Won't ever happen... at least how its going now. Apple it too greedy. They seem to hate other company producing hardware but themselves. Yes, I know their mantra is consistency. Yes, I know their OS runs best on their hardware. Yes, I know they have a right to maintain the most optimal platform for their OS. That is also why they won't agree to have a mainstream MacOS X for ix86.
Now, they may want to consider a stripped down, ix86 version, but I hardly believe they will agree to that.
Interestingly enough, I went to netcraft (http://www.netcraft.com/survey/developers/apple.h tml) and saw what Apple is running. A bunch of MacOS (of course), but also bunch of Solaris and , get this, _Linux_. Tee hee
Kinda gets you right here...
I'm as giddy as a schoolboy! Thanks Apple!
I also see a few Linucees at http://www.netcraft.com/survey/developers/microsof t.html
And the "Most true to form" Award goes to SGI (http://www.netcraft.com/survey/developers/sgi.htm l).
I agree with you both, but my perspective is Linux is ubiquitous (I hope that's the correct word - has more of an install/hardware base). Much more so than MacOS X.
Let me add to a list of things that stand in MacOS X's way:
[] I've read of getting "Steved". Jobs doesn't like it, he changes it.
[] Only one type of hardware. BAD IDEA.
[] Little Open-Source effort.
[] Possible harder time "fitting in" to a more Linux environment (or Windows for that matter).
Quoth NTSwerver:
>I find that I learn more about something if I get stuck in and 'get my hands dirty', because when you have to actually find the cause of a problem by trial and error, you generally remember the solution better than if you just read it out of a manual/book.<
Isn't _that_ the truth. However, I do find that a quick once through gives me a chance to see where various subjects and new features are.
I'm like you -- "I don't need no stinkin' manuals". But I do always notice as I'm looking for the answer, I find something new I didn't know.
I think the author is going for a more "dummy" approach. He may be thinking that new users may be willing to seek answers in books, rather than taking on the challenge of "finding the answer" themselves. I personally use deja.com to search news postings and get 90% of my answers immediately and without bothering someone else. And, I remember what the solution was as if I stumbled onto it myself...
Most of the posts I've seen have been from existing UNIX/Linux users points of view. Mind you, that's the gist of the article, but the problem to me is what is going to happen to the non-UNIX Mac users?
They are going to be left out in the COLD. Litterally shivering when their pretty OS goes bonkers. Unix just ain't like the MacOS.
As for LinuxPPC vs MacOS X, I still have a problem with a single company controlling my OS... Kinda like taking from the bear and giving to the fox...
The author of the article failed to research fully his information. His views are way skewewd towards Mac/Windows.
Here's the scoop Mr. Levy, While your history could be quite accurate, your view on Linux GUIs are quite off. Crude? Hardly. Have you seen KDE or GNOME? Yo mention Eazel, but failed to mention GNOME (kinda goes together sir). If you have even laid eyes on Linux or a GUI/Window Manager for Linux, you would agree that Linux isn't for geeks anymore.
It does have its geeky side, and yes, is not that "user friendly" that we expect from a Mac, but crude it isn't. I take particular joy in the fact that while all of this MS putting Explorer as its file manager BS was hitting the perverbial fan, the browsing file manager is what KDE and GNOME were doing from the start. No one argued with them...
Mr. Levy, if you don't fully understand something or don't have the time to research properly, don't comment at all.
Six months? Shit, if it were any more destructive, it would set us back 9 years (1990 ring a bell?)
But you are absolutely correct -- with one exception. There are immature people in all aspect of computer technology. Hence the reason we have virii today, eh?
I think its these idiots who grab the mike at every possible (in)convenience.
In my opinion, these virus authors are about as sorry as crackers.
I promse I won't go into "I've read that Red Hat has bugs..." and try to make a point, rather the point I want to make is of trust.
Skimming over the very mixed reviews I get a sense of mistrust in Red Hat--not that you will be the next Microsoft, not that you will wind up screwing us all one day, but by shipping out products that based on market driven goals. Of course I do not accuse, but if the releases are more market driven, please consider this.
A bigot just tried to convence me that Open Source (meaning Red Hat too) is in the habit of "release early and often". This we know is _not_ true, but I caution you to not "release early and often".
I'm not saying you do, have or even contemplate this in the future, but to take example, what would Linus do? He's no Jesus, but the concept is still the same.
It might behove you to check future distributions as thoroughly as possible (knowing there was a problem with thte initial 6.0 release - Squid Proxy server if i'm correct) thus regaining a lot of trust in Red Hat and the Open Source movement.
You guys in Durham are _the_ second only to Linus himself in moving the commercialization of Linux forward (I mean that from a pure market standpoint y'all). You are proof that Open Source _can_ make it in a free, commercial market proving just about every thing ESR says.
But be careful what you release, you're corporate credibility is at stake (as well as the image of Open Source).
My deepest wishes to you, your staff, your partners, your goals, and for your future. Long live Red Hat and Open Source.
Great Idea since 95% of the desktop computers are Intel based. Gee, when did someone get hit by a clue bat? Colored plastic, colored shamstic. Populate tthe world on the most ubiqutous hardware platform and you win the game.
>If you write applications that people want to use, they will. It all comes down to courting developers. No developers means no apps, means no reason to buy the machine.
Precisely, and pissing off developers isn't good either.
BSD (should) being POSIX compliant, offers developers much more flexibility in their development... it cuts platform development down.
Lets take Photoshop. Adobe already has a port for IRIX. This (seems) simple enough to move to MacOS X Workstation if needed, but how about all the rest of the Mac apps. How many developers are willing to suddenly switch gears.
I realize Apple has Carbon (API??) to help the transition, and that's all good for big developers. But what about the small developer shops??
Anyhow, I totally agree with the first paragraph. The hurdle will be taking the most proprietary company known and opening it up for development. I hope they (Apple) will stick to their (seemingly) commitment to Open Source.
The trouble with Apple is that they don't seem to grasp the concept of Customer. The customer (or loyal user in this case) is going to freak when they see UNIX for the first time. IMHO, they care trying to capture a market where there shouldn't necessarily be.
Linux (PPC) should be able to overcome MacOS X by leaps and bounds _just_ because LinuxPPC has more freedom for innovation. The key is education, (soft) marketing, dedication on the Admin part, and a little courage to introduce a Linux solution to the Apple platform.
I say this because I have both MacOS X Server and Linux PPC installed. Linux performs better and though less intuitive, offers much greater flexibility to date.
I guess I'm really soapboxing Linux, but from an experienced admin standpoint, I have to go with Linux.
Now with that, I will challenge the LinuxPPC community to develope a more friendly UI to atalk administration. SAMBA has WASP (I think) an most all of MacOS X Server is admin through the Web.
Curious point... unless they have changed the MacOS X chooser connection, I didn't see the MacOS X Server's AppleTalk name as a chooser item. You had to enter the IP AND have AppleshareIP Client !! A drawback for older systems running >7.6.1 .
When I read the headline and description on Slashdot, I immediately knew MacOS 9 would win. It is easier to install, configure and has more user friendly Internet access. Hands down. Apples to, well, Unices.
But lets put things in perspective. Linux is not for the commmon man -- yet!
As being one who has worked on Macs since 1988, I have seen the changes -- bad and good. The Mac is NOT the most stable platform. Corel/Linux beats most OSs hands down. MacOS cannot outpace Linux, even on single processor. It can't run all the services without costly additions(money and system resources). And it doesn't have the flexibility of user interfaces -- commandline and GUI for you purists;-)
The MacOS was designed to be about as user friendly as any OS could be. We didn't need no stinkin' Internet back then. And that was Apple's oversight.
Oh well. The comparison was fair. That is to bring Linux down to Apples level, but you can't bring Apple up to Linux's level.
What really matters is what can an OS do for the user -- specifically in this instance where the OS is a server. IS people need to be comfortable with their environment and if it works, use it. Especially when you have to have cpmpatibility
I've heard a lot of you say "both OSs have their strengths and weaknesses. Both can do a job and do it well." This is the paramount truth. BOTH do have their strengths and weaknesses.
The most interesting thing I've seend so far from Mindcrafts latest tests were (and I maybe reading the phase 1/2 configureation wrong) is that all the client machines were Windows OS machines.
Duh Huh. Do you suppose they might work better? I certainly do. Lets try this on a homogenous system (though thats impractical unless they have ported NetBench and WebBench to Linux/Unix).
The truth is: Yes Linux needs some work. Yes Mindcraft used a 2.2.6 Kernel. Yes you would expect that MS would work better with MS. Yes 95% of the personal computer market is MS. Yes NT and Linux have their strengths and weaknesses.
But the bottom line is what do you as an IS person (and I say this because a majority of us Linux users are IS people) want out of a server/OS?
Bang for the buck? Good argument. Holds some water. Reliability? Better argument. Holds more water. Potential? Best argument of all. A wellspring.
If you must use NT for a purpose, use NT. Its not all that bad. It works well in its environment and by nature its going to work best with other MS products.
Otherwise, get Linux. Use Linux. Make Linux better. Forget Benchmarks. Forget this silly NT Vs Linux crap. Its all a PR ploy that MS has ccoked up to hit us Linux (AND ALL OTHER OPEN SOURCE OSs) below the belt. They can't beat us in the marketplace, so they have to get us from somewhere. And that somewhere is in our confidence.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmmm. Lets see. Wasn't there a little skirmish based on this same theme -- a monarchy taxing the subjects to death.
What's the difference here? Paying twice for the software (or in their eyes, the rights to use the software). Either way, its a double taxation redux.
-Wes Yates
The Woolsey-Swanson Rule
People would rather live with a problem they cannot solve than accept a problem they do not understand.
Won't ever happen... at least how its going now. Apple it too greedy. They seem to hate other company producing hardware but themselves. Yes, I know their mantra is consistency. Yes, I know their OS runs best on their hardware. Yes, I know they have a right to maintain the most optimal platform for their OS. That is also why they won't agree to have a mainstream MacOS X for ix86.
Now, they may want to consider a stripped down, ix86 version, but I hardly believe they will agree to that.
MacOS X on ix86. Not anytime soon.
-Wes Yates
Interestingly enough, I went to netcraft (http://www.netcraft.com/survey/developers/apple.h tml) and saw what Apple is running. A bunch of MacOS (of course), but also bunch of Solaris and , get this, _Linux_. Tee hee
f t.html
m l).
Kinda gets you right here...
I'm as giddy as a schoolboy! Thanks Apple!
I also see a few Linucees at http://www.netcraft.com/survey/developers/microso
And the "Most true to form" Award goes to SGI (http://www.netcraft.com/survey/developers/sgi.ht
-Wes
Computers aren't Gods, they're machines. OS's aren't Religions, they're software. - Wes Yates
DoOoOoOd, you fergot thu "MaN"
@@@@@ Maks KiK AsSsSsSs oVEr LiNUkS, MaN @@@@@
You hippie coward Mac Freek.
Won't porting Mac apps to a Unix(like) filesystem such as MacOS X make it easier to port to Linux? Eh?
:-)
Port me baby. I'll go on most all Unices at that point
Photoshop for MacOS X/Linux anyone?
I agree with you both, but my perspective is Linux is ubiquitous (I hope that's the correct word - has more of an install/hardware base). Much more so than MacOS X.
Let me add to a list of things that stand in MacOS X's way:
[] I've read of getting "Steved". Jobs doesn't like it, he changes it.
[] Only one type of hardware. BAD IDEA.
[] Little Open-Source effort.
[] Possible harder time "fitting in" to a more Linux environment (or Windows for that matter).
Just my 2cents
Quoth NTSwerver:
>I find that I learn more about something if I get stuck in and 'get my hands dirty', because when you have to actually find the cause of a problem by trial and error, you generally remember the solution better than if you just read it out of a manual/book.<
Isn't _that_ the truth. However, I do find that a quick once through gives me a chance to see where various subjects and new features are.
I'm like you -- "I don't need no stinkin' manuals". But I do always notice as I'm looking for the answer, I find something new I didn't know.
I think the author is going for a more "dummy" approach. He may be thinking that new users may be willing to seek answers in books, rather than taking on the challenge of "finding the answer" themselves. I personally use deja.com to search news postings and get 90% of my answers immediately and without bothering someone else. And, I remember what the solution was as if I stumbled onto it myself...
Good luck to the Author. He'll need it.
Most of the posts I've seen have been from existing UNIX/Linux users points of view. Mind you, that's the gist of the article, but the problem to me is what is going to happen to the non-UNIX Mac users?
They are going to be left out in the COLD. Litterally shivering when their pretty OS goes bonkers. Unix just ain't like the MacOS.
As for LinuxPPC vs MacOS X, I still have a problem with a single company controlling my OS... Kinda like taking from the bear and giving to the fox...
-Wes Yates
I had the same question...
The author of the article failed to research fully his information. His views are way skewewd towards Mac/Windows.
Here's the scoop Mr. Levy, While your history could be quite accurate, your view on Linux GUIs are quite off. Crude? Hardly. Have you seen KDE or GNOME? Yo mention Eazel, but failed to mention GNOME (kinda goes together sir). If you have even laid eyes on Linux or a GUI/Window Manager for Linux, you would agree that Linux isn't for geeks anymore.
It does have its geeky side, and yes, is not that "user friendly" that we expect from a Mac, but crude it isn't. I take particular joy in the fact that while all of this MS putting Explorer as its file manager BS was hitting the perverbial fan, the browsing file manager is what KDE and GNOME were doing from the start. No one argued with them...
Mr. Levy, if you don't fully understand something or don't have the time to research properly, don't comment at all.
You know, I thought of this, but isn't that usually done at Haloween :-}
Six months? Shit, if it were any more destructive, it would set us back 9 years (1990 ring a bell?)
But you are absolutely correct -- with one exception. There are immature people in all aspect of computer technology. Hence the reason we have virii today, eh?
I think its these idiots who grab the mike at every possible (in)convenience.
In my opinion, these virus authors are about as sorry as crackers.
... Open Source ... is in the habit of "release early and often". This we know is _not_ true,
For those interested, I stand corrected. My apologies to OSI.
-WY
Mr. Young,
I promse I won't go into "I've read that Red Hat has bugs..." and try to make a point, rather the point I want to make is of trust.
Skimming over the very mixed reviews I get a sense of mistrust in Red Hat--not that you will be the next Microsoft, not that you will wind up screwing us all one day, but by shipping out products that based on market driven goals. Of course I do not accuse, but if the releases are more market driven, please consider this.
A bigot just tried to convence me that Open Source (meaning Red Hat too) is in the habit of "release early and often". This we know is _not_ true, but I caution you to not "release early and often".
I'm not saying you do, have or even contemplate this in the future, but to take example, what would Linus do? He's no Jesus, but the concept is still the same.
It might behove you to check future distributions as thoroughly as possible (knowing there was a problem with thte initial 6.0 release - Squid Proxy server if i'm correct) thus regaining a lot of trust in Red Hat and the Open Source movement.
You guys in Durham are _the_ second only to Linus himself in moving the commercialization of Linux forward (I mean that from a pure market standpoint y'all). You are proof that Open Source _can_ make it in a free, commercial market proving just about every thing ESR says.
But be careful what you release, you're corporate credibility is at stake (as well as the image of Open Source).
My deepest wishes to you, your staff, your partners, your goals, and for your future. Long live Red Hat and Open Source.
-Wes Yates
Great Idea since 95% of the desktop computers are Intel based. Gee, when did someone get hit by a clue bat? Colored plastic, colored shamstic. Populate tthe world on the most ubiqutous hardware platform and you win the game.
Wait a minute, sounds familiar (Windows)...
-Wes Yates, Cybernetic Entomologist
While these are minor ports, they still need to be added being (supposedly) POSIX compliant OS's AND currently being developed!
-Wes
>If you write applications that people want to use, they will. It all comes down to courting developers. No developers means no apps, means no reason to buy the machine.
Precisely, and pissing off developers isn't good either.
BSD (should) being POSIX compliant, offers developers much more flexibility in their development... it cuts platform development down.
Lets take Photoshop. Adobe already has a port for IRIX. This (seems) simple enough to move to MacOS X Workstation if needed, but how about all the rest of the Mac apps. How many developers are willing to suddenly switch gears.
I realize Apple has Carbon (API??) to help the transition, and that's all good for big developers. But what about the small developer shops??
Anyhow, I totally agree with the first paragraph. The hurdle will be taking the most proprietary company known and opening it up for development. I hope they (Apple) will stick to their (seemingly) commitment to Open Source.
Wes Yates
Yes, I stand corrected. Thanks.
Wes
The trouble with Apple is that they don't seem to grasp the concept of Customer. The customer (or loyal user in this case) is going to freak when they see UNIX for the first time. IMHO, they care trying to capture a market where there shouldn't necessarily be.
Linux (PPC) should be able to overcome MacOS X by leaps and bounds _just_ because LinuxPPC has more freedom for innovation. The key is education, (soft) marketing, dedication on the Admin part, and a little courage to introduce a Linux solution to the Apple platform.
I say this because I have both MacOS X Server and Linux PPC installed. Linux performs better and though less intuitive, offers much greater flexibility to date.
I guess I'm really soapboxing Linux, but from an experienced admin standpoint, I have to go with Linux.
Now with that, I will challenge the LinuxPPC community to develope a more friendly UI to atalk administration. SAMBA has WASP (I think) an most all of MacOS X Server is admin through the Web.
Curious point... unless they have changed the MacOS X chooser connection, I didn't see the MacOS X Server's AppleTalk name as a chooser item. You had to enter the IP AND have AppleshareIP Client !! A drawback for older systems running >7.6.1 .
Hrmmmmmm.
-Wes Yates
My friend, Macs cost a sh!tload eveywhere.
Holy crap. this puppy is just about like the old Mac Plus/SE/SEII/Classics.
Hell, I used to work on a compter 'bout this size.
Definately NOT an internet appliance.
Think again guys.....
there were a few that weren't. As for reverse engineering. I was refereing not to a Linux implementation, rather a standalone implementation.
thanks
When I read the headline and description on Slashdot, I immediately knew MacOS 9 would win. It is easier to install, configure and has more user friendly Internet access. Hands down. Apples to, well, Unices.
;-)
But lets put things in perspective. Linux is not for the commmon man -- yet!
As being one who has worked on Macs since 1988, I have seen the changes -- bad and good. The Mac is NOT the most stable platform. Corel/Linux beats most OSs hands down. MacOS cannot outpace Linux, even on single processor. It can't run all the services without costly additions(money and system resources). And it doesn't have the flexibility of user interfaces -- commandline and GUI for you purists
The MacOS was designed to be about as user friendly as any OS could be. We didn't need no stinkin' Internet back then. And that was Apple's oversight.
Oh well. The comparison was fair. That is to bring Linux down to Apples level, but you can't bring Apple up to Linux's level.
-Wes Yates
What really matters is what can an OS do for the user -- specifically in this instance where the OS is a server. IS people need to be comfortable with their environment and if it works, use it. Especially when you have to have cpmpatibility
I've heard a lot of you say "both OSs have their strengths and weaknesses. Both can do a job and do it well." This is the paramount truth. BOTH do have their strengths and weaknesses.
The most interesting thing I've seend so far from Mindcrafts latest tests were (and I maybe reading the phase 1/2 configureation wrong) is that all the client machines were Windows OS machines.
Duh Huh. Do you suppose they might work better? I certainly do. Lets try this on a homogenous system (though thats impractical unless they have ported NetBench and WebBench to Linux/Unix).
The truth is: Yes Linux needs some work. Yes Mindcraft used a 2.2.6 Kernel. Yes you would expect that MS would work better with MS. Yes 95% of the personal computer market is MS. Yes NT and Linux have their strengths and weaknesses.
But the bottom line is what do you as an IS person (and I say this because a majority of us Linux users are IS people) want out of a server/OS?
Bang for the buck? Good argument. Holds some water. Reliability? Better argument. Holds more water. Potential? Best argument of all. A wellspring.
If you must use NT for a purpose, use NT. Its not all that bad. It works well in its environment and by nature its going to work best with other MS products.
Otherwise, get Linux. Use Linux. Make Linux better. Forget Benchmarks. Forget this silly NT Vs Linux crap. Its all a PR ploy that MS has ccoked up to hit us Linux (AND ALL OTHER OPEN SOURCE OSs) below the belt. They can't beat us in the marketplace, so they have to get us from somewhere. And that somewhere is in our confidence.
Actually you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can fool MicroSoft users ANY time you like.
The general computing populus is too brainwashed into believing that MicroSoft _anything_ is the only computing option that exists. It isn't.
Now, Linux isn't for the idiots of the world, but when it comes to nuts and bolts... my money (or lack of it) is on Linux.
-Wes Yates