Bottomline: Projected OS X native availability of OpenOffice.org 2.0 is currently Q1 2006.
Yeah, I'm not holding my breath. OSS guys that are projecting 2 years out? Unlike a commercial dev, they are inclined to let RL get in the way. + this article was last updated 8/03, so it's an even further out projection that it is today. So basically, no telling. Unless someone has an up-to-date timeline? Any chance these guys are ahead of schedule?
Here's two options; I haven't tried either (but at one time the Apple Stores were selling ThinkFree office, if that means anything):
AbiWord; appears to require X11, although the pages aren't clear from a skim.
ThinkFree Office; java based. I think it might be ok, but only you know if it has the sophistication of features that you need.
FWIW, a place to look for this sort of stuff is the Apple Products Guide as they'll list pretty much anything that works on the Mac. That means a lot of crap in the hits, but it's better than doing a "macintosh word processor" in Google. Usually.
Hm. Okay, my laptop will intermittently freeze. Doesn't seem to matter what application I'm using. I've already done a clean install. I have two other laptops of the same model with the same software load and they run w/o issue. So what part do you swap? RAM, HD, NIC, video card, logic board? All of the above?
Do you have a link for that? That's pretty interesting, and will solve quite a few problems--no more having to install the Dev Tools, just to get CpMac, just to copy things in the terminal and not lose the rsrc forks.
, leading me to conclude it is a niche market. Any thoughts?
I'd be kidding you if I told you it wasn't. How it's actually being used, of course, only Apple's Sales manager knows--but I can tell you the target market:
Graphic dept skunkworks--they need a fileserver for their Macs and some PCs. Apple does fileserving really well; 500MB a minute over AFP.
Schools who need management of low needs users, but the security has to be pretty tied down. By "low-needs", I mean no App serving, etc.
Designed for SOHO users--have an office of 6? Want business email, brochure-ware web site, some collab share points? Throw an Xserve in and forget the licensing.
Also, Apple is trying to get more and more into the HPC space, with Xgrid, Xsan, XRaid, and Cluster Node Xserves. Some sucess with this; I think there's quite a few 12-node clusters sititng in corner someplace, and all IT knows about them is that they have one less IP to give out.
Still niche, yes: they don't run 10,000 employees with Workgroup Manager, for example. But it serves as a good fileserver when a the extra workstations just can't quite keep up, or when the workgroup uses Macs for whatever reason and needs a server to help them work better amongst themselves (without necessarily involving IT).
I'm not sure of the distinction--I'm a Mac guy, not allowed to admin Windows Servers--but you might find answers in the pages and docs on Windows services in Apple's pages on Panther Server, or on a discussion of setting up the Windows Services in X Server 10.2-3.
The summary above neglected to mention the promise of ACLs:
"Tiger Server goes beyond the limitations of traditional UNIX file permissions to give you greater flexibility over assigning access permissions to files, folders and network services. Access Control Lists (ACLs) in Tiger Server let you set a whole group as the owner of a file or folder rather than just an individual -- you can even assign unique access permissions for multiple users and groups. This makes it easy to set up collaborative environments with smooth file sharing and uninterrupted workflows, without compromising security.
Even if you have a multi-platform network, you can still enjoy the flexibility of ACLs in Tiger Server -- because they're compatible with those in Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP."
wtf this does to ls, chown and chgrp is anyone's guess. My guess: bad things. How in the world this was implemented will be interesting to know; a whole different volume format? Is it an option or mandatory? If it is still restricted to only one owner--who just happens to actually be a group, I can see how that would work. Or maybe through hard links, each link with a different permission set? Much remains to be seen about this compatibility feature--but if it works well it'll be welcome. If it doesn't there'll be hell to pay.
Not announced on stage, but previewed off, is 10.4 Server: includes 100% 64bit libs, ACLs, iChat server, SUS. Also includes NT migration tool, improved email, and a one-click SOHO setup. Nice bump.
It found that you can ask home users with more computing power than they personally use to donate their compute cycles, if they find the project interesting enough and your work is Very Embarrassingly Parallel. Furthermore, as broadband becomes more popular, the work will not need to be quite so parallel. And as more devices have actual CPUs and go online, you could ask more of even more appliances--for example, one could reasonably run BOINC on their Tivo or Xbox.
That, as it's been said, is an important discovery in and of itself. The world is more lacking of VEP compute problems than CPU time, apparently, but maybe that can be changed; and maybe that can be changed on a problem that is important. Part of designing a VEP task is thinking about the issue differently and configuring your compute interactions differently; now that SETI has demonstrated the possibility, and has been expanded by BOINC, perhaps it will attract more interest and spur adoption of VEP worksets.
Let the folks chose the OS that they want to run. I would guess that a few of the designers want to use Macs; the developers Unix-Linux; and the business folks Windows. You wouldn't make a carpenter use a screwdriver all day--these are the tools that these folks know, and know how to use, and have to sit in front of all day.
It doesn't have to be an administration nightmare--there are support guys that know two, or even all three. So you can catch the top two with a good admin, and maybe contract out the third.
I am an ex-Genius, so let me tell you how we handled this kind of situation:
There is nothing like a "lemon law" for computers. Maybe there should be, but there isn't.
There isn't a formal policy that I'm aware of at Apple that stipulates that they will replace machines after the third attempted fix.
Even if there is a formal policy, you're sure as hell not going to find it posted in a public place--that would open them to all sorts of liability when there is no legal compunction for them to do so. Even if there is a policy, to stipulate to that in public would be foolish. Much better from their perspective to be able to retain the ability to interpret the policy as they see fit.
Although there is no national law, you may be covered by a state law that essentially is along the lines of the product being "fit for use." Lemon law refers specifically to cars and has language that is for car purchases--but some states have consumer protection laws, or contract law, that might be relevant in a more generic manner.
All that said, generally if a customer had worked with us through three repairs of a unit, especially of the same component, we escalated the issue and generally that customer's unit was replaced. My inclination is that the ability to secure a replacement had something to do with product refresh cycles--you're much more likely to get a better unit if the line is about to be refreshed and they want to clear inventory, for example. Otherwise, you'll get a comparable unit in specs or the lowest new model that still meets those specs and features.
Bottomline--after three repairs you should explain your case, describe your patience and willingness to work through the issue, but that your willingness has now come to an end. Polite but firm is the order of the day--don't whinge, don't scream and shout and call people names or impune their ancestry and professionalism, but you also should resist being bullied, and if they've already tried three times, they'll ask for a fourth attempt, but if you're firm and polite you should be able to refuse that. Ask to speak to a "Customer Service" Rep, as there is a group at Apple that does this full time and is a different group than either the AppleCare agents or the Geniuses. They can facilitate this for you, but you need to ask to talk to them, ask to talk to them directly, and are very relunctant to help if you haven't given Apple three chances already. However, if you have, I think that they'll satisfy you.
I can say that these instances were pretty freakin' rare--while certainly Macs break, we pretty much always got it fixed on the first attempt and then did our damnednest to get it done on the second. I think I can count on one hand the number of times a unit failed after three attempts, in the 18 mos that I worked as a Genius. And for those, we helped the customer with CR best we could, so if one is available they may prove to be a valuable ally. Good luck.
If you're considering Apple G5s, either in workstations or in Xserves, take a look at Apple's mailing list for help and resources. Folks there have been working about clustering and Xgrid on the Mac for a while now.
Hey, I looked at your pdf--um, I think it has the wrong emphasis. I mean, "editing and compiling the kernel" is on page 6? Take a cue from the Dummies books--regardless of the power of the information provided, start with the interface and work deeper. Working from the metal up is for geeks, and I think will only off-put newbies.
Are those events unlikely? Sure. Extremely. However, their chance of occurence is greater than zero, and a 100% uptime affords no room for a chance greater than zero. Which means that you have to be able to guard against any thing that is at all possible to occur--not just likely to occur, not even just might occur.
I think you have a salesman's understanding of 100%, and not an engineer's. I wouldn't give a 100% chance of the sun rising tomorrow, let alone my data being preserved. I think that the chance that the sun doesn't rise tomorrow is very close to impossible, but it only approaches the impossible and doesn't quite reach it. You have to reach it to be 100% sure.
Synchronization of our Internet bookmarks across all our computers
Now wouldn't THAT be nice?
I don't know if this common knowledge, but this is easily accomplished with OS X--although I think the additional.Mac service is required (another $100/year). I sync my bookmarks (and address book, and iCalendar items) every hour with the bundled application iSync, and the aforementioned.Mac service.
I can even access the bookmarks, address book, and calendar from the web, which means I can see this stuff on a non-iSync registered computer. It appears the.Mac service is evan available for Windows users, although it's sure to require some shims.
Marathon was published in 1994; Marathon2: Durandal was 1995, and Marathon: Infinity was 1996.
Even the first Marathon was true 3D; at least the second and possibly the first had the ability to look above shoulder height. Even the first has deathmatch capability--only over AppleTalk, not IP!
(Offtopic, but Christ! What happened to the Bungie.com pages?! There's an obvious answer, of course--I guess they lost that gambit. At least they still have info on the old, pre-sellout games. But I digress.)
I still have fond memories of those games, and indeed, I think that they introduced some technologies to game mechanics that were later ignored by non-Mac users, who never played the Marathon series and so didn't recognize the debt that was owed.
Sure, I read that memo when it came out. Exciting! If IBM migrates (even just mostly) to Linux by the end of 2005, I think that's a pretty fair timeline. However, when that story was originally posted on Slashdot, alot of other IBMers came on to say how they thought it was really fiction or a myth--they hadn't seen those efforts, and in fact were well aware that they had biz crit apps that wouldn't work on Linux, so they didn't see how it was possible, even if true.
Next, the memo was discredited as having been taken out of context, and not a literal goal. Maybe that was just spin, but it sounded earnest. I guess that would be defined as "good spin."
So yeah, I'm interested to see if IBM can hit that by the end of 05. As I said, I think it'll pay off in moving other customers to Linux. But I do think it'll take addressing, head on, by porting where possible or redeveloping where not, those apps that are only Win compatible. But, if you release your migration strategy, and lessons learned, and the code--or even sell--the apps that you had to redevelop to get to Linux, Linux will be much more compelling to a lot of big $ folks.
Slashdot Mirror
Does anyone know the projected timeline for OO.o on OS X, specifically whent eh Carbon version is targeted for release?
Here is a timeline.
Bottomline: Projected OS X native availability of OpenOffice.org 2.0 is currently Q1 2006.
Yeah, I'm not holding my breath. OSS guys that are projecting 2 years out? Unlike a commercial dev, they are inclined to let RL get in the way. + this article was last updated 8/03, so it's an even further out projection that it is today. So basically, no telling. Unless someone has an up-to-date timeline? Any chance these guys are ahead of schedule?
Here's two options; I haven't tried either (but at one time the Apple Stores were selling ThinkFree office, if that means anything):
FWIW, a place to look for this sort of stuff is the Apple Products Guide as they'll list pretty much anything that works on the Mac. That means a lot of crap in the hits, but it's better than doing a "macintosh word processor" in Google. Usually.
Why do you think that policy was implemented? I could believe that the OP was writing about a time pre-'95.
That's a funny thing to know, too, btw.
Hm. Okay, my laptop will intermittently freeze. Doesn't seem to matter what application I'm using. I've already done a clean install. I have two other laptops of the same model with the same software load and they run w/o issue. So what part do you swap? RAM, HD, NIC, video card, logic board? All of the above?
You should've requested a $19.95 "processing fee". When he didn't get that back, it would have made the lesson stick.
Do you have a link for that? That's pretty interesting, and will solve quite a few problems--no more having to install the Dev Tools, just to get CpMac, just to copy things in the terminal and not lose the rsrc forks.
, leading me to conclude it is a niche market. Any thoughts?
I'd be kidding you if I told you it wasn't. How it's actually being used, of course, only Apple's Sales manager knows--but I can tell you the target market:
Still niche, yes: they don't run 10,000 employees with Workgroup Manager, for example. But it serves as a good fileserver when a the extra workstations just can't quite keep up, or when the workgroup uses Macs for whatever reason and needs a server to help them work better amongst themselves (without necessarily involving IT).
I've seen the same thing with CCC and FireWire drives, where eventually the process times out and you have to force-quit CCC and start over.
The issue is with the FW drive--the firmware on some works better thatn the firmware on others. For some reason.
Thread for details
I'm not sure of the distinction--I'm a Mac guy, not allowed to admin Windows Servers--but you might find answers in the pages and docs on Windows services in Apple's pages on Panther Server, or on a discussion of setting up the Windows Services in X Server 10.2-3.
The summary above neglected to mention the promise of ACLs:
"Tiger Server goes beyond the limitations of traditional UNIX file permissions to give you greater flexibility over assigning access permissions to files, folders and network services. Access Control Lists (ACLs) in Tiger Server let you set a whole group as the owner of a file or folder rather than just an individual -- you can even assign unique access permissions for multiple users and groups. This makes it easy to set up collaborative environments with smooth file sharing and uninterrupted workflows, without compromising security.
Even if you have a multi-platform network, you can still enjoy the flexibility of ACLs in Tiger Server -- because they're compatible with those in Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP."
wtf this does to ls, chown and chgrp is anyone's guess. My guess: bad things. How in the world this was implemented will be interesting to know; a whole different volume format? Is it an option or mandatory? If it is still restricted to only one owner--who just happens to actually be a group, I can see how that would work. Or maybe through hard links, each link with a different permission set? Much remains to be seen about this compatibility feature--but if it works well it'll be welcome. If it doesn't there'll be hell to pay.
Not announced on stage, but previewed off, is 10.4 Server: includes 100% 64bit libs, ACLs, iChat server, SUS. Also includes NT migration tool, improved email, and a one-click SOHO setup. Nice bump.
I remember them being a hell of a lot more than $2K.
20"=$1,299 as of this morning. fwiw.
It found that you can ask home users with more computing power than they personally use to donate their compute cycles, if they find the project interesting enough and your work is Very Embarrassingly Parallel.
Furthermore, as broadband becomes more popular, the work will not need to be quite so parallel. And as more devices have actual CPUs and go online, you could ask more of even more appliances--for example, one could reasonably run BOINC on their Tivo or Xbox.
That, as it's been said, is an important discovery in and of itself. The world is more lacking of VEP compute problems than CPU time, apparently, but maybe that can be changed; and maybe that can be changed on a problem that is important. Part of designing a VEP task is thinking about the issue differently and configuring your compute interactions differently; now that SETI has demonstrated the possibility, and has been expanded by BOINC, perhaps it will attract more interest and spur adoption of VEP worksets.
Add a BlueTooth cell phone and a BT module [integrated | USB Plug] to your laptop and you don't even have to take the phone out of it's holster.
Mac users are doing that with compatible phones, as all Mac laptops have integrated BT now. Is that standard on PC laptops?
Let the folks chose the OS that they want to run. I would guess that a few of the designers want to use Macs; the developers Unix-Linux; and the business folks Windows. You wouldn't make a carpenter use a screwdriver all day--these are the tools that these folks know, and know how to use, and have to sit in front of all day.
It doesn't have to be an administration nightmare--there are support guys that know two, or even all three. So you can catch the top two with a good admin, and maybe contract out the third.
I am an ex-Genius, so let me tell you how we handled this kind of situation:
All that said, generally if a customer had worked with us through three repairs of a unit, especially of the same component, we escalated the issue and generally that customer's unit was replaced. My inclination is that the ability to secure a replacement had something to do with product refresh cycles--you're much more likely to get a better unit if the line is about to be refreshed and they want to clear inventory, for example. Otherwise, you'll get a comparable unit in specs or the lowest new model that still meets those specs and features.
Bottomline--after three repairs you should explain your case, describe your patience and willingness to work through the issue, but that your willingness has now come to an end. Polite but firm is the order of the day--don't whinge, don't scream and shout and call people names or impune their ancestry and professionalism, but you also should resist being bullied, and if they've already tried three times, they'll ask for a fourth attempt, but if you're firm and polite you should be able to refuse that. Ask to speak to a "Customer Service" Rep, as there is a group at Apple that does this full time and is a different group than either the AppleCare agents or the Geniuses. They can facilitate this for you, but you need to ask to talk to them, ask to talk to them directly, and are very relunctant to help if you haven't given Apple three chances already. However, if you have, I think that they'll satisfy you.
I can say that these instances were pretty freakin' rare--while certainly Macs break, we pretty much always got it fixed on the first attempt and then did our damnednest to get it done on the second. I think I can count on one hand the number of times a unit failed after three attempts, in the 18 mos that I worked as a Genius. And for those, we helped the customer with CR best we could, so if one is available they may prove to be a valuable ally. Good luck.
If you're considering Apple G5s, either in workstations or in Xserves, take a look at Apple's mailing list for help and resources. Folks there have been working about clustering and Xgrid on the Mac for a while now.
Hey, I looked at your pdf--um, I think it has the wrong emphasis. I mean, "editing and compiling the kernel" is on page 6? Take a cue from the Dummies books--regardless of the power of the information provided, start with the interface and work deeper. Working from the metal up is for geeks, and I think will only off-put newbies.
No, please, keep them coming.
Fun! How about:
- Nuclear warfare between two superpowers?
- 5km meteor strike on the primary backup site?
- Land invasion by China?
- Re-emergence of the plague?
- Cthulhu rising?
Are those events unlikely? Sure. Extremely. However, their chance of occurence is greater than zero, and a 100% uptime affords no room for a chance greater than zero. Which means that you have to be able to guard against any thing that is at all possible to occur--not just likely to occur, not even just might occur.I think you have a salesman's understanding of 100%, and not an engineer's. I wouldn't give a 100% chance of the sun rising tomorrow, let alone my data being preserved. I think that the chance that the sun doesn't rise tomorrow is very close to impossible, but it only approaches the impossible and doesn't quite reach it. You have to reach it to be 100% sure.
Synchronization of our Internet bookmarks across all our computers Now wouldn't THAT be nice?
I don't know if this common knowledge, but this is easily accomplished with OS X--although I think the additional
I can even access the bookmarks, address book, and calendar from the web, which means I can see this stuff on a non-iSync registered computer. It appears the
Solaris BSM auditing
Can you elaborate on what this would mean to OS X users?
Marathon was published in 1994; Marathon2: Durandal was 1995, and Marathon: Infinity was 1996.
Even the first Marathon was true 3D; at least the second and possibly the first had the ability to look above shoulder height. Even the first has deathmatch capability--only over AppleTalk, not IP!
(Offtopic, but Christ! What happened to the Bungie.com pages?! There's an obvious answer, of course--I guess they lost that gambit. At least they still have info on the old, pre-sellout games. But I digress.)
I still have fond memories of those games, and indeed, I think that they introduced some technologies to game mechanics that were later ignored by non-Mac users, who never played the Marathon series and so didn't recognize the debt that was owed.
Hangar 18, maybe?
More likely, Warehouse 23.
Sure, I read that memo when it came out. Exciting! If IBM migrates (even just mostly) to Linux by the end of 2005, I think that's a pretty fair timeline. However, when that story was originally posted on Slashdot, alot of other IBMers came on to say how they thought it was really fiction or a myth--they hadn't seen those efforts, and in fact were well aware that they had biz crit apps that wouldn't work on Linux, so they didn't see how it was possible, even if true.
Next, the memo was discredited as having been taken out of context, and not a literal goal. Maybe that was just spin, but it sounded earnest. I guess that would be defined as "good spin."
So yeah, I'm interested to see if IBM can hit that by the end of 05. As I said, I think it'll pay off in moving other customers to Linux. But I do think it'll take addressing, head on, by porting where possible or redeveloping where not, those apps that are only Win compatible. But, if you release your migration strategy, and lessons learned, and the code--or even sell--the apps that you had to redevelop to get to Linux, Linux will be much more compelling to a lot of big $ folks.
Fuck's the difference? Is it less morally problematic to violate a treaty than break a law?