Apple was defintely benchmarking while development of Mac OS X Server was going on. I was told by one of the engineers at San Francisco Macworld in January that it had the best Apache performance of any server around.
Oh, but that's part of the point. Neal S indulges in some very sloppy argument, ironically while attacking Disney for interpreting culture in a way that avoids the "precision" of words.
The twist that allows him to argue all the way from start to finish is summed up by this phrase: "Words are the only immutable medium we have."
With respect, and as anyone who'se ever study philosophy in depth, that's rubbish. Words, and the interpretation of words, are one of the most mutable things in the whole of human history. I'm surprised that a story teller, who knows how to make words dance, could make such an elementary error.
Then, of course, there's the false analogies he uses. He happily compares Disney's "interfaces" on cultural history to GUIs. Unfortunately, that ignores the fundamental fact that culture, for most of us, is something you *observe*. A computer, on the other hand, is something you *use* - a tool. The purpose of the "Disney interface" is to entertain. The purpose of a GUI is to make a computer easier to use, and to ensure that more people can use it to do stuff.
There are plenty of other errors like that, all of which undermine Neal's argument.
You've never been involved in a patent dispute, have you?
If Apple was accused of violating a patent, lost the case, and had not made "best efforts" to stop its violation *at the time of the claim*, it would be in extra-deep legal doo doo.
OK, let's look at this a little rationally. Apple has a responsibility to its shareholders to ensure that the Mac is a viable platform in the future. Given that PowerPC could *possibly* fall behind Intel's performance, or Motorola and IBM could decide to focus it solely on embedded systems, and forget about the desktop.
Both of these scenarios are unlikely, IMHO, but definitely POSSIBLE. Given this, Apple has to ensure that its OS - the core of its business - could be ported to alternative processors - and, realistically, that means to Intel's x86 architecture.
So, if Apple is to correctly do its fiduciary duty, it MUST look at alternatives to PowerPC ie. Intel. In order to do that, it would have to have a team of people looking at porting from PowerPC to x86. So, somewhere in the bowels of Apple, there's almost certainly a couple of geeks working on this, probably with Intel's help (for compilers, architecutural consultancy, etc.)
(The source for the story, incidentally, was a very senior Intel exec. Go figure out for yourself why an Intel exec might spill info like this.)
Of course, this doesn't mean it's going to happen. But Apple would be being irresponsible if it didn't look at alternatives to PowerPC.
And, of course, if it did happen, it wouldn't mean you could run Mac OS on your standard IBM-compatible PC box. Apple could easily build a proprietory motherboard architecture around an Intel processor.
As for what Steve Jobs says... let's put it this way. A few weeks ago, Apple sent a letter to its US dealers categorically denying that there was a new, speed-bumped iMac on the way. Now, we find that one will be released on April 19th. They're already with dealers.
Believe everything Apple says - or denies - at your own risk.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple doesn't own the codecs. It licenses them.
Apple was defintely benchmarking while development of Mac OS X Server was going on. I was told by one of the engineers at San Francisco Macworld in January that it had the best Apache performance of any server around.
Not hard - by your religiously hardcore rules, *impossible*.
Oh, but that's part of the point. Neal S indulges in some very sloppy argument, ironically while attacking Disney for interpreting culture in a way that avoids the "precision" of words.
The twist that allows him to argue all the way from start to finish is summed up by this phrase:
"Words are the only immutable medium we have."
With respect, and as anyone who'se ever study philosophy in depth, that's rubbish. Words, and the interpretation of words, are one of the most mutable things in the whole of human history. I'm surprised that a story teller, who knows how to make words dance, could make such an elementary error.
Then, of course, there's the false analogies he uses. He happily compares Disney's "interfaces" on cultural history to GUIs. Unfortunately, that ignores the fundamental fact that culture, for most of us, is something you *observe*. A computer, on the other hand, is something you *use* - a tool. The purpose of the "Disney interface" is to entertain. The purpose of a GUI is to make a computer easier to use, and to ensure that more people can use it to do stuff.
There are plenty of other errors like that, all of which undermine Neal's argument.
You've never been involved in a patent dispute, have you?
If Apple was accused of violating a patent, lost the case, and had not made "best efforts" to stop its violation *at the time of the claim*, it would be in extra-deep legal doo doo.
It certainly will run Mac OS X, due for release later in the year. It will also run Mac OS X *Server*, out now, unsupported.
OK, let's look at this a little rationally. Apple has a responsibility to its shareholders to ensure that the Mac is a viable platform in the future. Given that PowerPC could *possibly* fall behind Intel's performance, or Motorola and IBM could decide to focus it solely on embedded systems, and forget about the desktop.
Both of these scenarios are unlikely, IMHO, but definitely POSSIBLE. Given this, Apple has to ensure that its OS - the core of its business - could be ported to alternative processors - and, realistically, that means to Intel's x86 architecture.
So, if Apple is to correctly do its fiduciary duty, it MUST look at alternatives to PowerPC ie. Intel. In order to do that, it would have to have a team of people looking at porting from PowerPC to x86. So, somewhere in the bowels of Apple, there's almost certainly a couple of geeks working on this, probably with Intel's help (for compilers, architecutural consultancy, etc.)
(The source for the story, incidentally, was a very senior Intel exec. Go figure out for yourself why an Intel exec might spill info like this.)
Of course, this doesn't mean it's going to happen. But Apple would be being irresponsible if it didn't look at alternatives to PowerPC.
And, of course, if it did happen, it wouldn't mean you could run Mac OS on your standard IBM-compatible PC box. Apple could easily build a proprietory motherboard architecture around an Intel processor.
As for what Steve Jobs says... let's put it this way. A few weeks ago, Apple sent a letter to its US dealers categorically denying that there was a new, speed-bumped iMac on the way. Now, we find that one will be released on April 19th. They're already with dealers.
Believe everything Apple says - or denies - at your own risk.
That's the funniest posting I've seen for a while...
And who decides if it is or isn't open source?
Erm... IBM has made money from services for decades, certainly prior to RMS.
Can you boot fifty diskless clients off linux?