protect your browser with the Force Safe Search add-on
Working on laptops is a horrible experience.
How mac users can tolerate this is baffling.
The desktop market's been stagnating for years. Are Apple chasing the scraps from M$'s table? Even M$ are changing their emphasis away from desktop!
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
Brace Yourselves!...Layoffs are coming!
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
How much do we want to bet that there is a vocal contingent within Apple who aren't satisfied with Apple's drive to eliminate features on their products? Personally, with all of the slimming and peripheral port gutting, Mac's have lost a lot of their luster. Sounds like others are agreeing with me.
I can't wait to see Apple's take on DongleDrivenDevelopment for the desktop. Likely have no ports for anything, but it will be REALLY THIN.
So he admits they aren't good now? WOW
They haven't had a "great desktop" in 7 years.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
possibly with a TouchBar, as great and up-to-date as the iTrashCan? :-/
I waited for some time for a new mac mini as I needed a computer for my son, but got an Intel NUC in the end. It does feel like Apple has given up on stationary computers, but lets hope this means a new lineup. I think they badly need a new mac mini if they want to stay be a real force in this space.
How much do we want to bet that there is a vocal contingent within Apple who aren't satisfied with Apple's drive to eliminate features on their products?
I don't actually have a problem with the fact that they went to USB-C or removed the function keys. Those are actually sensible things to do in principle. What is annoying is how they went about it and the lack of consideration for users real world needs. Removing the function keys is fine if you have something better but it's not clear that they do. Going to USB-C is fine but they didn't consider things like a replacement for Magsafe or the fact that maybe having at least one old school USB port might be useful to many people. I like the goal of reducing the number of ports to the minimum possible number very much but the path there should reflect the reality of the world we live in.
Actually the thing that annoys me the most about their laptops is the lack of a proper delete key meaning a key that will delete the character to the right of the cursor when pressed. What they call a delete key is what everyone else calls backspace and they don't have a delete key on their laptop keyboards. One has to push a function key combination to do that and that is more than a little irritating to me.
>> it's encouraging to those of us who couldn't live without a desktop computer
My primary work computer has been a _laptop_ for the past five years. Sometimes a high end Windows PC, sometimes a Mac Pro. Most of the time I use a keyboard, mouse, and two extra monitors with my laptop at my normal desk.
What's to miss from an old-school desktop?
I bet their new desktop comes with NO ports (everything bluetooth), no external media drives (it's all in the cloud baby), and no monitor (they beam it into your brain).
I guess it is time to find some love for Windows 10 then. This much ballyhoo is almost certainly the death knell of the Mac computers.
Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress
"Apple II Forever" or something like that?
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Black_Wednesday.txt
Here's what Cook says:
Reading a bit between the lines... he said desktops are important and then fails to mention the Mini or Pro. Don't think that bodes super well for those product lines — at least, they're definitely not Top Priority. Hoping I'm reading too much into this; real professional workstations in the product lineup seems like a pretty important strategic spot for them if they're trying to appeal to the "media and development professionals" market.
I don't believe it. Apple has great engineers, but for a product to be popular it needs product vision. Jobs was unique in that he could anticipate where people were going and build a product that was the right product and ready to sell at the right time, resulting in huge success and massive dedication to the Apple brand.
Tim Cook is none of these things. He's a solid engineer but he has no vision. The Watch has no discernible purpose and the product lacks a killer app; it's successful because of the Apple brand but it is not a necessity the way the iPhone or iPod was. The latest Macbook Pro is obviously a misstep. The iPad Pro was a lame attempt at competing with the Surface, and was priced in a way that damaged the Apple brand.
No, unfortunately Apple was a great company because of Jobs, but Jobs had no successor. He didn't develop anyone to replicate his talent for product vision, and Apple is suffering because of it.
No ports at all! Soon we will force you to charge on a pad and only be able to connect things via bluetooth!
So I'm an iOS developer. After ~10 years of working for the man, doing Python and C++ on Linux, I wanted to do fulltime freelancing.
That means buying your own hardware. Since starting freelancing, I needed to be frugal and made do with a 2013 MacBook Air. But now that I've got a real solid client, I've upgraded to the latest 15" MacBook Pro.
It's a crazy capable machine. Love the fact that you can login with your fingerprint, and the new touchbar is nice. Not great, but nice. But it's thin, has four very capable thunderbolt ports disguised as USB-C, and runs all of my stuff like a demon. I don't care that it's Skylake instead of the latest Kaby lake, because it's not like we iOS developers have a choice anyway. Gotta run with what Apple provides. And a quad-core Skylake with the crazy fast SSDs that the MacBooks have, that's way beyond what I actually need. Good stuff.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
The trend comes from the fact that PC sales have plummeted, globally.
Even if the PC market wasn't down, Apple still would make more money from iPhones than Macintoshes. Mac's account for something like 10-15% of Apple revenues. Nothing to sneeze at but no where close to the 50%+ they get from the iPhone.
Smart Phones, and Tablets are what the non tech buyer are favoring.
Don't kid yourself. EVERYBODY is buying those including the techies.
The charging pad will ONLY be available from an Apple store of course. Your device will have a firmware "feature" which will cause it to explode if you try charging it on a non-certified Apple charger.
What about some kind of server? or open mac os to run in a VM on ANY BASE Hardware. If just for an local update server.
The mini has been cut down from the last system and the old mac pro was a poor fit the new one even worst
Solder the RAM and SSD into a desktop configuration, while removing as many ports as possible. Seriously, they have to either keep wired Ethernet, HDMI, and USB 3.0 for the next generation of desktops (tacitly admitting it was a mistake to remove them from the MBP), or build a Thunderbolt 3 iMac and see if anyone wants to keep playing the dongle game. They can't use size and weight constraints as an excuse for diminished connectivity and planned obsolescence in a desktop machine. And they'll have to do something to support modern video processors. Nobody is going to pay a premium price for a desktop with as many limitations as the latest MBP.
Now you're really going off the deep end. Apple conceivably could resurrect the Mac Pros and update the minis to something acceptable this century. But they are so far behind Microsoft for Enterprise that they would never in a million years get any traction. Besides, OS X more or less talks to AD which is what 99.9% of people need.
Remember the Mac servers where never really Enterprise gear. They were designed to give some horsepower to small networks. Apple has never been in the Enterprise space. You might as well ask Apple to design a car.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I don't know. Maybe Tim should not spend any more time with The Donald. Empty promises are the last thing that Apple needs to be making right now, when it comes to a market segment that they have neglected for so long.
Then they pulled support for the X windowing system. Fine.
Even Linux is looking to remove X11 as the last version is more than 4 years old and the architecture needs serious work to be more modern. Mir and Wayland are the two likely candidates at the moment.
Now you cannot write to an NTFS partition on a USB stick. If you want to write data out of the system onto an external disk, you MUST use the Apple branded partitions that are not readable on anything but Apple (and Linux, thankfully).
Er, what? That's news to me as I've written to an NTFS today. And a EXT4 one.
Everything Apple has done with OSX is to support Apple hardware and Apple dependencies and there is no playing with anybody else.
Everything? Aren't you exaggerating a bit? I mean when I open up a terminal and SSH into my Linux server it seems to follow all protocols of SSH. Most of the Linux/Unix commands seem to work in terminal too. Granted, OS X variations are slightly different but the basic ones are all the same.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I'm trying to think of when that last happened.
It's happened routinely. Apple has made quite a few computers that could properly described as great - at least for their time. Some even fairly recently. They've got the ability to do it but their attention has been pointed at the mobile market for a while now and I think the Macs haven't gotten adequate management attention.
Graphite G4, maybe? That really ticked all the boxes in terms of great performance, a beautiful case, and assloads of I/O and expandability
That's a very narrow definition of what makes a great computer. I would argue that great computers come in many forms and the greatest of them are ones that change markets. Apple has had more than a few of those. And beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Personally I thought the Graphite G4 liked a bit like a plastic toy but that's just my personal tastes talking. Obviously it spoke to you. Expandability can be nice but if you never use it then it is wasteful - and most people will never use it. To some extent what makes a great computer is judged by sales. A great computer is one that strongly fits what people want from it and are willing to actually buy.
Oops. Forgot to log in. That's me. ^^^^^
Cue the Samsung Legal Team suing for Explodey Infringement...
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
I worked for a startup once. Already gone public, nice building in the valley, etc. We had a conference call with the CEO, who said they'd just inked a big deal with a certain large PC maker and we were on track to be a $100M company in a year or two. Fast forward 2 months, and... We're broke! Almost everyone was laid off: I got 3 weeks severance.
Anyone who thinks Apple is different needs to read up on QuickDraw3D, OpenDoc, older Macs with DSPs, and x86 daughter cards to run Windows. For that matter, top secret Intel Macs, while they were still calling x86 junk. They won't breathe a word about what's going on while the old stuff still sells at a profit.
Make the desktop GREAT again!
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Wouldn't they be too busy torturing the drivers to pay any attention to their school-work?
Er, what? That's news to me as I've written to an NTFS today. And a EXT4 one.
Why yes, you can install FUSE drivers to do that. You used to be able to write to NTFS drives out of the box, though.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
And that will be two proprietary uses for the NFC chip on-board and it still won't interact with any other NFC technology.
We're going to make the Mac Great again. Better than ever. It'll be HUUUGEly thin.
Which follows exactly what Linux does.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Should of at least had an power port and not tie up of the data ports for it.
I disagree that that is a problem. I don't want a special power cord. Having everything use the same type of cord is actually an awesome idea. But I think Apple got a little too eager to convert everyone. A transition period would have been helpful.
I was thinking the same thing. This guy sounds like the president-elect.
Don't worry Apple polishers! We certainly won't lose sight of our goal to sell you otherwise affordable hardware with our glowing corporate logo on it for a premium price. We won't leave desktop and laptop users out in the cold by focusing on our mobile products, which make up the bulk of our profits, no sir!
640k ought to be enough for anyone.
Linux does so due to patent concerns; Apple, clearly, lacked those concerns when they implemented their own native NTFS support and shipped it with their OS as a default. More to the point, on any sane Linux distro you can just go into your package manager and install FUSE and the NTFS drivers. Where do you get the NTFS drivers for a Mac?
Does Apple provide them? No. Does Apple even provide a FUSE subsystem? No. Will your 3rd-party FUSE subsystem and filesystem drivers continue working after the next round of updates? Likely, no; certainly not after an OS upgrade. Do any of these issues plague the average Linux distro? No.
I wouldn't quite say it follows exactly what Linux does; with Linux, you get your FUSE drivers from your OS vendor and can reasonably expect them to continue working after an update, which is important if you happen to have programs or documents that you need reliable access to on a a FUSE partition.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
IBM once said that it was fully committed to OS/2. What is OS/2 asks the young whipper-snapper? It is lost to the history books.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I sure hope that they release a new Mac mini with user replaceable RAM. I don't have enough money for a Mac Pro and I refuse to buy an iMac since I have an expensive high gamut color calibrated screen.
Assuming you don't get mugged for the laptop.
Avoiding being mugged used to be easy back when there was a category of inexpensive laptops that would comfortably fit in a satchel that isn't obviously a laptop bag. But 10-inch netbooks were discontinued four years ago.
I wouldn't be comfortable with anything beyond a cheap Chromebook on the buses I used to take.
The problem with a Chromebook in developer mode is that its firmware prompts people to wipe the hard drive. So if anybody picks it up, turns it on, and presses Space Enter as prompted, you lose any uncommitted changes, and you also lose the use of the laptop until you return home to reinstall Crouton.
Too late, Oracle already did that...
When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
On the model Mac Pro I have, which is a nice silver tower, I can use a drive space to install an SD slot (along with more USB ports, etc.) Or whatever else I might need. because it's, you know, expandable.
I am actually in the market for a new Mac Pro. Luckily, EBay has plenty of 12-core silver towers at very reasonable prices. So no problem here. I can keep buying Apple's previous rational designs while eating popcorn and watching them go batshit with incredibly stupid (but courageous, oh so very courageous) new designs.
My 2008 8-core is doing fine, but I would like more speed, and memory for it is expensive, and I assume that eventually it will die in some horrible way, so time for some spares. I have a lot code invested in the Mac application zone. Plus I am reasonably fond of OS X, to the point where I definitely prefer it. So a Mac it still will be. From EBay!
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I have 8 monitors on my multi-CPU, multi-core, desktop machine. It works reasonably smoothly, and I do tax the system a bit. Realtime signal processing, concurrent (big) compiles, network monitoring, browsing, slack and Ryver, a virtual windows machine used for cross-platform builds and testing. It would be... interesting... to meet up with a laptop that could keep up with all this. Discounting the fact that it would really be in my way unless I hid it under the desk or something.
I'm looking for more power. Not less.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
A....ar......
Are you..... me?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
A promise from a CEO is pretty much the same as a promise from a politician.
You are correct that a Windows laptop, which is capable of running Delphi, is less expensive than a low-end MacBook if you look at hardware alone. But according to the pricing page, a Windows PC with a validly licensed copy of Delphi Professional ($1,264.50) and the Mobile Add-on Pack ($702.00) is more expensive than a comparable Mac with a validly licensed copy of Xcode.
And can Delphi for Windows deploy to iOS devices for testing and package for the App Store?
Linux does so due to patent concerns; Apple, clearly, lacked those concerns when they implemented their own native NTFS support and shipped it with their OS as a default.
Um so did Linux. I suspect the issue with patents was from a company which didn't want others to implement NTFS correctly. You know a company that has a vested interest in keeping other OS from implementing their filesystem correctly. I let you guess which company that is.
More to the point, on any sane Linux distro you can just go into your package manager and install FUSE and the NTFS drivers. Where do you get the NTFS drivers for a Mac?
If only someone built an Internet search engine that helps people find things. Note there are paid and free alternatives.
Does Apple provide them? No. Does Apple even provide a FUSE subsystem? No. Will your 3rd-party FUSE subsystem and filesystem drivers continue working after the next round of updates? Likely, no; certainly not after an OS upgrade. Do any of these issues plague the average Linux distro? No.
Everything you described is the same in Linux. By the way FUSE is not what you need to use NTFS in Linux. You need FUSE to use other filesystems (FUSE==Filesystem in Userspace) generally and ntfs-3g to implement NTFS specifically. ntfs-3g is not part of the mainstream Linux installation and is controlled by Tuxera.
I wouldn't quite say it follows exactly what Linux does; with Linux, you get your FUSE drivers from your OS vendor and can reasonably expect them to continue working after an update, which is important if you happen to have programs or documents that you need reliable access to on a a FUSE partition.
Again FUSE does not get you NTFS. FUSE sets up the framework so Linux can use other filesystems like NTFS, GmailFS, etc. You still need ntfs-3g or Captive NTFS which are 3rd party.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
By the way FUSE is not what you need to use NTFS in Linux.
I think you meant to say its' not all you need.
and ntfs-3g to implement NTFS specifically
Yes, that's one implementation. Also of note, and I'm not sure when this changed, but Ubuntu now ships with ntfs-3g installed by default. I bet that cam to pass around the same time Windows 10 began including a cut-down version of the distro.
Again FUSE does not get you NTFS. FUSE sets up the framework so Linux can use other filesystems like NTFS, GmailFS, etc. You still need ntfs-3g or Captive NTFS which are 3rd party.
I know WTF FUSE is. You even quoted me mentioning FUSE and NTFS drivers separately, so I clearly understand that they are two different things and you clearly realize this, yet you frame your argument as if I do now - twice within the same post.
And you do so while completely ignoring the fact that FUSE and ntfs-3g installed via the same package manager as the rest of your typical sane Linux distro will be updated (and thus not break) along with the rest of your OS, while the same is not true of OS X or macOS.
It's almost like you're getting irrationally defensive and ignoring the factual portions of my posts that disagree with your reality because you think I'm trying to tear down your beloved Apple. Friend, go review my posting history; my house is, largely, an Apple house and I speak from experience.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
gah.. typo... "as if I do now" should read "as if I do not".
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I think you meant to say its' not all you need.
If you install FUSE do you get ntfs? No.
Yes, that's one implementation. Also of note, and I'm not sure when this changed, but Ubuntu now ships with ntfs-3g installed by default [ubuntu.com]. I bet that cam to pass around the same time Windows 10 began including a cut-down version of the distro.
So Arch Linux, Linux Mint, and all other distributions have ntfs-3g installed by default? No. Ubuntu has a specific implementation of packages like Ubuntu uses apt for packages and synaptic for the GUI by default. Arch Linux uses pacman and the GUI is optional. And so on . . .
I know WTF FUSE is. You even quoted me mentioning FUSE and NTFS drivers separately, so I clearly understand that they are two different things and you clearly realize this, yet you frame your argument as if I do now - twice within the same post.
This is your exact quote: "I wouldn't quite say it follows exactly what Linux does; with Linux, you get your FUSE drivers from your OS vendor and can reasonably expect them to continue working after an update, which is important if you happen to have programs or documents that you need reliable access to on a a FUSE partition." This contradicts what you wrote earlier.
And you do so while completely ignoring the fact that FUSE and ntfs-3g installed via the same package manager as the rest of your typical sane Linux distro will be updated (and thus not break) along with the rest of your OS, while the same is not true of OS X or macOS.
They can be installed at the same time; however, they are not necessarily installed by default at the same time. If you install ntfs-3g, a sane package manager checks to see if you have fuse and installs it too. If you install fuse, the package manager does not install ntfs-3g automatically. But you seem to be confusing two arguments:1) the ease of installing ntfs in OS X vs Linux and 2) the quality of the ntfs drivers in OS X vs Linux
Depending on your Linux distribution, it could be all command line (Arch Linux) or graphical (Ubuntu) so the ease varies. For OS X, it is more command line. Granted the open source nfts driver in Linux seems better than OS X; however, that is more on the 3rd party implementation which is outside the purview of Apple and the Linux kernel developers. Both again are 3rd party which could bork your system depending on what else you have installed. For example if I'm running Debian unstable, ntfs-3g may not work correctly.
It's almost like you're getting irrationally defensive and ignoring the factual portions of my posts that disagree with your reality because you think I'm trying to tear down your beloved Apple. Friend, go review my posting history; my house is, largely, an Apple house and I speak from experience.
I feel you seem to ignore factually everything is exactly the same in Linux as it is in OS X when it comes to NTFS. Both are 3rd party implementations; one seems better than the other but that's not on Apple or Linux kernel developers. The quality is on the 3rd party.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
This is your exact quote: "I wouldn't quite say it follows exactly what Linux does; with Linux, you get your FUSE drivers from your OS vendor and can reasonably expect them to continue working after an update, which is important if you happen to have programs or documents that you need reliable access to on a a FUSE partition." This contradicts what you wrote earlier.
Actually, the quote I was referring to was the following:
More to the point, on any sane Linux distro you can just go into your package manager and install FUSE and the NTFS drivers.
Yes, the NTFS driver in this case is a FUSE driver for the NTFS filesystem, so "FUSE drivers" is the correct term. And yes, you do get them from your package manager; whatever package manager, whether CLI or GUI, does not matter.
I feel you seem to ignore factually everything is exactly the same in Linux as it is in OS X when it comes to NTFS.
Except that they're not and I've explained why.
Both are 3rd party implementations
Indeed, both use ntfs-3g.
one seems better than the other but that's not on Apple or Linux kernel developers
The situation is better (e.g. doesn't just seem better) on Linux, where both FUSE and ntfs-3g are installed and updated via the same package manager that updates the rest of the OS, so it doesn't break with OS updates like it does on OS X. I'll remind you, I use both systems; my Macs' (apostrophe correctly placed, plural possessive) implementations break frequently with updates, while I've never experienced breakage on a Linux system, be it Debian, Ubuntu, CentOS, Red Hat, Fedora, or Slackware; I've used others, but not with NTFS. But, you're partly right: it's not on the kernel developers; it's on the distro maintainers. It's also on Apple, who could provide their own package that gets updated along with the OS.
The quality is on the 3rd party.
As demonstrated above, this is false. This should be obvious as ntfs-3g plugs in to FUSE and is provided by the same 3rd party on both platforms.
Where you get FUSE from (package manager that updates the rest of your OS as well on Linux, external source that breaks with OS updates on OS X) matters. They're not exactly the same, as you claim.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Tim Cook steps up to the platform and announces: Great desktops are coming," he crosses his fingers behind his back and thinks, "They are called the Microsoft Surface Pro and clones of such. Oh, you meant great Mac desktops. Well . . . Apple's OS X can't even support touch input yet, so, uh, we are trying to decide whether to
1) move forward with IOS as our new desktop OS, in which case it will be six to ten years before our desktop/laptop OS reaches stability for applications as opposed to apps
Or
2) invest two to four years in implementing touch events into our OS X operating system, at which point phones and tablets can run full blown desktop OSes so we will be left to wonder why we have two operating systems, then release a great desktop;
Or
3) just focus on mobile and hope mobile kills the desktop/laptop.
Let's go with 3, but I better give lip service to Mac lovers for a few years.
He tells a few more lies. Then Tim Cook leaves the platform and wonders how long it will take before everyone realizes he is doing nothing for Apple and has been floundering since the death of Steve Jobs.
OMG, are we witnessing what amounts to Nero and his violin while Rome burned?
Sure seems so.
Damnit.
Except that they're not and I've explained why.
Please explain to me how but ntfs-3g is not 3rd party to both Linux and OS X which was my original point.
The situation is better (e.g. doesn't just seem better) on Linux, where both FUSE and ntfs-3g are installed and updated via the same package manager that updates the rest of the OS, so it doesn't break with OS updates like it does on OS X.
Which HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH APPLE. That's my point. Fuse on OS X is not Apple. ntfs-3g is not Apple. You seem intent on blaming Apple for a 3rd party implementation being poor.
I'll remind you, I use both systems; my Macs' (apostrophe correctly placed, plural possessive) implementations break frequently with updates, while I've never experienced breakage on a Linux system, be it Debian, Ubuntu, CentOS, Red Hat, Fedora, or Slackware;
So what? Yes using some 3rd party system software is better on Linux. Installing system software on OS X (or Windows or AIX or anything) may break your system. Again, so what.
It's also on Apple, who could provide their own package that gets updated along with the OS.
Apple has no obligation not to break 3rd party software. Apple has no obligation to update 3rd party software.
Where you get FUSE from (package manager that updates the rest of your OS as well on Linux, external source that breaks with OS updates on OS X) matters. They're not exactly the same, as you claim
Umm. I don't you understand how Linux and open works. Fuse is now part of the Linux kernel tree. ntfs-3g is 3rd party by Tuxera. Fuse for OS X is maintained by Benjamin Fleischer. These are all 3rd parties to Apple.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
This misrepresents the situation. It's true that the last release of "X11" was some years ago, but its releases are irrelevant. The last release of X.org (1.19.0) was about a month ago.
What did Apple drop support for? X Windows (legacy) or X.org? They dropped support for X Windows (legacy) which was even discontinued by the open source community. X.org is still ongoing and Apple supports it calling their implementation XQuartz. It's not installed by default and last release was 29 Oct 2016./
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Please explain to me how but ntfs-3g is not 3rd party to both Linux and OS X which was my original point.
I never said it wasn't, but your point that it is is invalid. How it's installed and updated on the system makes a huge difference in how reliable it will be.
You seem intent on blaming Apple for a 3rd party implementation being poor.
No, the implementation is not poor, the APIs on Apple's end of things are changing, often unnecessarily. That's what I'm blaming Apple for, if you want to say I'm blaming apple for anything; in reality, I'm pointing out that (and why) FUSE/ntfs-3g is more reliable, and an actual viable solution, under Linux, where it is not so under OS X.
Apple has no obligation not to break 3rd party software. Apple has no obligation to update 3rd party software.
Indeed, but Apple also sells "user experience" and "reliability".
I don't you understand how Linux and open works.
I'm certain I do, I've been using it for a couple decades by now, but I'll play along.
Fuse is now part of the Linux kernel tree.
So the standalone kernel module has ceased development? Oh, wait, no, you can get FUSE modules for BSD kernels, which is how ntfs-3g works under OS X in the first place, so yes, it's still its own separate project. A lot of separate projects have a home within the Linux kernel tree.
ntfs-3g is 3rd party by Tuxera
Wow, you said something that was actually truthful and correct!
Fuse for OS X is maintained by Benjamin Fleischer
Right, and it's based on the FUSE for BSD code maintained by Ilya Putsikau, who adapted it from libFUSE which, if you open your eyes and actually look at it, is not a part of the Linux kernel.
These are all 3rd parties to Apple.
Apple uses a lot of 3rd-party code*. Perhaps they should consider the reality that many of their users are developers who also work with Windows and Linux systems that serve markets Apple themselves have stated they have no interest in pursuing, and that those users would benefit (and, as a result, so would Apple**) from Apple taking simple steps to better integrate FUSE so things like ntfs-3g and EXT filesystem drivers "just work"? It really wouldn't cost Apple more than an hour or two of developer time; Fleischer has made the source code available on GitHub and the only updates it sees are API patches when Apple breaks it. One additional Mac sale would pay for the work to integrate it.
* Much of what is listed here is Apple's contributions to 3rd-party projects; all of what's listed here is build against 3rd-party projects.
** By making it easier for more developers who have to work with other systems to do so on Apple hardware, thereby increasing their potential market.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Even Linux is looking to remove X11 as the last version is more than 4 years old and the architecture needs serious work to be more modern
Well, since every major distro has been using X.org for nearly a decade, it would sure seem that you're talking about that, given that "legacy" X11 has already been removed from all of them. As an architecture, well, what do you think X.org is? Hint: It's an X11 implementation.
What did Apple drop support for?
XQuartz. They used to package and provide their own binaries, now they do not.
X.org is still ongoing and Apple supports it calling their implementation XQuartz
Actually, it's not Apple's implementation, they simply contribute (very little) to it. Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia is the lead developer on the project, and he has no affiliation with Apple. The XQuartz project has its own non-Apple support, provided by the community. Apple no longer supports it, as Apple no longer provides it with the OS and it does not belong to Apple; I doubt very much that anyone at Apple is even familiar enough with it in its current state to be able to provide such support.
It's not installed by default
It is also no longer provided, or supported, by Apple. Back when Apple did provide it with the OS, it was their own binary package, compiled, shipped, and supported by them. Now, it's a 3rd-party package with external, non-Apple support. Remember what you said, in the other thread, about Apple's support requirements for 3rd-party applications? Right.
and last release was 29 Oct 2016.
And what, pray-tell, was Apple's contribution to that release? The one before it? Before that? How far back must one go to find Apple's contribution?
Before you spout off that I have no idea WTF I'm talking, I've contributed to the project more recently than Apple.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Before someone else points it out, yes, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia is an Apple engineer. However, that does not change the fact that Apple does not provide support for XQuartz; that's handled through the XQuartz project's GitHub page. Incidentally Apple has made 0 contributions since the project was moved to GitHub. And yes, Apple has its own GitHub account.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Wow, such understanding of the issues being discussed! I'm amazed by your knowledge!
You do realize the internet exists right?
Well, since every major distro has been using X.org for nearly a decade, it would sure seem that you're talking about that, given that "legacy" X11 has already been removed from all of them.
This is what the OP said: "This misrepresents the situation. It's true that the last release of "X11" was some years ago, but its releases are irrelevant. The last release of X.org (1.19.0) was about a month ago"
He was talking about legacy X Windows. I was talking about legacy X Windows. Then the subject got changed to X.org. Please try to stay in the conversation.
As an architecture, well, what do you think X.org is? Hint: It's an X11 implementation.
I don't think you understand what a "fork" is. X.org is a fork of X Windows just like XFree86 was a fork of X Windows. As such there will always be some slight issues working with a fork of something not working exactly like the original.
XQuartz. They used to package and provide their own binaries, now they do not.
Factually not true. Up until Panther (10.4) X11.app was optional. Then Apple started using XFree86 until Leopard (10.5) when Apple switched to X.org. It was packaged until Mountain Lion (10.8). After that Apple pointed users to open source XQuartz.. That was 4 years ago. They NEVER packaged XQuartz to users.
Actually, it's not Apple's implementation, they simply contribute (very little) to it. Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia is the lead developer on the project, and he has no affiliation with Apple.
Factually not true. He is an Apple Engineer.
The XQuartz project has its own non-Apple support, provided by the community. Apple no longer supports it, as Apple no longer provides it with the OS and it does not belong to Apple; I doubt very much that anyone at Apple is even familiar enough with it in its current state to be able to provide such support.
Again Jeremy Huddleston works for Apple so what you're staying is not factually true.
And what, pray-tell, was Apple's contribution to that release? The one before it? Before that? How far back must one go to find Apple's contribution?
You mean other than the developer. . . I would think that Apple providing the person to keep maintaining would be enough. I don't sit in Apple's offices so I would think that the structure of XQuartz is exactly as Apple wants it: They don't officially work on it, but they still support it by maintaining personnel. They maintain a much more direct control of CUPS as a counter example of different types of support for open source projects.
Before you spout off that I have no idea WTF I'm talking, I've contributed to the project more recently than Apple.
Yet you've missed major facts.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
So basically besides "working" on the project you admit that the lead developer works FOR Apple and thus invalidates many of your arguments.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Howso? He doesn't work on the project for Apple, his time spent working for Apple and his time working on the project do not overlap.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I never said it wasn't, but your point that it is is invalid. How it's installed and updated on the system makes a huge difference in how reliable it will be.
Fuse could install via the Apple App Store. So could NFTS-3g. But being open source they probably don't want to do that. So your point is rather irrelevant.
No, the implementation is not poor, the APIs on Apple's end of things are changing, often unnecessarily. That's what I'm blaming Apple for, if you want to say I'm blaming apple for anything; in reality, I'm pointing out that (and why) FUSE/ntfs-3g is more reliable, and an actual viable solution, under Linux, where it is not so under OS X.
And you know that, how? Are you in the meetings where evil Apple engineers are twirling their mustaches like, "This will break ntfs--muhahahahahaha."
Indeed, but Apple also sells "user experience" and "reliability".
GYou want Apple to support something they don't want to support? Do you expect your Toyota to readily use Ford parts? But Toyotas sell "reliability." is your answer?
So the standalone kernel module has ceased development? Oh, wait, no, you can get FUSE modules for BSD kernels, which is how ntfs-3g works under OS X in the first place, so yes, it's still its own separate project. A lot of separate projects have a home within the Linux kernel tree.
So I can just install Linux and run JFS. Oh wait, I have to install that separately and it's maintained not by Linus himself or any of the kernel developers.
Wow, you said something that was actually truthful and correct!
Everything I've said is truthful whether you want to admit or not.
Apple uses a lot of 3rd-party code [apple.com]*. Perhaps they should consider the reality that many of their users are developers who also work with Windows and Linux systems that serve markets Apple themselves have stated they have no interest in pursuing, and that those users would benefit (and, as a result, so would Apple**) from Apple taking simple steps to better integrate FUSE so things like ntfs-3g and EXT filesystem drivers "just work"?
Given all that you said, did you ever think that for one moment that the problem ISN'T Apple? Maybe MS being the assholes they've always been doesn't want anyone to work with NTFS correctly. Linux being entirely open source, they can't go after any one company. BUT Apple is a company they can sue. Even if they don't win, MS can keep Apple in court for years, decades. You know the same company that sued TomTom, Inc. for using FAT32 in Linux.
It really wouldn't cost Apple more than an hour or two of developer time; Fleischer has made the source code available on GitHub and the only updates it sees are API patches when Apple breaks it. One additional Mac sale would pay for the work to integrate it.
Apple for their own reasons doesn't want to do it. Period. End of story. Why don't you step up to the plate and do it if it's so easy?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
This is what the OP said: "This misrepresents the situation. It's true that the last release of "X11" was some years ago, but its releases are irrelevant. The last release of X.org (1.19.0) was about a month ago"
Well, you said (and I addressed in my post, actually), "OP" (who would actually be you, as you spoke first):
Even Linux is looking to remove X11 as the last version is more than 4 years old
How would Linux distros which haven't touched legacy XWindows in over a decade "remove" it? They can't, as they already did long ago, therefore you must be talking about something else; the X11 protocol, perhaps?
architecture needs serious work to be more modern
Ah, there it is!
Factually not true. Up until Panther (10.4) X11.app was optional. Then Apple started using XFree86 until Leopard (10.5) when Apple switched to X.org. It was packaged until Mountain Lion (10.8). After that Apple pointed users to open source XQuartz.. That was 4 years ago. They NEVER packaged XQuartz to users.
Wonderful. They also never officially owned the XQuartz project, though they claim it on their website. If they did, they wold be the ones hosting xquartz.org, because they're (rightly, in this instance) control freaks like that. I also was not aware Apple had ever used anything other than XQuartz for X11 support (thanks for that info, by the way), having come around to the Mac side shortly after Snow Leopard's release and having only ever used XQuartz.
When I was using XQuartz, Apple was still bundling an X server, apparently, which was not XQuartz.
Again Jeremy Huddleston works for Apple so what you're staying is not factually true.
I addressed that in a separate post, no need to harp on it here.
Again Jeremy Huddleston works for Apple so what you're staying is not factually true.
Except that support for XQuartz does not come from Apple, nor from any Apple-provided or supported systems, and consistently occurs only when Mr. Huddleston is not on Apple's time. Apple has their own support and ticketing systems, which XQuartz does not have access to; case in point: I reported an issue with odd behavior in XQuartz and Mr. Huddleston, after determining the issue to be in OS X, rather than XQuartz itself, referred me to Apple to report the bug. If he were, at that moment, acting as an agent of Apple, he would have accepted the report and transferred it to the correct system. However, this is his personal project and he was, rightly, not willing to work for Apple for free while working on it.
You mean other than the developer. . . I would think that Apple providing the person to keep maintaining would be enough.
So Apple bred, birthed, and raised Mr. Huddleston? He doesn't work on the project for Apple, his time working on the project and his time working for Apple do not overlap. See above re: the bug report.
I don't sit in Apple's offices so I would think that the structure of XQuartz is exactly as Apple wants it: They don't officially work on it, but they still support it by maintaining personnel.
Except that they're not really providing anything. Literally nothing. The project lead happens to work for them and they're jumping on that as a means to claim contribution, likely because Mr. Huddleston's employment contract dictates that they can claim ownership of anything he writes while employed by them, whether written on their time or his.
They maintain a much more direct control of CUPS as a counter example of different types of support for open source projects.
They also took over control of the CUPS project from its original maintaners. They have literally no involvement with XQuartz, though. I do recall a conversation with Mr. Huddleston regarding the X
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
HMTL fail, "Well, you said (and I addressed in my post, actually), "OP" (who would actually be you, as you spoke first):" should read "Well, you said (and I addressed in my post, actually), before "OP" (who would actually be you, as you spoke first):"
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Fuse could install via the Apple App Store. So could NFTS-3g. But being open source they probably don't want to do that. So your point is rather irrelevant.
This wouldn't be quite the same. Linux distros maintain their repositories as a single, coherent, entity; if one thing they update breaks something else, they don't release it publicly until what was broken is fixed. The App store rolls on regardless of the OS X release schedule and OS X (now macOS) updates roll on regardless of what they may break in the App store. The situation would, literally, be no different than it is now.
And you know that, how? Are you in the meetings where evil Apple engineers are twirling their mustaches like, "This will break ntfs--muhahahahahaha."
No, but I do talk to Apple engineers on a semi-regular basis; I'v even met a couple of FUSE devs. We attend the same events and we talk shop a lot. I'm not saying Apple is doing it maliciously, the Linux kernel APIs change fairly regularly (and also often unnecessarily, at a technical level) as well, but this is not a problem for Linux as the source is available to compile against. When Apple releases a new kernel, they source doesn't get released for some weeks or months after, so there is a period of time in which FUSE can not work unless the developers have advance access to the Darwin source, or are able to reverse engineer the binaries in order to generate patched headers to compile against.
You want Apple to support something they don't want to support?
There's no reason they can't adopt the project. After all, as I said, they do sell "user experience" and "reliability" and this does break that. I'm not saying I want them to; I've stopped using my Mac for anything beyond building and testing iOS apps at this point, so it's not relevant to me any longer; but I do think they should.
Do you expect your Toyota to readily use Ford parts? But Toyotas sell "reliability." is your answer?
What I suggested is that Apple do what they've done with countless other open-source projects and make it first-party. That, then, would be akin to using Toyota parts on a Toyota. Beyond that, the current situation is more akin to an aftermarket intake or exhaust, both of which I did, in fact, install on a Toyota. And, boy, was it ever reliable!
So I can just install Linux and run JFS. Oh wait, I have to install that separately and it's maintained not by Linus himself or any of the kernel developers.
You actually can on some distros. It's installed by default on Debian (and Debian-based distros like Ubuntu and Mint), and it's available in the repo of basically every other distro, precompiled and fully tested for compatibility. Looks like the JFS FUSE module that worked back on OS X 10.2.2 is no longer viable, so what's your solution on Mac?
Everything I've said is truthful whether you want to admit or not.
I've proven otherwise in several instances. It's fine, we all misunderstand things at times, sometimes we're misinformed, or we misremember, or we simply don't know. I'm not calling you out as a liar or anything like that, because I understand that a lie requires intent to deceive and I don't believe you're intentionally making incorrect statements. That doesn't make them any more true, however.
Given all that you said, did you ever think that for one moment that the problem ISN'T Apple? Maybe MS being the assholes they've always been doesn't want anyone to work with NTFS correctly.
That covers NTFS, but what of the EXT filesystems? Or JFS? XFS? ZFS? Why not just include FUSE as an optional install? Surely it's not MS preventing them from doing so. Poor scapegoat argument is poor.
Linux being entirely open source, they can't go after any one company. BUT Apple is a com
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
This wouldn't be quite the same. Linux distros maintain their repositories as a single, coherent, entity; if one thing they update breaks something else, they don't release it publicly until what was broken is fixed.
Bahahahahaha. Have you ever actually used Linux? Just like every other OS, an update can break things. With Linux the quality of the OS is much better than MS and Apple but things have been broken in the past especially since Linus and the kernel developers don't deal with userspace. As for this "single, coherent, entity" I have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to Linux distros. Debian unstable or testing. Hello?
The App store rolls on regardless of the OS X release schedule and OS X (now macOS) updates roll on regardless of what they may break in the App store. The situation would, literally, be no different than it is now.
Regardless? Again you know this, how?
No, but I do talk to Apple engineers on a semi-regular basis; I'v even met a couple of FUSE devs. We attend the same events and we talk shop a lot. I'm not saying Apple is doing it maliciously, the Linux kernel APIs change fairly regularly (and also often unnecessarily, at a technical level) as well, but this is not a problem for Linux as the source is available to compile against. When Apple releases a new kernel, they source doesn't get released for some weeks or months after, so there is a period of time in which FUSE can not work unless the developers have advance access to the Darwin source, or are able to reverse engineer the binaries in order to generate patched headers to compile against.
So you're saying Apple does things in their own OS which may break things in a 3rd party software. Again, so what?
There's no reason they can't adopt the project. After all, as I said, they do sell "user experience" and "reliability" and this does break that. I'm not saying I want them to; I've stopped using my Mac for anything beyond building and testing iOS apps at this point, so it's not relevant to me any longer; but I do think they should.
There are plenty of reason why they don't want to adopt the project. You're confusing technical capability and desire. Two separate things. Again this is for what? To support an implementation of someone else's proprietary filesystem.
You actually can on some distros. It's installed by default on Debian (and Debian-based distros like Ubuntu and Mint), and it's available in the repo of basically every other distro, precompiled and fully tested for compatibility. Looks like the JFS FUSE module that worked back on OS X 10.2.2 is no longer viable, so what's your solution on Mac?
Again we get to the same argument: Not all distros have the same packages. Arch Linux does not for example have JFS by default. So far you seem to be basing your argument on what Ubuntu does, but Ubuntu does not represent all of Linux distros.
I've proven otherwise in several instances. It's fine, we all misunderstand things at times, sometimes we're misinformed, or we misremember, or we simply don't know. I'm not calling you out as a liar or anything like that, because I understand that a lie requires intent to deceive and I don't believe you're intentionally making incorrect statements. That doesn't make them any more true, however.
[Citation needed]
That covers NTFS, but what of the EXT filesystems? Or JFS? XFS? ZFS? Why not just include FUSE as an optional install? Surely it's not MS preventing them from doing so. Poor scapegoat argument is poor.
Apple doesn't want to. End of story.
MS can sue Apple for including FUSE in their distribution? Really? WOW! Wait, no, that's a carry-on of the aforementioned poorly thought out scapegoat argument. MS doesn't own FUSE, or any part thereof, as it is also fully open source. FUSE also,
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Howso? He doesn't work on the project for Apple, his time spent working for Apple and his time working on the project do not overlap.
His LinkedIn profile says otherwise. Under his Apple time
Senior Software Engineer - Darwin Runtime and Services, CoreOS
June 2009 - January 2013
X11 in OS X and its transition out of the OS into the open source community.
Low level system runtime and services (eg: Libc, pthreads, command line tools).
Interposition layer between iOS Simulator and OS X host.
iOS Simulator Runtime and SDK
New hardware bringup.
Transition of iOS runtime and SDK to 64bit (arm64 device and x86_64 simulator).
Software Engineering Intern - BSD Team, CoreOS
January 2008 - June 2009
Engineer responsible for X11.app in OS X as well as the creation of the XQuartz Project
Maybe he was just lazy in his profile but if I did that work on my spare time, I would have not listed it under my employer. I would have listed it under another project like Sequoia. Also according to him, he spent 100% of his first 18 months at Apple working on a project not related to Apple according to you.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
So, he was responsible for X11.app and creating XQuartz while Apple was still using X11.app; and he was responsible for transitioning OS X from using X11 to using XQuartz. Note that none of that means he worked on XQuartz on Apple's time; he, specifically, did not work on XQuartx from January 2008 to June 2009, the 18 months to which you refer, because XQuartz development didn't begin until June 2009; Apple did let him take over the project in June, as XQuartz, given that it would be done on personal time and he would provide support for it. E.g. they were willing to open source it if it meant they also did not have to spend any further resources on it.
From June 2009 through January 2013, X11.app was still in use. Notice how mentions of X11 or XQuartz stop appearing from his resume at the same time Apple dropped X11.app? Yeah, there's a reason for that.
Again, from a conversation with the man himself. You just don't get a more reliable source than that. The conversation took place over 6 years ago, so you'll have to forgive my not having recalled it immediately when I first mentioned him.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Bahahahahaha. Have you ever actually used Linux?
Every day for 2 decades.
Just like every other OS, an update can break things.
Of course! But, it's exceedingly rare in a stable distro.
With Linux the quality of the OS is much better than MS and Apple but things have been broken in the past especially since Linus and the kernel developers don't deal with userspace. As for this "single, coherent, entity" I have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to Linux distros. Debian unstable or testing. Hello?
I did, at some point, say "sane" distro. Nobody sane would use unstable or testing in production; it's right in the name, you should expect problems.
Regardless? Again you know this, how?
Are you trying to say Apple tests their updates against all apps in the app store and holds them back if some 3rd-party app breaks? No? That's now I know; oh, and form conversations with Apple engineers, as mentioned in my previous post. In other words, straight from the fucking horse's mouth.
So you're saying Apple does things in their own OS which may break things in a 3rd party software. Again, so what?
So nothing, that wasn't my point, and you know that. If FUSE was packaged and provided by Apple, this wouldn't be an issue. That's the my primary point. Why they don't do it is irrelevant to whether to not it would solve the issue. Secondarily, my point is that FUSE from a vendor-maintained repository is provably more stable than FUSE from an external source. Again, why Apple does not package their own version of FUSE is irrelevant to that point.
If you want to argue my points and show me how they're wrong, you're welcome to it, but this whole time you've been arguing off-point.
There are plenty of reason why they don't want to adopt the project. You're confusing technical capability and desire. Two separate things. Again this is for what? To support an implementation of someone else's proprietary filesystem.
Of course, I'm sure there are, but that's got nothing whatsoever to do with my point that them doing so would solve the FUSE stability issues in the same way Linux distros doing so has done the same. In other words, it's off-point.
Again we get to the same argument: Not all distros have the same packages. Arch Linux does not for example have JFS by default. So far you seem to be basing your argument on what Ubuntu does, but Ubuntu does not represent all of Linux distros.
So, you quote me talking about other distros ("and it's available in the repo of basically every other distro, precompiled and fully tested for compatibility"), then completely ignore it in your reply, claiming that I'm basing my argument on Ubuntu. You also quoted my mention of lack of even possible JFS support in OS X, which I was actually hoping you'd address by telling me I'm wrong and pointing out how to make it work, as I might find that useful at some point, and completely failed to address it.
[Citation needed]
For starters, what I wrote immediately above this. However, as that was said after I made the claim:
Fuse could install via the Apple App Store. So could NFTS-3g. But being open source they probably don't want to do that. So your point is rather irrelevant.
This wouldn't be quite the same. Linux distros maintain their repositories as a single, coherent, entity; if one thing they update breaks something else, they don't release it publicly until what was broken is fixed. The App store rolls on regardless of the OS X release schedule and OS X (now macOS) updates roll on regardless of what they may break in the App store. The situation would, literally, be no different than it is now.
So, you were wrong about that.
S
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
So, he was responsible for X11.app and creating XQuartz while Apple was still using X11.app; and he was responsible for transitioning OS X from using X11 to using XQuartz. Note that none of that means he worked on XQuartz on Apple's time
Again these are listed under his time he listed while at Apple. According to you, he didn't work on it under Apple's time while listing it under Apple. Are you just a denier?
he, specifically, did not work on XQuartx from January 2008 to June 2009, the 18 months to which you refer, because XQuartz development didn't begin until June 2009;
Please read again. "Engineer responsible for X11.app in OS X as well as the creation of the XQuartz Project". As programmer you do understand that development does not auto-magically happen in an instant. *Poof. We have OS X*. My reading of his resume was he worked on X11.app and then Apple decided to move it to open source and began the XQuartz project. This took some time to create the project that would later become XQuartz. For example deciding what parts of the code could be open sourced and which could not be would take a code review at the least.
From June 2009 through January 2013, X11.app was still in use. Notice how mentions of X11 or XQuartz stop appearing from his resume at the same time Apple dropped X11.app? Yeah, there's a reason for that.
Again you failed to note that he listed this under his time at Apple.
Again, from a conversation with the man himself. You just don't get a more reliable source than that. The conversation took place over 6 years ago, so you'll have to forgive my not having recalled it immediately when I first mentioned him.
What you say conflicts with what he lists on his public profile page. If you were me, which you would believe? Someone who claims they talked to Huddleston 6 years ago or what Huddleston has posted?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
What you say conflicts with what he lists on his public profile page. If you were me, which you would believe? Someone who claims they talked to Huddleston 6 years ago or what Huddleston has posted?
Ok, well, at this point the thread has grown longer than anyone else is gonna ever read, so it's down to you trying to convince me and me trying to convince you. Here's the thing, though: I know I talked to the man, I know what he said, I unequivocally know the facts here. You're not going to convince me otherwise, I really don't care if I convince you, and there's no audience for either of us to even be trying to convince. I'll go on being right, you go on being wrong, and let's just go out separate ways, eh?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Here's the thing, though: I know I talked to the man, I know what he said, I unequivocally know the facts here
No, what you have is hearsay from 6 years ago in the best case. Even if what you heard is correct do you know that the situation didn't change in the 6 years since that conversation? No you don't. But somehow you're sure of knowledge you can't be possibly sure about now.
You're not going to convince me otherwise, I really don't care if I convince you, and there's no audience for either of us to even be trying to convince. I'll go on being right, you go on being wrong, and let's just go out separate ways, eh?
LinkedIn says you're wrong. Plain and simple. I'm not saying it. That something you're not acknowledging.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
hearsay noun information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
Hearsay does not come from first-party sources. Now, me relaying it to you is hearsay.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
For starters, what I wrote immediately above this. However, as that was said after I made the claim: Fuse could install via the Apple App Store. So could NFTS-3g. But being open source they probably don't want to do that. So your point is rather irrelevant. This wouldn't be quite the same. Linux distros maintain their repositories as a single, coherent, entity; if one thing they update breaks something else, they don't release it publicly until what was broken is fixed. The App store rolls on regardless of the OS X release schedule and OS X (now macOS) updates roll on regardless of what they may break in the App store. The situation would, literally, be no different than it is now. So, you were wrong about that.
How was I wrong? my point: Fuse and NTFS-3g could install via the App Store. But they don't. That was their choice. Your point about using some other packaging system is irrelevant.
Off point, but the reality is that Tuxera has been distributing NTFS-3g for 10 years without a license [zdnet.com] and is now releasing it as GPL under a contract with Microsoft, free for all to use. They'll be doing the same with exFAT, as well, but have not yet; Microsoft still has tight reigns on exFat, for which which OS X and macOS both offer full compatibility. So, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess it's not a licensing issue. Offering, at a minimum, read-only NTFS support would make it easier for Windows users to migrate their data to a new Mac, which would be a win for Apple.
Wow do you even read what you write? Tuxera has an agreement with MS. Your words. MS does not have an agreement with Apple. Were you in any negotiation talks when MS approached Apple about ntfs? MS might have wanted way more than Apple wanted to offer. So that might have been the reason they didn't do the deal.
Because it's never been a part of the Linux kernel, either. At least, no more than any other optional runtime-loadable kernel module which, by the way, is what FUSE is for BSD and Darwin (read: OS X/macOS) kernels. It's literally the same.
That is a lie. Fuse was merged to Linux mainline kernel in 2.6.14. Please check your sources
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Hearsay does not come from first-party sources. Now, me relaying it to you is hearsay.
What? bahahahaha. That's exactly what you did above. You claim Huddleston told you something 6 years ago. That's hearsay in any context. Do you have a recording of this conversation? I'm betting no.
But you again you are so sure that Huddleston's arrangement with Apple didn't change in the 6 years IF everything you said was true. You can't be sure of that. That's between Apple and Huddleston. If Huddleston says it, then I'll believe it. You not so much.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Your point about using some other packaging system is irrelevant.
My point was the differences in how the other packaging systems operate. That's completely relevant to my other point, being that how the module is distributed absolutely matters.
Wow do you even read what you write? Tuxera has an agreement with MS. Your words. MS does not have an agreement with Apple.
Yes, i do. You, on the other hand, clearly don't. They have an agreement with MS, as of 2009 which will allow them to release NTFS-3g under the GPL; the the 10 years preceding that agreement, they distributed it entirely without license. From the article you clearly didn't look at:
When asked whether there were patent issues with NTFS, Välimäki said: "Microsoft has never publically said anything about patent issues with NTFS... Our open-source NTFS driver has been available for 10 years, and our commercial driver for two."
Also from that article:
"We'll be licensing our Linux NTFS under the GPL, and we have an agreement with Microsoft. If you're a user, you don't need to worry about Microsoft. We'll deal with them directly," he added.
Given that it's GPL licensed, and with Microsoft's blessing, there is nothing stopping Apple from using it.
Were you in any negotiation talks when MS approached Apple about ntfs?
No, clearly I was not. However... actually, I'mma let you finish before I go on.
MS might have wanted way more than Apple wanted to offer. So that might have been the reason they didn't do the deal.
Given that OS X still had NTFS support when NTFS-3g was released under the GPL in 2009, Apple could have forked NTFS-3g if licensing were an issue. In other words, there was a solution free of any licensing or patent issued by the time Apple dropped NTFS support from OS X so, no, it's not a licensing issue. Period.
That is a lie [git.net]. Fuse was merged to Linux mainline kernel in 2.6.14. Please check your sources
There are a lot of external modules that get merged into the kernel. It still compiles and installs as an optional module. Remember what you insinuated a couple posts ago about whether or not I actually use Linux? Let's flip that around. I run my desktop systems with the FUSE module installed and my servers without; yes, it is a module and yes, it is optional; it's also developed outside of the kernel mainline and can be updated independently of the kernel; its repo, like many others, simply gets merged into the kernel repo at stable releases.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
What? bahahahaha. That's exactly what you did above.
Eh? I'll entertain this line of reasoning, for amusement's sake.
You claim Huddleston told you something 6 years ago.
Because he did.
That's hearsay in any context.
Yes, as I stated (and you quoted):
Now, me relaying it to you is hearsay.
However, him saying it to me (which is what I have) was not hearsay.
Do you have a recording of this conversation? I'm betting no.
if I say no, does that mean it never happened? No, it still happened, it was still said, I know it was said, my source was first-party and, therefore, not hearsay. Again, it may be hearsay when I relay it, but it was not hearsay when it came to me.
But you again you are so sure that Huddleston's arrangement with Apple didn't change in the 6 years IF everything you said was true.
Since he stopped mentioning X11 in his profile after Apple dropped X11.app, it stands to reason that either LinkedIn is an unreliable source, or he no longer works on X11 on Apple's behalf. We know he still maintains XQuartz, that much is indisputable. If he was still involved in X11 at all on Apple's behalf, it would be mentioned in his LinkedIn profile; unless, of course, you want to say that's not a reliable source, in which case you must also be willing to disregard the portion of his profile that you referenced.
Further, if you look at every single one of his commits, they're on always on weekends or odd hours of morning or night when he would, most certainly, not be on Apple's time; that's all public data. If he were maintaining XQuartz on Apple's behalf, he'd do it on Apple's time.
You can't be sure of that.
No, of course; however, being a man of reason, I can deduce it from the evidence at hand.
That's between Apple and Huddleston. If Huddleston says it, then I'll believe it. You not so much.
So, then, ask him.
I repeat: You're not going to convince me otherwise, I really don't care if I convince you, and there's no audience for either of us to even be trying to convince. I'll go on being right, you go on being wrong, and let's just go out separate ways, eh?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Yes, i do. You, on the other hand, clearly don't. They have an agreement with MS, as of 2009 which will allow them to release NTFS-3g under the GPL; the the 10 years preceding that agreement, they distributed it entirely without license. From the article you clearly didn't look at:
An agreement that does not include Apple.
Given that it's GPL licensed, and with Microsoft's blessing, there is nothing stopping Apple from using it.
Other than a license they may not want to use? While Apple does use GPL, most of their own open software is either BSD style or Apple Public License. They cannot modify Tuxera's license agreement. There are a myriad of reasons Apple but I don't claim to know them unlike you.
No, clearly I was not. However... actually, I'mma let you finish before I go on.
Yet you make many claims about what Apple and MS and Tuxera have done: their motivations, their reasons. You weren't there by your own admission.
Given that OS X still had NTFS support when NTFS-3g was released under the GPL in 2009, Apple could have forked NTFS-3g if licensing were an issue. In other words, there was a solution free of any licensing or patent issued by the time Apple dropped NTFS support from OS X so, no, it's not a licensing issue. Period.
They didn't want to keep supporting NTFS is a possible reason? Again you're not part of any communication between Apple and MS. Even though Tuxera has put their code on a GPL license, that does not prevent MS from suing Apple if they released any code under APL. Most likely MS won't win but the point would not be to win; it would be to prevent Apple from using something.
There are a lot of external modules that get merged into the kernel. It still compiles and installs as an optional module. Remember what you insinuated a couple posts ago about whether or not I actually use Linux? Let's flip that around. I run my desktop systems with the FUSE module installed and my servers without; yes, it is a module and yes, it is optional; it's also developed outside of the kernel mainline and can be updated independently of the kernel; its repo, like many others, simply gets merged into the kernel repo at stable releases.
What is this quibbling? It was put in the mainline kernel in 2.6.14 which was 11 years ago. End of story. By your argument, everything is optional including every driver and every subsystem. kernel.cpu.c is the only thing that is "Linux". You were wrong about a fact.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
None of this is on-point. None of it. That said, I would like to point out that a great many external projects get merged into the kernel mainline for each release; many of them, FUSE for example, can either be compiled into the kernel itself, compiled as runtime-loadable modules, or left out entirely (see: make menuconfig). Those are optional, as the kernel will function just fine without them and, if you don't explicitly build the kernel to include them, they won't be included. A module that you load into the kernel at runtime is not part of the kernel; or are you saying that FUSE is part of the Darwin kernel as well, if you load the FUSE kernel module? I'm pretty sure that's not what you're saying, as you've explicitly stated that to not be the case. In short, you're arguing with yourself at this point; you can't have it both ways.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Because he did.
No, you claim he did. You don't have any evidence. I can claim you tome me that you were the 2nd shooter on the Grassy Knoll. See how that works.
Yes, as I stated (and you quoted):
Denial
However, him saying it to me (which is what I have) was not hearsay.
Baahahahaha. What world do you live in? Huddleston was relaying to you an agreement he had with Apple. Did you see the agreement? No. Did you see any emails relating to the agreement? No. At best Huddleston was relaying to you conversations he had with Apple. Then you are trying to relay those conversations to me. Please read up on what hearsay means.
if I say no, does that mean it never happened? No, it still happened, it was still said, I know it was said, my source was first-party and, therefore, not hearsay. Again, it may be hearsay when I relay it, but it was not hearsay when it came to me.,
So again you have zero evidence and I don't believe a word you say. Only your word is that someone said something to you 6 years ago. Please read up on hearsay again because you're simply not getting it. You can state in court what you claim that Huddleston said; your statements cannot be used to prove the truth of what Huddleston said. See the difference?
Since he stopped mentioning X11 in his profile after Apple dropped X11.app, it stands to reason that either LinkedIn is an unreliable source, or he no longer works on X11 on Apple's behalf.
Why must you lie so much? Please read again as he worked on X11 under Apple from 2009 to 2013. X11.app was not included in Mountain Lion (RTM 25 July 2012) but was included in Lion (RTM 20 July 2011):
Senior Software Engineer - Darwin Runtime and Services, CoreOS
June 2009 - January 2013
X11 in OS X and its transition out of the OS into the open source community.
Your assertions are simply false.
We know he still maintains XQuartz, that much is indisputable. If he was still involved in X11 at all on Apple's behalf, it would be mentioned in his LinkedIn profile; unless, of course, you want to say that's not a reliable source, in which case you must also be willing to disregard the portion of his profile that you referenced.
It was. You are either denying it or didn't read it.
No, of course; however, being a man of reason, I can deduce it from the evidence at hand.
You have yet to produce any evidence. All we have is your word.
I repeat: You're not going to convince me otherwise, I really don't care if I convince you, and there's no audience for either of us to even be trying to convince. I'll go on being right, you go on being wrong, and let's just go out separate ways, eh?
I previously said if Huddleston says it, then I'll take your word. However considering the fact you don't believe his LinkedIn profile says you're a denier. Nothing will ever convince you you're wrong. And if Huddleston says you're wrong, what will you say? Will you try to argue with him about his own career?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
, I would like to point out that a great many external projects get merged into the kernel mainline for each release; many of them, FUSE for example, can either be compiled into the kernel itself, compiled as runtime-loadable modules, or left out entirely (see: make menuconfig).
So you're arguing nothing is part of the Linux kernel as long as you can create your own definitions of what is "Linux" to suit the argument. By your own argument, nothing is part of the Linux kernel: not networking, not I/O, etc. as all of them can be removed from the kernel compilation.
Those are optional, as the kernel will function just fine without them and, if you don't explicitly build the kernel to include them, they won't be included. A module that you load into the kernel at runtime is not part of the kernel; or are you saying that FUSE is part of the Darwin kernel as well, if you load the FUSE kernel module?
Sigh. Dude you were wrong. 100% wrong about a fact. Just give it up.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
None of this is on-point. None of it. That said, I would like to point out that a great many external projects get merged into the kernel mainline for each release; many of them, FUSE for example, can either be compiled into the kernel itself, compiled as runtime-loadable modules, or left out entirely (see: make menuconfig). Those are optional, as the kernel will function just fine without them and, if you don't explicitly build the kernel to include them, they won't be included. A module that you load into the kernel at runtime is not part of the kernel;
So what you're saying is nothing is part of the kernel unless you can change the definition to suit your argument. By your argument, networking, I/O, filesystems. etc are not part of the kernel at all: Nothing is part of the kernel by your estimation. It's just /kernel.
or are you saying that FUSE is part of the Darwin kernel as well, if you load the FUSE kernel module? I'm pretty sure that's not what you're saying, as you've explicitly stated that to not be the case. In short, you're arguing with yourself at this point; you can't have it both ways.
Dude. You were wrong 100% about a fact. Fuse was put into the mainline kernel 11 years ago. That is a fact. Now you're trying to twist every definition of the word kernel. Just give it up.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Baahahahaha. What world do you live in? Huddleston was relaying to you an agreement he had with Apple. Did you see the agreement? No. Did you see any emails relating to the agreement? No. At best Huddleston was relaying to you conversations he had with Apple. Then you are trying to relay those conversations to me. Please read up on what hearsay means.
So, Huddleston is not a first-party source for information about Huddleston? Anything he tells me is hearsay?
I previously said if Huddleston says it, then I'll take your word.
Yet, you'll believe me if he says it?
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound right about now? Of course not or you'd shut up already.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Have you ever build a fucking Linux kernel? I mean from start to finish, starting with checking out the repo and running "make menuconfig".
I'm guessing... no.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Why do we have 3 separate threads on this article, two of which are the same exact argument?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.