Slashdot Mirror
MacOSRumors reports OS 10 Server goes gold
Juan Fernando writes "Mac OS Rumors is reporting that Apple's long anticipated OS 10 Server
(formerly known as OS X Server which is formerly known as
Rhapsody) has reached Golden Master, and should be available
mid-month thru the Apple Store."
Right on! should show up on Hotline any day now.
The Tandy people would get their underwear in a bind! :)
I'm sitting here reading a few posts and notice it's a story about Apple....and yet there aren't any idiots running around flaming and trolling their asses off yet...
Geez, you guys are slipping.
Theenk it's SRP is $995. A tad more'n a couple-hundred.
W00h00! MacOSX is out...looks like the world doesnt need Linux anymore!
...and within mere days of it's release, it becomes the single biggest selling, most popular UNIX variant ever. I guess you couldnt call it a "variant" anymore really...you can call it the INDUSTRY STANDARD! The One Against Which All The Rest Are Measured!
Finally, someone (it could ONLY have been Apple) has done Unix right! The power of Unix w/ the best UI ever created!
Let's think about this...
:-p
Cost of Linux: $0.
Cost of OS X: hundreds of dollars
That alone indicates that Linux won't be decimated by the arrival of OS X. Let's think about this a little more. Are sophisticated users, the ones who run servers, going to be more willing to trust an OS from Apple, known for one of the most crash-prone desktop OSes; or Linux, where fixes to problems are often available in a matter of hours and where the source code is available so you can see yourself what's going on? Apple, whose previous OS offerings have been painfully slow; or Linux which has a reputation for killer performance? Apple, who has no real server OS background and whose product is untested by the market, or Linux which has proven its power time and time again?
Reality check: OS X isn't going to supplant Unix or Linux anytime soon. It may find a niche market, maybe it will become popular (or maybe not). The reasons people have been using Linux (performance, utter customizability through open source, unparalleled bug-fixing and stability, low cost) are still there, and OS X doesn't really change that. It's just another proprietary OS, that in all likelihood won't have the same level of quality that Linux has obtained (since Linux's huge OSS resources will be able to continually outpace Apple who has a much more limited set of people working on their products). So you might want to put the party hats away now
May I reiterate that MacOSX is:
1) only a FIRST release and as such is not heavily optimised.
2) is not designed to be the fastest OS on the planet, although we dont know yet how fast it is, because it only just reached GM. Re
3) has a GUI overhead to contend with. Linux should only ever be compared if boots straight into X.
4) is NOT designed to compete with Linux. Jobs is quick to dismiss MacOSX server as just a test product on the way to MacOSX client.
Look, I love Linux its a great OS but even I must admit that what makes it great (anarchial, UNIX-based, intelligent-people orientated) is also its downfall.
So please dont dismiss MacOSX server just because it isnt Linux. For Linux has its problems as well.
No. It has a VMS kernel. Note that the letters 'VMS' are alphabetically adjacent to the letters 'WNT'.
1000 bucks?
Are they fucking dreaming?
Woohooo, this will put Apple BACK ON TOP!
It'll destroy Linux/PPC and Windows NT!
The world will be different!
That is, just as soon as the world could afford it.
Hey, i can't afford it, but everyone important can, and i'm sure THEY'LL move to Mac OS X server, so it doesn't matter, right?
Right?
Um guys, could you back me up here?
All i hear is silence.
There. I'm the first one to throw the troll lines.
Apple's not positioning OSX Server for the 'rest of us'-- that is OS X's job. Methinks that the price is just right-- especially since it includes WebObjects, YB Developer tools and a lot of other goodies.
;-)
This will be perfect for schools (BTW, ASIP 6.0 which is > $1200 for a 50 user license and is popular among schools for its ease of admin...).
Look at it this way, an entire univ lab of 50+ imacs booting off a OSX Server with absolutely no
maintenance... Hopefully, will allow us to reengineer support staff. Think of all the $$$ saved
I would actively support any company that made support staff/help centers/ sys admins redundant.
Bunch of leeches them
A few random comments on posts above and below...
Enlightenment is more than functional enough to be very useful right now. In fact, it is at least as functional as twm, which is all the wm I have really ever needed. Just looks nicer.
I totally agree on binary registry == bad bad bad. However, I really am sick of 10^3 dotfiles cluttering up my home directory, all with apparently different formats. Seems to me that having a configuration database (editable with a text editor!) would be extremely convenient. GNU and many others distribute programs such that standardize command line argument processing, why not a library (gpl of course) that would standardize configuration data processing?
Java: java really is a great programming language. I am not saying it is the best programming language, but it is great. Java has 2 big problems: first is that Sun should have been supporting linux from the start. Their lack of support for linux is why I am now learning c++, will be learning gtk+, and have essentiallu stopped all java development. The second is that MS has spent at least a couple of billion dollars in advertising and development (ie j++) to kill the viability of java's platform independence.
--mtngrown
Hello Genius,
When did i mention consumers? Duh!
My point was that i don't see anyone IN EDUCATION WHO SAYS THEY WILL BUY IT.
In fact, 5 lab admins i've talked to WILL NOT buy it because they don't want to blow 1000 bucks on something that is technically a 1.0 version.
1000 bucks is NOT warranted for something that doesn't have ANY legacy support.
I must have missed when education had the latest and greatest in it's LABS.
Outside of CS labs, that is.
General labs do NOT usually have the latest and greatest. Though we just moved to G3's in one of our labs last year, but we are the exception in this case, as i've talked with other schools that have mac labs, and a lot still have old powermacs.
But once again, NO LAB ADMIN I KNOW OF IS MOVING TO OS X SERVER. Duh!
Please point me to the list of schools that are buying this, or use it.
Or plan on it.
MS has one for NT, Novell for netware, Sun for Solaris, etc.
I want to see the list of schools that use this.
BTW, duh!
Sorry, couldn't resist ;-)
:^)
Being a "big" GNU project is the best way for a software not to get finished.
Ideological obstacles and stubbornness assure, that the project is stalled or split.
Why do others (using the GPL as well) succeed?
* technical, not ideological interests (Linus)
* pragmatism and expertise (KDE)
* a company as a driving force (Gnome)
But, in any case, GNU is best for discussions
Heck, for 25 clients NT Server is more expensive (and less capable, and slower, and far less stable). Netware for 25 clients costs a few times as much, and is less capable. I'm going to buy at least one copy of Mac OS X Server for work when it comes out.
I have several novice system administrator's, and no matter what I do, they cling to the GUI's.
This is fine, but when things really go wrong and networking is down, the gui is unavailable and they are clueless.
I Really wish the GUI sysadmin tools like those available for NT, Linux, HPUX, Sun, Irix's would try to act like training wheels instead of a replacement for command line tools.
By training wheels, I mean, go ahead, allow the gui single click configuration, but after (or before) making the changes to the system give the user a detailed explanation of what will be done.
So as the GUI is used, users who care will be learning how things actually work under the hood.
Also, experienced users, can see when/if the gui is screwing up......
Are there any fantasy, training wheel gui's avaiable for Linux/FreeBSD/Irix?
As mentioned above, the SRP of Mac OS 10 Server is a cool grand. Mac OS 10 - the consumer version - is due out in the fall, and will probably retail for $99.00, like most of Apple's recent OS offerings.
With that out of the way, let me just say that it all likelihood, I'll be pirating a copy of Server. I'd never buy it, so Apple isn't losing money of me for that reason. If I can learn it, and evangelize it well enough to my bosses, my company might buy it, thus making Apple money.
Now that I have your attention...
Linux, fail? Well, yes and no. It is an undeniable truth that Linux is an incredible workstation/server OS. I would not begin to argue that point, at all. However, Linux will reach critical mass and its adoption rate will slow down in all other market segments. Yes, Linux will reach a plateau, so to speak.
You're thinking, "Why do you say that, asshole. Linux is the best! Linus is God incarnate! Yadda, yadda, yadda...." It's quite simple, really. Linux has no standard GUI. It relies too heavily on command line. You're thinking, "Your just a stupid Machead who can't do shit without icons and a mouse!" Actually, I use Mac, DOS, VMS, Linux, Ultrix, NT, Unix and Solaris. Remember the context of this arguement. Linux will not pentrate the consumer or classroom market. The very folks who require simplicity and intuitiveness.
Enter MacOS X and MacOS X Server (yes, these are two seperate products - and yes, "X" is the Roman Numeral for 10. Therefore, it is pronounced "ten".) The latter of which is based on BSD4.4, a fine OS in and of itself. But, when you add a Mac-like interface, it becomes a server OS that non-nerds can approach without too much fear. Oh, you can still get to the command line (that's right, Linux lover, a Mac with command line - sorry to burst your bubble) but not unless you want to. True, NT has a GUI but it has high liscencing fees which actually price it above MacOS X Server. In any case, Apple is not charging headlong into the enterprise segment, yet. So, NT competition will not REALLY heat-up until later.
What about MacOS X (the soon to be released consumer version)? It will have all the features of a Unix, as well. However, it will also sport the Mac GUI. All those folks who want *nix power and Mac ease of use are about to have their prayers answered. Consumer market, classroom settings, creative proffesionals, CAD/CAM, 3D Design, Printing industry, etc, etc. Don't look now but Linux compatibility "may" (wink, wink) be integrated closely within MacOS X. Yes, Apple likes Linux (that is not a joke, trust me). This product will enter the consumer market and be very successful.
Yes, Linux is a fine product. Too bad it has omitted the largest market segment of all in favor for a privilaged few who can enjoy its powerful, yet raw abilities.
"I want to see the list of schools that use this."
How fucking dumb are you? This hasn't been released yet. It is a 1.0 release so don't you think that people running networks are going to wait and see what the reviews say before they commit to buying it? Once it is for sale, and once the reviews come in saying that it's good, I'd imagine that some, especially people alreay running servers on Macs(yes I know servers that run Mac OS 8, and there's LinuxPPC), may start switching over.
And remember, Apple has said this will not be a dead-end, they will continue to produce this. Apple is here to stay in the server market. Once G3s and G4s are more widespread I would expect the use to go even higher, especially if G4 is very good, which it looks to be.
Once MacOS X and OS X Server are both out, Apple products will no longer be thought of as totally unstable crap. They shold both be more stable and more managable than NT is for Microsoft. If the YallowBox becomes popular, it will be a good thing for everyone.
Also, though it is technically a 1.0 release, it is based on things that have been around a lot longer than NT or Linux. Apple did not start from scratch.
OSX is no threat to Linux at all; in fact it will help Linux progress into the mainstream consumer market. Think: when OSX is released it will obliterate the performance of Windows 95/8. What will they do, those millions of PC owners, who even now are by turns prone to vague irrational feelings of superiority and inferiority in their choice of platform? Why, they'll want to upgrade to a "real OS", like NT 4 so they can feel secure again. Problem for them is that the price is very high and the applications they have aren't all compatible with NT.
Entrez Linux, L'asskickeur OS sur Intel. The price is right, and PC owners can keep their 98 and the Windows apps that they have now. They can run their old apps as needed when booted to Windows, or --hopefully-- they can run them under WINE.(Go WINE!) Windows 2000 is at best 3 years in the future, OSX for workstations is slated for Fall-Winter '99 (yes, I actually believe it will be released then, too). Two years --that's a mighty long time for Windows98 to rot at the bottom of the OS heap.
Really, OSX is the best PR vehicle one can project to acquaint the general public with the "Power of Unix". Sure much of the real power of Unix will be hidden, but what remains to show will be quite impressive. People will hear about it and want it. Linux and Be will be the only way for them to get it w/o either going to the bank for either an Apple w/OSX or an NT license.
Grow up. If you can't take getting pissed off then maybe you shouldn't read slashdot.
I don't care how you spend your money but if you're willing to spend $5k for something then so be it. You are paying for ease of use at the expense of performance. The Mach "microkernel" is SLOW. Get that through your head.
Sure every OS has it's purpose and OS X will be easier to configure than Linux but it won't be faster, different needs, different OS's.
Rhapsody was the code name for Apple's 'modified' OpenStep. Copland was a good idea, but it was "too hard." They are completely different entities, Copland was going to be Mac OS 8, Rhapsody was the code name for MacOS X(ten). No name changes, just official names.
First learn how to spell.
Virtually all Macs used to have SCSI, only the high end ones do now. Same with PC's. Virtually all mid-high end business Compaq PC's come with SCSI soldered on the motherboard.
Gigabit Ethernet at it's theoretical max requires 125MB of bandwidth. 32-bit 33MHz PCI tops out at 132MB and since you will never use all of that you should be fine. Servers which would use 80-90% of that bandwidth already have 66MHz 64-bit PCI.
ADB is superior to PS/2
The ATI 128 on the Mac is not as fast as the PC version. While AGP texturing out of main memory is usually not very useful it is used at times (see the Quake II crusher.dm2 demo)
I'm not fucking dumb.
Did you miss the point again?
All these fucking idiots yelling how great it is, AND IT HASN'T EVEN BEEN RELEASED YET.
I see people yapping about how it's going to be THE COMEBACK OF APPLE, and as you say, nobody in their right mind would commit to buying something without having anything to base the decision on.
So why don't the raving mac lunatics calm the fuck down?
That's my basic point.
Maybe you should try going to a bonafide university instead of PennsylTuckey Community College.
... add Macdome. In fact, a new LAB just opened with over 50 G3 towers.
This school has hundreds of Macs in the computing LABS, medical LABS, Media LABS, Arts & Science LABS, Earth & Atmospheric Science LABS, Humanities LABS, add infinitum
Will MacOS X Server be put to work here? I'm guessing yes, especially in light of Netbooting functionalities. After all for each of the LABS you only need one MacOS X Server box. As for Legacy support, Mac labs don't require it.
$1000.00? Hrm. Depends on how you look at it. In the future, iMacs will be sold with a hard drive as an option. These Macs will boot from the server and only the server will require an OS lisence, saving money on both hardware and software. These Macs will also execute apps from off the server, thus only one copy of each app will be necessary - again saving tens of thousands of dollars. Money talks and bullshit walks.
BTW, my apologies for my unnecessary, sarcastic remarks in the previous post. Can you find it in your heart to forgive me??
Read some of the books on nt internals (waste of money, read them in a bookstore)
Things like process creation in nt are very VMSish.
Dave Cutler worked at DEC on VMS and his next-gen OS there and then got pissed and left to go to M$.
He absolutely despises Unix and based nt on his ideas from vms and his cancelled os project
and for server side activities, does more. Is Mac OSX 64 bit, like Linux on Alpha?
I agree with you for the most part. I would point out though that OS X Server isn't really competing with Win9x. It's competing with NT; Apple's consumer OS will continue to be based off the current OS 8.x kernel for the near future, since OS X consumer won't be out for a bit yet. Similarly with the M$ OSes, Win2000 Consumer won't be out for a bit yet either.
Hrm. That should make for some interesting competition between the two products. Although Apple has a decade more experience in the area of GUI, Linux does have momentum and Wintel hardware support. It will be fascinating to see how things pan out.
Could you please post an ETA of the GUI for Linux and a url for the group responsible for it's development? Thank you.
As a long-time mac user I would like to just make what for me is a very significant point. While the consistency and feel of the Mac UI has been great, the underlying OS is, frankly, rather kludgy. What we wanted was a better OS, one that was more stable and one that had more modern features. What we heard instead was Copland and Gershwin; essentially vaporware (although some features were added to the MacOS).
This all changed when Apple bought Next and Steve Jobs returned to the fold. Now we hear about Rhapsody and its BSD underpinnings. As a long time unix user, I was thrilled yet cautious; what about all the old MacOS apps out there? The plans for OSX is announced and I loved the blue box, yellow box, and carbon concepts. Yet I still remained leery; essentially I'll believe it when I see it.
Now comes the rumors of Server OSX going gold master (start the presses!). Do you non-mac ppl have any idea how long some of us have been waiting for this to happen? Think about it, Apple is actually going to sell to the general public (ie., non-developers) a "new" BSD/microkernel based OS.
Needless to say, I'll reserve final judgement until Apple actually ships the product and until the test results are in. However, I wish we could buy a copy for work so that I could play with it.
i hate IRIX's ui so much
NT cost is calculated by the number of client. MacOS X Server is flat ~ US$1,000 for unlimted number of client. For example, for small Lan, NT will cost more then MacOS X Server. Now imagine for larger Lan! Check out M$ site to find out how much it costs for each Client Access License (CAL). :-)
MacOS X Server is currently targeted at Enterprise/Corporate users. MacOS X (Note, there is no "Server") will cost the same as MacOS 8.x while being UNIX based and still as easy to use as any MacOS.
Also, MacOS X Server is available for academic community at dirt cheap price relative to what you get out of the whole package (WebObjects, Unlimited number of client, Quicktime 4, MacOS 8.5 to run Photoshop or Microsoft Office 98 etc.. and BSD UNIX for hard core users).
Hey, you can download Linux application source code and recompile (with little port).
OSX == OS10
/. has gone down hill. We all have our own prefrences and no one should be bashing our choices!!
X is the roman numeral for 10!
GOD WHY CAN"T MORONS UNDERSTAND THIS!!!
there are TWO versions of OSX:
OSX SERVER == $1000
and OSX == $90-$120
server isn't intended to be used as anything but, it is not a consumer product!!!
Lastly why the HELL isn't apple products good for "anything close to mission critical" what is NT??
sure linux is growing, but it remains a hurdle for a huge number of even power users to use and doesn't have (at least yet) the advantages of backward compatible and comercial software products!!
People need to understand OSX server IS a threat to linux, faster processors, more user freindly, more powerful, all the features of *nix, a fully upgradable BSD core, yes a propritory kernal, but from what I have heard they are going to announce some AMAZING tech that has not yet been publicially talked about, yet.
So please stop spreading mis-information and trolling about a product you know nothing about, I expected more from a "news for nerds" web page and that can say I have been here from the begining and
The guy is probably aware of the cost of LinuxPPC. He reads this site doesn't he? He even has time to read and comment on posts. He likely has good reasons on buying it which could include something as simple as curiousity (gasp! how dare he try something different).
Although your post does not show this attitude, I am sick of people thinking with Linux vs the world attitudes. It reminds me of how the major religions are. People thinking their way is the best and only way with some major reasons (open source, free... Jesus formed Christianity, Jesus was the son of God, it costs nothing to be a Christian.) My analogy is only intended for that use, so please don't try and pick it apart.
I figured this analogy was appropriate so Open Source Thumpers (Bible Thumpers) could possibly reexamine their point of view.
After reading some of these posts, all I can say is *calm the fsck down* people! Geez, all the article says is that it went GM, and already people are making proclamations pro and con when they haven't even seen it, let alone used it for any length of time!
It has a declared feature set, that much can be discussed/argued about. But people are spouting about speed, stability, and ease of administration when they haven't put eyeballs on it. Maybe I'll become a movie critic using these same techniques -- I'll spout shit about movies I've never seen based on my previous opinion about the actors, directors, studio, or in general anything but the actual product.
IF anyone here has used a recent build of OS X Server, I'd be more than happy to hear your opinion. The rest of this "a friend told me that he saw a benchmark of Rhapsody DR1 and it sucked" is just crap.
A few other points:
1) The "X" in MacOS X HAS ALWAYS and CONTINUES TO stand for "Ten". Some people seem to have a problem comprehending this.
2) Target market: MacOS X Server is NOT targeting the high-end workstation/server market (Sun, Alpha, etc.). Its primary purpose is to keep/push NT out of markets that already use Mac clients. NT had been making inroads to publishing and education as a file/workgroup server. That will probably stop this year. If you liked your Mac clients but thought MacOS wasn't meeting your speed and stability needs on the server side, now you can buy an Apple branded solution.
3) The price: $1000 (with no per-seat restriction) is a better deal than NT Server, which is precisely what this product is aimed at. The publishing/graphics market will gladly pay this, or just get it bundled with their next purchase of G3s. Further, I seriously doubt education customers will have to pay full price. They can buy WebObjects for only $99, and I'd expect a similar substantial discount for OS X Server.
I have thrown out tens of thousands of dollars worth of software downloaded from Hotline servers. There are hundreds of buggy, bloated apps out there that we are expected to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for.
When will the big developers start shipping stable software for a resonable price, as opposed the current practice of getting legions of beta testers paying for the privelage of reporting myriad bugs?
$650 for Photoshop? Ha! You must be kidding, make it $300, and then we'll talk. $1000 for Director? And you say it only compiles for the platform it's authored on? Rediculous. $300 dollars for Metecreations Painter? And it accepts Photoshop Plug-ins? Fair enough, here's my credit card number.
I don't buy the argument that poor Adobe and Macromedia need to make a decent profit for thier efforts. They aren't making a "decent profit", they are making a KILLING. Put it within reach of someone making less than a big city ad agency, for pity's sake! A young designer or artist wanting to get a full set of tools for web or multimedia or animation development must shell out thousands of dollars. Of course they are going to steal it!
I do pay for fairly priced wares from smaller publishers. And shareware, of course. And games.
As for Mac OS X Server, if only Apple would offer a "workstation" version of Mac OS X, i.e. no Web Objects, no server stuff, I'd gladly pony up three or four hundred bucks for it. I'm not holding my breath on that one though.
Sure, for most people GUI's may me more productive because each step in doing anything is inyuitive and separate. However, the command line has less overhead for the things it does. If you know what you're doing and it makes sense on the command line, it is MUCH faster to do it there.
I became painfully aware of this at work. I used to do digital image processing on HPUX. We had large datasets (files) that we needed to manipulate. It was dirt simple to write the C programs to do operations and shell scripts to create more complicated arrangements. A GUI would have just gotten in the way, both in the programming side and use side.
Later, I went to a smaller company that used windows only tools (PUKE!). It took me forever to wade through the GUI (windows, no less) to do similar stuff that would have been one command in UNIX. Not only that, it you have a complicated job to run that will take 15 mins. to write a shell script to automate and 4 hrs. to run, you can work on other things in the meantime. But NO, I had to nurse the damn thing the whole way through.
BTW, I do like GUI's. They're just not always the most productive way to get things done. I REALLY like the idea of making the GUI optional. Terminals in X are nice, but if that's all you're using, you could probably do withouth the overhead. But, in order to be used by anyone outside the technical niche, an OS needs a good GUI. The biggest problem I have with GNOME and KDE is that they look like windows copies to me. There is a place for that (how many people use windows?), I just don't like the idea. I've never use NEXTstep, but GNUstep looks interesting to me.
I'm tired of the Mac GUI bashing. Do you realize they actually spent time trying to make the GUI intuitive for a first time user? Do you realize Win 95/98s GUI is horrible in comparisn yet they're targeting the same audience. Perhaps it isn't the best for hardcore programmers, but those people seem to prefer CLUIs over GUIs... but then some Linux advocates praise the next big GUI that runs on X is sooo much better and will be so perfect for Joe Average who never touched a computer in his/her life.
If you want to read the differences of some of the more well known GUIs, check out http://www.mackido.com/Interface/. Although I detect a bit of biasness in some parts of his presentation, most of it is accurate.
And if you actually wanted to promote whatever side you were on, it takes more than irony. Irony is often used by people on one side of a debate who can not logically defend their side.
The usual reason for the "vapor ware" problem is the media getting a bit of leaked info and blowing it up. Then if they don't deliver they blow it up even more. Another reason is people like to know what route Company X is taking, and Company X needs to know what it's customers and developers think about it. Kind of how evolution works. Some new mutation arises and doesn't survive. Another arises and does. You can usually think the media for making you believe that it's 100% guaranteed that whatever Company X is still working on or thinking about is definitely going to happen, then leading you to become more infuriated once it isn't by blowing it out of proportion.
..thats not the issue. What we're talking about is computers for everyone..
It is the issue. The issue is no longer stand alone computers. If it was, everybody would be happy with Windows.
What everyone needs now is email for customer contact and support, and the only way to do that is with a network. Ever try to get a Windows network working reliably? I have, it isn't fun, and three months doesn't even begin to make a dent in the material, because many of the features work other than as documented.
Networks are difficult, with much new material to learn. Linux presents much new material, but it
is learnable, and it works as documented. Three months is an amazingly short time to get this stuff working, especially for a rank beginner.
I've bashed Linux plenty in the past, but I've got to compliment you college kids on the job you did with the networking. It's really straightforward. Us computer dummies just have to follow a bunch of cookbook directions.
Linux is free if your time is worthless. Nuff said
dominance in two markets: Education and
Publishing.
Its dominance in the K-12 market is the MAIN
reason.
Those are the people who will buy Mac OS X Server.
It is corporate welfare, plain and simple.
YOUR tax dollars pay for spurious investments in
education "technology".
It matters not whether the pigs be from Apple,
Microsoft, Dell, or Gateway.
They are all the same. They know what the K-12
market means: an endless stream of revenue from
computer illiterates.
OS/9 had a long life as a powerful OS on the old Radio Shack Color Computer. It made the coco into a multitasking system.
Will
Well they could have called it "MacOS 9" but that just doesn't sound as cool. and yeah, Microware has a embedded realtime java operating system called OS9.
I intend to buy and use 2 copies of OS X Server as soon as it hits the shelves and run it on 2 brand new PPC machines. I have immediate need in managing a bunch of iMacs for my workgroup. The netboot alone will be worth it. [BTW, we have a network of ~ 50 macintoshes without a full time system administrator. ]
OSX S will be the perfect solution for us, we are also planning on porting our high end CAD/CAM/FEA/BEM tool from IRIX to OS X(BTW, our software sells for ~$25,000 for an annual license). OS X will allow us to offer excellent performance on PPC hardware. We are also investigating the use of distributed computing (old NeXT technology that allowed them to crack the largest prime number) in improving our computing capabilities.
People in Science and Engg. should take a serious look at PPC/OSX Server-- ease of use and awesome computing power on the same platform. This means, that I can run my FEM analysis, DAQ, and run first rate productivity applications{No Applixware doesn't count). Yeeehah!
I claim that Linux is easy to use but hard to learn. What's the difference? It takes some time to become productive with a Linux system, but with some experience and knowledge it is much easier to get things done than on comparable systems.
When I changed ISPs recently, it took me hours to get W95's networking to work properly with the new provider (turns out I had to download a scripting tool because W95 is too brain-dead to talk to ppp servers that ask for a "Username" instead of "Login"). It took me ten minutes to edit one configuration file and get Linux working.
A quality GUI can make it easy for people to get started with a system, but for more advanced work, a quality command line is far more efficient than drilling down through endless menus.
Will
People who use Macs (I have used several of them over the years) appreciate the interface because it has always been very good: clean, consistent and, for the most part, logical. This cannot be said of the plethora of interfaces (window managers, widget toolkits, etc) for X, in part because there is no single, standard interface.
When Mac users talk about the interface, they aren't referring to pretty widgets or window decorations, they're referring to the way in which Macintosh applications are designed. Apple long ago issued a set of guidelines defining how a Macintosh application should behave (mostly derived from Apple's Office System suite for the Lisa). Applications which follow these guidelines are similar in appearance and function to other such applications, meaning a user of one can more easily learn to use others. In my experience, most Mac applications largely adhere to Apple's UI guidelines.
The Mac interface has contributed much to the Windows interface via applications such as MS Office, which proliferated on the Mac in the days before Windows (and was fairly consistent with other applcations*). Windows is still less consistent than the Mac, but considerably more consistent than X applications. I prefer X overall to Windows or Mac OS, but the hotchpotch of window managers, toolkits and the lack of standards for application layout/behaviour make it very inconsistent.
Finally, the Mac OS GUI is remarkably stable (I'm referring to the graphical appearance, NOT functionality). I haven't used a Mac in a few years, but on the basis of the screenshots I've seen, I could sit down in front of a Mac tomorrow and know how to use most applications.
* A few years back, Microsoft eliminated the Mac version of Office in favour of a port of the Windows version (which had diverged considerably). The result was a much bigger, more bloated, less usable set of applications with a great leap backward in terms of the user interface.
It will look so good by comparison to the alternatives. There is a huge base of DOS diehards out there that, mostly businesses, that need email right now, because their customers are demanding it.
They're gun shy about networking because of past experience. I mean experience with things like Banyan Vines (Streettalk, anyone?), Torus Tapestry, Netware ELS (ugh) LanTastic (barf), 10-net, and other horrors. The Win98 doesn't cut it, either.
Enter Linux. What does it take to make it work? Edit four files - hosts, host.conf, networks, and resolv.conf. The instructions are contained in each of the files.
MS made this easy for us. They published the MS Client for DOS, which has a nice interface, and works well with TCP/IP. The TCP/IP add on for WFW works okay, and Win95 and 98 contain OK implementations.
So connect those DOS/Windows thingies to a Linux server with email and the whole shmear, and you're halfway there. And you don't need a $5k box to do, either. Business people will love you for it.
I never meant to suggest the MacOS GUI was perfect. That trash ejection thing is definitely confusing for a new user (even took me a while to figure out and I usually catch on to things fast.) There is actually a story behind the trash ejection thing somewhere out there which explains why Apple did that originally.
I have never owned a Mac (including right now.) However, my next computer purchase will likely be an Apple computer (waiting for the G4s and college financial aid + apple student loan program.) The main reason I am going that route is because I plan on majoring in graphic design and going down that career path. I hope the appearence of Mac OS Xs interface is editable. There are some things I personally dislike about it from the screenshots I've seen on Apple's site. I like just about everything about the current Apple GUI (with the addition of dragthing and kelaidescope, it can look even cooler) except the trash deal.
Mac OS X doesn't run on any 64-bit hardware, so it couldn't be 64-bit.
Let's imagine what would it be like if all operating systems and software produced were released for free. How could you have a job? Most of the work done for Linux is done on people's free time while they work elsewhere. Let's imagine things evolve to the point where some completly free, open sourced OS is so easy to use, even people with IQs below 70 can understand it and it's practically flawless (no bugs). So, that rules out having a job as technical support technician. I don't know how extreme you are about the open source thing, but some people even oppose Caldera and Red Hat, so you can rule out working for one of the distibuters. This (working on open source software for no one) can almost work fine if our socioeconomical system wasn't based on capitalism.
I also think you need to take in consideration Apple is a company and a company needs to make money to stay afloat. By Apple having control over their OS and hardware they can make sure things don't get out of hand and evolution can continue. Out of hand as in groups (software and hardware companies) fighting over a million different standards and not getting anywhere. Also, if you compare business practises from the beginning of each company, you'll notice MS started out being unethical from the very start. Assuming a company is evil (unethical; ruthless) just because they aren't open source (software and hardware) is not quite fair. I'm not saying Apple is not a saint, but I don't think it's right to assume they're more ruthless than MS based on those facts.
I see no reason that they all can't coexist (yes, even MS as much as I hate to say it (on a side note, I hope the DOJ hits them hard.))
All that OSS seems to be promising at the moment as far as GUI designs is catching up with MS and Apple and mixing in a few little extras. What from there? What new innovations will be created? Is there an open source think tank group (serious question) to come up with real innovations/evolutions? Real research costs a lot of money, it's not just a matter of a few people putting some ideas together and having something perfect.
I think Linux is great for what is mainly used for at the moment. I'm also glad it's here (along with the DOJ) to keep MSs awful software from taking over. I hope it will stay around (no reason it wouldn't) or some offspring of it to keep the bigger companies on their toes.
Let's not forget Linux's cousins (both based off of UNIX... POSIX compliant) at this time. BSD and it's brothers and step brothers (BeOS, Mac OS X.) They're all pretty much on the same side of the battle with different religious beliefs. It used to be Everyone vs MS (Apple was their original opponent, and the longest in the battle), now it seems to be becoming Linux (OSS) vs. Everyone. This makes Linux look bad, if the large portion of the Linux community intends to crush everyone else, don't think really shitty tricks will start to go on which is not good for anyone.
... except for the 150,000 installations going into Mexican
schools.
And the 12 computers that Bill Gates gave to a German
school that prompted had Linux installed on them.
The world's classrooms won't be paying a MS tax. US
classrooms might be able to afford it but the other
5 billion people on the planet can't.
There is a reason Mexican schools are adopting Linux.
And there is a reason that the 12 computer Bill Gates
devoted to a German school promptly had Linux
installed on them.
Also there is a reason China has 95% piracy rates.
People WONT pay for something that is becoming a
commodity. They also won't send billions of dollars
to the US.
Silly, Fat 300,000 million Americans sit around watching
MS commercials while the world's other 5 Billion people
adopt the obvious and only realistic economic choice:
free, open source OSes.
QT 1.42, the current standard has a free edition license
Go to www.troll.no
Version 2.0 will have QPL, open-source compliant
GNUstep might be the GUI.
KDE will never be the GUI.
I don't know if KDE will ever really lose, but I am sure that they will never really win. The most KDE people can hope for is endless competition.
er, sorry, wrong rant. let's try again:
you're an idiot. read his post.
You are a criminal and should be put behind bars.
. . . for buying software? i'm sorry, but you're insane. please bear that in mind when next you post.
(oh, yeah: your sig downgrades you from "insane" to "somewhere between cockroach and sea cucumber". if you can't argue with people's IDEAS, i guess ranting about their nickname strikes you as a reasonable alternative -- but it ain't, pal. it just ain't.)
Since when is OS X server WAY cheaper than my copy of Solaris? I paied $10 or so for it.
And if you are using that $10 (I paid more like 15 with shipping) copy of Solaris in a business (non-educational, non-personal) way, then you are using it illegally. The cost of Solaris server is $695 (less than MacOS X Server), and the cost of desktop is $495 (more than MacOS X). This is straight from sunstore.sun.com.
I rather pay some money for something that is less buggy, though buggy, than it's free superbuggy counterpart.
heh. i just flamed that moron, and now it's your turn
the GNU tools that i've used are the most solid, well-built software i've ever seen, bar none. i've yet to use any proprietary software that has been up to their standard. some has approached (wordperfect 4.2 and 5.1 were very good goddamn programs, for example), but none has quite gotten there.
it looks to me like you've never used the programs you're dismissing. i'm NOT talking about windows shareware; that's a different culture entirely, a different ethic, a different world. chalk and cheese. these people are suggesting that you use "free software", in which "free" means "free" as in "free speech", not "free beer" (thanks to richard stallman for the comparison). windows shareware is "free beer" and it's irrelevant. what "free speech" means is that you get the source.
incidentally, a heavy majority of the infrastructure of the internet is built out of "free software" in the sense that we're all talking about. the unreliable parts of the net are the proprietary parts. claiming that free software is "superbuggy" is grossly false, and around here it is KNOWN to be grossly false. your post is a troll, dude. this is probably the kindest response you'll get.
yayus! whoooo! suave, baby! oooh! i love it.
you go, uh, dude!
:)
Linux: The Suave OS
VMS . . . was running mainframes while unix was invading them.
um, UNIX late '60's, VMS late '70's, roughly.
that's no comment on the worth of either, since i've never used VMS, but AFAIK VMS was a relative latecomer. of course, VMS was pushed big by DEC commercially while UNIX was still a guerilla thing (right?), so maybe VMS had a bigger installed base not long after release; honestly, i have no clue about that.
peace.
> 2) You don't know Linux if you can't create your :)
> own PPP scripts for windows.
Really? I have no idea how to do that. Guess
I don't know anything about Linux, then. Oh
well, I'll just switch to BSD.
I learned Linux over a weekend by installing it 3 years ago.
Could you please post an ETA of the GUI for Linux
IIRC, sometime around 1988 (corrections, anyone?). No, that's not a typo, it's ten years ago, back when we still thought that Karl Precoda and Johnny Thunders would be with us forever. Now, we know that the only thing fated to remain viable was X. Bummer. That's X from MIT, not X from L.A. The latter seems to be pretty well moribund.
and a url for the group responsible for it's development?
Oh, jeez, look up the X Consortium on Yahoo or something.
Don't fall for this bullshit about GNOME and/or KDE being "the Linux GUI"; the braindamaged trade rags keep printing that crap, and now everybody in the Linux camp is repeating it. Well, it's crap. KDE and GNOME (both of which are of precisely equal worth and identical moral rectitude!
:)
how appropriate, that something which instigates so many flamewars is called "troll" tech . . .
not that i give a shit about either GNOME or KDE; any time i start thinking that one camp is worse than the other, the other chimes in and convinces me of the opposite. for me right at the moment, the biggest belly-laugh is KDE partisans flaming GNOME partisans for (allegedly) being flamers. heh. in a week, the GNOME'ers will outdo them, i'm sure.
a pox on both your houses. you all suck.
If your school has PostScript printers, or the PCs have GhostScript (maybe with GSView), you can compile your TeX files, and dvips them to make PostScript files to print. Actually, you can do that even if you can't print it, but that isn't as useful, I guess.
Fuck off.
Fuck off.
Fuck off.
Fuck off.
Fuck off.
Fuck off.
Actually, I intend to put it down my Sys Ads throat, get us all netbooting, and then downsize the bastards....
and largely based on free software. Sometimes
the BSD licences really suck.
I don't think there's any meaning in this,
but I got a kick out of it.
You know how if you take IBM, decrement each
letter you get HAL?
Take VMS, increment each letter, you get WNT!
> Can you honestly say you never, ever, in your life have used pirated software?
;)
>If you do, you're a damn liar and should be hanged.
The 'everyone does it' argument just doesnt work, just because everyone does it, doesnt make it acceptable, it's still just as wrong, and just as Illegal
And now with there being so much free software around at such a high quality, it seems completely pointless to pirate software
And free software is NOT by definition superbuggy, in fact, most mature open source projects are far more stable and useful than their expensive proprietry counterparts...plus, you get that nice warm fuzzy feeling for not breaking any laws by using it
NetaTalk is good but I doubt if performance and functionality will surpass macOS X Server. Can you netboot the iMac or any G3? Can you run MacOS appl like Filemaker Pro 4.0, Microsoft 98, Photoshop 5 and the coolest PlayStation Emulator: Connectix Virtual Gamestation (http://www.virtualgamestation.com)?
:-)?
:-)
What's about WebObjects 4.0
Well, you get what you pay for
That's right the expected price is around US $1000.
Are you sure you are not confusing AGP with UMA? Otherwise, your comments make no sense at all.
You could argue there are 20+ users per every Linux system
as is moron, as in 'low grade moron'
hrrmmm . . . interesting post . . . why dont you take your own advice?
BTW (to those interested in the disk to trashcan
trick), Apple's User documentation has never advocated that method (not since System 6, at least -- I'm not sure about before that). The correct, documented, method was to use 'put away'.
WTF are you talking about?
Do -you- know what AGP, PCI, and UMA are?
NT is so similar to VMS that it could be brothers to it. And yes it is a mach-like kernel as well but not quite. It is really more VMS than anything else although you can see traces of everything from DOS to OS/400 in it's design.
EJ-MCSE
As OSes gain market share they gain features. Added features mean added complexity. Added complexity means added project overhead. Having thousands of developers writing for a project of great magnitude with their own vision, style, etc. is not easy. It is bound to cause a platue sooner or later in terms of turn-around-time and also could result in quality degredation. This is true of any software project but as Linux gets bigger, it's current strength could become its future weakness.
You can also get DOS for bargain prices...even bundled with WordPerfect 5.1!
Yep, that's exactly what I meant.
Thx for pointing that out.
I have no Idea why it has not been completed along time ago. if all of that effort that whent into GNOME/KDE (plus all of that wasted time programing Xlib and other stupid things that could have been done with GNUStep) has went into GNUStep We would have all been alot happier and SIGNIFICANLY more productive.
PS: I dont hate KDE or GNOME I think GNUStep was the better path.
Husain
h_al_mohssen@yahoo.com
I need X.
I need focus-follows-mouse.
I need something that runs on better-price-performance (Read: Intel) hardware.
I need something that lets me upgrade my software to fix bugs for free (Upgrade to OS8! It's more stable? Why should I have to pay for stability?)
I don't like mach. It's slow. Forces too much stuff into the server world (you know, server==parts of the kernel not in the kernel, like filesystems and networking and stuff)
Is that a good enough start?
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
Yes, developers are going to code on MacOSX Server for Yellow box. What the hell else are they going to program on? That's like saying Win32 programmers are going to program on Windows or NT.
Most people who want a vegetable-proof OS don't care if it's from Redmond or not.
Universities (well, decent universities, and even most of the bad ones I've seen) don't use Macs for anything except clusters. The file servers for the Macs are suns. You can't trust MacOS for anything anywhere near mission critical. And i would fire anyone who says otherwise.
Apple has been yelling lots of things for a long time. Like that Rhapsody would be released for Intel. Like that Rhapsody would not be released for Intel. Like that OS X Server would be rhapsody. Like that OS X Server is going to be renamed OS 10 Server.Oh, and viscious lies like ``The Apple Macintosh is the only computer to have built-in support for the Year 2000'' ... VMS boxes have had this for a long time, and Unix boxes are pretty free from bugs, too.
So, maybe in all the changes of things, maybe I didn't hear.
NetBooting is an Apple invention? Ha!
Here's an answer to you: Apple invested very little money and effort into MkLinux compared to (NextStep|Rhapsody|OSX|OS10). They hope, however, to get into the Unix market. Real unix people won't want OSX. It has the apple GUI and won't behave like their friendly UNIX box with their window-manager-of-choice. So they hope to get pointy-haired-people to get their Unix guys Macs, and hope that they will choose to install MkLinux/LinuxPPC instead of sticking to their aging Sparc10s.
Just a guess.
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
- They (currently) have no preemptive multitasking or memory protection.
- They have not proven themselves to be able to handle mission critical tasks
- Their hardware is no where near the quality of hardware I would consider for near-mission-critical tasks (I'd take a Sun Enterprise x000 with entirely-hot-swappable parts and a dual-channel RAID solution for something near-mission-critical). The iMacand the G3 Powermac do NOT qualify as mission-critical-quality hardware.
- Have you ever used NEXTSTEP? I would not consider that a mission-critical system -- it is not designed to be one. It's more stable than MacOS, but that's not saying much.
I may be wrong, Apple may make OS (x|10) server a nice server platform -- but it's going to take a lot of proving before I would consider anything from Apple for a near-mission-critical situation. The same way it took most people a long time to consider Solaris stable -- not because it wasn't very stable, just because it was not SunOS4.X.Oh, and I don't consider NT stable enough to do my homework on. Much less stable enough to do anything near mission-critical work.
What sort of backwards-compatable SERVER software for MAC do you have? You say at the top of your post that OS X SERVER is for use as a SERVER. You don't run Photoshop on a SERVER. You run nfs, ftp, dns, httpd, samba, and maybe a mac network fileserver. Tell me, what out of that list you can't compile for whatever platform you want?Linux is really easy to learn for anyone with Unix adminstration knowledge. Those are the people (well, maybe VMS guys) that should be running your servers. Or you're dumber than I thought.
YOU need to understand that OS X server will NOT replace solaris as a server platform any time soon. Anyone in IT with any sort of a clue would not trust apple for anything now, and they are correct to wait for quite a while before switching to OS X. Although, I still don't think that it offers anything special -- no X, slower architecture (Linux runs on G3's, as well as UltraSparcs and Alphas -- both of which are much faster than your silly macs), less easy to use (you have to walk to the server to administrate it? Who wants that?) Many of the features of BSD (although not of solaris or linux), a fully upgradable BSD core when you buy OS (XI|11), a kernel that is propriatery and that won't get fixed in minutes if a security problem is found, and I'll bet that your ``AMAZING'' technology is not nearly so amazing as you say. I've yet to see anything really cool come out of Apple.So why don't YOU stop mis-informing people with your blatant lack of knowledge about how to run computers that need to stay up, and trolling about a product (linux, solaris, OS (10|X)) that you know nothing about. I expected more from a ``news for nerds'' web page. I can say that not only can I speak and write fluently in English, but I have also been here for many years. And I, too, have slashdot go downhill, where once people knew what they were talking about and could discuss the threadedness of linux 2.0x, 2.1x, and Solaris and how well they scaled. Where once people had intelligent discussions on processor architecture. Where once people realized that Macs shouldn't be used for anything mission critical (I'd use it in an elementary school, maybe) and didn't have to sit and respond to stupid Mac-User-Anonymous-Coward posts.
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
Since when is OS X server WAY cheaper than my copy of Solaris? I paied $10 or so for it. I'd gamble it probably does less and crashes more. And if your company can afford a new mac and OS X server and downtime, why don't they hire a decent system administrator and get an Ultra 10 instead?
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
Have you ever used a macintosh? You can't do things remotely on it. You can't telnet to it. It's not running X. You HAVE to go up to it to administrate it.
Have you ever used a NEXTSTEP machine? You pretty much must HAVE to go up to it to adminstrate it because normal administrative things (passwd, etc) don't work on the crappy broken backwards NEXTSTEP way of doing things... they have an entire different library for doing user things that you have to use different commands on. And the network stuff doesn't work well either.
As for your entire article, why don't you answer some of my valid points (IE Macintosh computers are not useful for mission-critical systems, only little we-don't-care-if-it-goes-down servers and workstations).
Oh, now I see, you can't think of responses. I'm right. So you say ``flaming the [poor] mac users and macs is [really mean!]'' and think that's a retort. And then say that being a sysadmin for workstations and servers that MUST NOT GO DOWN is not a ``real job.'' Maybe you think it is a ficticious job (as people who think Macs are good server platforms usually don't qualify for them) but it is certainly not an EASY job. Like being on call 24/7 to go out and swap out processor boards (yes, processor boards SHOULD be warm swappable -- they are on Enterprise Servers). Like putting up a clone system so that if a machine ever has to be taken down for upgrades or parts replacement, you can do so with fractional-second downtime. Like making sure that the generators kick in within 5 minutes if the power ever goes off. No, not an easy job. But I consider it a good job. Much more than going around rebooting Macintoshes for some lame magazine company.
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
Tip: Learn LaTeX. Not much harder than HTML to get the same results, but far more powerful when you want to do more complex things. You also don't have to use a big, bloated graphical app just to get it printed (though some would say that TeX distributions are bloated).
BSD developed concurrently with Linux? You need to read up on you Unix history. BSD has been around since the late 70's. FreeBSD is younger than Linux, it started in 1993, but it is based on 4.4BSD-lite, which traces it's ancestry back to the BSD of the seventies, which in turn is a descendant of the original UNIX. So MacOS X Server is definitely based on things that, in one form or another, has been around longer than Linux. That doesn't mean it will necessarily be better at anything, though.
I need a three-button mouse.
:P Intel is overpriced.
For what? If you really do need one, you can purchase one.
I need X.
Uhh, why? Unless you have a need for the networking capability of X (running graphical apps remotely), it has no advantages (and quite a few disadvantages, such as crappy font support).
I need focus-follows-mouse.
Even Windows95/98 has this as an option (see the PowerToys included on the Win98 CD or on www.microsoft.com), so it shouldn't be too hard to add as an option in MacOS.
I need something that runs on better-price-performance (Read: Intel) hardware.
You mean AMD
I need something that lets me upgrade my software to fix bugs for free (Upgrade to OS8! It's more stable? Why should I have to pay for stability?)
you can get bugfixes for free from apple. This is not a bugfix, it's a new OS with many new features, and largely rewritten.
I don't like mach. It's slow. Forces too much stuff into the server world (you know, server==parts of the kernel not in the kernel, like filesystems and networking and stuff)
I suppose that's a matter of preference. The GNU project seems to like mach.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
MacOS has quite a bit over 20 million users, not 15 million. Probably closer to 25-35 million, possibly more. Also note how you can buy lots of MacOS software at a local software store, but you cannot buy much in the way of Linux software.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I need a 3 button mouse so I can cut and paste, silly. And also because button 2 is open-link-in-new-window in netscape.
:P
Hmm, i suppose it could make life easier. I have a 3-button mouse, but I never use the middle button. I'm too used to using the keyboard for cut/paste I suppose.
I need X. I use remote displaying on probably 4 to 10 machines a day. It really beats the crap out of going back to my room to run matlab or to a Sparc or HP to do data analysis or intensive processing. I even run my window manager remotely on some of the machines.
Ok, I'll give you that much. That's pretty much the only justification I've seen for using X. There really isn't any other windowing system I know of that provides that type of networking functionality, but as a single-computer desktop windowing system, there are many better choices than X.
I have yet to see a Mac with focus-follows mouse or come with a more-than-one-button-mouse.
Hmm, I can't seem to find a focus-follows mouse for MacOS either in my brief search. Odd, considering that Windows 95 has it. If Win95 can do it with a tiny utility, i don't see why MacOS can't, but then again I don't know the internals of either OS too well.
Can I really get a bugfix release from 7.X to 8.X? Apple claims that 8.X is more stable -- that means it fixes bugs in 7.X. So how is it going to be any different if they change the BSD4.4 core in OS X to a BSDX core (x > 4.4)? Or what if they change to svr4? The GNU project seems to like mach.
You can get fixes for bugs in the form of patches from Apple for free. You can't get a major version number upgrade for free. Sure, it is more stable, but that's more due to much of the core OS being completely rewritten than to any specific bugs in the previous version.
Yes, HURD is built on Mach. I still don't like it. Too slow, and I'm not sure that there are really any benefits.
Yeah, it seems a bit disappointing at the moment. However, as machines progress in speed, the speed disadvantage of Mach vs. a monolithic kernel will become less and less significant, and the advantages of the microkernel technology will be able to be more fully utilized. Mach should do fairly well on a 2 Ghz CPU
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Posted by The Treuf:
...
... ... ... i don't see any difference with parrallel port, and on that way the Mac beats the PC ... We just need more peripherials, but many are anounced (for example hard drives ... just hotplug it, the firewire cable supply power and transmit data, and on a mac the disk self mount on the desktop) ... When you say many PC have SCSI that's false, we are talking about STANDART machines as they are when you buy them ... if you want add a gygabit ethernet card in the mac and say it's faster than a PC for networking ... (aniway the PC can't handle gygabit yet, busses are too slow compared to 66 Mhz PCI , they got 33 Mhz PCI) ... NuBus is no more on Mac. ... Who cares ... just plug your keybord and mouse and thatz all ... err, ADB is better as u can daysi chain mouse keybors dongles and joypad ... ... ... and here i mean normal PCI not 66 Mhz or 64 bit PCI like in macs.
...
About the comparission
First forget NuBus, it's no more used
Err , then lets see about parallel port vs firewire
You can use parrallel port for everything you want ! Just plug in your printer, digital camera, hard drive, and so on
Then SCSI versus IDE
Nubus versus ISA ? forget this, only PCs have old technologies like ISA
ISA on PC is used because they have nothing integrated (audio card, ethernet and so on)
ADB VS Ps2
Then i'll add some other stuffs
The mac has a 33Mhz 64 bit PCI bus for the video card (ATI 128) , and this card is as fast as the AGP version on PC (AGP 4x)
AGP was created by intel because of the price of the memory, it allows the card to use the main memory and so need lots more bandwidth, but many tests (i don't rememberr the pages) showed not much advantages of AGP over PCI
I think that's all folk
The Treuf
(no mail cuz i don't want flames)
Posted by jonrx:
How long has it been? 2 years?
tsk tsk...
J.
Posted by mnowak65:
To say that a GUI provides no increase in productivity is flat out wrong. Using human factors measures, you can demonstrate that for many operations, a GUI is faster: copying files, editing text, deleting a directory, etc. Now for some tasks, a command line is quicker: deleting all files that match a certain name for example.
If you want more details, I can show you. It just depends on the task and the UI. But to say that the GUI is only aesthetic is just wrong.
Hear here! I know someone who was using their internet setup for 2 weeks before he realized the thing that was making his computer slugish all the time was he was acting as his own DNS server.
:)
:)
He then maintained that he kept it this way because he like the responsive DNS lookups, but I think he just couldn't figure out how to stop it.
Ahh, Linux, everything's a little brain teaser..
Shut up... just.. shut.. up.....
OR "...and this is bad because?"
I agree that Linux isn't ready for Joe User's home desktop. It's also undeniably manifest that Linux meets a lot of needs out there; the advantages Open Source gives it means it will continue to do so. And as a rabid Linux partisan, I'm glad that MacOS is meeting needs Linux doesn't and I wish it all the best, because from where I'm sitting every sale of a non-Microsoft operating system is a vote for diversity, which is a vote for portability, thus a vote for standards-based computing.
And perhaps that's ultimately a vote for Unix, and thus for Linux's world domination. We don't have to take the desktop today, or tomorrow. We don't need to win the game; we need only make sure it's still possible for people other than Microsoft to play.
I wouldn't go waiting for MacOS X to eat Linux's lunch any time soon, though. People who need a proven stable standard Unix platform won't be looking to MacOS for a while.
--
Xenu loves you!
MacOS has, what, fifteen million users worldwide? Linux passed that a while ago.
--
Xenu loves you!
machines as they are when you buy them
IDE is STANDARD on the iMac and on the new G3s. SCSI is not.
Cost of OS X: hundreds of dollars
The other thing to consider is that as a result of
Jobs' "vision," OS X is only going to be available
for non-commodity, somewhat-expensive, Macintosh
hardware.
That fact alone will severly limit its market share.
When people see my KDE desktop, they often think it's a Mac, or Windows. Linux with KDE is not as frightening to the newbie as you might think: Point and click, drag and drop, and all that good stuff, y'know? Sure, it's got a ways to go before it has the kind of drag-into-any-app compatibility that is often the case in MacOS. However, most newbies I observe, tend to use the start a program and work with it approach anyhow, which KDE makes *very* easy.
Open Source does *not* have to mean you don't make money. RedHat is growing, and they are selling Free Software. And people are buying it. Lots of it. Won't be long (probably a couple of years) before there are more Linux users than Mac users.
Hotline FOREVER!!!
It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
Mach4 has fixed most of the performance problems with Mach 2, 2.5, and 3. The new derivative of Mach, L4, is actually faster than macrokernels in many operations, and is just as fast in most other operations.
Having used NeXTstep on a 68040, the performance of the kernel really isn't going to be that important. If a rich GUI and apps can all run on a 68040, without lag, and realatively crisp response, performance on a G3 350 will not be a problem.
Kick-ass server performance probably won't scale as high as well as Linux, performance will still be good enough (and a lot better than NT).
Why are you throwing away all that money on "buggy, bloated apps"? Are you a moron?
/mill
You are a criminal and should be put behind bars.
Yeah, a Blue Screen of Death kernel...
--always remember to pillage BEFORE you burn...
Yeah... but it does kind of "taste" like VMS. To this day, I do not understand why MS didn't go with a UNIX kernel.
Of course, it seems to me that most of NT's problems are tied up in Win32 -- NOT the kernel (as is often erroneously assumed). The only problem with the NT kernel is that it simply does not tolerate ony hardware faults.
Imagine what linux would be like if X were grossly unstable (depending on the video card, it can be) and it were the only environment that users were allowed to see.
-- Slashdot sucks.
The point is, you shouldn't even have had to do that. Three months? A computer that takes three months to learn is unnecessarily hard to learn and use. Computers are meant to be tools, something you can pick up in a matter of days, if not hours. "Open computing for everyone," you know?
The Mach "microkernel" is SLOW. Get that through your head.
Yes, I have no doubt that the unoptimized, pre-prerelease of Mach that you used, if you've even ever used any Mach-based operating systems at all, is slow. Why not actually try using this one and see what its speed is now? If what I've heard is true Apple's done so much to the Mach code that you can hardly even call it Mach anymore.
Sure every OS has it's purpose and OS X will be easier to configure than Linux but it won't be faster, different needs, different OS's.
Please, try using an OS before you bash it, at least.
I think he meant the software I/O, as in that of the Mac OS. Here, unfortunately, he's right. But he doesn't have any right to compare benchmarks on a prelease of OSX and a shipping Linux kernel, especially when he's never even used OSX at all. We'll have to wait and see how OSX is.
AGP, berret than PCI? Don't make me laugh. Cheaper, yes. But so slow you've got to go to outrageous bus speeds like 266 MHz just to match the speed of a 66-MHz PCI card. Look at the benchmarks if you don't believe me.
Why is this the case? Simply put, AGP's a kludge. A big one. Go take a look at how it works, perhaps its use of main memory for video, for starters. Quite simply put, it's Cap'n Cheapo's Discount Video Bus, and you really do get what you pay for. I myself am rather sickened that Macs would adopt something so awful (it's due on Sawtooth, the next-generation desktop machine), but such is Apple.
--Michael Esveldt
Of course, but that's not the issue we're talking about here. What we're talking about is "computers for everyone". Everyone isn't a system administrator.
Computers need to be easy to use for the majority of the population. Right now, that isn't Linux. If you look what the most informed developers are saying you'll see that Linux is NOT the desktop environment that MacOS and (I hate to say it) Windows is. Hell, don't even bother listening to other people. Show a brand new mac to someone who isn't planning on being a geek and show them a PC (or Mac) running Linux and you'll see what I mean.
As far as desktop readiness for everyone. It ain't linux.
--Michael Esveldt
It is high, high enough that I've scrapped plans on buying it and ordered a copy of LinuxPPC instead. The price is less per seat if you're running a large network since it allows an unlimited number of MacOS boxes to boot up from it. I don't know if any legacy machines can be made to net boot or if only Imacs and Blue&White G3's can do it. Either way that isn't the case for me so I can't justify buying it. I only hope that the CD I get from LinuxPPC is worth more than the coaster they sent me last time.
This one really gets to me. Why not just hit command+y (unmount) to eject the disk?
Well, I gotta believe that since Apple bought NeXT, they haven't done a single thing to improve the old operating system. Nope, it must be exactly the same, except for the interface, therefore I assume it must be slower. And since it's from Apple, it must suck (obviously).
Of course, Macs have 3rd rate I/O, remember, none of that is built into the OS, (remember, they aren't updating that at all), so therefore they're going to be slow as molasses. God, I'm glad I'm not getting OS 10, it's exactly the same as NeXT.
Anyone who actually believes that is really stupid, and the only reason I say that, is because I noticed a post, where someone is moron enough to make that assumption. NeXT != OS 10 !!!!!!!
HELLLOOOO!!! They're not the same products!!!! Unbelievable as it may seem, it is possible to rewrite programs!!! Geez, what a fucking dumbass.
Sure, this is supposed to replace Copland which was due out in 1996, BUT, that was the replacement for Pink. Anyone remember that? It was supposed to be the MacOS replacement back in 1992-3! It and Taligent was a IBM/Aple project meant to break the M$ monopoly back then. Short memories!
The Gnome Project is at http://www.gnome.org/. It relies only on LGPL and GPL code, and not on proprietary libraries like QT.
Arrival? 1.0 should ship with RedHat 6, which will probably be out midyear. Can't say for certain, though, since I run Debian and don't keep up much on RedHat development.
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
[ home ]
You admit yourself: Qt is currently proprietary. No version of Qt has ever been released under a Free license.
Like I said to one of my fellow developers last night, I will embrace my KDE/Qt colleagues as brothers once Qt becomes Free. Until then, no dice.
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
[ home ]
Dude - BeOS isn't built on Unix. It was written from the ground up.
- Darchmare
- Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
- Jeff
hey, ya'll, it's mach, it's 4.4BSD, it gots apache, and it runs on G3... what more do you need?
so have the plans for x86 ports been scrapped or what? prolly not jobs' style, but personally if it ran on x86 i'd jump on it.
it's NeXT-lite (tm) ! with macOS windowdressing, of course... needs a dock. 8)
Linux is not command line driven turd. Linux is just the kernel. The command line is a unix utility called bash, csh, tcsh, ash, etc. If someone wanted to they could write a program that made the kernel drive a total gui environment. Actually it's already possible. Instead of dropping to bash you can have linux go directly to X windows. Circumventing the cli altogether. It just happens that most linux users like the command line as a power tool, so no one has bothered making a totally encumbering GUI. In other words, Linux is what you make it. Nothing is set in stone, and it WILL live forever (or at least a reasonably long amount of time. Think SCO!) :)
Quandary in the Making
So how do you do that? I've been trying to get Netscape to convert HTML->PostScript... I'm sure it's possible.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
I know $1000 may not be much to all you big iron folks with real servers, but it's way too high for the perenial consumer and educational machine. You're going to find precious few dorm room servers running this puppy. Legally, at least. And Apple is hardly the company that comes to mind when Real Servers are needed. They've got an uphill battle here.
Hell, maybe Apple priced it so high just to be able to avoid supporting thousands of lusers trying to run it on small networks...
Think different... If you can afford to.
Perhaps an appropriate poll would be something like this:
Which has undergone more name changes?
John Cougar Mellencamp []
Rhapsody []
As usual, there'd probably be some bitching about lack of choices, but we're used to that around here from all the whiners.
--- --- --- Don't just do something! Sit there!
The point I was trying to make in my original post was that it's kind of pointless to "codename" an OS or other project in development. If it's going to be Mac OS 10, then call it that from the get-go. Just like codenaming Chicago or Memphis. If you're writing something, and you know what it will ultimately be, then call it what it is: WhateverOS v. #X, alpha version, beta version, pre-final version, or what ever is appropriate. To borrow from the wisdom of Eddie Murphy, "His momma call him Cassius Clay, I'll call him Cassius Clay." Obviously noone caught the intended humor, so it must not have been funny to anyone but me.
--- --- --- Don't just do something! Sit there!
close, but not quite. NT pulls some of its basic design from VMS, which was running mainframes while unix was invading them.
i make no statement about which was better.. long and vicious flamewars were crackling on that subject years before i got near either one.. i will mention, however, that VMS was much larger, and stuffed almost to bursting with features.
Let's imagine NT costs what, 500 bucks per client license? This is chump change to a corporation when you consider how much it costs to pay the HR rep for orientations of each batch of new hires, the cost of filing all their paperwork, ordering their equipment, and sending them to training. That last item is a whopper.
You gotta do all that for every single employee who walks in that door. You get to keep the license when that employee walks out the door.
Yeah it's exhorbitant for SOHO folks and startups. But established companies take reusable licenses as petty change.
Now the cost of downtime and data loss of the Exchange server is another thing, but an altogether different and unheard story. Not connected to the license fees anyhow.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
To say that a GUI makes you more productive is flat out wrong! To be honest, the only things that I see GUIs for is either image processing or setting something up to print[0]. In fact, the net effect of a GUI will probably end up just being that you work slower, develop carpal tunnel syndrome, and have high eye strain.
:)
But lets not say that GUIs aren't needed (just not in the way that you suggest). If a person has no intention of learning how to run an OS but is still required to do so, an intuitive interface[1] is required. We need this to pull over the people traditionally in the Windows camp in both the Desktop and Server area. MacOS X will do this idea beautifully.... a child could probably set up a network[2].
But to say that only one interface is correct is a Bad Thing[3]. The fact that we have KDE and GNOME only gives us more choices to do things, experiment with what sucks and throw it out in a way that doesn't make the entire Linux community look stupid, unlike other companies[4].
One thing that particularly worries me is that KDE or GNOME could just become another Windows or MacOS. What I mean here is that users never actually know that they are running Linux[5]. Once they are trapped in the Window System I wonder if there is any way to get out. I think a fair comparison would be to compare the programming equivalent: "Once a programmer learns BASIC, they are scarred beyond any means of recovery. He will never become a good programmer."[6]. Something to watch out for, and steer clear of ahead of time.
=============================================
[0] I used to just type it up in vi with html flags and print it through Mozilla[0.1]. Now I can just type it through vi and put it through Wordperfect without having to play with flags... much easier.... is this a bad thing?
[0.1] Its what the programmers call it, why shouldn't I? And who actually likes the damn boat wheely thing compared to the lizard?
[1] Windows does this fairly well... point and click and no-fdisk. I've never had the problem of accidentally nuking my computer in Windows though it probably is possible[1.1].
[1.1] It just doesn't tell you that thats what its been doing since you installed
[2] Whether or not it fits the magic word ('productive') is speculation. SIGNIFICANTLY more productive (your words): no, I don't think so.
[3] Windows everywhere. Does this only bother me?
[4] Anyone remember Microsoft Bob?
[5] I've already heard the complaints roll in. "In Linux I go to the control panel, but my printer isn't listed. So Linux doesn't support my printer?"
[6] I forget who quoted this... its probably not exactly right either...
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
>1. NeXTStep interface was by far the most atractive GUI (prof? just take a look at Windows, BeOS, or KDE they look alot like NeXTStep).
/etc are very confusing -and STUPID in my HO- and u r only using vi.
/etc is set up is very good. To me, it is nice and logical[7]. I can honestly say, that having some config files in /etc is much better than playing with a registry and is alot less confusing.
:0&nxterm -display :0 -bg blue4 -fg white... or something of that order
I don't think NeXTStep is the most attractive[0] but I will say that it is very functional[1]. Its alot easier getting work done in that environ than other products[2].
> 2. The significant improvement in productivity I ment was not for the normal nonteck users
On this I have to completely disagree with you. I think that the greatest improvement would be with nontechnical users. I could take anyone off the street and put him on a NeXTStep interface and he would be able to get some work done[3]. I can't do the same to him putting him directly into bash[4].
>the significant improvement is for the programars and the power users
Again I disagree. From my experience, programming in a GUI-format with and IDE[5] will only hurt the program. Sure, it might be nice to have it up if you are trying to make something that will run in X, so that you don't have to switch between emacs or vi in text mode. But once the IDE comes up, the program loses all form of redemption that it might have had. Instead of C it becomes Visual Basic or instead of C++ it becomes Java[6]. This is not a good way to program.
> For heven's sake all of those files in
Umm... I think that the way
Just so you don't misunderstand me, I think NeXTStep is a terrific GUI[8]. But I find that any window manager is more distracting that helpful, so I always start up X bare and load programs that I need[9]. If I need to do alot of work in a GUI[10] I will usually just load up AfterStep or KDE. I'd do GNUStep, but isn't that still alpha?
===============================================
[0] For being just attractive, I'd say Enlightenment, but I'd like to see anyone get work done in that type of environment.
[1] In fact, I put up a pseudo-NeXTStep environment when I had to do some computer modelling on 02's.
[2] I have not yet been able to do anything real in Windows NT[2.1].
[2.1] Its the damn minesweeper and pinball games. If they didn't have those, I'd actually get something done. Not to say that playing snake race in KDE is much different. I could probably go for 10 hrs on that!
[3] Not to say that NeXTStep is simple or dumbed down, its just more intuitive. Semi-point an click.
[4] Bourne Again SHell. Mac users would have me crucified if I forced someone to use that! I love it though!
[5] Integrated Development Environment. If you've seen the Microsoft Developer's Environ thingy, you'll understand how vile it is. Visual J++, mixed with Visual C++, Foxpro, ect.... noone actually does anything in it, they just play with menu's.
[6] I don't mean to directly put down Java, but on the order of doing anything productive, C++ beats it hands down. But Java is still a good thing, perhaps in 5 years might approach C++[6.1].
[6.1] If perhaps they take out the sleep(20) instruction that creeped in there that runs after every instruction! (blatant sarcasm)
[7] Its non-intuitive, but it works very, very well. If I had to redesign it, I would do the exact same thing.
[8] I know that its not technically all of the GUI, in fact it only holds the UI while X handles part of the G and so forth.... It just sounds awkward calling it the User Interface to an arbitrary X server.
[9] X
[10] Like web surfing.... or entering forms[10.1] in web pages.
[10.1] Lynx is sort of ugly in this fashion... doesn't handle CRLF's very well.
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think so. So much for the best UNIX variant, eh?
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think so. So much for the biggest UNIX variant, eh (obviously not the best)?
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
>I am not talking about and IDE eather, I am talking about haveing a properly designed OO framework Something clean and simple (and actually very inovative and elegant). If u feel like programing it from vi or emacs (the damn beast) more power 2 u (and infact it may sometimes be a good idea especially if u aren't programing somthing that uses the GUI). But having that standard framework does help make things simpler and faster.
.h files. Wouldn't any graphical form just mimic this in a way that overall slows you down[0]?
/etc would make things alot nicer (for exampple add /etc/opt for programs /etc/sys for sutff related to kernel /etc/sbin for important binaries. It makes the system easier to understand.
I don't completely follow you here. Why don't you put the classes and structs in
>God forbid we ever move to something so moronic as a registry like Win. Having said that, a cleaning up of
ahh... I understand now. Its a good idea to work to, but if we did it right off, then we'd cause numerous inconsistencies with UNIX variants and other Linux variants.
===============================================
[0] The image that comes to my mind is sort of a pseudo-IDE with a seperate window that has boxes with the titles of your classes. Click to open and see what they contain or whatnot. But it seems to me that this is approaching Visual Basic's ideas. Perhaps I am just not visualizing it correctly.
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
Why pay for a half-rate BSD with eye candy for the moron hippie admins when you can have a real BSD or better yet Linux for free. This thing is going to be a dinosaur! It'll need to be backwards compatible with older Mac OS programs. But hey, I bet its better than NT. :) [end flame bait]
Ex Machina "From the Machine"
xm@GeekMafia.dynip.com [http://GeekMafia.dynip.com/]
Ummm.... It's always been OS "ten" or "10" or "X" as in ten!!! :) Just some very confused people that can't figure that X is ten screwing it all up.
BTW: Whooo hoo!!!
After taking a look at the way the /etc and subdirs (read: rc.d -- ecch....) are set up on Redhat, I can certainly see why some people might be thrown off by it -- what a mess. As far as Redhat's distro being 'newbie-friendly', I think thats a big oops on their part.
/etc is concerned, so no, this is not bait for a distro argument so dont blame me if one erupts ;oP)
I started out on Slackware and am still happily running it today -- to me it seems like a cleaner way to do things (as far as
You forgot about TCO. A Unix administrator usually cost more than a NT admin.
Je ne parle pas francais.
Well, at least you satisfied the easily predictable trend of whining about flames that haven't arrived yet! Good Job. Keep up the good work and keep looking hard for that flame war you are dying to get into with someone.
"It's Brazilian"
to me it sounds like you are just coming to the realization that you spent 5000 dollars (and will soon spend 1000 more just to have your blessed operating system) all in vain.
it is ok, take your steam out on us.
we understand.
V
Or is that misstyped?
Anyway, yeah, I meant freeBSD. If we are gonna compare family trees, we gotta get minix and all the GNU tools into it as well, and run it all back to the early 70's.
I think it's fair to say that the free variants (or open if you like, I'm not religious on the semantics) developed more or less concurrently. Sorta. Not exactly or anything.
My main point was to question the first posters statement that OS X was based on stuff a lot older than anything linux or NT has in it.
The really wonderfull thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.
You know, sometimes Linux just does not cut it. It really gripes me when you Linux gurus just say "Linux is the only Operating System in the world, and everything else is just a toy or plain crap"
If you ask me, people like that are just as bad, if not worse than Microsoft.
Take off your blinkers Linux People! I have invested about 5 grand in a top-of-the-range PowerMac G3 with the intent of running OS X Server, and the one way to really piss me off and make me publically dispise "Insert You favourite OS here" Is to say that what I just bought is crap and I should have bought something else.
Every OS has a purpose. And I dont want to have to pay some 19 year old Linux geek to run my systems just because "Linux is better". Sometimes I think that the people coding Linux keep it hard to use so that all those "geeks" out there have a job!.
Just remember, every time you flame another OS, you piss someone off.
MacOS X Server (aka Rhapsody) is not targetted at the consumer -- it's an
enterprise server (the only real market NeXT had left). It has AppleShare,
Web, File, Mail servers, as well as WebObjects (a very powerful Web
data interface). For $1000, Rhapsody's WebObjects is limited to 50 concurrent
users, whereas the full license runs $4000 (which it has for years).
You can make a Linux box for much less and I would recommend that you do so,
because this is alot of money for services you probably won't use. That said,
this will be the last version for most of the old NeXT customers before the
final migration to MacOS X itself.
Apple is organizing their hardware and operating systems in tiers, just like
most other vendors. Don't get upset by the price if it's not targetted at you.
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Please point me to the list of schools that are buying this, or use it.
Well, I can't speak for certain, but it looks very likely that we'll being using it in some form down here at San Diego State University. (Well, as soon as we finally get some G3's in here..)
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
Remember that the Trash-can trick is just that... a trick! The "real" interface to ejecting volumes is by selecting the object and choosing "Eject Disk" from the Special Menu. Dragging a disk icon to the trash is a shortcut (not to be confused with Windows' shortcuts) for the action of removing something from the desktop.
When I'm training new users on how to use the Mac interface, I don't even tell them about dragging to the trash until the second week. Don't tell them shortcuts until they know what they're doing already. If they're not comfortable with dragging to the trash, tell them to use the menu. (Or keyboard if they're like that... or "Put Away" if they like that... or "Cmd-Shift-1", or "Cmd-Y"... don't you love the Mac's options?)
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
I've been promising it for years. This will really blow your socks off folks, it is the brand new wheel!! It's based on BSD 4.4 wheels! Basically it is a poor implimantation of BSD, with a Mediocre GUI Mac Hubcap. It won't really work like the old wheel because it wont fit any of the old axels. It will cost several thousands of dollars to own and operate. It won't really do anything new, since its basically the same old wheel. Now, here is the really good part. It is made by the people who know what proprietary is all about. In order to use this wheel, you will have to buy our Mediocre carriages. These carriages are expensive, and somewhat slower than the lower cost, more flexible models. These carriages use the great G3 system, but we have limited its performance by adding all this shit on to it, and limitting its performance. You should really buy our Wheels and carriages, why, well THINK DIFFERENT , don't ask intelegent questions like why!
-Master Switch, one more element in the machine
I am on the GNU/Linux side. You want to know why, one reason and one reason only. OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE. If you think MS is ruthless and brutal, stop and look at how Apple behaves. Apple is the most proprietary Computer/Software company in the world. If they were in a position to control the market, we would be in even deeper shit than we are in now. I don't care what their desktop looks like, or what their kernel is based on. They are playing the same game that MS is playing, their just smaller and weaker, so they don't pack as much punch.
Also, OSS delivers what it promises, and nothing less. OSS doesn't promise more than it can deliver. If you think OS X is going to deliver as promised, just have a look at all of Apples other projects. Like any large company, they never deliver what they promise. Don't buy the into the marketing.
-Master Switch, one more element in the machine
Hmmm, and would that machine be on the internet by chance? How about an IP address. You know, I feel like stealing another Unix box this evening. >:-) I amazes me that almost everyone overlooks the obvious flaws of most unix systems when operating in the hands of an inexperienced sysAdmin. Security!!! Any Unix system is a nontrivial, complex system of parts that most don't realize even exist. Open source means bugs and security holes are fixed quickly, however unless the system is updated it remains vulnerable. Open source also means if there is a bug in the code, it is easy to understand and discover, as opposed to closed software which is much more difficult to analyze. All of this added to the fact that most servers are used over TCP nowadays and script kiddies are running rampant makes me cringe.
The truth will set you free.
I have just one thing to say.
AGP sucks!
Oh, and any other proprietary expansion slot sucks too.
The truth will set you free.
"PowerMacs have 3rd rate I/O compared to PC's"
What are you jealous? Lets see,
FireWire vs. Parallel port
SCSI vs. IDE
NuBus vs. ISA
ADB vs. PS/2
PCI (64bit) vs. PCI (32bit)
USB vs. USB
See a trend there?
Macs have had better I/O since they decided to go with SCSI... which was, oh, 1985.
Course, the processor is twice as fast, the I/O architecture (local bus to you) is twice as fast, etc. etc.
Not surprising that you're an Anonymous Coward.
"To say that a GUI makes you more productive is flat out wrong!"
This is a demonstrateable falsehood.
Users can generally accomplish the same task much faster using a GUI based operating system than in a text based operating system. And, furthermore, the MacOS is the most efficient/productive of the bunch. Apple did serious significant research in developing the MacOS and it has paid off.
This is not an opinion, but is demonstrable fact. If you are interested in Human Computer Interaction, you should join the ACM-CHI. Or, read one of a dozen books on the subject such as "Tog on Interface".
Billions of dollars have been wasted in the US alone since 1990 paying employees to spend that extra 5 seconds to find thet menu on the window, rather than where the menu belongs- at the top of the screen. Further billions have been wasted, in people using the second (or heaven's forbid!) third mouse button when they meant to use the first. It slows people down.
Check out any substantial work on this subject and you will find this is true.
Did my last reply get posted?
That _is_ the reason why it's not called OS9, but who cares? OS10 sounds better anyways, although OSX (as in X Files) would be cooler still
Sorry charlie, not all of us consider the MacOS/
NeXTStep interface as the pinnacle of function, design and user friendliness.
Really?, so why does Windows, KDE, and all the others look just like it ? And besides the widgets are not the point (if you have the src u can change it all) the point is that you have a consistant framework that allows you to easily write apps. (and port them beetween OSes)
KDE and GNOME are not a waste. GNUStep is the wasted effort, IMHO.
Even if GNUStep did not exist KDE and GNOME are wasteful since we only need one of them to make a GUI for Linux and our other Open Source OSes and projects. (oh, and please don't give me "they were designed for different perposes" argument, it doesn't hold too much water).
If you wanted NeXTStep, you should have bought it, rather than try to recreate it.
Think about this last sentence. It doesn't make too much sence does it ?
Have a nice day (I mean it
Hust remember I have nothing against both KDE or GNOME I just don't understand why do we have so much duplication in the Linux/*BSD* world
I see it like this...
MacOS X Server may not be as fast as LinuxPPC. I would be surprised if it was because Linux is built from the ground up to be small and fast. That is it's purpose. However, the Mach kernel is *so* refined in MXS that you can hardly give it a name... I'm willing to bet that the only reason they aren't naming it something else is because it's creator, Avadis Tevanian (who is VP at Apple) wants to keep the name. They have said from day one that they will work to make MXS the on of the fastest server OS availble... I believe they can do it.
In the end though, MXS will be desirable not because of it's speed but because you wil have the power of a full BSD command line, POSIX compliance (or real close), native WebObjects and Yellow Box development all in a MacOS interface (if you chose to use it).
*NO* other server OS IMHO can compete with that.
oh ya, and the mac compatibility area (BlueBox)doesn't affect anything. It is an application. It does not have to be run. It is MacOS running on a PowerPC. No emulation.
phew... what a braindump
And is that really all that long?... wasn't windows 95 actually supposed to be windows 92/93.
oh yeah... and this whole Windows NT 5 thing that we were supposed to see last year (or was that the year before) but now won't see until 2000.
Originally, the final version of "Rhapsody" was due in September 1998. I think a 6 month delay is pretty reasonable considering the work they'be had to do to get it to where it is now.
Oh, c'mon. The most conservative estimate I have seen is 20-22 million machines. And many independent studies show that on average there are 2-3 users for every Mac.
Of course, these are features that may be available elsewhere, but I've never heard of them before:
1) Net-boot. iMacs and B&W G3s can be net-booted off Mac OS X Server. No hard drive required. Designed for easy lab maintenence.
2) Sweet microkernel. Eventually, mklinux and BlueBox might run simultaneously on top of their Mach derivative. Fast. If Apple decides to help.
3) Bundled WebObjects.
4) NeXT style APIs. Some of us liked coding for NeXT about as much as y'all seem to enjoy coding for Linux.
Feel free to flame me for my ignorance...
--
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
I think Apple needs support... they are trying very hard to meet the demands of "the people".. I will definitly be purchacing my copy.
-- four
http://developer.apple.com/macosx/server/
-- four