I hope people realise that this isn't the MacOS that is not Y2K compliant, it is the method that the programmer is using. If he/she wrote proper code then their program would be compliant along with MacOS.
This is like any other Y2K compliant OS. It just means the OS won't crash but some poorly written programs will. It's not Apple's fault.
And is that really all that long?... wasn't windows 95 actually supposed to be windows 92/93.
oh yeah... and this whole Windows NT 5 thing that we were supposed to see last year (or was that the year before) but now won't see until 2000.
Originally, the final version of "Rhapsody" was due in September 1998. I think a 6 month delay is pretty reasonable considering the work they'be had to do to get it to where it is now.
MacOS X Server may not be as fast as LinuxPPC. I would be surprised if it was because Linux is built from the ground up to be small and fast. That is it's purpose. However, the Mach kernel is *so* refined in MXS that you can hardly give it a name... I'm willing to bet that the only reason they aren't naming it something else is because it's creator, Avadis Tevanian (who is VP at Apple) wants to keep the name. They have said from day one that they will work to make MXS the on of the fastest server OS availble... I believe they can do it.
In the end though, MXS will be desirable not because of it's speed but because you wil have the power of a full BSD command line, POSIX compliance (or real close), native WebObjects and Yellow Box development all in a MacOS interface (if you chose to use it).
*NO* other server OS IMHO can compete with that.
oh ya, and the mac compatibility area (BlueBox)doesn't affect anything. It is an application. It does not have to be run. It is MacOS running on a PowerPC. No emulation.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope people realise that this isn't the MacOS that is not Y2K compliant, it is the method that the programmer is using. If he/she wrote proper code then their program would be compliant along with MacOS.
This is like any other Y2K compliant OS. It just means the OS won't crash but some poorly written programs will. It's not Apple's fault.
And is that really all that long?... wasn't windows 95 actually supposed to be windows 92/93.
oh yeah... and this whole Windows NT 5 thing that we were supposed to see last year (or was that the year before) but now won't see until 2000.
Originally, the final version of "Rhapsody" was due in September 1998. I think a 6 month delay is pretty reasonable considering the work they'be had to do to get it to where it is now.
I see it like this...
MacOS X Server may not be as fast as LinuxPPC. I would be surprised if it was because Linux is built from the ground up to be small and fast. That is it's purpose. However, the Mach kernel is *so* refined in MXS that you can hardly give it a name... I'm willing to bet that the only reason they aren't naming it something else is because it's creator, Avadis Tevanian (who is VP at Apple) wants to keep the name. They have said from day one that they will work to make MXS the on of the fastest server OS availble... I believe they can do it.
In the end though, MXS will be desirable not because of it's speed but because you wil have the power of a full BSD command line, POSIX compliance (or real close), native WebObjects and Yellow Box development all in a MacOS interface (if you chose to use it).
*NO* other server OS IMHO can compete with that.
oh ya, and the mac compatibility area (BlueBox)doesn't affect anything. It is an application. It does not have to be run. It is MacOS running on a PowerPC. No emulation.
phew... what a braindump