216.148.227.68 has been having some huge problems with resolving hosts. It seems to be able to resolve for about 20 min's then it crashes
I've seen that too. The weird thing is that nslookup apparently continues to work, but no applications can do lookups. Surprising, restarting the TCP/IP stack (I'm on Mac OS X) often seems to solve it for another 20 minutes. Weird.
Because whatever GOOD commercial software for OS X will be either ported to the Linux or will be run with the help of open source libraries (wrapers)
It's really no easier to port the big name Mac OS X software to Linux than it is to port the Windows software. Mac OS X's primary APIs are Carbon (Office, all Adobe apps, all Macromedia apps, Maya, etc) and Cocoa. There is GNUStep, but it's not finished.
I have to say articles like this has to be taken with a grain of salt
I completely agree.
And specific article is just a part of Apple's marketing compain to create a warm ant fuzzy feeling for the people who already bought OS X
No, not just for consumers. Also for designers and developers that want things that Linux (or even Windows) does not provide. The label the *nix community has given Mac OS X is "a nice face on Unix." And it does do that quite well, but that's only one part of what makes it unique. Not that Linux isn't great. But it's a mistake to assume only consumers would value what Mac OS X provides.
I guess it depends on what you care about. Mac OS X's graphic system is "technically" superior" to anything available on Linux, or probably any other OS, for that matter. No to mention the architecture for audio, video, Java, etc. Linux probably wins on raw speed in many areas. Different design criteria.
funny to read that only.24 (?) percent of internet users use Linux. That is the biggest bullshit I've heard for a while
Yeah, surveys like this do suck. People extrapolate all sorts of things from data taken out of context.
You cannot have a web browser (IE), an MP3 player (iTunes) and a news reader open without significant slowdown and swapping
I think something is unique about your situation. This just isn't normal. My hard disk frequently spins down due to long period of non-use, even while I'm continually using the machine.
Of course, you don't say what type of iBook you have or what the configuration is, so it's hard to be sure.
Why do Apple people keep going on about how they will kill Linux off?
When you say "Apple people" you make it sound like employees of the company, which isn't the case.
poor Apple will have to find out just what they are dealing with is not a corporation, but a very large evolving user community
I think they're familiar with the concept. Their software team has a long history with Unix software. Jordan Hubbard works for Apple. They also have several open source projects going.
are you sure you can do all software installations/system maintenance from the command line in OSX
Anything you want to be able to use from the command line, you can administer from the command line. There's no point (IMHO) in being able to install or deinstall Photoshop from the CLI. If all you want to do is run server software, then you're going to have limited interaction with the GUI anyway.
The extra stuff means additional potential for security holes, additional documentation, additional learning curve, additional hardware requirements.
Maybe I'm missing your point, but for me, a well-designed GUI means a sharply lower learning curve than a CLI app that has two "tutorials": INSTALL and README. If you don't want all of the other stuff, you can just opt to not have the window manager launch and you are basically left with Darwin (which you can examine and modify the source for).
Good systems are designed coherently from the ground up, for specific needs, with a simple, powerful set of primitives.
Perhaps a set of basic building blocks to work from are good for your purposes, but it's hardly the only variety of software people need.
For my day-to-day needs, I would prefer to have a flexible, multipurpose operating system that can adapt to various situations gracefully. I want to run Apache/MySQL/PHP, servlet engine as well as Illustrator and Photoshop at the *same time*. As far as I can tell, Mac OS X is currently the best platform to do this with. And it will only get better in the coming year.
It's good that I can buy cheap clone hardware and not contribute a significant portion of my hardware dollar to closed source software
I strongly support your decision to do so.
and effete 'Industrial Design' nutcases producing 'fashionable' enclosures.
I guess nutcase is inherently subjective...
Believe it or not some people do care how things look. This is why cars come in more than one design and color. Obviously design was irrelevant when a computer filled an entire room, but things have changed a bit.
We're not robots. We like art. The TiBook looks cool. Perhaps you see your computer as something that shouldn't involve art. That's fine. You don't have to feel the same, but there's no point in saying people are insane for liking something other than a grey hunk of plastic.
Your 'develop a better experience' blather. Eeek, hasn't that kind of buzzword crap gone out of style yet?
The phrase means something concrete -- basically you enjoy the process of using the computer. I don't see it as my fault that the term was hijacked by people who had no interest in what it actually meant. Apple probably has more right to use it than most.
Is what a new concept? Nothing has been introduced yet. And regardless of what they do introduce, one major difference is that these machines will be designed to run Mac OS X.
Apple's failure was not allowing clones of its hardware
I can't think of a worse time in the platform or company's history than during the point that clones were available. It was an absolute mess. Part of the problem was that none of the manufacturers had any interest in actually expanding the market. They just took Apple's best customers while Apple was left to foot the bill for platform development. Clones elminated a lot of the core value of the Mac.
Cloning was in direct conflict with the Mac experience, philosophy and culture. It may have seemed like a good idea on paper (largely people assumed if it worked for x86, it would work for the Mac), but in practice, it just didn't flow right. The platform is undoubtably in a more stable position today.
and they had a fully operational 486 booting Mac OS, complete with desktop and even Quicktime movies with sound
Welcome Mac users, to the wonderful work of IRQ conflicts and COM2.:)
Controlling hardward and software helps integrate, but not innovate
Actually, just the opposite. Things like iDVD, iMovie and AirPort worked immediately upon introduction (and therefore added value) due specifically to the fact that Apple controlled both the hardware and software.
The fact that Apple owns and maintains its own platform is at the core of its value proposition and ability to differentiate from other manufacturers. It provides choice in the industry.
The problem with USING all that cool Mac stuff is that it costs MONEY. Sure you could grab the software somewhere, but the hardware is so overpriced compared to PC hardware.
Apple has a different business model than somebody like Dell. Apple has an entire platform to develop. They provide free, ad-free internet services to their customers. They provide quite a bit of free software. They host open source projects. These things cost money to create and maintain. This money comes from the margins. Basically, you pay more so Apple can develop a better experience.
A company like Dell, however, is primarily an assembly service. They don't have product development in the same sense that Apple does. Dell's products are defined largely by Intel, Microsoft, NVIDIA, IBM and component manufacturers. The actual machines and experience end up being very similar to that of other manufacturers, so Dell effectively competes on the sale rather than the product. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with this -- it's just a different business model.
The fact that Apple and Dell have different approaches to selling computers is good. It means we have choice.
Apple is profitable and has well over $4 billion in cash, but if you look at their actual profit on per-quarter basis, they aren't raping customers and just watching the money pour in. They're doing constructive things with it.
I must be missing something obvious, because this is just too silly:
- MacFixIt describes how to easily get the $130 version of Mac OS X for $20 or $0
- Apple politely asks them to not do that
- The resulting thread on/. consists of 702 comments
Doors with horizontal handles should be pushed, while doors with vertical handles should be pulled.
In many cases, doors that should be pushed shouldn't even have handles. Just one of those long metalic release bars or a simple metallic plate is enough to tell the person "you can't pull this."
A company that has its web team reporting to marketing just screams "we don't under the internet." Marketing executives simply don't tend to have sufficient experience with engineering and administration issues to understand the goals, challenges and advantages of having a web site.
A lot of companies see their web site primarily as a marketing tool. That may be, but running a web site is completely different than laying out a catalogue or brochure.
If Apple is financing a competitor, whatever its shortcomings, it gives it a lot of validity, and suddenly 90% of the people who use Photoshop (or whatever) realize that all they do is edit pictures for their homepage
There may be some percentage of Photoshop users people that don't really need Photoshop, but I suspect this number is quite small. Photoshop is too expensive to be taken lightly, and in additional to several long-run shareware Mac image editors, Adobe sells Photoshop Elements, a watered-down consumer app.
Everybody I know that uses Photoshop needs Photoshop (or something as full-featured).
I would gladly piss off a dozen users who are too obnoxious to bother reading the manual
Which is fine as long as the manual in question is usable. All too often in the open source world, the manual is useless unless you already know what you're doing. Apache and PHP do a good job of getting the user up and running quickly. MySQL does a very reasonable job as well. Too much software ignores that fact that spending five hours reading documentation just to get one thing to work is an extremely frustrating experience.
Make the obvious stuff (the purpose for downloading the software) ridiculously easy to accomplish. Make the rest accessible. That will keep a lot of users off your back.
Slashdot Mirror
216.148.227.68 has been having some huge problems with resolving hosts. It seems to be able to resolve for about 20 min's then it crashes
I've seen that too. The weird thing is that nslookup apparently continues to work, but no applications can do lookups. Surprising, restarting the TCP/IP stack (I'm on Mac OS X) often seems to solve it for another 20 minutes. Weird.
- Scott
Because whatever GOOD commercial software for OS X will be either ported to the Linux or will be run with the help of open source libraries (wrapers)
It's really no easier to port the big name Mac OS X software to Linux than it is to port the Windows software. Mac OS X's primary APIs are Carbon (Office, all Adobe apps, all Macromedia apps, Maya, etc) and Cocoa. There is GNUStep, but it's not finished.
I have to say articles like this has to be taken with a grain of salt
I completely agree.
And specific article is just a part of Apple's marketing compain to create a warm ant fuzzy feeling for the people who already bought OS X
The article was written by Mac users, not Apple.
- Scott
OSX is a nice system--for consumers
No, not just for consumers. Also for designers and developers that want things that Linux (or even Windows) does not provide. The label the *nix community has given Mac OS X is "a nice face on Unix." And it does do that quite well, but that's only one part of what makes it unique. Not that Linux isn't great. But it's a mistake to assume only consumers would value what Mac OS X provides.
- Scott
OS X will never seriously compete with Linux.
.24 (?) percent of internet users use Linux. That is the biggest bullshit I've heard for a while
This is sort of vague. What do you mean?
Linux is tecnically superior to OS X
Oh boy.
I guess it depends on what you care about. Mac OS X's graphic system is "technically" superior" to anything available on Linux, or probably any other OS, for that matter. No to mention the architecture for audio, video, Java, etc. Linux probably wins on raw speed in many areas. Different design criteria.
funny to read that only
Yeah, surveys like this do suck. People extrapolate all sorts of things from data taken out of context.
- Scott
You cannot have a web browser (IE), an MP3 player (iTunes) and a news reader open without significant slowdown and swapping
I think something is unique about your situation. This just isn't normal. My hard disk frequently spins down due to long period of non-use, even while I'm continually using the machine.
Of course, you don't say what type of iBook you have or what the configuration is, so it's hard to be sure.
- Scott
Why do Apple people keep going on about how they will kill Linux off?
When you say "Apple people" you make it sound like employees of the company, which isn't the case.
poor Apple will have to find out just what they are dealing with is not a corporation, but a very large evolving user community
I think they're familiar with the concept. Their software team has a long history with Unix software. Jordan Hubbard works for Apple. They also have several open source projects going.
- Scott
are you sure you can do all software installations/system maintenance from the command line in OSX
Anything you want to be able to use from the command line, you can administer from the command line. There's no point (IMHO) in being able to install or deinstall Photoshop from the CLI. If all you want to do is run server software, then you're going to have limited interaction with the GUI anyway.
The extra stuff means additional potential for security holes, additional documentation, additional learning curve, additional hardware requirements.
Maybe I'm missing your point, but for me, a well-designed GUI means a sharply lower learning curve than a CLI app that has two "tutorials": INSTALL and README. If you don't want all of the other stuff, you can just opt to not have the window manager launch and you are basically left with Darwin (which you can examine and modify the source for).
Good systems are designed coherently from the ground up, for specific needs, with a simple, powerful set of primitives.
Perhaps a set of basic building blocks to work from are good for your purposes, but it's hardly the only variety of software people need.
For my day-to-day needs, I would prefer to have a flexible, multipurpose operating system that can adapt to various situations gracefully. I want to run Apache/MySQL/PHP, servlet engine as well as Illustrator and Photoshop at the *same time*. As far as I can tell, Mac OS X is currently the best platform to do this with. And it will only get better in the coming year.
- Scott
first BeOS, and now OSX. both seem to be cut from basically the same "us against the world" mentality
Yeah, everyone should just use Windows on x86. That would be the proper thing to do.
- Scott
How is anybody supposed to remember that Outlook is a mail client, Excel a spreadsheet and Access a database?
Well, Excel has been around for well over a decade. The others are popularized by various forms of marketing.
- Scott
On average, a 866 G4 is probably equivalent to a 1 GHz or maybe 1.2 GHz P
:)
Good 'ol probably, he never lets us down.
- Scott
It's good that I can buy cheap clone hardware and not contribute a significant portion of my hardware dollar to closed source software
I strongly support your decision to do so.
and effete 'Industrial Design' nutcases producing 'fashionable' enclosures.
I guess nutcase is inherently subjective...
Believe it or not some people do care how things look. This is why cars come in more than one design and color. Obviously design was irrelevant when a computer filled an entire room, but things have changed a bit.
We're not robots. We like art. The TiBook looks cool. Perhaps you see your computer as something that shouldn't involve art. That's fine. You don't have to feel the same, but there's no point in saying people are insane for liking something other than a grey hunk of plastic.
Your 'develop a better experience' blather. Eeek, hasn't that kind of buzzword crap gone out of style yet?
The phrase means something concrete -- basically you enjoy the process of using the computer. I don't see it as my fault that the term was hijacked by people who had no interest in what it actually meant. Apple probably has more right to use it than most.
- Scott
Is this really that new of a concept?
Is what a new concept? Nothing has been introduced yet. And regardless of what they do introduce, one major difference is that these machines will be designed to run Mac OS X.
- Scott
Apple's failure was not allowing clones of its hardware
:)
I can't think of a worse time in the platform or company's history than during the point that clones were available. It was an absolute mess. Part of the problem was that none of the manufacturers had any interest in actually expanding the market. They just took Apple's best customers while Apple was left to foot the bill for platform development. Clones elminated a lot of the core value of the Mac.
Cloning was in direct conflict with the Mac experience, philosophy and culture. It may have seemed like a good idea on paper (largely people assumed if it worked for x86, it would work for the Mac), but in practice, it just didn't flow right. The platform is undoubtably in a more stable position today.
and they had a fully operational 486 booting Mac OS, complete with desktop and even Quicktime movies with sound
Welcome Mac users, to the wonderful work of IRQ conflicts and COM2.
Controlling hardward and software helps integrate, but not innovate
Actually, just the opposite. Things like iDVD, iMovie and AirPort worked immediately upon introduction (and therefore added value) due specifically to the fact that Apple controlled both the hardware and software.
The fact that Apple owns and maintains its own platform is at the core of its value proposition and ability to differentiate from other manufacturers. It provides choice in the industry.
- Scott
MAC OS X 2001 == Unix 1969
:)
Plop an end user in front of each of these and see which one they do better with.
- Scott
The problem with USING all that cool Mac stuff is that it costs MONEY. Sure you could grab the software somewhere, but the hardware is so overpriced compared to PC hardware.
Apple has a different business model than somebody like Dell. Apple has an entire platform to develop. They provide free, ad-free internet services to their customers. They provide quite a bit of free software. They host open source projects. These things cost money to create and maintain. This money comes from the margins. Basically, you pay more so Apple can develop a better experience.
A company like Dell, however, is primarily an assembly service. They don't have product development in the same sense that Apple does. Dell's products are defined largely by Intel, Microsoft, NVIDIA, IBM and component manufacturers. The actual machines and experience end up being very similar to that of other manufacturers, so Dell effectively competes on the sale rather than the product. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with this -- it's just a different business model.
The fact that Apple and Dell have different approaches to selling computers is good. It means we have choice.
Apple is profitable and has well over $4 billion in cash, but if you look at their actual profit on per-quarter basis, they aren't raping customers and just watching the money pour in. They're doing constructive things with it.
- Scott
I must be missing something obvious, because this is just too silly:
/. consists of 702 comments
- MacFixIt describes how to easily get the $130 version of Mac OS X for $20 or $0
- Apple politely asks them to not do that
- The resulting thread on
Help.
- Scott
So, I ordered the $20.00 upgrade, which left a bad taste in my mouth after buying both the Beta and the full copy of X 10.0
If you did everything right, you would have gotten $30 off the first retail release of Mac OS X, negating the the cost of the public beta.
- Scott
Doors with horizontal handles should be pushed, while doors with vertical handles should be pulled.
In many cases, doors that should be pushed shouldn't even have handles. Just one of those long metalic release bars or a simple metallic plate is enough to tell the person "you can't pull this."
- Scott
Slashdot is the home of the big-bad MS bashing, but worse than Big Tobacco?
I think it was intended to compare courtroom practices, not end results.
- Scott
But they really don't know how. Look at all those Macs, clearly these people have misspent money in the past.
:)
Oh jeez. The 12 year olds aren't l33t enough.
Believe it or not, Macs are easier to maintain and use. This is especially important in schools with younger kids and limited IT staff.
All of us cool adult people can compile our own kernels on our self-built hardware bought for slightly above cost at Fry's.
- Scott
we don't under the internet
Make that "we don't underSTAND the internet."
- Scott
A company that has its web team reporting to marketing just screams "we don't under the internet." Marketing executives simply don't tend to have sufficient experience with engineering and administration issues to understand the goals, challenges and advantages of having a web site.
A lot of companies see their web site primarily as a marketing tool. That may be, but running a web site is completely different than laying out a catalogue or brochure.
- Scott
If Apple is financing a competitor, whatever its shortcomings, it gives it a lot of validity, and suddenly 90% of the people who use Photoshop (or whatever) realize that all they do is edit pictures for their homepage
There may be some percentage of Photoshop users people that don't really need Photoshop, but I suspect this number is quite small. Photoshop is too expensive to be taken lightly, and in additional to several long-run shareware Mac image editors, Adobe sells Photoshop Elements, a watered-down consumer app.
Everybody I know that uses Photoshop needs Photoshop (or something as full-featured).
- Scott
I would gladly piss off a dozen users who are too obnoxious to bother reading the manual
Which is fine as long as the manual in question is usable. All too often in the open source world, the manual is useless unless you already know what you're doing. Apache and PHP do a good job of getting the user up and running quickly. MySQL does a very reasonable job as well. Too much software ignores that fact that spending five hours reading documentation just to get one thing to work is an extremely frustrating experience.
Make the obvious stuff (the purpose for downloading the software) ridiculously easy to accomplish. Make the rest accessible. That will keep a lot of users off your back.
- Scott
to a copy of the 1993 g++ FAQ
Some very significant management and software changes took place at Apple in 1997 which modified a lot of the variables in this equation.
- Scott