Actually the Mac OS X subsystem is based mostly on FreeBSD 4.4...which you can see if you ever take a look at the header files within the Darwin CVS.
What you think of as layers are actually Frameworks and shared libraries running on top of this subsystem. The subsystem is actually quite stripped down for a unix OS unless you install the Developer package from the Developer CD. The gui is just a Window Server slightly different than traditional XFree86 implementations.
When you say that most apps don't require the subsystem you are partially correct, in that they are not required to be aware of it, but your OS would not be working if the subsystem was not in place....you may think it doesn't exist because it is hidden from the gui, but try booting without your/usr,/sbin,/private, and additional directories...hell, just try removing the symbolic link to/etc and see if your computers boots properly;)
Apple has done a good job of hiding their necessity.
Dell promised us that we could standardize on their GX-150 model because they would never change it...since we'd like to image them with ImageCast.
...Needless to say they changed the motherboard 3 weeks later to support 1.2GHZ PIII's...
Oh, and I have to mention that there is no way to tell the difference between the two boards from the post screen, however they require different bios updates and device drivers..
Oh you're getting Hell...
Which goes along with my theory...Dells love David Hasselhoff.
Makes you laugh when you think of all the time the recording companies spend trying to interest radio stations in their up and coming talent...here is a great way to gain interest and advertise with no real infrastructure or money required, and they can only see this as a great way to gain royalties.
I guess they are caught on the idea that someone might capture the streams and then share the broadcasted material...that cat is out of the bag, and internet radio is not exactly the best source for artist mp3's anyway...its just too bad that more people don't know how great and easy it is to tune into these stations and hear great music that they might not have experienced before. Hell, I wonder how many people using iTunes realize the amount of music they have at their fingertips.
Just look at some of the dedicated hardware that is coming out to connect and play music from internet radio stations...they must be trying to impose limitations before it becomes too popular to do so.
Then again you could listen to your local stations where they play the same 20 songs over and over for 3 months or so, if thats what you like...nevermind the commercials...maybe thats the problem;)
I just wish the RIAA and others were more forward thinking instead of so obstinate and vindictive...those just aren't qualities that make you a beloved member of any community.
...it would be nice if people would wake up and fight back for a change as well...let's keep internet radio from becoming pirate radio:D
Oh I guess I failed to mention in my post that 2.4ghz phones interrupt service for those using 802.11 wireless because the phone companies decided that the phone should "surf" the spectrum instead of using any one channel at a time...thank so much...nothing we can do about it because the 2.4ghz spectrum is not regulated...can you say tough luck?
I suppose you can't have your cake and eat it too, since the standard probably would not have been developed had the spectrum been regulated...just irks me to know that some people don't have any regard for those with products that come before them. They might as well have said..."See this spectrum here? It isn't regulated, so we're going to crap all over it! What are you going to do about it?"
Oh yes, and when you hear the people who are setting up wireless all over the country say "Well its more of an art than a science.", you know you're in for it:)
Talk to someone who has ever setup or maintained wireless in a college dorm and you will know how often things can and do go wrong for no apparent reason. That is with very expensive base stations and routers within climate controlled cabinets in what seems like a perfect environment. I guess those people who have WiFi setup in their house don't know how difficult it can be, since they hardly have a considerable number of users on it, or any kind of complexity to their networks.
I'd have to say good luck to this person considering the conditions and the terrain he is attempting to maintain this network in. Keeping it working on a flat plain within normal distances is hard enough;)
Its no wonder that Geeks are notoriously bad with women when you consider that we are interested in things that are smaller and smaller than their counterparts...shrinking "things" are not something women are interested in...explaining why smaller "things" are better also is not something they are interested in...how appropriate that this is from the its so cute dept...haha;)
This from the company that brings the same movie out on tape and DVD every other year and creates artificial demand by saying they are never going to release it again...if greed had a face, it would be Eisner's.
I hope this story illustrates that you should never smoke crack. Thank You.
It appears that a small group of scientists who studied the area found that the ecosystem surrounding the site appears to be better off than when it wasn't radioactive.
It seems that, at least in the short term, the animals and plants are better off with nuclear waste because humans have moved from these areas...kind of sad knowing your species is worse than cancer causing nuclear radiation isn't it?
"I think the majority of consumers believe that copyright has value and that if they have a pay vehicle to watch movies on the Internet, they will pay for it," said Yair Landau, president of Sony (news/quote) Pictures Digital Entertainment. "We want to give honest people an honest alternative."
LOL...honest people? The majority of people are completely immoral and as dishonest as you ALLOW them to be...
"To be really honest, we have no idea," Mr. Waterman said.
No idea is right...although I think the movie industry has always been a bit more "honest" than the consumers...if you catch my drift <;)
How many times are people going to ask about this? I think it would be best if we stick this one in the FAQ along with "Will OS X threaten Linux?".
DARWIN runs on Intel hardware, therefore Apple has no problem running OS X on Intel hardware. Apple will not release their OS in its consumer form for OS X, because it is not setup to gain enough profit through the sale of its OS to maintain operations...Apple needs OEM deals the same way Microbum does, and the only OEM who will readily accept Apple's OS on all its machines is Apple.
Consumer OS X will not be released for Intel. However, Darwin will probably be pushed more and more by Apple as a Linux alternative, the perfect free Quicktime streaming platform, running on ppc and x86 hardware. (thats bull anyway)
What Apple may attempt is to implement a WIN32 compatibility layer, in which they can run windows applications on their ppc hardware...get Apple hardware, get all the apps. If you were a developer and all you had to do is recompile your code for ppc, and I mean that literally, wouldn't you do it?
Well I'm tired of answering this question over and over. The answer is NO...NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. Stop asking, stop wondering, stop making me see this garbage question on Slashdot every day of the week.
If you spent as much time searching the web as you do asking this question, you would know the answer by now!
Actually thats a horrible idea, and if you've been following the history of Aqua you'd note that any attempts to even copy its look have been met with cease and desists.
The Aqua API and Quartz is what will differentiate OS X from the other OS's. The reverse is true though...as I explained in an earlier post, it is feasible for Apple to create a WIN32 compatability layer in the same way they created Carbon...actually more easily. No reason to create a Linux Compatibility layer, at least for them...but if they were to opensource Carbon, that would be another story.
(If you want to hear more about that look back to my OS X rant...its in this list somewhere...lol)
Apple is not a company that can stand to opensource all of its technology, especially when it depends on hardware sales to keep itself afloat. The proprietary software ties it to the proprietary hardware and this is why Apple will never really compete with Linux directly...Linux was never meant to be what OS X is...and it shows.
OS X Server 2.0 brings us to another question however: How many people will move to an OS where the Server itself is cake to manage and deal with the proprietary hardware issues to do so? Windows 2K seems to be the only OS in trouble here.
The Cocoa API allows for apps to be written specifically for the terminal, or should I say the Cocoa development environment does.
Normal Cocoa apps use objective C or Java for any and all program code, whereas the interface is built with what is known as Interface Builder...creating the interface is cake...and besides accessing interface elements in your program (the nib interface resources are C anyway) no ties to the interface really exist.
Apple has kept as little to the OS as necessary....then again don't expect games to ported the same way as an Apple app like Mail persay.
You are right about Carbon apps though...they will be not be ported to Linux...unless sayyyy.....the Carbon Compatability layer is ported to Linux first....not "that much" difference between OS X and Linux at the Core...and thats all that really matters.
Something very few people take note of is the compatibility layer that Apple has in Carbon.
Do you realize that Apple has with what seems to be very little effort, created a compatibility "layer" that allows for Legacy Mac OS apps to be modified so slightly that many times a rewrite of 3-10% of code is all that's required to run on a mach kernel based multi-tasking protective memory BSD core system...two systems totally separate and unrelated to one another....I mean NT and RedHat are more alike...lol ( which is where my next point become relevant);)
A WIN32 compatibility layer on a system running a BSD based PPC OS is very possible, in fact probable....and when I say compatibility layer, I don't mean MOS or WOL, I mean apps that run within Mac OS X. All you'd need to do "technically" is recompile your code with a PPC compiler. They'd have the Mac OS GUI ( well it would have the widgets but the placement is another story) and behave no differently that other apps...even better than Legacy apps, because legacy apps do run in a MOL type emulation environment. ( shaddapp about WINE, its in here...somewhere:))
The difference between Carbon and this WIN32 layer would be, Apple shouldn't need near the amount of modification of WIN32 apps that Carbonizing legacy apps requires.
Legacy apps ( Mac OS 9 on down) are inherently unstable, due to the fact that they run in a variably segmented memory scheme, unprotected, with events such as menu-display and mouse clicks that can actually halt the function of the entire computer. WIN32 is inherently a multitasking and protected memory based API and I'm willing to bet that this can be leveraged within the compatibility layer to make appearance (relation of interactive objects to one another eg. buttons and menu's) pretty much the only concern at compile time...even that could be taken care of with the ease of Cocoa's Interface Builder.
The port to x86 is so unlikely as to be unbelievable, but can you imagine where all it would take is the use of a PPC compiler on your code to utilize WIN32 apps in OS X? That's where the money is and that's exactly what Apple will be planning in the future...a way to actually allow to keep its hardware and "share" apps with WIN32.
Although WINE could be a good source for Apple to look for Microsoft free-code, I doubt they will go the way that many have proposed, or joked I should say, when speaking about leveraging WINE and BOCHS to create an emulation environment that runs at nearly 80% of the speed of a similarly clocked PC....bull. WINE still requires modification and is made for x86 hardware...x86 emulation would make running WIN32 apps look like your Grandmother trying to do a goofy footed double - fakie ollie nose grind on her pinky while juggling her false teeth, depends diaper, and 20/200 coke bottle glasses...well with games at least. That's an area where Apple really needs the help ( Besides that Apple has something else to think about... next paragraph:)).
Apple will more likely look to Microsoft for support of such a project. To do otherwise would be to seek the wrath of the single largest Monopoly (big-m) on the planet and its also their best chance of getting it right, or wrong, depending on how you look at it. Licensing between Apple and Microsoft allows for Microsoft products to continue to come to the Mac...although who needs their apps really...lol...and Microsoft's sales to not be cannibalized by such a project...too much:) Hey I don't want Micro. trying to do something to the API every time they "feel" like it...although they already do:)(Apple is already tipsy with Micro. products, why not get drunk!)
Think about developers as well...those that would normally shy away from making Mac versions of their software can now do so extremely easily...so easily as to make cost a moot point.
For those that say Carbon is a temporary solution before moving to Cocoa, I say "Money talks and BS walks". Repeat after me..."Apple loves the dough, more than you know..."
I'm sure this has been said before, just not in all these words;)...Threatening Linux...ummm...duhhhh;)
Note: I am not an Apple employee nor am I friends with any Apple employees. In fact by writing this speculation that I call a post, I will most likely never work at Apple as I have always intended and never have any friends.
--Yes, I know I'm the only one still using Mac OS X PB.
--I am Meta Luna!!
--HTML : How to Meet Ladies...yeah, you wish.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually the Mac OS X subsystem is based mostly on FreeBSD 4.4...which you can see if you ever take a look at the header files within the Darwin CVS.
/usr, /sbin, /private, and additional directories...hell, just try removing the symbolic link to /etc and see if your computers boots properly;)
What you think of as layers are actually Frameworks and shared libraries running on top of this subsystem. The subsystem is actually quite stripped down for a unix OS unless you install the Developer package from the Developer CD. The gui is just a Window Server slightly different than traditional XFree86 implementations.
When you say that most apps don't require the subsystem you are partially correct, in that they are not required to be aware of it, but your OS would not be working if the subsystem was not in place....you may think it doesn't exist because it is hidden from the gui, but try booting without your
Apple has done a good job of hiding their necessity.
Dell promised us that we could standardize on their GX-150 model because they would never change it...since we'd like to image them with ImageCast.
...Needless to say they changed the motherboard 3 weeks later to support 1.2GHZ PIII's...
Oh, and I have to mention that there is no way to tell the difference between the two boards from the post screen, however they require different bios updates and device drivers..
Oh you're getting Hell...
Which goes along with my theory...Dells love David Hasselhoff.
Well if it chases you away I think we can all agree whatever they did wasn't a mistake:)
Makes you laugh when you think of all the time the recording companies spend trying to interest radio stations in their up and coming talent...here is a great way to gain interest and advertise with no real infrastructure or money required, and they can only see this as a great way to gain royalties.
I guess they are caught on the idea that someone might capture the streams and then share the broadcasted material...that cat is out of the bag, and internet radio is not exactly the best source for artist mp3's anyway...its just too bad that more people don't know how great and easy it is to tune into these stations and hear great music that they might not have experienced before. Hell, I wonder how many people using iTunes realize the amount of music they have at their fingertips.
Just look at some of the dedicated hardware that is coming out to connect and play music from internet radio stations...they must be trying to impose limitations before it becomes too popular to do so.
Then again you could listen to your local stations where they play the same 20 songs over and over for 3 months or so, if thats what you like...nevermind the commercials...maybe thats the problem;)
I just wish the RIAA and others were more forward thinking instead of so obstinate and vindictive...those just aren't qualities that make you a beloved member of any community.
...it would be nice if people would wake up and fight back for a change as well...let's keep internet radio from becoming pirate radio:D
http://www.somafm.com/
Oh I guess I failed to mention in my post that 2.4ghz phones interrupt service for those using 802.11 wireless because the phone companies decided that the phone should "surf" the spectrum instead of using any one channel at a time...thank so much...nothing we can do about it because the 2.4ghz spectrum is not regulated...can you say tough luck?
I suppose you can't have your cake and eat it too, since the standard probably would not have been developed had the spectrum been regulated...just irks me to know that some people don't have any regard for those with products that come before them. They might as well have said..."See this spectrum here? It isn't regulated, so we're going to crap all over it! What are you going to do about it?"
Oh yes, and when you hear the people who are setting up wireless all over the country say "Well its more of an art than a science.", you know you're in for it:)
Talk to someone who has ever setup or maintained wireless in a college dorm and you will know how often things can and do go wrong for no apparent reason. That is with very expensive base stations and routers within climate controlled cabinets in what seems like a perfect environment. I guess those people who have WiFi setup in their house don't know how difficult it can be, since they hardly have a considerable number of users on it, or any kind of complexity to their networks.
I'd have to say good luck to this person considering the conditions and the terrain he is attempting to maintain this network in. Keeping it working on a flat plain within normal distances is hard enough;)
Its no wonder that Geeks are notoriously bad with women when you consider that we are interested in things that are smaller and smaller than their counterparts...shrinking "things" are not something women are interested in...explaining why smaller "things" are better also is not something they are interested in...how appropriate that this is from the its so cute dept...haha;)
Oh I forgot..."Because I said so!", and "Because WiFi has no bones!"
...because I am going to take 1000 2.4ghz phones and spread them all across the island, making the network totally useless:)
...then again, WiFi has a habit of making itself totally useless;)
This from the company that brings the same movie out on tape and DVD every other year and creates artificial demand by saying they are never going to release it again...if greed had a face, it would be Eisner's.
I hope this story illustrates that you should never smoke crack. Thank You.
It appears that a small group of scientists who studied the area found that the ecosystem surrounding the site appears to be better off than when it wasn't radioactive.
r ve .htm
It seems that, at least in the short term, the animals and plants are better off with nuclear waste because humans have moved from these areas...kind of sad knowing your species is worse than cancer causing nuclear radiation isn't it?
http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/chernobyl/wildlifeprese
Well, I'm going to use it to connect to my car stereo and store navy secrets..."Yes sir, its just an Mp3 player...listen":)
"I think the majority of consumers believe that copyright has value and that if they have a pay vehicle to watch movies on the Internet, they will pay for it," said Yair Landau, president of Sony (news/quote) Pictures Digital Entertainment. "We want to give honest people an honest alternative."
LOL...honest people? The majority of people are completely immoral and as dishonest as you ALLOW them to be...
"To be really honest, we have no idea," Mr. Waterman said.
No idea is right...although I think the movie industry has always been a bit more "honest" than the consumers...if you catch my drift <;)
I posted this reply to make a point....
This question is more annoying than people who respond to their own posts!!!!!!!
ARRRGHHH.....
How many times are people going to ask about this? I think it would be best if we stick this one in the FAQ along with "Will OS X threaten Linux?".
DARWIN runs on Intel hardware, therefore Apple has no problem running OS X on Intel hardware. Apple will not release their OS in its consumer form for OS X, because it is not setup to gain enough profit through the sale of its OS to maintain operations...Apple needs OEM deals the same way Microbum does, and the only OEM who will readily accept Apple's OS on all its machines is Apple.
Consumer OS X will not be released for Intel. However, Darwin will probably be pushed more and more by Apple as a Linux alternative, the perfect free Quicktime streaming platform, running on ppc and x86 hardware. (thats bull anyway)
What Apple may attempt is to implement a WIN32 compatibility layer, in which they can run windows applications on their ppc hardware...get Apple hardware, get all the apps. If you were a developer and all you had to do is recompile your code for ppc, and I mean that literally, wouldn't you do it?
Well I'm tired of answering this question over and over. The answer is NO...NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. Stop asking, stop wondering, stop making me see this garbage question on Slashdot every day of the week.
If you spent as much time searching the web as you do asking this question, you would know the answer by now!
If you want OS X buy a Mac!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually thats a horrible idea, and if you've been following the history of Aqua you'd note that any attempts to even copy its look have been met with cease and desists.
The Aqua API and Quartz is what will differentiate OS X from the other OS's. The reverse is true though...as I explained in an earlier post, it is feasible for Apple to create a WIN32 compatability layer in the same way they created Carbon...actually more easily. No reason to create a Linux Compatibility layer, at least for them...but if they were to opensource Carbon, that would be another story.
(If you want to hear more about that look back to my OS X rant...its in this list somewhere...lol)
Apple is not a company that can stand to opensource all of its technology, especially when it depends on hardware sales to keep itself afloat. The proprietary software ties it to the proprietary hardware and this is why Apple will never really compete with Linux directly...Linux was never meant to be what OS X is...and it shows.
OS X Server 2.0 brings us to another question however: How many people will move to an OS where the Server itself is cake to manage and deal with the proprietary hardware issues to do so? Windows 2K seems to be the only OS in trouble here.http://www.apple.com/macosx/server/
The Cocoa API allows for apps to be written specifically for the terminal, or should I say the Cocoa development environment does.
Normal Cocoa apps use objective C or Java for any and all program code, whereas the interface is built with what is known as Interface Builder...creating the interface is cake...and besides accessing interface elements in your program (the nib interface resources are C anyway) no ties to the interface really exist.
Apple has kept as little to the OS as necessary....then again don't expect games to ported the same way as an Apple app like Mail persay.
You are right about Carbon apps though...they will be not be ported to Linux...unless sayyyy.....the Carbon Compatability layer is ported to Linux first....not "that much" difference between OS X and Linux at the Core...and thats all that really matters.
So get started!;)
Maybe OS X client is not meant to complete with Linux, whereas OS X Server 2.0 is....more-so W2K Server I'd think though;)
http://www.apple.com/macosx/server/
See a preview here...
http://wildtofu.com/resources/osx/osxs2-preview.ph p
Something very few people take note of is the compatibility layer that Apple has in Carbon.
..."Apple loves the dough, more than you know..."
;)
Do you realize that Apple has with what seems to be very little effort, created a compatibility "layer" that allows for Legacy Mac OS apps to be modified so slightly that many times a rewrite of 3-10% of code is all that's required to run on a mach kernel based multi-tasking protective memory BSD core system...two systems totally separate and unrelated to one another....I mean NT and RedHat are more alike...lol ( which is where my next point become relevant);)
A WIN32 compatibility layer on a system running a BSD based PPC OS is very possible, in fact probable....and when I say compatibility layer, I don't mean MOS or WOL, I mean apps that run within Mac OS X. All you'd need to do "technically" is recompile your code with a PPC compiler. They'd have the Mac OS GUI ( well it would have the widgets but the placement is another story) and behave no differently that other apps...even better than Legacy apps, because legacy apps do run in a MOL type emulation environment. ( shaddapp about WINE, its in here...somewhere:))
The difference between Carbon and this WIN32 layer would be, Apple shouldn't need near the amount of modification of WIN32 apps that Carbonizing legacy apps requires.
Legacy apps ( Mac OS 9 on down) are inherently unstable, due to the fact that they run in a variably segmented memory scheme, unprotected, with events such as menu-display and mouse clicks that can actually halt the function of the entire computer. WIN32 is inherently a multitasking and protected memory based API and I'm willing to bet that this can be leveraged within the compatibility layer to make appearance (relation of interactive objects to one another eg. buttons and menu's) pretty much the only concern at compile time...even that could be taken care of with the ease of Cocoa's Interface Builder.
The port to x86 is so unlikely as to be unbelievable, but can you imagine where all it would take is the use of a PPC compiler on your code to utilize WIN32 apps in OS X? That's where the money is and that's exactly what Apple will be planning in the future...a way to actually allow to keep its hardware and "share" apps with WIN32.
Although WINE could be a good source for Apple to look for Microsoft free-code, I doubt they will go the way that many have proposed, or joked I should say, when speaking about leveraging WINE and BOCHS to create an emulation environment that runs at nearly 80% of the speed of a similarly clocked PC....bull. WINE still requires modification and is made for x86 hardware...x86 emulation would make running WIN32 apps look like your Grandmother trying to do a goofy footed double - fakie ollie nose grind on her pinky while juggling her false teeth, depends diaper, and 20/200 coke bottle glasses...well with games at least. That's an area where Apple really needs the help ( Besides that Apple has something else to think about... next paragraph:)).
Apple will more likely look to Microsoft for support of such a project. To do otherwise would be to seek the wrath of the single largest Monopoly (big-m) on the planet and its also their best chance of getting it right, or wrong, depending on how you look at it. Licensing between Apple and Microsoft allows for Microsoft products to continue to come to the Mac...although who needs their apps really...lol...and Microsoft's sales to not be cannibalized by such a project...too much:) Hey I don't want Micro. trying to do something to the API every time they "feel" like it...although they already do:)(Apple is already tipsy with Micro. products, why not get drunk!)
Think about developers as well...those that would normally shy away from making Mac versions of their software can now do so extremely easily...so easily as to make cost a moot point.
For those that say Carbon is a temporary solution before moving to Cocoa, I say "Money talks and BS walks". Repeat after me
I'm sure this has been said before, just not in all these words;)...Threatening Linux...ummm...duhhhh
Note: I am not an Apple employee nor am I friends with any Apple employees. In fact by writing this speculation that I call a post, I will most likely never work at Apple as I have always intended and never have any friends.
--Yes, I know I'm the only one still using Mac OS X PB.
--I am Meta Luna!!
--HTML : How to Meet Ladies...yeah, you wish.