I'll give you 50 cents, go buy yourself a clue. Darwin is aimed at being a rock-solid core...
marketdroid!
xMach is aimed at being small, thin, fast, and clean.
as opposed to darwin, which aims not to be?
While Darwin is based on old FreeBSD 3.2 code, xMach aims to be as modern as possible
so does darwin. they will continue to use the most modern, stable bsd and mach available at the time
will try to take advantage of some of the latent features of the Mach kernel, such as fine grained locking for multiprocessing, that have been neglected in recent BSD releases.
wow, you really dont know what you are talking about! fine grained locking has nothing to do with bsd, and all to do with the uK. its a matter of writing optimized servers. darwin already does this
(Read the UVM design thesis for a description of this, FYI)
I was quickly becoming an Apple fan when the whole MacOS X thing began. "Yes, Darwin is open source! We're thinking forward. Here, have our source!" It didn't take long to realize that this was all nonsense. Their motivations are the same as any other large corporate entity: they want to have things their way and they are not going to give an inch.
they are trying to be profitable. if weve learnt anything from linux, its that the philosophy is a very different thing from whats needed to run a profitable company (no, breaking even once doesnt count). even redhat must sell something to survive. apple sells its gui
if pure oss philosophy is important to you, use linux (and secretly dualboot windows). if you want a commercial operating system, apple makes a very fine one
beautiful, truely beautiful. your lament was an expression of artistry rarely seen today. i especially favoured your allusions to court jesters and ravaging aliens
trolling is a dying art. but your post far outdid the original post you bemoaned. perhaps you could pen academic trolls under a pseudonym?
i am not being sarcastic. i really appreciated your post. thank you so much for that
yes, but i will go further: the appliance is the computer. you should be able to just plug it in and it works (remember apples imac ad? despite our mockery, theyve sold millions of those). the interface is just one aspect of ease-of-use
apart from a good, consistent interface, linux needs a one click installer, integration between services, and one-click-type consumer apps (think word, not emacs)
the interface is actually the part of ease-of-use that linux is closest to. while hackers want a continuously changing system, youd think someone like redhat could have come up with an integrated consumer distro by now
apple has a protection in place in os 9 that blanks out part of the screen when a screenshot is taken while a dvd movie is playing. this is supposedly to comply with some license requiring that users can not take stills of dvds. it is rumoured that dvd movie playback wont be included in the first release of os x because they dont have those protections in place
i believe there are also dmca style restrictions built-in to their dvd recording superdrive
apple may not like protections, but they have to follow stupid laws, just like the rest of us
sony makes pcs and makes money off music cds. one of thier vps has already been quoted on/. saying they would firewall napster and anyone else that threatens their business. i assume they mean building protections into their pcs, working with m$, or leaning on isps
who would buy such a proprietary machine? the same people who buy the proprietary playstation. remember games consoles sell far better than pcs do, and they are gradually taking pc functions
so maybe some of us stick to our general purpose hardware and os. what good does that do if isps and software houses dont support us? i am convinced the only major hurdle in the way of linux dominating on the desktop is m$ office for linux
why would i go to [wwdc]... there will obviously be a major bias towards Apple software products (which I don't care for)
because in one quarter apple will have a larger installed base than all the bsds combined. if you code for a living, you shouldnt ignore a technically interesting platform with an economically feasible base
if you code for amusement, i hear texas instruments calculators provide laughs
umm... did you hear of a little incident recently when russian hackers gained access to microsoft code servers for several months without detection? how do you know windows code is safe?
for that matter, how do you know closed source companies dont put in backdoors for their own use, or closed programmers havent been bribed by the competition or are just crackers?
oss companies check the code just like closed do; the difference is that you can check too. the chinese army is reported to use linux and compile their own because they can check for backdoors
if you drag a file from the gui into the tsch window, os x inserts the path at the cursor. very handy for long paths
if unix is a toolbox why arent gui tools part of the box? simple gui elements could be activated by switches, but more complex, general gui features should be separate tools that can be piped to other commands
this is to inform you that you are infringing on copyrights, trademarks and patents held by apple computer inc of cupertino califoria. the term mosx refers to mac os x and that abbreviation, similar variations, and colored plastic are the sole intellectual property of apple. please cease and desist immediately
imho apple is already experimenting with this. the new itunes software contains a single window that does everything, with connections to mp3 players occuring transparently in the background. idvd and quicktime are the same. it seems apple is moving its consumer apps to one gigantic window that require no interaction with the os or other apps
pro apps continues to add multiple windows and palettes, and require interaction with other apps
i think there is room for both, depending on skill level and use. the computer is general enough that interactions with other apps will continue to be useful, though for simpler use it can simulate a single device
otherwise, with a few patches, a couple programs downloaded, and a grand total of zero dollars I can turn any linux machine into a studio quality video editing box.
your time is worth a grand total of zero dollars?! i am familiar with the concept of writing code to solve problems (i get _paid_ for _my_ code). your problem is that linux still has that problem to solve
the fact is i can not buy a linux video editing and dvd producing solution. a render farm a video editing solution does not make
i already own the patent on the idea of a geek mafia. i have decided it is to be closed source. please refrain from allowing it to appear in print, or copying or transmitting it via electromagnetic systems
if you do not cease and desist immediately, i will be forced to rot 13 it. please do not force me to take this drastic action
Slashdot Mirror
can i assume darwin has a very strong head start considering NeXT and the current advanced development at apple?
reasonable people? microsoft might (and does) prefer bsd to apsl, but otherwise sharing isnt such a bad thing
I'll give you 50 cents, go buy yourself a clue. Darwin is aimed at being a rock-solid core...
marketdroid!
xMach is aimed at being small, thin, fast, and clean.
as opposed to darwin, which aims not to be?
While Darwin is based on old FreeBSD 3.2 code, xMach aims to be as modern as possible
so does darwin. they will continue to use the most modern, stable bsd and mach available at the time
will try to take advantage of some of the latent features of the Mach kernel, such as fine grained locking for multiprocessing, that have been neglected in recent BSD releases.
wow, you really dont know what you are talking about! fine grained locking has nothing to do with bsd, and all to do with the uK. its a matter of writing optimized servers. darwin already does this
(Read the UVM design thesis for a description of this, FYI)
read my overview for a description of this
ok, any informed answers, please?
how is this different from darwin?
$2500.
I was quickly becoming an Apple fan when the whole MacOS X thing began. "Yes, Darwin is open source! We're thinking forward. Here, have our source!" It didn't take long to realize that this was all nonsense. Their motivations are the same as any other large corporate entity: they want to have things their way and they are not going to give an inch.
they are trying to be profitable. if weve learnt anything from linux, its that the philosophy is a very different thing from whats needed to run a profitable company (no, breaking even once doesnt count). even redhat must sell something to survive. apple sells its gui
if pure oss philosophy is important to you, use linux (and secretly dualboot windows). if you want a commercial operating system, apple makes a very fine one
beautiful, truely beautiful. your lament was an expression of artistry rarely seen today. i especially favoured your allusions to court jesters and ravaging aliens
trolling is a dying art. but your post far outdid the original post you bemoaned. perhaps you could pen academic trolls under a pseudonym?
i am not being sarcastic. i really appreciated your post. thank you so much for that
get your facts straight. the imac is supported and costs $899. not to mention darwin has been ported to x86
yes, but i will go further: the appliance is the computer. you should be able to just plug it in and it works (remember apples imac ad? despite our mockery, theyve sold millions of those). the interface is just one aspect of ease-of-use
apart from a good, consistent interface, linux needs a one click installer, integration between services, and one-click-type consumer apps (think word, not emacs)
the interface is actually the part of ease-of-use that linux is closest to. while hackers want a continuously changing system, youd think someone like redhat could have come up with an integrated consumer distro by now
Because, like Microsoft, Apple cares about getting their software and other accessories into as many hands as possible.
wait, this is different from linux "world domination" how?
everybody wants to get their software into as many hands as possible. its called success
apple has a protection in place in os 9 that blanks out part of the screen when a screenshot is taken while a dvd movie is playing. this is supposedly to comply with some license requiring that users can not take stills of dvds. it is rumoured that dvd movie playback wont be included in the first release of os x because they dont have those protections in place
i believe there are also dmca style restrictions built-in to their dvd recording superdrive
apple may not like protections, but they have to follow stupid laws, just like the rest of us
sony makes pcs and makes money off music cds. one of thier vps has already been quoted on /. saying they would firewall napster and anyone else that threatens their business. i assume they mean building protections into their pcs, working with m$, or leaning on isps
who would buy such a proprietary machine? the same people who buy the proprietary playstation. remember games consoles sell far better than pcs do, and they are gradually taking pc functions
so maybe some of us stick to our general purpose hardware and os. what good does that do if isps and software houses dont support us? i am convinced the only major hurdle in the way of linux dominating on the desktop is m$ office for linux
he "...can't imagine something that could be worse then this for the software business and intellectual-property business."
how about monopolies?
why would i go to [wwdc]... there will obviously be a major bias towards Apple software products (which I don't care for)
because in one quarter apple will have a larger installed base than all the bsds combined. if you code for a living, you shouldnt ignore a technically interesting platform with an economically feasible base
if you code for amusement, i hear texas instruments calculators provide laughs
why cant napster users obtain anon free web pages and post mp3s there?
google is the search engine
wed even get detailed artist info, scanned album covers, photoshoped artist heads on porn bodies, ygti
this was a reply to a troll claiming open source software could not be trusted; that post has now been modded down
umm... did you hear of a little incident recently when russian hackers gained access to microsoft code servers for several months without detection? how do you know windows code is safe?
for that matter, how do you know closed source companies dont put in backdoors for their own use, or closed programmers havent been bribed by the competition or are just crackers?
oss companies check the code just like closed do; the difference is that you can check too. the chinese army is reported to use linux and compile their own because they can check for backdoors
if you drag a file from the gui into the tsch window, os x inserts the path at the cursor. very handy for long paths
if unix is a toolbox why arent gui tools part of the box? simple gui elements could be activated by switches, but more complex, general gui features should be separate tools that can be piped to other commands
of course wed need a standard gui...
youre right, i forgot about that. in fact, you dont even have to hit burn disc, if you eject the disc it burns it for you
it is the os that does this stuff. so this is what raskin is talking about
this is to inform you that you are infringing on copyrights, trademarks and patents held by apple computer inc of cupertino califoria. the term mosx refers to mac os x and that abbreviation, similar variations, and colored plastic are the sole intellectual property of apple. please cease and desist immediately
The Federal government shoving free computers everywhere doesn't help.
but the federal government shoving free arpanet cable everywhere sure started a revolution
imho apple is already experimenting with this. the new itunes software contains a single window that does everything, with connections to mp3 players occuring transparently in the background. idvd and quicktime are the same. it seems apple is moving its consumer apps to one gigantic window that require no interaction with the os or other apps
pro apps continues to add multiple windows and palettes, and require interaction with other apps
i think there is room for both, depending on skill level and use. the computer is general enough that interactions with other apps will continue to be useful, though for simpler use it can simulate a single device
scroll this article down to: the plot thickens
otherwise, with a few patches, a couple programs downloaded, and a grand total of zero dollars I can turn any linux machine into a studio quality video editing box.
your time is worth a grand total of zero dollars?! i am familiar with the concept of writing code to solve problems (i get _paid_ for _my_ code). your problem is that linux still has that problem to solve
the fact is i can not buy a linux video editing and dvd producing solution. a render farm a video editing solution does not make
hey, i dont make the rules, i just file the patents
i already own the patent on the idea of a geek mafia. i have decided it is to be closed source. please refrain from allowing it to appear in print, or copying or transmitting it via electromagnetic systems
if you do not cease and desist immediately, i will be forced to rot 13 it. please do not force me to take this drastic action