Well, now that its out, I wonder how long it'll take before MS releases X-Box Service Pack 1? Or perhaps you'll just buy a game from Microsoft that'll perform the update and integrate Internet Explorer into your gaming.
I have never understood why an employer would fire an employee for having a bad gene. If the person has the proper skills for the job, then they will most likely make the company a lot of money anyway. The health insurance will probably only be a fraction of the money that a skilled individual would bring into the company.
I think the biggest problem is the greed gene found in some of these employers...
For your information, I have used all of those operating systems except IRIX, and I well know the strong and weak points of any given one of them. I see most of them almost every day in my job.
As I said previously, the true measure of an OS is how well it gets the job done. All of those operating systems are fine for network tasks, but they are not ideal for people who are not running a server/workstation. I would never give a new user a linux box, because chances are that they will get either rooted or that X's continual swapping will drive them mad. That's also beacuse Linux was not designed for that task.
The MacOS and BeOS, are meant more for the desktop variety of user. BeOS is a great operating system, but it a lot of features which the MacOS posseses.
As for the features you mention: Preemptive multitasking is only great on a desktop platform if you need to run a lot of processes at once. If you have Photoshop in the foreground, chances are that you will be working pretty much with Photoshop, and not with other 20 other processes. As for protected memory, I would like you to name one feature that puts it over the current MacOS memory model. You will find none, probably because like many, you have not developed on a Mac.
I do not like when people assume that an operating system in inferior because of some buzz word that they know nothing about. I also do not like people calling me an idiot because I express an opinion that might be true.
1. The current set of mac users are the folks who are most resistent to change. Otherwise they would have left the platform long ago for a 'real OS' (or at least one that pretends to have protected memory, real multitasking, etc
That is an insult. The MacOS is in my opinion a far superior OS to any other out there right now. It is so good in fact, that I have never felt a need for "real OS" features like protected memory and preemptive multitasking, because the OS's current abilities perform well enough to handle my needs.
The only people who are really impressed by an OS which boasts those features are the same people who bought Windows 98 beacuse "its 10% faster over the internet". A real measure of an operating system is how effeciently a user can get thing done.
I've visited a company that recycles chips for the metals inside. They had hundreds of shelves full of old computers and parts... everything from dead keyboards to old IBM PS/2's. They claimed they made pretty good money, but the work was difficult (probably due to the size of the IC's they had to disassemble).
In my junior high school I was accused of being a hacker for simple things like mounting public Novell shares and running a DOS prompt. My friend and I were constantly called down to the office for out "evil hacking" attempts. My friend eventually was banned from the computer lab for a year because he created a directory in his share space. No one there had any clue about the system beyond the whatever basic steps the previous admin had given them, and we were punished for it. I think if an institution is going to pay thousands of dollars for technology, they should at least have someone on staff who knows something about it.
there isn't a central location for security issues to be reported,
That is true because there are many different distributions, each with their own security site.
Configuring Linux security requires an administrator to be an expert in the intricacies of the operating system and how components interact.
This is also true, however on an NT server you usually need an admin (also usually an MCSE) who is an expert on how Windows components interact.
Windows NT 4.0 has been proven in demanding customer environments to be a reliable operating system.
Sure, you could say WinNT is reliable. However, it must still be periodically rebooted to mainatin performance. It also has many problems with services and file locks which also degrade it over time. It is only as reliable as its short uptime.
Linux performance and scalability is architecturally limited in the 2.2 Kernel. Linux only supports 2 gigabytes (GB) of RAM on the x86 architecture,1 compared to 4 GB for Windows NT 4.0.
In that perspective, linux is not as likely to use as much RAM as Windows in a server situation. The kernel can also be compiled for better effeciency when dealing with that RAM.
Its funny how Microsoft can twist truths and wordings to make themselves sound better. The sad thing is they do it all the time, and most people don't even realize it...
the only people who should have computers are programmers and sometimes scientists
If only scientists owned computers, there would not be a great need for programmers either you fool. The only programmers would be a bunch of guys working for universities writing code in assembler. Even your "eliteness" wouldn't get you a job in that market.
it is in that crappy perl language which makes programmers lazy
Perl is good because it can get the job done quick and easy. It doesn't make programmers any lazier, they just get the job done at less cost. most people that write in perl also can code in other languages, but they recognise the fact that there is a better tool for the job.
One thing I've noticed about the way the media defines the "hacker" is that it is really creating confusion for the average computer user.
Where I work we have gotten calls from people with Back Orifice on their machines, and they are in an absolute panic every time. The media has built hackers up so much as unstoppable machines, that they don't think just to disconnect from the net, because they believe that it won't stop the hacker. Another terrible thing that also happens is masses of people buying firewalling software for their Windows 95 boxes because they believe hackers will break in while they are surfing the web.
To top it all off, because the media really never specifies what kind of hack was used, average users have no idea of what should be secured. They create open Windows shares of their entire hard disk, or even worse, install something like Linux and leave everything open to the world.
I think if the media would stop concentrating on how "evil" the hackers are and perhaps write more informal articles, people wouldn't be so aftaid of the hacker persona.
But the media created the hacker craze that we see all the time on the news
In my opinon, its movies like War Games and Hackers that have set the media into a feeding frenzy. I'm sure the writers of Hackers just grabbed a copy of the Jolly Roger's Cookbook and went nuts with far flung ideas of what their "hacker" characters could do.
Let's face it, some guy sitting at a UNIX terminal exploting an overflow is not half as exciting to an audience as people launching nuclear missiles and robbing the corporate machine. Plus a bash shell doesn't look half as cool as some of the graphical software they seem to use in the movies...
If its a bad game its a bad game, the card you're using can't fix bugs in the program. Sin will crash wether you're running a Voodoo card or one from nVidia.
I admit that poor code is poor code, but the fact is that the game was coded for both cards and only one worked. If the card properly worked with OpenGL as it claimed it did, then there is no reason the TNT2 should fail where the Voodoo didn't. Unless of course the TNT2 uses some other sort of OpenGL standard than everyone else...
A while ago I walked into a computer store to by a 3D card. On the shelf was the 3dfx Voodoo 3 and some card with the NVIDIA TNT2 chipset. I bought the NVIDIA card because it was about $30.00 cheaper than the Voodoo, but I found it was not what they told me.
The game that I bought with it, which I was assured would work with the game, only worked after about three patches. Even then it crashed when the real high level graphics had to be loaded. Not much other software supported it either. Even the game that came with it only worked about a third of the time.
The end result? I traded in the card for a Voodoo 3 a few days later. I couldn't be happier. It draws great graphics and runs every piece of 3D software I have come across...including the software that came with it.
The Voodoo 3 may not have all the features of the TNT2, but at least I can be sure that it will run most of the software that I have without hassle. That is also why 3dfx can continue along with inferior technology...because it is compatable.
Look what it did with Carbon. With Carbon did 90% of the work for porting ancient Mac apps to Mach.
That really is true. When I first read the documentation for OSX, I was worried about how well the apps I was coding under OS9 would move over. Carbon has beautifully allowed all of our old software to work perfectly.
In another note, I recently downloaded SNES9X from emulation.net with its Carbon optimized code and it runs at least twice as fast as it used to.
I think Apple has done a great job in keeping legacy apps working. I've seen software from even the old System 6.0.8 days run under Classic. That is amazing legacy support in my opinion.
I have installed Windows on millions of workstations and it is a much more braindead process than installing a *nix type OS, and I have done that millions of times too.
Another nice advantage to the home user is that they can install Windows and not worry about having to turn off or properly configure services to avoid becoming a DDOS (or worse) launch point. All you usually have to worry about are open SMB shares and the odd Winnuke attack.
Lets face it, Windows may be unstable, but it is easy to learn and doesn't swap all to hell in 16MB of RAM like GNOME or KDE.
If they think they're going to improve the net with this plan, they are wrong. Look at the internet years ago when it was just a bunch of government sites, educational institutions and a few large corporations. You had great bandwith and you could search it by clicking on links. Now look how it has evolved into its current mess. Internet 2 sounds a lot like internet 1 when it first started with modern improvements. Give it ten years and it could evolve the same way.
Not only that, but it might never evolve at all! Remember all of those old networks like Tymnet, DATAPAC and CISnet? They were also very similar but the general lack of freedom killed them. Internet 2 could face the same problem.
I would have to say that it is probably true that there are 70000+ Microsoft apps. Look at how many software products and operating systems Microsoft has released over the years. You could get Microsoft apps for the Commodore 64 and Apple II, as well as other early 80's computers.
Plus, you could also look at all of the apps that came with the operating systems that they've launched over the years: The Windows family, MS-DOS and XENIX. They released most of the major apps for those. Every version of MS-DOS past version three came with around 50 apps in themselves. Just look inside C:\WINNT\ or C:\WINDOWS\ and you'll also see a significant number of things to play with. Some which serve little or no use, but they are there.
Drawing lines on old OS's
on
Is UNIX An OS?
·
· Score: 1
I love both UNIX and the MacOS, and I can see the point that this article is trying to make. Where does one draw the lines on what is in fact a modern operating system.
For example, in the early 1980's Atari came out with an Operating System for their PC's that they called DOS1. It was simply a menu with about six commands on it, and yet then it was called an operating system.
A few years later, Atari also came out with STOS (later on used for the AmigaOS) and Commodore came out with GEOS (Now owned by Newdeal), which are now not usually regarded as operating systems. But they were then.
As technology changes, people seem to continually redefine what an operating system is. If you had asked the programmers on those origional product teams, they would probably have said that those products were valid OS's. If the modern flavours of UNIX were not around today, everyone would probably say that UNIX is not really an OS either. People have their own definitions of what an operating system should do.
As I recall, the ability to produce such tabbed widgets in a floating window and form them into their own windows(like Adobe does) was easily available to all developers in Mac OS 8. Adobe also didn't use this technique until about the time that Mac OS 8 came out.
I think it is foolish of Adobe to pursue two operating system features being combined together as a patent. Anybody with Codewarrior or RealBasic on a Mac can make the exact same thing in under a minute.
I think its sad when large software companies fight over software techniques that are neither unique or difficult to create. I think it lowers the quality of all other software that would take advantage of those features.
Does anyone remeber Microsoft PDS7? It was the amazing development environment for DOS that combined QuickBASIC, QuickC, MASM and Visual Basic into one great environment. However, it flopped after only a small amount of time because this "wonderous" IDE was actually QuickBASIC 7 with support for QC,VB and MASM. Then to top it all off, it couldn't compile programs which had source code over 32k, unless you used hundreds of $include statements.
I have a strange feeling that C# is going to be much the same way: The idea is great, the implementation will not be as expected.
Some time ago I worked at a company who prepared machines running Windows 95 for a virtual school. One day we decided to call Microsoft to ask if we could install Win95OSR2 on machines that were origionally bought with OSR1, because OSR2 was much less difficult to support. Our boss didn't know so we called Microsoft.
When we asked if we could install OSR2 with an OSR1 license, the support person replied "no, you need to buy a copy of OSR2." When we asked if we could buy some copies of OSR2 the tech then replied "You can't buy a copy of OSR2. Goodbye."
Its amazing how MS can twist their licensing around so much that they can always charge you when they audit you. Even when you try to be legal you lose.
Recently I did some development for a company which was trying to create a networking product for Windows/Linux. When we finally had a somewhat working app, the people in charge decided to eat the invested time and cancel the project. Why? All because the name we had chosen was close to another software product that had been released years ago. However, fear of legal retribution had stopped us. It seems to happen quite often that I see great products stopped because of simple naming issues like this one.
Personally, I think naming conventions for software should demand the corporation name become part of the product name. In that way you couldn't sue someone for using the name 'Windows' because the product would be called 'Microsoft Windows'. That is how things worked in the old DOS (MS-DOS,PC-DOS,DR-DOS) days before everyone went into some sort of legal frenzy.
Once you earn it you'll understand it
on
Selfish Society
·
· Score: 1
At one time I used to get angry with a certain UNIX admin that I knew for what I thought was the same reason. Every time I would ask him something I thought he was snubbing me because he would never give me an answer or tell me to find out myself.
Then, one day while pouring through manpages and cursing because I had to go through all the trouble when he could have just told me, I realized it was for my own good.
By going through the effort I actually learned something about how and why what I was doing was going to work, instead of blindly typing a command on the command line. Now I appreciate that he used such an attitude because it made me actually get up and work to get some skills.
Now, I can proceed with confidence when I'm sitting on a server, because I know what I am doing. If I had just let people slide me through every ordeal, then I probably would not be anything that I am today.
Everyone has to earn what they get. A mechanic is not just going to guide you through replacing a transmission in the same way a tech is not going to guide you through running a busy server.
You get tons of spam because people can send mail to hotmail.com in general and the server relays it to every user. Microsoft has a really weak "spam protection" feature for Hotmail that supposedly stops it, but it is not that great and anything that is mailed to your address still gets through. The only true protection you can have is set up your mail filtering rules to remove letters with subjects that your friends would not use. Even then you'll still get >6 letters per week that are just spam.
People so often forget that just because OSX will use BSD, it doesn't mean that anyting will be easy to port between the two. The next MacOS is made of quite a few layers, like the NeXT.
Most of the apps for OSX will probably be written for/including calls for the Carbon layer and using interface components from Aqua. These would be almost impossible to port to any other BSD/*nix system. Are Mac programmers going to use a low level C compiler or a nice visual interface that Apple and other vendors will provide for them.
If you ask me, a lot of apps will be ported to OSX and further developed only for OSX. Nothing will move back to BSD. Did we ever see any Rhapsody apps ported to BSD? No.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, now that its out, I wonder how long it'll take before MS releases X-Box Service Pack 1? Or perhaps you'll just buy a game from Microsoft that'll perform the update and integrate Internet Explorer into your gaming.
I have never understood why an employer would fire an employee for having a bad gene. If the person has the proper skills for the job, then they will most likely make the company a lot of money anyway. The health insurance will probably only be a fraction of the money that a skilled individual would bring into the company.
I think the biggest problem is the greed gene found in some of these employers...
Microsoft doesn't need mascots, since every Microsoft product already has its own theme song, which impresses most Windows users...
For your information, I have used all of those operating systems except IRIX, and I well know the strong and weak points of any given one of them. I see most of them almost every day in my job.
As I said previously, the true measure of an OS is how well it gets the job done. All of those operating systems are fine for network tasks, but they are not ideal for people who are not running a server/workstation. I would never give a new user a linux box, because chances are that they will get either rooted or that X's continual swapping will drive them mad. That's also beacuse Linux was not designed for that task.
The MacOS and BeOS, are meant more for the desktop variety of user. BeOS is a great operating system, but it a lot of features which the MacOS posseses.
As for the features you mention: Preemptive multitasking is only great on a desktop platform if you need to run a lot of processes at once. If you have Photoshop in the foreground, chances are that you will be working pretty much with Photoshop, and not with other 20 other processes. As for protected memory, I would like you to name one feature that puts it over the current MacOS memory model. You will find none, probably because like many, you have not developed on a Mac.
I do not like when people assume that an operating system in inferior because of some buzz word that they know nothing about. I also do not like people calling me an idiot because I express an opinion that might be true.
1. The current set of mac users are the folks who are most resistent to change. Otherwise they would have left the platform long ago for a 'real OS' (or at least one that pretends to have protected memory, real multitasking, etc
That is an insult. The MacOS is in my opinion a far superior OS to any other out there right now. It is so good in fact, that I have never felt a need for "real OS" features like protected memory and preemptive multitasking, because the OS's current abilities perform well enough to handle my needs.
The only people who are really impressed by an OS which boasts those features are the same people who bought Windows 98 beacuse "its 10% faster over the internet". A real measure of an operating system is how effeciently a user can get thing done.
I've visited a company that recycles chips for the metals inside. They had hundreds of shelves full of old computers and parts... everything from dead keyboards to old IBM PS/2's. They claimed they made pretty good money, but the work was difficult (probably due to the size of the IC's they had to disassemble).
In my junior high school I was accused of being a hacker for simple things like mounting public Novell shares and running a DOS prompt. My friend and I were constantly called down to the office for out "evil hacking" attempts. My friend eventually was banned from the computer lab for a year because he created a directory in his share space. No one there had any clue about the system beyond the whatever basic steps the previous admin had given them, and we were punished for it. I think if an institution is going to pay thousands of dollars for technology, they should at least have someone on staff who knows something about it.
there isn't a central location for security issues to be reported,
That is true because there are many different distributions, each with their own security site.
Configuring Linux security requires an administrator to be an expert in the intricacies of the operating system and how components interact.
This is also true, however on an NT server you usually need an admin (also usually an MCSE) who is an expert on how Windows components interact.
Windows NT 4.0 has been proven in demanding customer environments to be a reliable operating system.
Sure, you could say WinNT is reliable. However, it must still be periodically rebooted to mainatin performance. It also has many problems with services and file locks which also degrade it over time. It is only as reliable as its short uptime.
Linux performance and scalability is architecturally limited in the 2.2 Kernel. Linux only supports 2 gigabytes (GB) of RAM on the x86 architecture,1 compared to 4 GB for Windows NT 4.0.
In that perspective, linux is not as likely to use as much RAM as Windows in a server situation. The kernel can also be compiled for better effeciency when dealing with that RAM.
Its funny how Microsoft can twist truths and wordings to make themselves sound better. The sad thing is they do it all the time, and most people don't even realize it...
the only people who should have computers are programmers and sometimes scientists
If only scientists owned computers, there would not be a great need for programmers either you fool. The only programmers would be a bunch of guys working for universities writing code in assembler. Even your "eliteness" wouldn't get you a job in that market.
it is in that crappy perl language which makes programmers lazy
Perl is good because it can get the job done quick and easy. It doesn't make programmers any lazier, they just get the job done at less cost. most people that write in perl also can code in other languages, but they recognise the fact that there is a better tool for the job.
One thing I've noticed about the way the media defines the "hacker" is that it is really creating confusion for the average computer user.
Where I work we have gotten calls from people with Back Orifice on their machines, and they are in an absolute panic every time. The media has built hackers up so much as unstoppable machines, that they don't think just to disconnect from the net, because they believe that it won't stop the hacker. Another terrible thing that also happens is masses of people buying firewalling software for their Windows 95 boxes because they believe hackers will break in while they are surfing the web.
To top it all off, because the media really never specifies what kind of hack was used, average users have no idea of what should be secured. They create open Windows shares of their entire hard disk, or even worse, install something like Linux and leave everything open to the world.
I think if the media would stop concentrating on how "evil" the hackers are and perhaps write more informal articles, people wouldn't be so aftaid of the hacker persona.
But the media created the hacker craze that we see all the time on the news
In my opinon, its movies like War Games and Hackers that have set the media into a feeding frenzy. I'm sure the writers of Hackers just grabbed a copy of the Jolly Roger's Cookbook and went nuts with far flung ideas of what their "hacker" characters could do.
Let's face it, some guy sitting at a UNIX terminal exploting an overflow is not half as exciting to an audience as people launching nuclear missiles and robbing the corporate machine. Plus a bash shell doesn't look half as cool as some of the graphical software they seem to use in the movies...
If its a bad game its a bad game, the card you're using can't fix bugs in the program. Sin will crash wether you're running a Voodoo card or one from nVidia.
I admit that poor code is poor code, but the fact is that the game was coded for both cards and only one worked. If the card properly worked with OpenGL as it claimed it did, then there is no reason the TNT2 should fail where the Voodoo didn't. Unless of course the TNT2 uses some other sort of OpenGL standard than everyone else...
A while ago I walked into a computer store to by a 3D card. On the shelf was the 3dfx Voodoo 3 and some card with the NVIDIA TNT2 chipset. I bought the NVIDIA card because it was about $30.00 cheaper than the Voodoo, but I found it was not what they told me.
The game that I bought with it, which I was assured would work with the game, only worked after about three patches. Even then it crashed when the real high level graphics had to be loaded. Not much other software supported it either. Even the game that came with it only worked about a third of the time.
The end result? I traded in the card for a Voodoo 3 a few days later. I couldn't be happier. It draws great graphics and runs every piece of 3D software I have come across...including the software that came with it.
The Voodoo 3 may not have all the features of the TNT2, but at least I can be sure that it will run most of the software that I have without hassle. That is also why 3dfx can continue along with inferior technology...because it is compatable.
Look what it did with Carbon. With Carbon did 90% of the work for porting ancient Mac apps to Mach.
That really is true. When I first read the documentation for OSX, I was worried about how well the apps I was coding under OS9 would move over. Carbon has beautifully allowed all of our old software to work perfectly.
In another note, I recently downloaded SNES9X from emulation.net with its Carbon optimized code and it runs at least twice as fast as it used to.
I think Apple has done a great job in keeping legacy apps working. I've seen software from even the old System 6.0.8 days run under Classic. That is amazing legacy support in my opinion.
I have installed Windows on millions of workstations and it is a much more braindead process than installing a *nix type OS, and I have done that millions of times too.
Another nice advantage to the home user is that they can install Windows and not worry about having to turn off or properly configure services to avoid becoming a DDOS (or worse) launch point. All you usually have to worry about are open SMB shares and the odd Winnuke attack.
Lets face it, Windows may be unstable, but it is easy to learn and doesn't swap all to hell in 16MB of RAM like GNOME or KDE.
If they think they're going to improve the net with this plan, they are wrong. Look at the internet years ago when it was just a bunch of government sites, educational institutions and a few large corporations. You had great bandwith and you could search it by clicking on links. Now look how it has evolved into its current mess. Internet 2 sounds a lot like internet 1 when it first started with modern improvements. Give it ten years and it could evolve the same way.
Not only that, but it might never evolve at all! Remember all of those old networks like Tymnet, DATAPAC and CISnet? They were also very similar but the general lack of freedom killed them. Internet 2 could face the same problem.
I would have to say that it is probably true that there are 70000+ Microsoft apps. Look at how many software products and operating systems Microsoft has released over the years. You could get Microsoft apps for the Commodore 64 and Apple II, as well as other early 80's computers.
Plus, you could also look at all of the apps that came with the operating systems that they've launched over the years: The Windows family, MS-DOS and XENIX. They released most of the major apps for those. Every version of MS-DOS past version three came with around 50 apps in themselves. Just look inside C:\WINNT\ or C:\WINDOWS\ and you'll also see a significant number of things to play with. Some which serve little or no use, but they are there.
I love both UNIX and the MacOS, and I can see the point that this article is trying to make. Where does one draw the lines on what is in fact a modern operating system.
For example, in the early 1980's Atari came out with an Operating System for their PC's that they called DOS1. It was simply a menu with about six commands on it, and yet then it was called an operating system.
A few years later, Atari also came out with STOS (later on used for the AmigaOS) and Commodore came out with GEOS (Now owned by Newdeal), which are now not usually regarded as operating systems. But they were then.
As technology changes, people seem to continually redefine what an operating system is. If you had asked the programmers on those origional product teams, they would probably have said that those products were valid OS's. If the modern flavours of UNIX were not around today, everyone would probably say that UNIX is not really an OS either. People have their own definitions of what an operating system should do.
I think it is foolish of Adobe to pursue two operating system features being combined together as a patent. Anybody with Codewarrior or RealBasic on a Mac can make the exact same thing in under a minute.
I think its sad when large software companies fight over software techniques that are neither unique or difficult to create. I think it lowers the quality of all other software that would take advantage of those features.
I have a strange feeling that C# is going to be much the same way: The idea is great, the implementation will not be as expected.
When we asked if we could install OSR2 with an OSR1 license, the support person replied "no, you need to buy a copy of OSR2." When we asked if we could buy some copies of OSR2 the tech then replied "You can't buy a copy of OSR2. Goodbye."
Its amazing how MS can twist their licensing around so much that they can always charge you when they audit you. Even when you try to be legal you lose.
Personally, I think naming conventions for software should demand the corporation name become part of the product name. In that way you couldn't sue someone for using the name 'Windows' because the product would be called 'Microsoft Windows'. That is how things worked in the old DOS (MS-DOS,PC-DOS,DR-DOS) days before everyone went into some sort of legal frenzy.
Then, one day while pouring through manpages and cursing because I had to go through all the trouble when he could have just told me, I realized it was for my own good.
By going through the effort I actually learned something about how and why what I was doing was going to work, instead of blindly typing a command on the command line. Now I appreciate that he used such an attitude because it made me actually get up and work to get some skills.
Now, I can proceed with confidence when I'm sitting on a server, because I know what I am doing. If I had just let people slide me through every ordeal, then I probably would not be anything that I am today.
Everyone has to earn what they get. A mechanic is not just going to guide you through replacing a transmission in the same way a tech is not going to guide you through running a busy server.
You get tons of spam because people can send mail to hotmail.com in general and the server relays it to every user. Microsoft has a really weak "spam protection" feature for Hotmail that supposedly stops it, but it is not that great and anything that is mailed to your address still gets through. The only true protection you can have is set up your mail filtering rules to remove letters with subjects that your friends would not use. Even then you'll still get >6 letters per week that are just spam.
Most of the apps for OSX will probably be written for/including calls for the Carbon layer and using interface components from Aqua. These would be almost impossible to port to any other BSD/*nix system. Are Mac programmers going to use a low level C compiler or a nice visual interface that Apple and other vendors will provide for them.
If you ask me, a lot of apps will be ported to OSX and further developed only for OSX. Nothing will move back to BSD. Did we ever see any Rhapsody apps ported to BSD? No.