Slashdot Mirror
Mac OS X out and faster than Linux?
Steve Bergman
sent us a link to a Linux Today Article
that talks about claims that MacOS X Outperforms Linux
running Apache on machines under $5k. What do you think?
Anyone have some numbers?
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
>Right now FreeBSD and Linux are basically neck
>and neck on network benches
Really? How do you explain this then?
http://www.anzen.com/products/nfr/testing/
*Linux is not ready yet...
Besides, what's worse- a small "community" (for some reason that word has really begun to grate on me in the last few months...) a la *BSD, BeOS, etc., or a community which has mutated to the point of being detrimental to the platform, as is the case with Linux? Sometimes I wonder if the comments people make on Slashdot have turned more people away from Linux than Slashdot itself has turned people on to Linux. That would imply that Slashdot has done more harm than good to Linux.
yeah, right...and like MacOS 8.5 is stable heh, if it IS faster well that give the open source community (i mean the real open source not the pseudo-semi-opened-liscence) something to do over the weekend right? :-)
---
If you can pick the terms of the benchmark, you can make anything outperform anything else. According to the article:
Mac OS X Server, when coupled with a new Macintosh Server G3, is the fastest platform for running Apache for under U.S. $5,000 -- outperforming Linux, Solaris and Windows NT Server...Based on WebBench benchmark testing performed by ZD Labs on a Dell PowerEdge 2300 Pentium II 450 MHz running Red Hat Linux, and a Sun Microsystems Enterprise Ultra 10S Server 333 MHz running Solaris; and NetBench benchmark testing performed by Apple on a Dell PowerEdge 2300 Pentium II 450 MHz running Windows NT Server, and a 400 MHz Macintosh Server G3 running Mac OS X Server.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like they are comparing the WebBench benchmark on RedHat on a Pentium II to the NetBench becnchmark on MacOS X Server on a G3. Not only aren't they running on the same processor, but they aren't even the same benchmark!!!
MacOS X may or may not be faster than Linux in some sense, but this test proves nothing.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
OS X doesn't run FreeBSD, it runs hacked-up version of BSD/OS Lite from BSDI, a commercial Unix vendor.
--
The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
But Linux was standing there in a nice Red :)
--
People using html in email should be shot.
Being the happy owner of 604e/200, IBM 2.1g HDs (fast/wide but on a narrow bus with adapters) and 64M ram, I have to say this: wheeeeeee :) ;) [1]
:)
Even previous gen stuff is a kick done this way- and it came in at under $1000 not counting monitor, and kicks PII/300s in bogomips
[1] yes, I know bogomips are not an accurate benchmark. Pentium advocates have always been happy to throw around benchmarks like Office, why shouldn't I tease them with bogomips? It's a linux benchmark, too
It's basically BSD. If you don't like that, run a Linux on it. QED. If the linux isn't out for the next-gen PPC chips yet, wait two weeks ;)
...because of this, MacOS recognizes and coexists with Unix partitions- including Linux. Forget the tendency of Windows boxes to consider Unix partitions raw and format them- _all_ the Apple stuff that linux will run on, uses MacOSes which are aware of what Unix partitions are, and will leave the Unix partitions alone and not mess with them. That's a big installed base of software which is unix-coexistence-friendly... no booby traps there. It thinks the linux partitions are A/UX.
Running GNOME or KDE is not to be done w/o gobs of RAM, no.
On the other hand, I've used WindowMaker for a long time on a machine w/ 32MB RAM (and lots of background processes).
Before it had 32MB RAM, the machine had 16MB and I used the Lesstif WM. I had no speed problems there either. Then again, there was less background load too...
Posted by Geocrawler:
What did you think of this line at the bottom of the press release?
>>Open Source is a trademark of Apple Computer, Inc
That's pretty bizarre, isn't it?
Posted by bafoon:
Quick and Dirty? Boy...
The future is about cross platform portability, hardware agnostic tools.
Have you considered Java? You think on that.
Posted by Robert Sixkiller:
Ok first of all this is about OS X Server, not consumer. Mac OS X will be out by the end of the year. So yeah, installing OS X Server on a box, running Apache then ignoring it wouldn't even be such a bad idea.
As for requirements, Apple says you need a G3 with 64 Meg RAM etcetera, but this really isn't the case. This is the minimum "Supported" config.
Mac OS X Server actually runs on any real PCI Mac, which is: 7300/7500/7600/8500/8600/9500/9600 and a bunch of clones.
I'm running it on a 9500/233 160/2GB myself (And it ran when I had 64Mb as well), and I think it's a kickass OS. It will never outperform Linux though. What will ?
Let's just watch and see (and try!) before we "guess Apple's OS sucks" (Couldn't find an appropriate American expression for it)
Posted by bafoon:
What if you didn't need yer virtual machine? Makes it look a bit different now, doesn't it?
OK, OK, this post is funny. It does raise some serious points, though.
:(
Apple makes nice boxes. They may now have a nice OS. However they feel the need to lie (OK, spin, twist, whatever you want) through their publicity to make it sound like more then it is. If it's a server that is so damn good then why do they have to lie to make it look good? Why does apple never admit "we're slower for the price, and we crash a lot, but you love us anyway, and we love you[r money]" ???
I suspect a lot of us have been disgusted with this kind of bullshit benchmarking in the past, and don't like seeing even a somewhat nice vendor lying to people like this. It also raises big customer problems. Am I going to have to deal with clients saying "we should use macosX because apple says it's faster." Well, now I have to dash their hopes and explain that apple published bogus publicity, not benchmarks, and then fight their resistance to the fact that that cute apple would ever lie to them. *sigh*.
I hated when apple used to do this, and hoped they'd stop this bullshit now that they've had a makeover. I gues not
-Peter
== Just my opinion(s)
"Based on WebBench benchmark testing performed by ZD Labs...."
Ok, once I got to that, I knew the rest was bullshit. I don't think ZDNet has ever had a fair bench in their existence.
-Erik-
To give you an example the current box I am running at home is a system w/asus mb, 64mb sdram, 233 pentium +mmx, 4gig western digital drive, 24x toshiba, sb 64awe and a diamond viper which cost me about $830 or so and it's been up over 190 days.
.26 relisys monitor, logi mouseman+, keyboard, awe32, and ASUS V3400TNT (Nvidia Riva TNT) for about $1100.
:)
Ditto, I go through a wholesaler and I got a PII-350, 128mb, 8gig IDE WD, Adaptech 2940AU SCSI card, SCSI Zip, SCSI 32x Teac CD, 17"
I had to return the ram because it was DOA, but I got a replacement the next day and I was up and running. That's what I call support, not "please hold, all of our lines are busy".
And I never paid a bloody windows tax either.
-Erik-
and then maybe I'll pay attention.
Until then, it's just more Apple hype. And Apple is the true great as far as corporate hype is concerned. They'll die off, though, just like all the rest of the proprietary low-end competitors to Microsoft.
Hey, that reminds me -- how about an Apple SMP box? Oh wait, that's not fair. Only LinuxPPC runs on those.
(if there was an HTML tag for "enormous middle finger wagging in the face of Apple" I'd put that here)
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
Linux is just the next hot trend for the technology groupies to infest.
Took about 30 seconds to find one. I wonder how it would do against a Microway PowerMax: (ad copy from Microway's site):
- Microway Screamer-LX Motherboard (21164A CPU)
- 4 PCI/2 ISA, 2 Serial/1Parallel Port
- 4 MB 9ns SRAM Cache
- Full-Size Tower (10 bays) with DIMM Cooling Unit & PS/2 400 Watt Power Supply
- 256 MB SDRAM (2 each 16x72-10ns DIMMs expandable to 1 GB)
- ITI3140U Ultra Wide SCSI-3 Controller
- 10/100Mbps Ethernet RJ45
- 9.1 GB UW SCSI Hard Drive 7,200 RPM (Seagate Barracuda)
- 8MB PCI Video Card
- 32X Toshiba SCSI CD-ROM Drive
- 3.5" Floppy, DEC PS/2-style Keyboard, Logitech 3-Button Mouse
- Either NT Workstation (CD) v4.0 or Red Hat LINUX (CD) v5.2
- Digital's FX!32 Software Emulator
System Prices:$4,695 with 533 MHz Alpha Processor
$5,295 with 600 MHz Alpha Processor
$5,795 with 667 MHz Alpha Processor
Let's see, the 533 MHz option at $4695 meets the $5000 limit nicely.
From Apple's site, The G3 was about 20% faster than Linux on a PII 450. I suspect this machine running Linux would blow it away.
RISC, fast SCSI drives and lotsa RAM running UNIX is the stuff dreams are made of. :)
cause LinuxPPC doesnt work on the same machine. NEXT!
It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
Ad hominem. Last resort of the weak minded.
So its not OK to point out this was a bogus marketing test? It was. Its not OK to point that this is Junk Science? It is. The Hardware is not equivalent, and the test itself is a bit unrealistic. 32 clients? What did they do regress the test until they found a client connection rate that produced the results they liked? Where is all the data to back up their claims? Do their conclusions follow from all the data, or did they hunt for some data that validated their conclusion and discarded any that didn't? I'd love to see the real numbers, then I could make an informed decision based on this - but this press release is nothing to make any sort of informed decision on - regardless of who wrote it.
This is not science, this is junk science. You have to publish your methodology, your numbers, be rigorous in your methods (double blind the test) and everything has to be equal. Linux runs on PPCs, so why not run the test on the same hardware? Some people probably had knee jerk reactions to this test, but you would be the first to bash a test when someone said "A 667 Mhz Alpha running Linux out performed a PII450 running Windows NT!" They're not valid comparisions, the hardware is not the same. Maybe the PII is a dog compared to the G3. Apple certainly claims this. So if we take Apple at their own word, the test is invalid. The G3 is always going to win (or so Apple claims).
Why would this be whining to point out their junk science? I'll be the first to point out bad reasoning and bogus results anywhere I see them - including within the Linux community. I do this as part of my research all the time. I'm a pretty big skeptic of my own work. It keeps us honest, because we want our products/research to be the best and human beings sometimes look past results that don't conform to what we already believe. Its a classic problem with all sciences. Thats why we have to use riguous controls and methods to prevent this from happening.
So don't you know how these things are done in a commercial software and hardware company? These tests are always carefully done, and redone internally until the company gets results they like. And if they get results they don't like, they never publish those results and they don't ask third parties to do those same "tests".
After the company has come up with a testing criteria that gives them the results they want, they pay a third party to perform the exact same test and even then, the company only publishes the results when they are favorable. The third party testing company does not have the rights to publish the results - and this is a condition of getting paid! This is called junk science. Look hard enough and you can find some data to support your conclusions, and then you just discard all the data that runs counter to your pet hypothesis. Thats called junk science.
I'm sure OS X is a fast OS, its a UNIX variant - so what do you expect? Its a real OS, like Linux, Solaris, BSD, DU, and others. It better be fast. The G3 is supposed to be a fast as hell chip, and apple claims that its faster than the PII450 - os what do you expect? The G3 should out perform the PII450 - by Apples own admission! So this test is bogus on that count alone, the equipment (Apple said it first!) is not equivalent, and the test criteria are questionable at best (32 clients? I smell something fishy here).
--
Python
Python
Perhaps if you needed to pick your nose during the install...
And I prefer Mountain Dew to set up my Mac server, thankyew very much.
SoupIsGood Food
More importantly, why didn't they run LinuxPPC on the same hardware? The price would have effectively been cheaper!
sigs are a waste of space
Before we see that someone has gone and ported Darwin over to Intel hardware? All the pieces (I think) are already out there.
That should make for some interesting benchmarks, DarwinPC vs. MkLinux!
Y'know, when flames are on a purely technical level, I can tolerate them, but this is just plain silly. How old are you, twelve?
On the bright side: you're so far inside your bubble that you're not going to make one lick of a difference in this world compared to someone who's clued into reality, not their own distorted utopia.
Have a nice day.
-Stu
As you say, press-release "science" is "junk science". While there is some schred of truth to them, they're obviously not objective.
....Which makes me wonder what all the insane huff here is about. So Apple posted a benchmark, big deal. It's a "good sign" for Apple, but of course not conclusive, nor should it ment to be taken as conclusive. The flamers here sure seem intent on proving the obvious.
Almost all statistics that don't come from a neutral body are pretty much junk. Note that I include the statistics from Gartner & GIGA and Dataguess here too, as they're far from neutral in this industry.
I figured that most people knew that benchmarks like this are flawed, but fun to speculate on
-Stu
if you're a student and join apple dev connection, you can get it for $99.
That's fscking cheap.
-Stu
I was about 14 when Windows 3.x came out, and I can assure you, most people I knew were *NOT* saying how neat it was, they were busy deleting it off their drives....
BBS SysOp's especially in that era will understand. DesQView was usable for multi-node BBS', Windows was not. OS/2 was better still, but then the Internet caused many people to just forget about BBS' altogether (and OS/2...)
-Stu
oh really? most of the mac users i know are arrogant tossers who somehow think that using a mac makes them "creative" while we techies are just boring geeks to them.
oracle 8 (especially 8i) *is* a big deal.
macos x is too little, too late.
oooh, i high school kiddie! and he has an elite warez d00d name! and look, some k-rad buddies!
loser.
The problem is, Apple and its user base has no history AT ALL of running and supporting *nix type applications.
Sure, a bunch of Mac fans are going to get really into it, but I can't see old-style *nix people getting very excited.
Oh, and:
" Mac OS X Server requires 64MB of RAM, 1GB hard drive and a CD-ROM drive. "
This is conisderably greater than the published min Spec of NT4.0 (Let alone Linux)
I've played with OS X on an G3. It's not exciting.
-----
It might very well be faster. I haven't seen what setup they used to test, though, so I assume that it's bogus marketing drivel. For US$5K I could put together a pretty damn nasty machine. Regardless, w/o the details their words mean exactly squat. Also, even on the same machine, how would LinuxPPC compare?
--
"First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Well, no.
ZD Labs ran WebBench on the Dell Red Hat system and on the Ultra 10 Solaris system.
Apple ran NetBench on the Dell NT system and on the Mac OS X system.
Perhaps you might want to consider an English class or two. Perhaps you might want to consider reading more carefully before making an ass of yourself. Perhaps not.
At the bottom of their press release, we find again:
Open Source is a trademark of Apple Computer, Inc.
They appear to have added the Open Source thing to their templates... What can we do about it? Do they actually own a trademark on the term Open Source somehow?
Hm.. I disable everything but Apache on my Linux box. Now, bring it down.
Thank you, drive through.
Please note that the flamers are not a good representation of the mentality of the Linux community as a whole...
A single PII 450/512k for 5k doesnt seem like much of a deal. I just priced a Dual PIII Xeon/512k with 512megs ram, LVD drives, 10/100 ethernet. costs alittle under 5k. Me thinks the numbers look diffrent when you throw in a 2nd cpu and a big chunk of ram.
Why the heck does it come with a RAGE 128? So you can play Unreal deathmatches with the server? Seems like overkill. They should stick a stupid RAGE II in it and shave some cost.
You aren't paying $500 for the BSD layer... [it has been opensourced] you are paying for things like the GUI, WebObjects, etc. TIMES FIVE [the CD allows you to put OSXServer on up to 5 different machines.
I'd pay $500 for WO alone [if you haven't used it... check it out... it really is *quite* robust/modular/reusable/scalable/fast very cool]
Blocklevel: Practical Information Architecture
What is this talk about the "BSD Kernel" and the "Mach microkernel"? From what I can infer from the context, is the Mach a layer of software between the hardware and the BSD kernel? If that's the case, doesn't that mean it will be slower than a native BSD, and that Apple took a quick & dirty way out? I confess complete ignorance on this, and ask for excessive corrections/suppliments/answers to my assumptions and questions.
I've done more than consider Java...I've coded about 10,000 lines in it. I know my way around, and I also know how sluggish Java can be. Far better to code in C or C++ and port the code, compiling it on the native system. That Java Virtual Machine's a beast. I like Java, but lets not sacrifice performance on the alter of portablitiy.
Well, I'm assuming that they're running that on a high-end Blue G3. They can't compare LinuxPPC on a Blue G3 to MOSX on a Blue G3 because LinuxPPC can't *run* on the Blue G3s.
Steve specifically ignored LinuxPPC, in fact. Not surprising, since I know he knows we exist.
And if they ever announce specs of LinuxPPC on Blue G3s before we get them running, I'm gonna have to hurt people.
-- haaz.
Actually, Apple has released one UNIX package and shipped a second. A/UX was Apple's UNIX for 68k Macs, which was around from the late eighties to the early 90s. Apple also shipped IBM's AIX on their Apple Network Server machines, which were big beautiful boxes. Unfortunately, they didn't sell well, and Apple cancelled them.
:)
LinuxPPC made a lot of ANS owners happy when it started running on them.
So, Apple does have a past with UNIX -- one that always ended in cancellation...
-- haaz.
Regarding the minimum spec for OS X Server:
This is conisderably greater than the published min Spec of NT4.0
If you don't have more than 64MB of RAM in an NT Server, you're crazy.
To get an equivalent NT box with an unlimited user license for under $5K is impossible. And you can forget about USB and FireWire.
granted.. apple is more insane than any other computer company i know.. though.. they are putting some sort of effort in.. can you say the same for microsloth?
sum fine
Thankfully, I've never worked on a MAC, but doesn't it suffer the same problems as NT (ok, ONE of the problems)? You can only admin the thing from the console? What good is that?
Thank you. That's what I was going to ask.
Agreed those are all good things to have. But for $500 and the bucks I have to shell out for a G3, I'd also like things I can usually get with the above list (NT excluded) like:
SMTP
DNS
SMB Connectivity
C'mon. OSX server is a nice first step. It's unproven at this point and will remain in Apple's line of "niche" products. I think it's a good first step, but there's still a long road ahead for them to be a player for the rest of the non-Mac world...(read 90% of us).
There's a reason why one of the Mac's alert sounds is called 'sosumi'
-Simon
Why does apple never admit "we're slower for the price, and we crash a lot, but you love us anyway, and we love you[r money]" ???
Gee, what do you think, slicko?
You're right that there's no SMP for supported macs, although you can still SMP with a 4-processor 9600. Yes, I know that Apple says OS X Server needs a G3, but it WILL run on older boxes.
In addition, I'd wager a pair of socks, that in a few months, Apple will release a multi-core G4 version of their computers. That means, that there will be 4 processors in the same piece of silicon.
Oi!
Let's talk about speed!
One thing that no one has talked about yet is the security that OS X Server provides. In fact, the normal Mac OS is one of the most secure servers you can find! (Yeah, I know, it sux as a server, though).
Just imagine, if you have an OS with one of the highest levels of security in the world--that actually is worth using as a server. Damn, that would be OS X Server.
Amen. Were it not for a really _NASTY_ power outage (and the failure of the primary backup generator) my email box would be at an uptime of 275 days right now... And it's a noname 486 that got hit by lightning. (I kid you not, IRQ 4 dosn't work but the system still runs)
My higher end boxes have similar reliability, if smaller uptimes. (I tend to swap their hardware more often) The trick is to not buy noname-boards from a first tier company, but to buy all the name-brand hardware yourself. Granted you lose the support from Dell or HP or Compaq, but you save enough to have more clued people around. It's all a tradeoff.
--Dan
A better comparison would be between LinuxPPC and Rhapsody^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hmacos X server.
MkLinux and mXs both run on the Mach microkernal, whereas LinuxPPC runs directly on the PPC chip. It is documentably 20% faster than either. So, no need to go out and test, it's already been tested.
I've run all three OSes (okay, fine, I used Rhapsody DR2, but they didn't change the Mach part between then and release) on my PPC 7500/150, and LinuxPPC is visibly the fastest. It's in use right now. As soon as NetBSD/macppc works reliably, it will (probably) beat LinuxPPC (in my esteem, anyway).
Do you have a
That Java Virtual Machine's a beast.
While this is certainly true, it is not inconceivable that the JVM could be made much faster, if it were taught to more intelligently optimize code. (Right now, it hardly does any optimization.)
That said, interpretted compilation will forever be slower. Nothing to do about that. It might be made workable, though (which Java really isn't, currently).
Do you have a
I think Dell only very recently started building there own board level components. Previously, I understood they pretty much took whatever Intel made for them, tested it, and assembled it. I thought this was there entire business model, and the primary reason that IBM, Compaq, and others have problems with Intel dictating server architectures because then they can't differentiate.
Fine, then you go out and buy XYZ and test it against the $5000 Mac OS X Server G3/400. Until then, jeez louise, keep quiet! As annoying and pointless as "PR benchmarks" may be, at least they tested something.
;-)
Sorry, but "the idle speculation of a Linux user" holds less weight with me than "a stacked benchmark cited in a press release." I suspect most people agree. Go test. Then come back, and we can all have fun picking apart your benchmarking setup
Apple has had and sold AUX then AIX on it's hardware. You can still buy liscense upgrades for them. Years of experience no less. And they produced software that ran in unix and allowed Macs to access X Windows from the Mac OS.
On top of that, the people in charge of the OS are from NeXT. Think about it.
oh yeah and there was that MkLinux thing as well. It ran okay on PCI and NuBus based Macs and was the only Linux choice for PPC macs for a while.
the people at Apple working on that ar apparently involved in the OS X Server/Darwin project due to thier experince.
People are people no matter what OS they use, and because of that they will act the way they will on whatever OS they use. The real problem lies in the "my penis is bigger" syndrome. Where everyone wants everyone to think they got the best OS. Now, that is not really a bad thing, the bad thing comes from when you start to bring others down for using another OS. I just tend to ignore the idiots who spout "linux everywhere." There is a saying that no one tool can do everything, because by trying to become the "ONE" tool, is impossible, that is why folks who are specialist cary around very large tool boxes, and have tons of smaller toolboxes to do different jobs.
anyway, i guess i started to go off on a tangent.
To get back to the point, the folks who shout the loudest in here are just folks who have installed the OS cause its "cool", and "hip" and have not really done anything with it. If you look at the programmers and the network administrators in here, you would realise that these guys usually know what they are about because they have been exposed to multiple platforms and multiple operating systems. Most of the regular linux folks i have meet are very friendly, in fact, most are willing to go out of there way to help new users as long as you are actually willing to learn some of the basics for yourself and do not want to be handfed.
so, i don't think that the AC of Slashdot are an indication of the the so called "linux community." and anyway, why would you use or not use an OS because of who else is using it? My belief is that you should use either what you can afford, or the best OS/Platform for the job.
Its spelt "L-I-N-U-X", but pronunced as "Free Beer"
what?!?
where?
oh god, noooooooooooo!!!!!!!
when did this start to happen?
i can't believe that i did not notice that there has been a big reduction in the amount of sunshine. Damn, what will i do now?
oh the humanity............
why doesn't someone do something!!!!!
help me, help me please!
Its spelt "L-I-N-U-X", but pronunced as "Free Beer"
shouldn't a benchmark for a webserver "not" be running on the server that is being benchedmarked?
I should think that you should have a workstation that contains the benchmark software that is connected to the server, and then it loads the hell out of the server, better yet, get multiple workstations running the benchmark software on the network to strain and bring the server to its knees. Now that is how a server should be tested. And in that case, the platform the benchmark software is running on will be irrelavant, as tcp is tcp.
Its spelt "L-I-N-U-X", but pronunced as "Free Beer"
Read the fine print on the benchmark.
The test was with static html, not cgi. I'll wager linux AND solaris would kick MacOS' ass on cgi performance. Linux/Apache's static html performance isn't all that great at all anyway - WHO CARES about static html performance on, what, 32 clients? This benchmark is a joke.
let's see cgi performace test on 300 clients or more, Apple.
Fuck Apple. Fuck Steve Jobs. Another proprietary garbage vendor.
support gun control: take guns from cops
And the configuration for that price is....?
I just price dout a Dell PowerEdge 2300 with dual 450 Mhz Pentium III, 256 MB RAM, and dual 9.1 GB Ultra2 drives, dual NIC, 17" monitor, and WinNT 4.0. (Smae config as the G3, minus the extra CPU) Price? $6,127.
So, no, a dual PIII is not even close to being less...
Sure it's faster when comparing it on different
hardware.
But where's the comparison between OS X and
MKLinux running on the same system?
It's FSF that's the church and RMS is the savior-not Linus.
---
This may make a great alternative to NT. Now what will they say? Here's an easy to use, high performance server that's open source-but not hackerish, supported by a famous brand name. It has a great dev environment. 2 catches: no SMP (please correct me if I'm wrong) and only for macs. Linux can challenge NT on many fronts but this seems to attack the other fronts.
---
I can get a G3 400 for $1500 too, but it is not a complete server system. Use your brain, that is what its there for.
Dude, this is getting pretty bad, you should make some sort of Hitler Steve Jobs, your slant is becomming very transparent.
So OS X can saturate a T1 a few milliseconds faster than Linux. Big deal. Anyway, I'd like to see exactly which WebBench stats they're using.
'Sall I had to say.
It's a bit odd that they didn't compare it with *BSD. Could it be because they OS X *is* *BSD, and they don't want it to get out that there's no need to pay $499 for it?
Also odd that they used different benchmark programs on different servers.
Why didn't they run the benchmark agains LinuxPPC on the same box?
Beware the Reality Distortion Field.
-- Out of cheese error! Redo from start.
The day OS X can touch a hard-core distro (like Debian) is the day a Voodoo3 outperforms a TNT2. This is just like the whole G3 vs. PII deal--tweaking one benchmark and beating statistics into a form that Apple likes.
"Even genius needs a competent technique."--Robert Fripp
CGW's 3D GameGauge, which is used for testing 3D accelerators, is pretty accurate.
"Even genius needs a competent technique."--Robert Fripp
True.
Ah, well...has anyone ever done any benchmark tests pitting the various Linux-supported architectures against each other, with systems identical other than CPU architecture?
"Even genius needs a competent technique."--Robert Fripp
Apple says a G3 400 beats a Dell P2 450 measured by connections per second over 10bT.
See the official hype from Apple.
Personally, I believe that benchmark. Unfortunately eveyone knows you can get el-cheapo PC for $1000 to do almost as much. Heck, upgrade to the good el-cheapo for $2000 and yer pretty well loaded. But Apple won't stand for such comparisons, and will insist on being compared only to quality vendors such as Dell, Compaq, IBM and Sun. If it were my small business to run, I'd buy a quality machine over el-cheapo, and I'd buy the Mac because it comes headache-free.
Start Running Better Polls
SELECT cid,date_format(date,"W M d, @h:ip") as time, name,email,url,subject,comment, nickname,homepage,fakeemail,realname, users.uid as uid,sig, comments.points as points,pid,sid,pid
FROM comments
WHERE sid='99/03/17/098200' AND comments.points >= '0' AND comments.uid=users.uid ORDER BY cid ASC
i jusr wonder how it did appear on the page.
--
Memory fault -- brain fried
Balls on. 32 clients and under 100 connections per seccond is a weak test. Novell Netware (probably one of the least loved server OSs in the internet comunity) does a good 3000 CPS on MUCH crappier hardware with more clients with static HTML. I suspect that hardware being equal (MKLinux or equivalent hardware) linux would either dead tie (both running the same apache, yes?) or linux whup it's ass if the MAC machine is spinning cycles maintaining the GUI (hopefully it boots to text console, nice poetic justice). I would like to see how the load is distributed on the systems. NT has this habbit of letting a few user procesess eat all system resources, I know this is not so in Linux, but I don't have any experience with BSD.
Anyone else think this peculiar?
NOTE: Apple, the Apple logo, Macintosh, Mac OS, Power Macintosh and WebObjects are registered
trademarks of Apple Computer, Inc. Open Source is a trademark of Apple Computer, Inc.
Duh, didn't pick that one out. I meant: Open Source is Trademarked by Apple? Nice typo of mine. This was copied from the link supplied by /.
Do you notice a pattern here?
If it isn't pro-linux, it's FUD.
Apart from the hardware disparity, it is not clear if they are comparing the same version of Apache either. I would like to see some details on the benchmark.
(a) VA research are a first tier vendor of linux machines. Dell aren't. They offer no support for linux. (b) You can get a dual CPU poweredge for less than $5000- (c) Does this really prove anything besides the fact that the G3 CPU is better for a web server ?
I just read the threads and what people are saying is not religious fanatiscm but for more control on the benchmark test. Run the test on the same hardware and then run LinuxPPC against Mac OS X and lets see the numbers.
- 24x cdrom
- ATI rage 128/16
- Built in 10/100 ether
- 256 mb ram
- ultra2 scsi
- 2 9gb ultra2 scsi HD's(10000rpm)
- OS10 server
_____- unlimited clients
_____- 5 server licenses
_____- WebObjects(50 transaction/min)
_____- Apple File Services
_____- NetBoot
- USB
- FireWire(IEEE 1394)
- Spanky looking box
What does a comparable Linux Box Cost?(add in the cost of WebObjects, or something comparable)
How about a comparable NT box?
"Stuff... In my home!? NEVER!" - Zim on Invader Zim
"I want the toilet seat!" - Little Dog on Two Stupid Dogs
- 4 PORT 10/100 NIC(giving a total of 5 10/100 ports) :P
- 24x cdrom
- ATI rage 128/16
- Built in 10/100 ether
- 256 mb ram
- ultra2 scsi
- 2 9gb ultra2 scsi HD's(10000rpm)
- OS10 server
_____- a good UI
_____- unlimited clients
_____- 5 server licenses
_____- WebObjects(50 transaction/min)
_____- Apple File Services
_____- NetBoot
- USB
- FireWire(IEEE 1394)
- Spanky looking box
- Setup in 15 minutes or less(dont take this out of box experience for granted)
What does a comparable Linux Box Cost?(add in the cost of WebObjects, or something comparable)
How about a comparable NT box?
"Stuff... In my home!? NEVER!" - Zim on Invader Zim
"I want the toilet seat!" - Little Dog on Two Stupid Dogs
bottom line is, its a web server with apple's name on it. Mac OS's have always been innovative, and is recognized for simplicity, something that is rarely associated with "server".
Also, its fast, RISC, powerful, challenges microsoft, and new. A web server is a web server. Who cares about "old style nix people", MOSXS is not a hobby, its a new business solution.
----------
"They misunderestimated me." --George W Bush, Nov. 6, 2000
I would have agree. Sadly, the majority of those who dont share your opinions fail to remove brand-name bias or back up their vague arguments.
It's nice to see people devoted to Linux, but most of you need to expand your horizons.
-f
----------
"They misunderestimated me." --George W Bush, Nov. 6, 2000
Because I have to buy it.
For the first time I connected my one windows box through my linux server with ip_masq, over a single ppp connection.
I did it for free.
As a small businessman, linux will remain my tool of choice, not because it is open source. Since I don't program, I benefit from this only indirectly (I still believe it is the best way to go), but it is not my primary motivation for using linux.
My primary motivation is cost/benefit. When I introduced myself to linux there was NT and commercial Unices. All where way too expensive. I needed a solution I could afford. I was amazed that the twist of human fate had occured. Imagine a radical new development paradigm had occurred in my lifetime, and it was given away for free! Was I dreaming?!
Thank God for Linux!
MacOSX on the other hand, (while it may be good or superior), cannot compete with linux on a cost/performance scale. The fact that MacOSX only runs on expensive hardware is the nail in the coffin.
MacOSX my be excellent, superior, wonderful, whatever. It's expensive, and I can't afford it. Therefore, I will never use it, not even to pique my curiosity. I might try FreeBSD, though.
Well, by that token, Apple's pricing is inflated too. I can get a G3/400 from Apple for $1999 custom-configured. Add some RAM from the Chip Merchant, get OS X Server for $499, pick up a couple of fast SCSI drives third party, and a cheat F&W Ultra SCSI card. For under $4k, you can have the same performance apple touts in these specs.
What people don't get is that this is a press release. Nothing more. Press releases are always slanted. I'm going to install OS/X today on my old 604e/233 and to some tests. I am using LinuxPPC on the same box right now, and I will benchmark the two and compare.
- Vincit qui patitur.
I wonder what sort speed Apache and LinuxPPC would give. Running on the same hardware as MacOs X
Server of course.
Does this mean MkLinux and LinuxPPC are now
competitors to the future of MacOs?
Will Apple kill off MkLinx?
>Check your facts jack
In my experience.
PowerBook 1400 - PowerPC 603ev 166MHz - 548Kkeys/s
IBM PC Pentium MMX 200 MHz - 420 KKeys/s
We have one PC in our office here that's
managed 556 KKeys/s Pentium II, not sure
of the clock speed.
PowerPC G3 550MHz (466 overclocked) - 1736K keys/sec [1]
[1] from http://www.macintouch.com/g3zif466.html
Hope this helps
I think everyone agrees that benchmarks published by the vendor (whomever that may be) are often times misrepresentative of the facts...
Let's do our own benchmarks with OS X Server. I ordered my copy and would be more than willing to test it out vs LinuxPPC on my G3/266. What benchmarks should I be using though??
I am going to venture a guess that MacOS X Server will be pretty darn fast with Apache (a different press release that I read said that all the machines were running Apache 1.3.4) but I want numbers to prove it.
RateVegas.com - Vegas Reviews
This is the key point... I think it's a typo... Jobs/Apple know how religious the Linux/Open Source community is (come on, the Macintosh community is the same way... funny how so few are religious about wintel...)...
RateVegas.com - Vegas Reviews
Being a RISC fan, I'll believe that a PPC 400 Mhz chip is faster than a Pentium II 450; plus, we don't know about hard drives, memory, etc. And which Linux? Kernel 1.0? =)
I feel need to email Apple and ask them to publish the complete results for the benchmarking - including complete hardware specs, Linux kernel version (if they are using RedHat then they are probably using the 2.0.x which is now ~2 years old), etc. If Mac X truely is faster than Linux (on comparable hardware) then fine, but I doubt the conclusions they've made will hold under closer examination. I know Apple has been eyeing the OSS commuity and they would love to tap into that "mindshare" (in MS speak) as they are trying to do by open sourcing some the the Mac X drivers, but hijacking the Linux momentum is very short sighted of them and it will only drive the OSS community away.
\forall code \in C, \frac{\Delta readability(code)}{\Delta t} < 0
hahahah...who's ignorant? Since when has the computer industry been based on proprietary software? Realize this, most of what we use today is bases on non-proprietary (ie OSS, IEEE, ANSI, etc) software. Take for example UNIX, UNIX started out as freeware from Bell Labs, it basically killed all the proprietary mainframes of the 70's. Today most of the internet is powered with UNIX and its derivatives. Sure, IBM, HP, Sun and others have made thier own proprietary version on UNIX, but they are all based on the original, free UNIX from Bell and BSD. Further, most of the services that you will find on the internet (and in most organizations) are actually OSS (ie apache, sendmail, etc). So actually, I think you ment to say that it is in the best intrest of big business to say that the computer industry is lead by proprietary software (wouldn't MS like you to beleive that most of the internet uses NT and IIS). You may want to consider this:
"Even a fool is thought wise
if he keeps silent,
and dicerning if he holds his tongue"
-Proverbs 17:28
\forall code \in C, \frac{\Delta readability(code)}{\Delta t} < 0
If Apple was smart, they'd bring back the server chassis that they sold AIX on - with a hot swap array, duel power supplys and 2 (or 4?) 604s, it was the closest thing to enterprise class hardware Apple ever made. (Maybe with the G4s...)
Adding a fast SCSI card and mirrored drives to a desktop box does not make a server in the real world, where uptime is more important than money.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Well, I have to agree with you partly. I'm a high schooler, and we just got a yosemite to replace the old server (yeah, the IT department at school is a bunch of Mac guys, but I'm now a Die Hard Linux guy).
I'm pretty hyped about Apple releasing OSX server, we are getting a copy of it free to play with. Alas, I have to say I don't like seeing crap like this benchmark. I could have built a better computer for $5k, and probably configured Linux better for the benchmark. Anyways, every big company twists benchmarks around to put them in favor of their product, so it is a load like most of us have been saying (I know I'm going to be arguing with Schism and Cracker tomorrow over this).
Between this and their open source efforts (I hope they fix the liscence, that would be really cool, and release the rest of their stuff), I think Apple is going in the right direction. I just wish companies would cut out the crap about benchmarks, or at least put something up that isn't a load of bull for the techs...
ph43drus
I was wondering if anyone can clear up a question I have on this very topic.
Can anyone claim a trademark on any term or phrase even if there is a registered trademark holder for the same term or phrase?
I noticed in an article/release about the new Dell dual Pentium III/Xeon's that Microsoft is claiming a trademark on "NT" (not Windows NT, just NT). I think everyone knows that Nortel owns the registered trademark for NT, it's on every Windows NT box! So, can I claim a trademark for NT, or Open Source, or whatever, also - even if it conflicts with a registered trademark owned by another entity?
For the uneducated, 1000% is 10 times the speed, not 1000 times. Also, 1000% as fast is not the same as 1000% faster.
NewsAlert quoted an official Apple press release. They didn't claim that Open Source was a trademark of Apple, Apple did.
I received a nice reply from Russell Brady at Apple stating that it was an honest mistake and:
Open Source is
a trade mark of the Open Source Initiative. He also stated that it has been corrected on their web site, so that's probably why people don't see it if they go there now.
Your wrong, Apple made a mistake in their original news release but corrected it. See my above message.
No no no. News organizations DO NOT modify official press releases from companies. They could get into a LOT of trouble doing so. It's quoted verbatim from Apple. Apple made a mistake and changed their web site to reflect that. See my above message.
Face it, Linux is now a religion, not just a software. And I think a world like this is worst than "Windows everywhere"
Then check out of this world. What do you think Gates and Co. have been doing for the past 19 years. They have more "religion" in their "movement" than the Linux crowd does. We just back it up with facts.
Screw the hype. Apples suck
That's probably because NetBSD was ported to the i386. Heck, it's probably just from the standard 4.4BSD/386 code.
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
No, no, no, it goes like this: Do you pray to Saint IGNUcius every night? Do you thank Erica S. Raymond for food? Do you go to the nearest chapter of the Church of Emacs (xemacs is fine) on Wednesday nights? If you want religion, you need to head on over to the Church of the Subgenius. Cheers, Joshua (not yet a YC30)
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
Whoops. I mispelled ESR's name there. I was even using the Preview button! I really should mount /dev/brain more often.
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
I don't believe you children. Apple finally delivers the full-blown modern microkernel-based, multiuser, preemptive multitasking, protected memory, command-line capable, Unix OS with the friendly GUI on it, just what you've spent years flaming them for not delivering.
So what do you do? You flame it just because it's from Apple! Why can't you grow up and admit Apple is capable of making something really good (and then overcharging for it)? Are you really so insecure that you have to believe your chosen OS or kerner or GUI or CPU is the only good one?
Also, for the naysayers who doubt Apple's commitment to Unix: A/UX; NeXTSTEP; AIX; MAE; MkLinux; OS X. 'nuff said.
Gawd, am I ever sick of people whining about the price difference between a first-tier maker and a noname box builder. You really do get what you pay for. Name me ONE bargain-basement vendor with out-of-the-box failure rates of under 10%. That designs any board-level component themselves. That can effectively support 100 corporate accounts with 25,000 desktops each.
Welcome to the fray. I can't be rejecting you, because I'm responding to you.
Sorry, I do have my hot buttons, and one of them is people describing how much less a given level of computer from a first-tier maker would cost if you only would buy it from Joe's Beige Box Assembly of Black Duck, Minnesota (JBBAoBDMN.com).
There's a reason cheap boxes are cheap: because their makers have no R&D, no marketing (okay, that's a plus), no QA, no support, and no infrastructure. They often have little or no knowledge, too. Big companies and schools couldn't buy from them if they wanted to, because the little guys can't scale to those numbers.
A native kernel will run faster than one built on top of Mach. The advantage of Mach is modularity, not speed.
You don't need to tell me what's in a modern OS. Just because these features are old doesn't mean they aren't considered essential for a modern OS. I was just mentioning the features that Unix and NT bigots usually kvetch about.
I'm still waiting for those systems to adopt modern features like aliases that follow their target file when it gets moved; windows that can display across multiple screens run by different video cards at different color depths; knowing when a floppy disk is in the drive; and knowing where applications are without being told.
Please refer to my comment in response to the immediately previous article about insults and name-calling. Not that you exactly come across as an Apple booster yourself. Pot, meet Kettle.
The Mac had sound from the very beginning. Good sound, even. I recall Apple Records having kept their peace until Apple Computer tried to have Apple Records' trademark nullified.
No, it isn't. NT is based on its own microkernel, which is more like VMS than anything else. It has a POSIX-compliant Unix layer that runs on top of the kernel, but it is nearly useless, as you can't use it to write graphical applications. At least, that was the case last time I looked.
That's what they said about every MacOS release since 7.0, which is more than 15 over the last 8 years, counting the interim releases.
you mindless cretin...
LINUX ROOOLZ!
I just priced a Dell Powedge 2300 with dual PIII 450 and it came out to $5129. Pretty close to $5k. Why are you adding a monitor? Why are you adding Windows NT? Why does Dell not offer a 450 PII? PIII seems a bit overkill for a server, isn't it just a PII with MMX2?
Yes with NT it is $800 more, so the NT one will have to be slower, oh well.
Q.
Oh yeah these aren't even Xeons... :)
Q.
OT *is* fast, but MacOS X and MacOS X server only have BSD Sockets support in the kernel. Everything above goes thru the heavy compatibility layer.
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Can anyone claim a trademark on any term or phrase even if there is a registered trademark holder for the same term or phrase?
See http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/index.ht ml .
Sexier... BAH! I don't keep the cases on my computers long enough to worry about sexy. Besides, as far as I'm concerned, a good computer is a hidden computer. Keyboard, monitor, (maybe) mouse should be readily visible. Sexier... Creepy little things look like coolers. Blech
Chris
So Buddha walks into a pizza parlor and says: "Hey, make me one with everything."
This AC is absolutely right... the sheer number of posts whining about a PR dept. doing what a PR dept. does is sickening... Apple is a company out to make a buck, sure they're gonna put some fishy numbers based on vauge comparisons. I'd really have thought there'd be a more supportive response for a major OS vendor testing the open source waters. MSX seems like a pretty nice piece of work, and I look forward to examining it personally. I would much rather discuss details than waste my time reading lame "hmmm... those marketing numbers look susupicious" posts.
didnt the article say that it would be released
free?
"All that glitters is not gold"
did you see the hardware they were running??
400 mhz risc with 1 mb L2 cache and ultra 2
10,000 rpm hdd's.
and its surprising that it spanked a pentium II ??
I'm all for building nice intel systems, but when
you need performance and have the money to burn,
i have to agree--- BUY RISC and run *nix
"All that glitters is not gold"
The Apple people need to be straight forward. Every time they come out with a new OS or new anything they claim it's faster that Windows or Intel Platforms in General, and now Linux? I just don't buy it. I've heard it before, sure maybe in their lab, but within a week after every release they have they are disproved by every magazine on the planet. I like that Apple has made somewhat of a comeback, but they should realize that the underdogs need to work together, ie linux & Mac & BeOS (although I'm not so sure about BeOS, couldn't get the demo CD to run on any of about 6 machines, all with supported hardware). Anyhow, the Be people have promoted Linux along with their OS, Mac should do the same.
You miss the point. They compared with normal, Red Hat Linux running on a PII-450. There is no way to compare the OSes on the _same_ hardware, because they aren't releasing MacOS X Server for Intel-based hardware, just PowerPC processors (G3 PowerMacs to be specific). They were comparing "comparably priced" hardware, and their numbers are probably right. A 400 MHz G3 running MacOS X Server and Apache probably does outperform a PII-450 running Red Hat Linux and Apache. However, that is not all there is in the PC world, either. For example, you can run the Red Hat Linux on a _dual_ PII-450, and almost assuredly beat MacOS X Server hands down, because MacOS X Server and G3s don't run with SMP (yet, that comes this Fall). If you ran a quad-Xeon with 1024K caches, Linux, and Apache, you would probably run rings around the G3 400 and MacOS X Server. The point isn't that the fastest possible PowerMac and MacOS X Server beats the fastest possible PC running Red Hat Linux, because this is not true. The point is that MacOS X Server is very fast, and at least very competitive with Intel hardware for the money. Plus, the MacOS X Server machine is probably much easier to set up and run, and administer. MacOS X Server is one hell of an OS, and I am excited as I can be about it. It is a great time to be an Apple customer. Microsoft is technically outclassed by MacOS X Server in a very serious way, and that will be made even more severe later this year when MacOS X (consumer) is shipped. The Unix that underpins MacOS X Server is free, in source-code form, to anyone who wants it, and Microsoft will _never_ do anything like that. They would be too ashamed to let anyone see their code.
People, you have to remember also that for $499 you get a 5-server license for MacOS X Server. That means you can install the OS on five separate MACHINES with that one license. That works out to around $100 per machine, for one HELL of a system. I would say a $100 system compares favorably with LinuxPPC or any other free OS, especially to businesses. As far as performance goes, I wouldn't be surprised if we found out that MacOS X performs about the same as LinuxPPC on the same hardware, give or take a little. There may be some reasons I would want to run LinuxPPC on a machine, but there are a lot more reasons I would go with MacOS X at $100 per machine. And remember, there is _no_ user limit to how many users can be simultaneously connected to that machine for that $100 per machine license, unlike NT with its stupid 5 or 10 user limit or whatever it is for the $900 license for NT. Microsoft, look out!!
How much does a comparable Alpha system go for these days? Just out of curiousity...
NO PII is not RISC, never was. i am not sure about alpha vs ppc RISC wise.
no, you really don't understand. Bogomips aren't just an inaccurate benchmark, but they only have ANY meaning with the same type of CPUs, for example, you can't compare PIIs bogomips to a Pentium. Whole different architecures such as PPC and Intel is absolutely meaningless. At least office benchmarks, while very bad, aren't completly meaningless.
Its really funny when someone flames someone else for being stupid, and makes an equally (if not more) stupid mistake in their own post. Go check out the in progress Alpha port of FreeBSD. Good day.
... because it has already gone through the grubby hands of the evil marketroids.
It's as simple as that. It's called propaganda, and every (non-Open Sourceish) company does it. Do you really think that the Pentium III's are really that cool? Do you think that Oracle 8 is that big a deal? Shit happens.
Nonetheless, MacOS X _is_ really bloody cool.
Post scriptum: Steve Jobs used to be a phreak. That should say something about his ethics...
Peace,
Kaufmann
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
I'm a unix user, but I admit...the Apple hardware is faster than intel hardware. OS X server is *probably* just as fast as any unix machine (minus overhead for the gui),
Which can be turned off.
and I guarantee it's faster than NT. However, Steve's quote: "Mac OS X server is a powerful web server..." is ludicrous...Mac OS X server is running on powerful hardware, which is running a powerful *3rd PARTY* web server.
I think Steve meant Web server in the context of 'system providing Web content', not the standard meaning of the software itself (i.e., Apache).
Furthermore, if you're comparing the performance of $5000 machines...you should be sure that all the machines are $5000. You don't need a $4000 copy of Back Office to run an Apache web server on NT.
No, but you need a brand machine with a Xeon processor in order to get anything like G3-400/OSX performance out of NT.
Peace,
--
Rafael Kaufmann
[rnedal@olimpo.com.br]
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
BSD/BSDi used to be faster. Not in 2.2. :-)
I used to recommend BSDi for the best commercial web server implementation. Fastest and most stable stack. Best price/performance.
Not anymore.
---
"Eternal vigilance is the price of Freedom."
This has already been addressed.. look at the previous submission about this.
---
"Eternal vigilance is the price of Freedom."
Checkout ByteMark documentation at http://www.byte.com/bmark/bdoc.htm, which is the benchmark Apple used for their G3 vs. P-II comparison. BTW this link used to be on Apple's G3 benchmark pages, but not any more. A careful and informed reading of the ByteMARK doc reveals that even the integer results are twisted.
Choosing CodeWarrior for the Mac vs. Watcom 10.0 for the PC is totally laughable.
Another note: it appears that there are no results on www.spec.org for Apple systems. SPECint95 is a relatively fair crossplatform test. I wonder why Apple has not posted results there.
BTW 1st post
Modern? Come on. It's 1999, and Apple is just now adding features that are fifteen years old. They tout NetBoot like it's the America's Cup, but I bet a quarter of the slashdot readers already know how to do that with their linux/*BSD boxes.
And in a perfect world, you wouldn't have to have an HFS+ partition to do it. What's that all about?
Yes, it's nice to see Apple pull its head out of the sand. Yes, I'll probably be running MacOS X on a server around here, but let's also get real: it isn't revolutionary, it's evolutionary.
Hell, I'd even take NeXTstep over MacOS X...
We're just saying Apple should be realistic (instead of marketing mavens). Look at Corel and the Netwinders. They didn't say,"It'll blow a PC out of the water!" They said,"It's small, fairly cheap, it rips compiling the kernel, but don't do any floating point..." Those of us who are enlightened consumers can understand that, and appreciate the cander.
As opposed to you, who probably still thinks Chicago is a cool font.
Alan, you're a god. I even did the requisite bows in my office before reaching for the keyboard. And I agree with you on all counts EXCEPT the last: in networking, FreeBSD may hold it's own with Linux.
I used to believe otherwise, until I saw the info on the CIDER/SHADOW Project and FreeBSD's implementation of the Berkeley Packet Filter. When the NSA recommends FreeBSD, you have to look twice.
Open Source is a trademark of Apple Computer, Inc.
s erver.html, and this doen't mention "Open Source" being a trademark.
My initial guess was that this must've been copied straight from Apple's press release...
It is traditional for corporations to attempt to "protect" phrases they like by claiming to own them. (Was it $5 million that Microsoft had to pay for "Internet Explorer"?)
One company in the UK recently applied to register Y2K as a trademark! (This was refused, of course).
However, the original Apple press release for this story is at http://www.apple.com/pr/library/1999/mar/16macosx
Also, at http://www.publicsource.apple.com/ps-faq.html Apple states...
Q. What is open source licensing?
Open source is a new term for the historical development model used by the UNIX and Internet community to facilitate distributed development of complex, high-quality software...
So, the question is why on earth did NewsAlert claim that Open Source is a trademark of Apple Computer, Inc.?
(p.s. of course, "copyright" is not the same thing as "trade mark"...)
--
Can anyone claim a trademark on any term or phrase even if there is a registered trademark holder for the same term or phrase?
:-)
Very broadly...
Trademarks are registered in different "classes" of goods and services - e.g. there are distinct trademarks for "Apple" for computers and "Apple" for music.
If someone thinks you are using a similar name to them for a different product, and that this is affecting their business, they can try and sue you for "passing off". (McDonalds resteraunts threaten this quite frequently).
Also, as you American's can sometimes forget, it's a big world out there... It is possible for the same trademark to be registered for similar products in two different countries by two competing producers.
I think the statement you quote that "NT is a trademark of Windows" is probably over-zealous subediting, rather than a faux pas by Microsoft... Can anyone confirm this?
Cheers
--
There is a big difference between a "trademark" and a "registered trademark".
Saying "XXX is a trademark" is a statement that XXX is being used by someone for some business purpose. It is not a criminal offense for nyone to use the mark "XXX" (unless this is fraudulent). The remedy for infringment of a non-registered trademark is an action for "passing off".
Saying "XXX is a registred trademark" is much more serious. It is a criminal offense (in the UK anyway) to: -
(1) falsely use a registered trademark
(2) claim a mark is registered when it isn't
(3) wrongfully threaten someone with enforcement proceedings
People often claim that "XXX is a trademark" with the hope that it will give them some sort of legitimacy to a word or mark, and scare off other people from using it.
As we've seen in this thread, sub-editors for some reason seem to love to add it in to press releases for no apparent reason too.
If in doubt, always seek proper legal advice
[Which this isn't, by the way...]
--
...you get the idea
IIRC it was the arrival of sound in the Mac that caused Apple Records to freak out - although I can't seem to a nice link on the net to the whole story. Again, IIRC, the tale is told in The Macintosh Bathroom Reader... (or was it theM Macintosh Bible?)
My point is, if you've been selling double glazing for 10 years under the trade name "Windows 2000", Microsoft couldn't (or shouldn't be able) to stop you using that name, even if they "obtain" a registered trademark for computer software. You'd have a good shot at registering your trademark for whatever class of goods double glazing comes in... You'd also be liable to be sued to hell if you tried to claim some soft of affiliation with Microsoft!
--
I had Rhapsody DR2 running on a Powerbook 3400 - there was no support for the PCMCIA slots or Zip drive in the bay, but it ran.
IIRC Mac OS X Server is supposed to have an option to install to "unsupported" hardware.
--
"If you can read this you are too close."
for the naysayers who doubt Apple's commitment to Unix: A/UX; NeXTSTEP; AIX; MAE; MkLinux; OS X.
Where are A/UX, NextStep, AIX, MAE, and MkLinux now? Apple can never seem to stay committed to anything (or anyone) very long. Yes, they are now clearly betting the farm on OS X.
I am confused by Apple's client OS strategy, though. If OS X Client is due out in late 1999, why is Apple wasting time and money developing Mac OS 8.6 (Veronica)?
cpeterso
Oh, wait, sorry, that's not until 2008... forget I said that
Al, help me out here!
--
Beef
"Raging Moderate" of the
I've heard there are night and day differences in speed from DR2 and the final release. I could be wrong though.
--
InstantCool
Right now they seem to have dropped plans to support a PC version. Some rumors say there might still be one, but not for awhile.
--
InstantCool
This is a point Apple has ALWAYS skirted around. They put out boxes which, while admittedly faster, will cost you 2 arms, a leg and some genitalia to buy. Then there's the cost of OS X server.
So of course, you'll see these benchmarks compared on 'equally priced hardware'. Well of course this has to be the case, it takes most of that 5k just to reach the minimal OS X Server's requirements. Why not compare the numbers on a $1,000 machine? I can find any number of current generation x86 boxes that only cost that much. Or last generation Alpha's or Sparc's or anything. But will I find an G3 capable of running OS X Server for that cost? Fraid not.
And even these 1k boxes can hold their own. Hell we've all heard the stories of 486's running DNS servers. Linux will install on a 386 for pete's sake. You'll find boxes that have uptimes long enough to just about advertise the local power company's reliability moreso then the Linux box itself. I love Linux because the price is right. And that's ALL the price, from the hardware you need on up.
Tarnar
P.S. If I could afford a G3 450 or whatever the heck they used, I'd be a farily content guy. OS X would definitely have a place on the harddrive. Next to Linux.
And wasn't the iMac supposed to be 1000% faster than a PII 450 too? Able to jump tall buildings in a single bound, more powerful than a locomotive, etc etc....
Apple seems to be one of the best at trumping up they hardware/software - and turning a deaf ear when people actually start doing real world tests on it (like in the iMac's case - turning it on).
Companies are starting to compare their produts with
;-) ?
Linux! "...outperforming Linux, Solaris and Windows NT Server...."
Linux was the first of the list. So, even if it is
a twisted PR, it proves one thing: Linux is mainstream.
Time to try *BSD
The real big deal is not whether or not MkLinux is a bit faster than Mac OS X on the same hardware. The real deal is that OS X seems to give Unix-like stability and Unix-like performance, but you don't have to be a /.er to set it up. Any Joe Idiot can now setup and run a near-GNU quality web server. If you want to talk price/performane, letting Joe Idiot take 4 hours to install the server and having him maintain it in his spare time is a LOT cheaper than hiring Mr.Guru to set up and run a Linux+Apache box. The cost of the OS and server hardware is totally miniscule compared to the relative salaries of these two. OS X could cost $10,000 and it would still pay for itself twice over in a year for most small to medium sized businesses.
...witness the linuxppc and mklinux communities. Also, most of the universities in this country are teeming with Mac Heads that are also heavily exposed to unix, and nearly every mac user that I know who isn't a secretary or grade school teacher could hold their own on a unix workstation.
I, for one will put OS X server on a multiboot box and ignore it most of the time, as I can't think of a compelling reason to run it instead of linuxppc
$5k optimized mac vs $800 generic PC? sure il will go faster. Let me build a $5k PC optimized for web serving and I bet anything it will be faster than any MacOS X box at the same price.
PR stuff.
The guy complaining about the interpretation is clearly an ass!
The ONLY interpretation is that the comparison is for 2 different benchmarks.
i.e. a screwed comparison
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain Open Transport is not used in Mac OS X Server...which sucks, but i think they're using BSD networking...
Jeff Croft
----------
Jeff Croft
http://jeffcroft.com
On background of some of the prior released materials on the OS, I knew it would be competent. But it looks like we have a new monster on our hands.
I would really like to get hold of a G3 with this OS on..................I like the PowerPC G3.....
Live long and prosper...
Don't get your panties in a bunch. Performance
:) and give them 2 hours to configure and optimize the environment. Then run the benchmarks. I bet each will perform about 10 times higher than the numbers found for each in Apple's tests.
numbers mean very little, except that under some
theoretical load (and they at least superficially
attempted to equalize variables between the systems) the system should be able to perform
"well enough" to be considered a server OS, on par with other servers below $10K. That's all they needed to prove, but of course for the press to report it it has to be "the fastest".
A fair test is to start with these roughly comparable systems, as Apple did, and then give each out-of-the-box fresh system to a team of platform experts (e.g., give the Sun box to two Sun employees, the NT box to MS employees, the Linux box to Dean Gaudet, etc
My point is that sometimes the choice of platform for a project should factor in the expertise in a group - if your co-workers are Solaris weenies, well by all means go with Solaris.
The real debate should be, given out-of-the-box configurations, which platform & server are easiest to speed-tune for the non-expert? Of course, that's a hard number to give 5 degrees of precision to.
Brian
Compare this with Apple's ads about a G3 toasting
a Pentium II. In that case, they measured core speed using special instructions, and with the basis of those results, stated that the G3 is more than twice as fast.
Computer architects do not like these benchmark; they are more biased towards SPECint and SPECfp, since those compares system performance using real applications and not core speed using a toy program.
In the same way, the Mac OS Server vs. Linux test should be run on the same hardware, and configured in a correct way - equivalence down to compile options of the web server, if necessary.
Given Apple's tendency to 'twist' the numbers, I wouldn't take those benchmarks too seriously, although I find Mac OS Server quite exciting.
regards,
Graduate Student, book/computer/engingeering geek.
When Apple upgraded the BSD layer to 4.4, they took code from FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD. So you are right when you say it isn't running FreeBSD (just parts of it), but you are wrong when you say it is based on BSDI.
"Dude, this is getting pretty bad, you should make some sort of Hitler Steve Jobs, your slant is becomming very transparent."n sLaw.html
----
http://www.wins.uva.nl/~mes/jarg320.old/g/Godwi
------
Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition
in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's
Law thus guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups.
----
(sure, sure, its a usenet reference, but it applies elsewhere).
ia32 hasn't been vapor where since 1985
I'm sorry, but that was a *really* stupid comment
if you don't know what somthing is, you should
*Keep your mouth shut!*
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
please, "knowing when a floppy disk is in the drive" if that's all you mac heads can come up with, it's pretty sad.
and before OS X (read: about the last 5 years) mac OS has been wofully inept, no multithreading, no *protected memory*!
but I've had to sit and listen to mac users talk about how great there systems where beacuse the disk drive didn't have a button (witch bugged the hell out of me, "look it only takes 10 seconds to get your disk out!").
in the mean time, the system's need to reboot about every hour.
And don't say that I never use the things, they are the *only* computers at my school, and I've been forced to use them just about every day... I know what I'm talking about
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Hi,
maybe that's because there are a lot of Linux/Unix only Users out there that read Slashdot and have never used or seen a Mac for real.
Say anything against Linux (or even OSS) and they count it as personal insult. (why these people still stick with intel is another question...)
they regard apple as toy or mickey mouse computer and thus it has no chance against mighty linux...
it's a shame to see that the once open minded linux community is becoming proud of itself like most stupid nt users are, who often regard linux as hacker/kids operating system...
just to let you know: i use linux on my peecee and on my m68k mac...
Robert
OSx is crippled by Mach. Lmbench alone shows how
dire mach is. If they had used FreeBSD and it
was equivalent to Linux on the same box I'd be
prepared to believe it. Right now FreeBSD and Linux are basically neck and neck on network benches (and you'll need HIPPI to saturate either
meaningfully).
A mach system call on a high end x86 box is the same sort of speed as a syscall on an old sun4c
box without mach..
So NFR is optimised to a specifc magic BSD API.
Thats even less relevant than apples little bit
of bent benchmarking.
Why are apple using 2 benches, why are they using
10baseT not gigabit ether. Think about it
The combination of BSD net code and mach has so far shown no evidence of any credible performance at all. BSD networking without Mach is fast and its nice to see FreeBSD are stil trying to keep up with Linux
Apple has already killed off Mklinux, its only one active developer at apple who is working on it now.
:)
LinuxPPC is the only working linux for macs until Debian realeases its version. MKlinux is outdated and slow, its been practicly dead a loong time
/don't falme my spelling
De lyckliga slavarna är frihetens bittraste fiender, legalisera!!!
Exactly, No DR4 and just the kernel is being developed, Anybody can use the real linux kernel as of 2.2.x, so why should anybody need mach to host it (maybe some 6200 people but nobody else). MkLinux is as good as dead. The mach version used ain't even GPL...
De lyckliga slavarna är frihetens bittraste fiender, legalisera!!!
>Will Apple kill off MkLinx?
(notice the word APPLE in the question?)
I still really doesn't think apple care a bit about MkLinux, just leaving one developer to the project.
please note that I have only said MKLINUX is as good as dead, NOT mach or mac linux or anything.
Ive said that MkLinux (as an apple project) is as good as killed off. Of cource the sources are free and will be free but apple doesn't care about it any more.
The main purpose of MkLinux was as I see it to start the linux development for mac, and it did, now we have LinuxPPC and don't need mklinux anymore. It is slower and it is older so why care. Apple doesn't
Of cource a lot of people have downloaded and bought it, it was the only linux for mac when it was released, but as soon as you've tried the real kernel instead of mach you see how much faster it is and will never go back to mach.
Probably apple will use some parts of the mach kernel in OS X but thats something totally different than MK LINUX
Please tell my a good reason why MkLinux is better than the "real thing"?
/my opinion
De lyckliga slavarna är frihetens bittraste fiender, legalisera!!!
It's not a deal, it's a Dell. If they'd gone to the bother of finding the fastest PC under $5k and putting Linux/Apache on it they might not have been able to prove their point.
--
E_NOSIG
Gosh, you people are touchy. I make an innocent little comment about how if you really wanted to find the fastest web server under $5k you wouldn't be buying Dells and I get flamed.
/. post. Now I feel all rejected. Sniff.
We use Dells at work, and I really like them. The 2300 is a bit widgy for what I do (currently using 6100s, going to 6300s), and if you buy them by the thousand they get really cheap, but for a one-off competition they are not a low cost option.
BTW that was my first
--
E_NOSIG
Gee .. I wish you would consider stating facts
...(mostly because no one really knows.)
... is simple .. there are NO plans .. it doesn't meant that there won't be a DR4 just that neither Apple nor anyone else involved wants to discuss products that don't have solid release plans...
.. not practice.
rather than opinions. The Mach version is a BSD style license (it is the CMU license to be precise).
Its hard to imagine that over 20K purchasers of the MkLinux CD-ROM are just going to disappear. Not to mention the number of downloads
The issue of "No DR4"
Obvious to anyone with a recent computer science background, a microkernel (such as Mach) allows multiple OS personalities to run on the same hardware at the same time. This is called theory at this time
David Fickes ADVICE Marketing (650) 321-2198
And we all trust ZDnet for "honest" and "objective" statistics... I'm sorry but this article gets filed right along with good 'ole Bill Gates' book...
Yes, one day I may actually learn to spell...
Vaporized? Why? The NT box you're using gonna crash again?
Vaprized? Why? The NT box you're using gonna crash again?
Don't you people have anything better to do than focus on the business side of computing? Frankly, it's rather vulgar. I don't know about you, but I went into computing BECAUSE I LIKE COMPUTERS, not because I wanted to see how big, rich fat-cats could benefit from technology. Sickening.
What on EARTH does it matter how cheap PCs are when you buy them by the thousands? How many of you can buy PCs by the thousands for your own PERSONAL use? None, unless one of you out there happens to be Bill Gates. And how much does it matter if PCs don't come with support? If you don't know how to do your own rack-a-fratchin' support for ordinary desktop PCs, what the fsck are you doing running Linux?
It's time to re-think our priorities, people...
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
Uh, no. NeXT is a company that has been operating and providing Unix support for well over ten years. Apple's support of AIX on PowerPC machines and AUX on 68k machines alone establish them as a UNIX vendor with deeper roots than most people are willing to believe.
It amazes me that much of the Open Source community is so hostile towards Apple. Much of the flameage is exactly the same as one would hear from some dumbass M$ apologist. While Apple PR is clearly trying to cash in quick on some of this open source hype, their OS is based on OSS and they (as NeXT) have been active in the open source community long before most slashdot readers (average age: 20). Just look at Avie's work on mach for one.
Then again, if you want to be ignorant and angry, that's your problem. You're probably running code written and paid for by NeXT right now if you're running an open source OS.
X may be bloated, but Linux is not X. If you use a lightweight window manager it's not that bad at all.