expect a sharp ramp up in anti Linux/FOSS lobbying from Microsoft via supposedly worried parties... all worried about the US's defence being trusted to a "commie OS" written by "hacker"s and other "hippy" malcontents...
You know, of course, that Windows NT/2000/XP has a similar emulation environment, using GCC and a lot of code from OpenBSD.
Why are 25% avoiding e-mail? Because of spam, or is there a large percentage who just don't want to use e-mail because they do not want to learn, or take up another impersonal form of communications?
100% of the people I know (including most of my family back in Australia) who have told me they don't use email avoid it because of spam. They tried it, and just gave up because the work involved in grovelling through the spam is just too great.
But to many, if it's not GPL or public, it's not open "in any real way", meaning you can't use or share your code the way you're used to.
Those people are just confused. There's absolutely nothing in Apple's approach that will keep you from "using or sharing your code the way you're used to", for any code you'd be able to use at all under LinuxPPC... and that would be true even if they hadn't open-sourced Darwin. That's the whole point of open systems. That's what enabled Linux itself to take off... compatibility with other open systems.
Hell, RMS developed GNU Emacs and GCC on systems like that. Anyone who says a bog-standard UNIX environment like OS X (and, yes, OS X is not even vaguely weird when you put it in the context of other UNIX systems) isn't "open in any real way" is either confused or just tossing around a soundbite they think sounds good. The latter is an easy trap to fall into, I've done it myself, and I haven't always had the class to recognise it as well as the OP did.
Sure, intelligent people can have differing opinions on what it means to be "open".
Fair enough, and I'm sure OS X isn't open enough for RMS... what bothered me was that you seemed to be taking it a bit further than that and saying that it wasn't reasonable to use "open" to refer to OS X at all. Glad to see that bit was just hyperbole.
Linus is a great guy, but he does get carried away with his enthusiasms. Sometimes that's good... there wouldn't BE such a thing as Linux if he didn't... but the fact that he does something or says something doesn't make it an open-and-shut case. His circumstances are, well, unusual.
I suspect Jordan Hubbard is using a dual G5 as well, these days. But I doubt it's running Linux.
I'm sorry, but calling the most open license that any commercial UNIX system has ever used, when commercial UNIX is where the whole "Open Systems" concept developed, "not open in any real way"? It's open in lots of real ways, it uses open systems, open source, open protocols, it's donated a whole bunch of code back to the open source community. It's not the kind of Microsoft-esque "shared code" game that would justify that kind of put-down.
So where are Commodore, Radio Shack and Gateway now?
Radio Shack is selling HPs, Commodore got trampled by the fued between Jack Tramiel and Irving Gold, and Gateway got undercut by Dell and couldn't keep shipping shit as cheaply.
Dell still seems to be doing fine,
So's Microsoft, and dear god do they push some bad shit... in EVERY sense of the word.
So what, MacOS is a decent OS. Who cares? It only runs on Macs anyways. The great thing about Linux and other open systems is that they aren't platform dependant.
Dude, Mac OS X is an open system. It's UNIX, just like Linux is UNIX. You can run any open source app on Mac OS X just as easily as you can on any other randomly chosen open system.
At the end of the day I'm still using my trusted and open OS, that runs all the same scripts and commands and applications as FreeBSD and Linux because it's the same damn system under the hood as all the other UNIX ports. It's more open than just about any commercial UNIX (open systems all) because it's got an open source core.
Sure, you can't run Cocoa apps on other systems. But there's a long and growing list of Linux software that requires outrageous effort to get it to build on any other open system. I'm still working on getting some supposedly open and portable Linux software running under the latest FreeBSD.
Lock-in sucks, even if it's caused by people writing "all the world's a Linux system" software.
a compiler is much more likely to produce reasonable code for a typical risc architecture.
So? The only reason that matters is performance. That's all. How much bang you get for your buck. The ability of the compiler to use it is all part of how the ISA effects how much computrons you get per limiting-factor. And the Power PC is just not all that good any more.
It's the willingness to use Free software, something that can make one choose Linux even when OSX provides similar functionality.
Why? OS X has an open source kernel and there's nothing stopping you from using XDarwin and X11 apps instead of Quartz and Aqua and Cocoa... except that they tend to suck by comparison.
THAT reason seems to be cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I'm a Linux guy, but I've played with NetBSD enough to know they are wildly different.
Oy.
You haven't even scratched the surface. The variety in UNIX implementations from normal BSD-type things, to independant implementations like Linux and QNX and OS/9000, to the System V versus BSD rift... what you're seeing is minor.
But even there, they're largely interchangable. They provide similar fucnctionality. I didn't ask "how is OS X different from Linux", I asked "what does Linux do that OS X can't". That is, "what is missing", not "what might require a little relearning". The answer is, "it has better mag tape support". That's pretty much it.
Except that computers have different uses, and for some of them Linux is better.
I can't think of anything you'd use a Mac Mini for for which Linux is better. If it had a SCSI interface so I could put a standard tape drive on, yeh, I could see that... but as it is? It's UNIX versus UNIX, you go with whatever has the better hardware support... and that's OS X.
Running Linux or FreeBSD on a mini will gain you nothing for software availability and you will lose WiFi support so I really don't see what is the point to not run OSX.
Think of the poor programmers: the ISA is more elegant and this elegance is an asset.
Unless you're programming in assembly code (something I gave up doing before most/. readers were born) who cares? The only thing that matters in an ISA is how it effects how much computrons you get per limiting-factor (money, watts, whatever you've got least of).
That's why Itanic tanked. It sucks. Not enough bang for the buck. And right now, the Power PC sucks too. The G5 is a typical long-stupid-pipeline power sucker, and the G4 is limited by the 166 MHz system bus. Until the Freescale dual-core designs with heir new bus interface come out, anyone who wants an Power PC laptop without OS X being the reason is just fooling themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
expect a sharp ramp up in anti Linux/FOSS lobbying from Microsoft via supposedly worried parties... all worried about the US's defence being trusted to a "commie OS" written by "hacker"s and other "hippy" malcontents...
You know, of course, that Windows NT/2000/XP has a similar emulation environment, using GCC and a lot of code from OpenBSD.
Your 100% is not the population
No, it's "anecdotal evidence".
So is your "far too many people who have never used e-mail".
That's my point.
Why are 25% avoiding e-mail? Because of spam, or is there a large percentage who just don't want to use e-mail because they do not want to learn, or take up another impersonal form of communications?
100% of the people I know (including most of my family back in Australia) who have told me they don't use email avoid it because of spam. They tried it, and just gave up because the work involved in grovelling through the spam is just too great.
George promised 9 episodes. Unless the Star Wars Christmas Specials count, this is only the 6th.
But maybe we're better off if he stops here, so that someone else can do the third thrilogy.
Ok, where is the souce code so I can compile this on my PC?
Well, first, you're confusing "open systems" with "open source", but since you insist... try here or here.
Pretty much the usual 'Apple is best' mentality
You think? Ask these same people about OS 9, you'll get a different response.
But to many, if it's not GPL or public, it's not open "in any real way", meaning you can't use or share your code the way you're used to.
Those people are just confused. There's absolutely nothing in Apple's approach that will keep you from "using or sharing your code the way you're used to", for any code you'd be able to use at all under LinuxPPC... and that would be true even if they hadn't open-sourced Darwin. That's the whole point of open systems. That's what enabled Linux itself to take off... compatibility with other open systems.
Hell, RMS developed GNU Emacs and GCC on systems like that. Anyone who says a bog-standard UNIX environment like OS X (and, yes, OS X is not even vaguely weird when you put it in the context of other UNIX systems) isn't "open in any real way" is either confused or just tossing around a soundbite they think sounds good. The latter is an easy trap to fall into, I've done it myself, and I haven't always had the class to recognise it as well as the OP did.
Sure, intelligent people can have differing opinions on what it means to be "open".
Fair enough, and I'm sure OS X isn't open enough for RMS... what bothered me was that you seemed to be taking it a bit further than that and saying that it wasn't reasonable to use "open" to refer to OS X at all. Glad to see that bit was just hyperbole.
Linus is a great guy, but he does get carried away with his enthusiasms. Sometimes that's good... there wouldn't BE such a thing as Linux if he didn't... but the fact that he does something or says something doesn't make it an open-and-shut case. His circumstances are, well, unusual.
I suspect Jordan Hubbard is using a dual G5 as well, these days. But I doubt it's running Linux.
I'm sorry, but calling the most open license that any commercial UNIX system has ever used, when commercial UNIX is where the whole "Open Systems" concept developed, "not open in any real way"? It's open in lots of real ways, it uses open systems, open source, open protocols, it's donated a whole bunch of code back to the open source community. It's not the kind of Microsoft-esque "shared code" game that would justify that kind of put-down.
So where are Commodore, Radio Shack and Gateway now?
Radio Shack is selling HPs, Commodore got trampled by the fued between Jack Tramiel and Irving Gold, and Gateway got undercut by Dell and couldn't keep shipping shit as cheaply.
Dell still seems to be doing fine,
So's Microsoft, and dear god do they push some bad shit... in EVERY sense of the word.
People need to remember that the first article in the series was talking about using the Mini as an embedded development platform.
I'd rather use a Soekris box. Cheaper, smaller, boots faster...
What it *isn't* is open-source in any real way.
Um, are you sure about that? It's not like people aren't making use of that source code, either...
So what, MacOS is a decent OS. Who cares? It only runs on Macs anyways. The great thing about Linux and other open systems is that they aren't platform dependant.
Dude, Mac OS X is an open system. It's UNIX, just like Linux is UNIX. You can run any open source app on Mac OS X just as easily as you can on any other randomly chosen open system.
At the end of the day I'm still using my trusted and open OS, that runs all the same scripts and commands and applications as FreeBSD and Linux because it's the same damn system under the hood as all the other UNIX ports. It's more open than just about any commercial UNIX (open systems all) because it's got an open source core.
Sure, you can't run Cocoa apps on other systems. But there's a long and growing list of Linux software that requires outrageous effort to get it to build on any other open system. I'm still working on getting some supposedly open and portable Linux software running under the latest FreeBSD.
Lock-in sucks, even if it's caused by people writing "all the world's a Linux system" software.
For specialized DSP uses, a 1.4 GHz G4 would be a better choice than a 2.0 GHz G5
That's nice, but how does it compare to a 3 GHz P4 or 2.6 GHz Opteron?
a compiler is much more likely to produce reasonable code for a typical risc architecture.
So? The only reason that matters is performance. That's all. How much bang you get for your buck. The ability of the compiler to use it is all part of how the ISA effects how much computrons you get per limiting-factor. And the Power PC is just not all that good any more.
It's the willingness to use Free software, something that can make one choose Linux even when OSX provides similar functionality.
... except that they tend to suck by comparison.
Why? OS X has an open source kernel and there's nothing stopping you from using XDarwin and X11 apps instead of Quartz and Aqua and Cocoa
THAT reason seems to be cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I'm a Linux guy, but I've played with NetBSD enough to know they are wildly different.
Oy.
You haven't even scratched the surface. The variety in UNIX implementations from normal BSD-type things, to independant implementations like Linux and QNX and OS/9000, to the System V versus BSD rift... what you're seeing is minor.
But even there, they're largely interchangable. They provide similar fucnctionality. I didn't ask "how is OS X different from Linux", I asked "what does Linux do that OS X can't". That is, "what is missing", not "what might require a little relearning". The answer is, "it has better mag tape support". That's pretty much it.
If the customer is going to use Linux PowerPC you have to test on Linux PowerPC.
Who is using Linux PowerPC?
Except that computers have different uses, and for some of them Linux is better.
I can't think of anything you'd use a Mac Mini for for which Linux is better. If it had a SCSI interface so I could put a standard tape drive on, yeh, I could see that... but as it is? It's UNIX versus UNIX, you go with whatever has the better hardware support... and that's OS X.
Running Linux or FreeBSD on a mini will gain you nothing for software availability and you will lose WiFi support so I really don't see what is the point to not run OSX.
<AOL>Preach it, brother... OS X is BSD!</>
Think of the poor programmers: the ISA is more elegant and this elegance is an asset.
/. readers were born) who cares? The only thing that matters in an ISA is how it effects how much computrons you get per limiting-factor (money, watts, whatever you've got least of).
Unless you're programming in assembly code (something I gave up doing before most
That's why Itanic tanked. It sucks. Not enough bang for the buck. And right now, the Power PC sucks too. The G5 is a typical long-stupid-pipeline power sucker, and the G4 is limited by the 166 MHz system bus. Until the Freescale dual-core designs with heir new bus interface come out, anyone who wants an Power PC laptop without OS X being the reason is just fooling themselves.
Really? In a G4? Or are you assuming a Cell processor in your hypothetical laptop?
Um, the DNA assembly of Sirepinski triangles is definately a nanoscale operation.
I'd sure buy a PPC laptop if it came without the sugared fruit..
Why? What does a Power PC get you?