I have heard that to many times, and for to many reasons to believe that OS x is the end all and be all of Operating Systems. There doesn't seem to be much information available on OS X, except that it crashes when to many threads are spawned(the apache server test I belive).
Yeah. That's Mac OS X Server, which has been shipping since March, is $500, and needs to run old Mac apps in a seperate virtual environment. It's a very different OS from what the general use Mac OS X and new versions of Server will be. It isn't even based on the same kernel (Mach 2.5 vs. Mach 3.0).
Information about Mac OS X is rather hard to find, because Steve Jobs loves suprises. There's plenty about OS X Server, but it really isn't the interesting one.
For information about Mac OS X Server, try Apple's web page on the product here.
You can get some information about the general version Mac OS X from the archives of Mac OS Rumors, but be aware that these are rumors.
Basically, what's known about it is that it's core is BSD on top of a Mach 3.0 microkernel. It has several APIs, including Carbon, which is an API mostly like the existing Mac API, but it fixes the issues that prevent current apps from working in a modern environment (so old Mac apps can be ported to OS X fast; apps like Photoshop take a week of work to convert to Carbon), Cocoa (formerly called YellowBox), which is mostly an updated version of the NeXT API (can be programed in Objective C and Java), and "Classic", which is really just a backwards compatibility environment to run old Mac apps. Old Mac apps will all run as one task in one memory space, but won't be able to hog CPU time from (or crash) Carbon apps, Cocoa apps, or the OS. Mac OS X will also have an advanced new graphics model called Quartz that's based on PDF. Unfortunately, it isn't a client/server architecture like X, but it does do some rather amazing things. And there should be full access to a complete BSD commad line.
Apple's focus with Mac OS X is to create a kick-ass modern OS that even hard core geeks can respect, but that won't alienate Mac fanatics.
The OS's entire core (all the Mach and BSD stuff) will be open sourced under the Apple Public Source License.
Current planned shipping date is "early 2000", whatever that means. Apple just seeded the second developer build of the OS last week, but everyone who has a copy in NDAed.
Mac fanatics have been dropping a BS line of a better interface for way too long. If the isolarion of a user from such concepts as the manual ejection of removable media, a heirarchial file system,
Sorry. You're confusing OSes. It's Windows that isolates the use from the hierarchal file system with the Start menu. The Mac encourages users to directly interact with the file structure on their hard drives in a way no other OS really does.
I've got one of the floppyless G3s, and I've been running Linux on it. I just can't say I miss the floppy drive at all, in Mac OS or Linux. Macs have been able to boot from CDs, Zip disks, whatever, since errr... Well, since the beginning. 'Course having a DSL Internet connection and an FTP server in your bedroom helps render the floppy obsolete like nothing else:-)
That's such a load of bull. First of all, architecturally, there's no basis for this argument. Nothing about the Macintosh makes it better "for graphics". Even from a software perspective, the industry standard editors/composers (like Photoshop and Illustrator) are available on *multiple* platforms.
Sorry, but this just simply is not the case. There are two major things the Mac has that nothing else does nearly as well that keep it in the lead for graphics work. One is system-level color management through ColorSync. The other, perhaps even more important, is decent Postscript output. Windows simply does not do this as well. Many printing houses hate dealing with Windows files, because you usually don't get on the page what you see on the screen on the first try. These two things are just not an issue for most people, for for professional graphics work, they are almost essential.
You're right about 3D though. The Mac does have some decent 3D programs (Electric Image comes to mind), but it isn't really the strongest platform there.
'Course Mac OS X will change everything. A BSD Unix with Mac OS ease-of-use that runs both Mac OS and Unix apps is just about all you could ask for in an OS.
And until then, I'll just dual-boot Linux:-)
--
Re:This is absolutely ludicrous..
on
Usenet Gag Order
·
· Score: 1
No, that's just how it always gets misquoted.
--
Re:This is absolutely ludicrous..
on
Usenet Gag Order
·
· Score: 1
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary saftey deserve neither liberty not saftey."
AOL can't do that. They'd lose their space on the Windows desktop. That kind of thing doesn't seem like a big deal to us, but it's a major source for new users.
Maybe once the DoJ is done nailing MS to the floor AOL will start using Netscape.
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. (rationale)
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor.
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. (rationale)
In other words, if you do what you're talking about, it's no longer Open Source Software.
Isn't it very possible that if the Chinese government begins to modify and deploy Linux on a large scale, it will withhold source (and even binaries) for "security reasons"? Sure, more eyes mean better security, but with the people in charge there understand that?
This is a rather big issue. It wouldn't do any good to have 1/5 of the population violating the GPL.
Why do people keep referring to USB as if it is in competition with Firewire? Comparing current USB implementations to Firewire is like comparing parallel ports to UltraSCSI. As for USB2, there will simply be too much pressure on Intel to include Firewire. Everyone will want a computer that can interface with all their electronics.
You mean aside from bringing the GUI as we know it to the masses? You might also want to take a look at the early history of multimedia. And now watch as the PC makers scramble to imitate the iMac.
Jeez. How many times does a company need to radically change the industry to be considered innovative?
It's true. Some people will hate Apple no matter what it does.
You haven't noticed the company is just a bit different now? The pro machines are just about easiest towers to open and work in on the market. Even the new iMac makes it easy to get at the DIMMs. And the core of Apple's next generation OS is open source software. The modern Mac doesn't even have a single proprietary port on the back.
What is "anti-tech" about all of this? Apple has radically changed at least twice since the introduction of the Mac. It can hardly be considered the same company it was in '84.
"A hard drive interface probably won't be going away any time soon as their bandwidth usage can be greater than FireWire."
Firewire is already 50MB/s, and will be twice that next year. Maybe there are some RAIDs that can exceed Firewire's real-world performance (which is probably something like 40MB/s), but it's fast enough for 95% + of external devices.
Machines really designed for video will probably have two Firewire buses, one for the DV stream and one for everything else. I believe Apple's new high-end G4s to this.
But Apple has always insisted on using those much more expensive (mostly because of volume) motorized eject drives. I've had a G3 for the last 4.5 months, and I haven't missed the floppy drive yet. If I ever do I can just zap something across my LAN to an older machine.
I think Apple made the right choice here. Floppy drives are very useless to many people, but there is no standard for largest removable media. Some people need a zip, some people need a Jaz, and Orb, and LS-120. Best to sell a computer without anything and let people get what they need.
Not really. Firewire doesn't need Intel; it has the entire consumer electronics industry behind it. Plus Compaq, NEC, and Apple.
With the new iMac DV, Apple is trying to do with video what the Mac and the LaserWriter did with publishing. If they pull it off, everyone will want Firewire to edit their home movies in five years, whatever their platform of choice.
It might start on the Mac side. All desktop Macs except the supper low-end iMac now have Firewire. Plus the Mac hardware platform is much more limited, which makes getting things off the ground much easier.
There are rumors that by this time next year, Apple will be shipping Firewire hard drives standard in its high-end machines, and that would certainly encourage Linux to support it.
Please update your FUD. Virtually everything you say is wrong. First, Firewire is more of a standard than USB (where is USB's IEEE certification?), second, the fee is $0.25/DEVICE, not $1/port, and third, This is not something imposed by Apple. There are, IIRC, 8 companies that hold patents on technologies used in Firewire, and that fee covers licensing of all necessary patents. Apple's share is unknown. Ironically, Intel, the company complaining about the fee for Firewire, it one of those companies.
Also, the new iMacs have Firewire (all except the $999 model).
As for Firewire being a niche product, yes, if you consider the entire consumer electronics market, the digital video market, and high-end consumer computer peripheral market, etc. etc. to be a "niche". USB is useless in the first two of those markets (it isn't peer-to-peer), and inferior Firewire in the third (yes, even USB2). USB was never designed to be a high speed interface.
Why is it that some people hate anything that Apple touches?
Maybe this is a dumb question (I'm not all that familiar with the Linux kernel), but why does it have to be compiled as a module? It's GPLed. Can't it be dropped directly into the kernel?
The original poster said he was talking about IP in general, not just software patents. You're right; patents aren't too useful in the software industry, because usually by the time they're granted the idea has already been copied by the entire industry and trying to enforce your patent accomplishes very little other than the generation of bad will.
Copyrights are essential to software though, especially GPLed software. It's the copyright holder who decides what license to release a program under. If copyright laws were abolished, Microsoft would have the same rights to your code as you do, and could legally take your GPLed code and use it in closed source software.
Slashdot Mirror
How Disney did it? Well, that's easy. You get a few million $$$, you pick of the phone, you dial Pixar....
;-)
--
What's really scary is that in 10 years or less computer games and VR are going to look like that. Who needs reality? ;-)
I do need to see this movie though. Looks amazing.
--
I have heard that to many times, and for to many reasons to believe that OS x is the end all and be all of Operating Systems. There doesn't seem to be much information available on OS X, except that it crashes when to many threads are spawned(the apache server test I belive).
Yeah. That's Mac OS X Server, which has been shipping since March, is $500, and needs to run old Mac apps in a seperate virtual environment. It's a very different OS from what the general use Mac OS X and new versions of Server will be. It isn't even based on the same kernel (Mach 2.5 vs. Mach 3.0).
Information about Mac OS X is rather hard to find, because Steve Jobs loves suprises. There's plenty about OS X Server, but it really isn't the interesting one.
For information about Mac OS X Server, try Apple's web page on the product here.
You can get some information about the general version Mac OS X from the archives of Mac OS Rumors, but be aware that these are rumors.
Basically, what's known about it is that it's core is BSD on top of a Mach 3.0 microkernel. It has several APIs, including Carbon, which is an API mostly like the existing Mac API, but it fixes the issues that prevent current apps from working in a modern environment (so old Mac apps can be ported to OS X fast; apps like Photoshop take a week of work to convert to Carbon), Cocoa (formerly called YellowBox), which is mostly an updated version of the NeXT API (can be programed in Objective C and Java), and "Classic", which is really just a backwards compatibility environment to run old Mac apps. Old Mac apps will all run as one task in one memory space, but won't be able to hog CPU time from (or crash) Carbon apps, Cocoa apps, or the OS. Mac OS X will also have an advanced new graphics model called Quartz that's based on PDF. Unfortunately, it isn't a client/server architecture like X, but it does do some rather amazing things. And there should be full access to a complete BSD commad line.
Apple's focus with Mac OS X is to create a kick-ass modern OS that even hard core geeks can respect, but that won't alienate Mac fanatics.
The OS's entire core (all the Mach and BSD stuff) will be open sourced under the Apple Public Source License.
Current planned shipping date is "early 2000", whatever that means. Apple just seeded the second developer build of the OS last week, but everyone who has a copy in NDAed.
--
Mac fanatics have been dropping a BS line of a better interface for way too long. If the isolarion of a user from such concepts as the manual ejection of removable media, a heirarchial file system,
Sorry. You're confusing OSes. It's Windows that isolates the use from the hierarchal file system with the Start menu. The Mac encourages users to directly interact with the file structure on their hard drives in a way no other OS really does.
or even the concept of a power switch is a Good Thing©
Soft power renders the power switch obsolete, and is very nice for server machines and the like (hint: it works just fine from Linux).
that makes everything so easy to use, why the hell does it have stupid things like like the Chooser,
The Chooser sucks, and Apple has been slowly replacing it for years now. It should be gone totally with the next OS release.
why does its file table corrupt so easily,
Um... It doesn't, especially when compared with ext2.
and what is the deal with that LAME-ASS broadcast AppleTalk protocol?
Again, it sucks. Apple has been phasing it out in favor of TCP/IP for many years now, and this is almost complete.
--
I've got one of the floppyless G3s, and I've been running Linux on it. I just can't say I miss the floppy drive at all, in Mac OS or Linux. Macs have been able to boot from CDs, Zip disks, whatever, since errr... Well, since the beginning. 'Course having a DSL Internet connection and an FTP server in your bedroom helps render the floppy obsolete like nothing else :-)
--
That's such a load of bull. First of all, architecturally, there's no basis for this argument. Nothing about the Macintosh makes it better "for graphics". Even from a software perspective, the industry standard editors/composers (like Photoshop and Illustrator) are available on *multiple* platforms.
:-)
Sorry, but this just simply is not the case. There are two major things the Mac has that nothing else does nearly as well that keep it in the lead for graphics work. One is system-level color management through ColorSync. The other, perhaps even more important, is decent Postscript output. Windows simply does not do this as well. Many printing houses hate dealing with Windows files, because you usually don't get on the page what you see on the screen on the first try. These two things are just not an issue for most people, for for professional graphics work, they are almost essential.
You're right about 3D though. The Mac does have some decent 3D programs (Electric Image comes to mind), but it isn't really the strongest platform there.
'Course Mac OS X will change everything. A BSD Unix with Mac OS ease-of-use that runs both Mac OS and Unix apps is just about all you could ask for in an OS.
And until then, I'll just dual-boot Linux
--
No, that's just how it always gets misquoted.
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary saftey deserve neither liberty not saftey."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
--
AOL can't do that. They'd lose their space on the Windows desktop. That kind of thing doesn't seem like a big deal to us, but it's a major source for new users.
Maybe once the DoJ is done nailing MS to the floor AOL will start using Netscape.
--
No, Netscape lost its will to live when Microsoft decided that the web browser market would be a nice thing to own.
--
Read here.
Specifically:
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups.
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. (rationale)
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor.
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. (rationale)
In other words, if you do what you're talking about, it's no longer Open Source Software.
--
Windows is free as well in most of the third world .
--
Isn't it very possible that if the Chinese government begins to modify and deploy Linux on a large scale, it will withhold source (and even binaries) for "security reasons"? Sure, more eyes mean better security, but with the people in charge there understand that?
This is a rather big issue. It wouldn't do any good to have 1/5 of the population violating the GPL.
--
Why do people keep referring to USB as if it is in competition with Firewire? Comparing current USB implementations to Firewire is like comparing parallel ports to UltraSCSI. As for USB2, there will simply be too much pressure on Intel to include Firewire. Everyone will want a computer that can interface with all their electronics.
--
You mean aside from bringing the GUI as we know it to the masses? You might also want to take a look at the early history of multimedia. And now watch as the PC makers scramble to imitate the iMac.
Jeez. How many times does a company need to radically change the industry to be considered innovative?
It's true. Some people will hate Apple no matter what it does.
--
You haven't noticed the company is just a bit different now? The pro machines are just about easiest towers to open and work in on the market. Even the new iMac makes it easy to get at the DIMMs. And the core of Apple's next generation OS is open source software. The modern Mac doesn't even have a single proprietary port on the back.
What is "anti-tech" about all of this? Apple has radically changed at least twice since the introduction of the Mac. It can hardly be considered the same company it was in '84.
--
"A hard drive interface probably won't be going away any time soon as their bandwidth usage can be greater than FireWire."
Firewire is already 50MB/s, and will be twice that next year. Maybe there are some RAIDs that can exceed Firewire's real-world performance (which is probably something like 40MB/s), but it's fast enough for 95% + of external devices.
Machines really designed for video will probably have two Firewire buses, one for the DV stream and one for everything else. I believe Apple's new high-end G4s to this.
--
But Apple has always insisted on using those much more expensive (mostly because of volume) motorized eject drives. I've had a G3 for the last 4.5 months, and I haven't missed the floppy drive yet. If I ever do I can just zap something across my LAN to an older machine.
I think Apple made the right choice here. Floppy drives are very useless to many people, but there is no standard for largest removable media. Some people need a zip, some people need a Jaz, and Orb, and LS-120. Best to sell a computer without anything and let people get what they need.
--
Not really. Firewire doesn't need Intel; it has the entire consumer electronics industry behind it. Plus Compaq, NEC, and Apple.
With the new iMac DV, Apple is trying to do with video what the Mac and the LaserWriter did with publishing. If they pull it off, everyone will want Firewire to edit their home movies in five years, whatever their platform of choice.
--
It might start on the Mac side. All desktop Macs except the supper low-end iMac now have Firewire. Plus the Mac hardware platform is much more limited, which makes getting things off the ground much easier.
There are rumors that by this time next year, Apple will be shipping Firewire hard drives standard in its high-end machines, and that would certainly encourage Linux to support it.
--
Please update your FUD. Virtually everything you say is wrong. First, Firewire is more of a standard than USB (where is USB's IEEE certification?), second, the fee is $0.25/DEVICE, not $1/port, and third, This is not something imposed by Apple. There are, IIRC, 8 companies that hold patents on technologies used in Firewire, and that fee covers licensing of all necessary patents. Apple's share is unknown. Ironically, Intel, the company complaining about the fee for Firewire, it one of those companies.
Also, the new iMacs have Firewire (all except the $999 model).
As for Firewire being a niche product, yes, if you consider the entire consumer electronics market, the digital video market, and high-end consumer computer peripheral market, etc. etc. to be a "niche". USB is useless in the first two of those markets (it isn't peer-to-peer), and inferior Firewire in the third (yes, even USB2). USB was never designed to be a high speed interface.
Why is it that some people hate anything that Apple touches?
--
Maybe this is a dumb question (I'm not all that familiar with the Linux kernel), but why does it have to be compiled as a module? It's GPLed. Can't it be dropped directly into the kernel?
--
I wish they'd post higher quality versions for those of use with faster connections.
--
The original poster said he was talking about IP in general, not just software patents. You're right; patents aren't too useful in the software industry, because usually by the time they're granted the idea has already been copied by the entire industry and trying to enforce your patent accomplishes very little other than the generation of bad will.
Copyrights are essential to software though, especially GPLed software. It's the copyright holder who decides what license to release a program under. If copyright laws were abolished, Microsoft would have the same rights to your code as you do, and could legally take your GPLed code and use it in closed source software.
--
They don't work in Netscape 4.7 for Mac OS either. Netscape's PNG support is very incomplete. Most other browsers have problems as well.
--