Mac OS X 10.2, being a hybrid of FreeBSD, does already support some features coming with FreeBSD 5 (such as SMP), but OS X does not use BSD 5.0, yet.
According to Apple's OS X 10.2 System Overview, Mac OS X 10.2 is based on 4.4BSD subsystem elements. This was an update from, I believe, 3.3BSD support in 10.1.
Apple is careful not to get experimental with their production operating systems, although it a safe bet that somebody at Apple is continually testing new configurations from FreeBSD development builds.
FreeBSD 5 will have to show its mettle before Apple officially integrates the 5.0BSD subsystem in a later OS X update.
To add to this, Macworld are expensive to Apple. The booths, the personnel, their lodging, the equipment--Apple would rather shave some costs and attend only one Macworld--the one in San Francisco, where its closer to the corporate office and spends less to attend.
New York is a big expense as well, but with an Apple Store in place (and the largest of them all), having a Macworld there would generate business and home sales, cushioning the expense blow of attending Macworld there. That's probably why Apple became angry at returning to a smaller venue such as Boston.
Thanks for the two corrections. It does make matters scarier since we're really looking at the potential for some half-assed business oriented technologies that are a pain to implement at home or require a lame OS to handle.
There's nothing more scary to me than dealing with companies that aren't renowned for their technology flexibility (despite the point that AT&T owns the UNIX brand).
I'm worried that this idea may generate standards that support the larger (though not necessarily better) Microsoft technologies than others. Not everyone wants to run Windows to interface to a wireless network. If you're running a UNIX, your operating system will likely have stronger security that the proposed technologies that some networks expect your OS to support, such as encryption keys.
Don't get me wrong. I support the idea. However, it's the implementation that scares me.
Currently you can connect most Macs together by a crossover Ethernet cable for networking. Alternatively, if you just need to move something between two boxes, you can use a FireWire cable and mount another hard drive with Target Disk Mode (which someone noted earlier).
So IP over FireWire adds to the diversity. Today, you don't even need a crossover cable with the Gigabit Ethernet ports on most Macs. Just use a regular CAT5 to connect them.
Having this option, from my techie POV, allows me to connect to another Mac should the user's Ethernet port go cranky. I'd have to think a little more for additional applications, but perhaps a cheap, high speed FireWire LAN for gaming or small home networks would be useful. I would think you can share a cable modem connection in this manner, too. I better RTFdocs.
Internet Explorer for Mac OS X (and Mac OS 9) doesn't suffer from the same problems as its Windows counterpart since it's not an "integrated" component of the OS; it's just an app. Doesn't mean it's not crap, sometimes.
Many Windows technologies that cause the vulnerabilities in IE/Windows are very limited or don't exist with IE/Mac. In particular, ActiveX control support is there, but appears mostly broken. Java support is strongest in this browser (it seems), but many Java pages don't render things properly since MS doesn't appear to tie their browser properly in OS X's strong Java implementation (1.3.1).
IE/Mac is just as annoying with pop-ups, but that's why I use OmniWeb, where I can disable JavaScript that generates pop-ups with one preference settings.
IE is still the most compatible browser, but only because many webmasters are drones to Microsoft's web tools--and shouldn't be. The pages they create work best--and in some cases, ONLY--with IE.
Obligatory Post with a Splash of Lemon
on
JPL Clusters XServes
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Imagine a Beowulf cluster getting beat up by a Xserve cluster on the playground and stealing its lunch cycles!
What's to see at a PC trade show these days?
on
The Last Comdex?
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I'm surprised that Windex---er..COMDEX is still around. A trade show generates interest by interesting, if not innovative product.
Between Microsoft's ability to buy, borrow, steal, or kill ideas or product that they haven't considered or cannot integrate into their operating systems, and a general lack of enthusiasm in the PC industry to think of more ideas that could be stolen, it doesn't surprise me that there's little interest.
I really can't contrast COMDEX's imminent demise to successful shows such as Macworld Expo because Apple has a captive audience of vendors that support their products. COMDEX doesn't have such luxury.
COMDEX should rethink its audience. It's pretty obvious that they have just let things ride over the past few years.
Hauppauge supports OS X
on
Review: EyeTV
·
· Score: 3, Informative
MacAddict recently did a review and comparison of EyeTV (which I also use) and MyTV. EyeTV was easier to use and had a stronger value in their opinion. I was waiting for MyTV to get its drivers out of its eternal beta stage by the time EyeTV showed up.
It would be nice to think that/.ers, many of us so open-source minded, would be so close-minded of this or any other book before reading it and determining if it fits your needs.
All you need is a visit to your local bookstore to decide for yourself.
I am a technical editor and occasional contributing writer for a few Mac-oriented computer books from the old Dummies Press, Pearson Education, and Premier Press publishers. I make my living by supporting Macs and PCs, and have probably done so for longer than you have lived.
Aside from receiving a copy from which to make this review, I don't get a thing from this.
And, if I didn't find it more useful to explain who I am for benefit of the article, I would've used my mod points to hack your karma for making such bad presumptions. There's also a "South Park"-ish Canadian cartoon with my name in it, but I doubt he's a UNIX expert, either.
No book is a perfect reference, but this is a good one if you are getting started with system administration across various platforms. Don't knock a book due to the title. It's actually quite detailed and deeper than what the title implies.
For a relatively new system admin for Mac OS X systems, this worked for me, and it might work for others with similar skill levels.
Cable offerings are increasing in general quality, which makes it harder for various cable providers to decide. That, and most of these providers have no grip on what much of their customers want in each demographic. You can have only so much of Trading Spaces before you lose your grip, find the cast and pillage the homes and equipment (after the obligatory jumping of all of the women, of course).
On a previous provider, I enjoyed TechTV and NASA TV. No more on its competitor, which handles the outshirts of my city. However, I gained the G4 gaming channel.
I would like to see amusing anime such as "The Slayers" or "Those Who Hunt Elves", but will have to settle for getting a copy at Suncoast Video, I predict.
I have, quite a bit. I'm a service tech. But I don't recommend users to do laptop hardware changes. Too risky to screw up, even on a Mac. If they want to do it, OK.
Mac OS X's specifications recommend a minimum of 128MB. If you are going to use Classic, that is too small--OS X thrashes as it has to swap a lot.
RAM is currently quite cheap, and since cracking an iBook or PowerBook open can be a little daunting (and warranty-voiding if done wrong), I recommend having at least 384MB for Jaguar. 512MB+ is optimum.
Excellent comment. Given Apple's history of doing things their way without much external feedback, I think that's exactly the case here. Again, it's not that Mac OS X can't do what they claim, but that Apple hasn't apparently bothered to make it work outside of the lab, or feed us conjecture.
Apple is obviously excited on presenting abilities IT and users could never have realized in Mac OS 9, but this is such a vaporware tactic.
Apple, in its attempts to get into more enterprise accounts, has not learned that system administrators require documentation ad nauseum. They wrote their documentation for AD in the old 10.1 Server AD/LDAP PDF and in their System Administrators guide for 10.2 Server much too simply.
Recently I worked with Apple to receive an Xserve for two tests--getting a Macintosh to authenticate by AD (which is an LDAP superset) from login, and to provide authentication on file shares from AD using the Connect to Server command, where the shares would be provided by the Xserve.
I had no success in getting anything to work with 10.1 Server. After getting 10.2 Server from Apple, we had luck in getting authentication for file shares working. Part of the problem involved how LDAPv3 (the main component in Apple's Open Directory) relates to the AD schema. I'm not an AD expert, but Apple has got a "not-invented-here" mindset here; the LDAP components don't match up with with sysadmins expect. I was unable to get the login authentication component working at all.
As a result, I couldn't recommend an Xserve for my customers, and stuck in Services For Macintosh, a component in Windows 2000 Server that provides the same authentications to file shares by AD without the Xserve acting as a middleman for file sharing. It's got its own issues, but at least it worked as advertised; it took us only 5 minutes to set this up on a working W2K server.
Apple MUST have the documentation and software working and tested before making claims. This is a completely unacceptable way to sell their wares, and is worsening an already bad reputation for many in IT.
Just so you know, Macintosh system integration is my business, so I feel quite justified in flaming Apple for such a bad implementation. It's not really their technology, but how they sold this currently-snake oil concept to Mac professionals.
Windows 95B's USB is mostly broken. I know--lots of us do. It doesn't count if it doesn't work.
The iMac showed up about the time that Windows 95B's time was setting and Windows 98 was imminent. Apple lit a fire under the computer industry's ass to get USB to where it is today.
My guess is that at least a third of all current PC users have systems with computers without USB ports or Windows 98 (the minimum Microsoft OS that supports USB). This product would be useless to them, since, before USB, there was practically no common interface options available between Macs and PCs. PCs had parallel and serial ports, and Macs before 1998 had SCSI and their DIN-8 serial ports (which are commonly used now for PS/2 style connectors on PCs).
Older PCs don't have CD burners, either. So, to get your data from an older PC, you'd need at least one of the following, in order of ease:
- An Ethernet card (connect by Windows file sharing between Mac, which all have Ethernet, and PC) - Windows 98 or greater (if USB is available) - A CD burner - The Internet (e-mail some files in small amounts to yourself or a friend)
Re:Cool, but where...
on
Mac Case Mods
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The problem with this idea is that, today, the cost of using service parts would easily exceed the cost of a built system. Geez...I just received a quote for a replacement multiprocessor module for a 2000 500MHz dual-processor G4 that cost almost as much as it would to buy a new dual 867MHz system today.
I'm an Apple Service Tech.
You'd be better off buying the whole working computer from someone. There's plenty of Blue-and White Power Macintosh G3 cases, and maybe more G4s. Caveat emptor.
Hell, I get this problem almost all the time.
on
Nosy Vendors?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I'm a Mac consultant. (Yep, it's funny, too.)
There's still a few IT idiots and salespeople who think they're doing you a favor by encouraging you to drop what you have and know for their stuff. Wrong behavior. In enterprise, and even in small business, most of us already have our solutions. We just need the right technology to fit in. Arrogance from a salesperson is a sure way to have me show them the door, prematurely slamming it against their ass on their way out.
If a company cannot be flexible to the needs of a client, they will (and have) lost a sale for my customers. Period.
Slashdot Mirror
Mac OS X 10.2, being a hybrid of FreeBSD, does already support some features coming with FreeBSD 5 (such as SMP), but OS X does not use BSD 5.0, yet.
According to Apple's OS X 10.2 System Overview, Mac OS X 10.2 is based on 4.4BSD subsystem elements. This was an update from, I believe, 3.3BSD support in 10.1.
Apple is careful not to get experimental with their production operating systems, although it a safe bet that somebody at Apple is continually testing new configurations from FreeBSD development builds.
FreeBSD 5 will have to show its mettle before Apple officially integrates the 5.0BSD subsystem in a later OS X update.
Some third-party Apple distributors (mail order and locally based) may still have a few of these in-stock, so it's just a matter of asking around.
Honestly, however, the 17" display is a very pleasant display that's worth the extra dough, if you can afford the means.
Exactly.
To add to this, Macworld are expensive to Apple. The booths, the personnel, their lodging, the equipment--Apple would rather shave some costs and attend only one Macworld--the one in San Francisco, where its closer to the corporate office and spends less to attend.
New York is a big expense as well, but with an Apple Store in place (and the largest of them all), having a Macworld there would generate business and home sales, cushioning the expense blow of attending Macworld there. That's probably why Apple became angry at returning to a smaller venue such as Boston.
Thanks for the two corrections. It does make matters scarier since we're really looking at the potential for some half-assed business oriented technologies that are a pain to implement at home or require a lame OS to handle.
There's nothing more scary to me than dealing with companies that aren't renowned for their technology flexibility (despite the point that AT&T owns the UNIX brand).
I'm worried that this idea may generate standards that support the larger (though not necessarily better) Microsoft technologies than others. Not everyone wants to run Windows to interface to a wireless network. If you're running a UNIX, your operating system will likely have stronger security that the proposed technologies that some networks expect your OS to support, such as encryption keys.
Don't get me wrong. I support the idea. However, it's the implementation that scares me.
I oversimplified, you're right.
This link from Apple's support page tells which Macs do and do not need a crossover cable today.
"Dude! Turn up the beer cooler to 11!"
Currently you can connect most Macs together by a crossover Ethernet cable for networking. Alternatively, if you just need to move something between two boxes, you can use a FireWire cable and mount another hard drive with Target Disk Mode (which someone noted earlier).
So IP over FireWire adds to the diversity. Today, you don't even need a crossover cable with the Gigabit Ethernet ports on most Macs. Just use a regular CAT5 to connect them.
Having this option, from my techie POV, allows me to connect to another Mac should the user's Ethernet port go cranky. I'd have to think a little more for additional applications, but perhaps a cheap, high speed FireWire LAN for gaming or small home networks would be useful. I would think you can share a cable modem connection in this manner, too. I better RTFdocs.
Internet Explorer for Mac OS X (and Mac OS 9) doesn't suffer from the same problems as its Windows counterpart since it's not an "integrated" component of the OS; it's just an app. Doesn't mean it's not crap, sometimes.
Many Windows technologies that cause the vulnerabilities in IE/Windows are very limited or don't exist with IE/Mac. In particular, ActiveX control support is there, but appears mostly broken. Java support is strongest in this browser (it seems), but many Java pages don't render things properly since MS doesn't appear to tie their browser properly in OS X's strong Java implementation (1.3.1).
IE/Mac is just as annoying with pop-ups, but that's why I use OmniWeb, where I can disable JavaScript that generates pop-ups with one preference settings.
IE is still the most compatible browser, but only because many webmasters are drones to Microsoft's web tools--and shouldn't be. The pages they create work best--and in some cases, ONLY--with IE.
Imagine a Beowulf cluster getting beat up by a Xserve cluster on the playground and stealing its lunch cycles!
I'm surprised that Windex---er..COMDEX is still around. A trade show generates interest by interesting, if not innovative product.
Between Microsoft's ability to buy, borrow, steal, or kill ideas or product that they haven't considered or cannot integrate into their operating systems, and a general lack of enthusiasm in the PC industry to think of more ideas that could be stolen, it doesn't surprise me that there's little interest.
I really can't contrast COMDEX's imminent demise to successful shows such as Macworld Expo because Apple has a captive audience of vendors that support their products. COMDEX doesn't have such luxury.
COMDEX should rethink its audience. It's pretty obvious that they have just let things ride over the past few years.
Hauppauge supports Mac OS X under their MyTV product line from their Eskape Labs division.
MacAddict recently did a review and comparison of EyeTV (which I also use) and MyTV. EyeTV was easier to use and had a stronger value in their opinion. I was waiting for MyTV to get its drivers out of its eternal beta stage by the time EyeTV showed up.
NB: This was a post from the book's author.
/.ers, many of us so open-source minded, would be so close-minded of this or any other book before reading it and determining if it fits your needs.
It would be nice to think that
All you need is a visit to your local bookstore to decide for yourself.
I am not the "Kevin Spencer" you reference.
I am Kevin H. Spencer, author of one modest, now-somewhat-antiquated book on getting started with Mac OS X programming.
I am a technical editor and occasional contributing writer for a few Mac-oriented computer books from the old Dummies Press, Pearson Education, and Premier Press publishers. I make my living by supporting Macs and PCs, and have probably done so for longer than you have lived.
Aside from receiving a copy from which to make this review, I don't get a thing from this.
And, if I didn't find it more useful to explain who I am for benefit of the article, I would've used my mod points to hack your karma for making such bad presumptions. There's also a "South Park"-ish Canadian cartoon with my name in it, but I doubt he's a UNIX expert, either.
No book is a perfect reference, but this is a good one if you are getting started with system administration across various platforms. Don't knock a book due to the title. It's actually quite detailed and deeper than what the title implies.
For a relatively new system admin for Mac OS X systems, this worked for me, and it might work for others with similar skill levels.
Cable offerings are increasing in general quality, which makes it harder for various cable providers to decide. That, and most of these providers have no grip on what much of their customers want in each demographic. You can have only so much of Trading Spaces before you lose your grip, find the cast and pillage the homes and equipment (after the obligatory jumping of all of the women, of course).
On a previous provider, I enjoyed TechTV and NASA TV. No more on its competitor, which handles the outshirts of my city. However, I gained the G4 gaming channel.
I would like to see amusing anime such as "The Slayers" or "Those Who Hunt Elves", but will have to settle for getting a copy at Suncoast Video, I predict.
I have, quite a bit. I'm a service tech. But I don't recommend users to do laptop hardware changes. Too risky to screw up, even on a Mac. If they want to do it, OK.
The PowerBooks don't come with less than 256MB.
Mac OS X's specifications recommend a minimum of 128MB. If you are going to use Classic, that is too small--OS X thrashes as it has to swap a lot.
RAM is currently quite cheap, and since cracking an iBook or PowerBook open can be a little daunting (and warranty-voiding if done wrong), I recommend having at least 384MB for Jaguar. 512MB+ is optimum.
Excellent comment. Given Apple's history of doing things their way without much external feedback, I think that's exactly the case here. Again, it's not that Mac OS X can't do what they claim, but that Apple hasn't apparently bothered to make it work outside of the lab, or feed us conjecture.
Apple is obviously excited on presenting abilities IT and users could never have realized in Mac OS 9, but this is such a vaporware tactic.
Apple, in its attempts to get into more enterprise accounts, has not learned that system administrators require documentation ad nauseum. They wrote their documentation for AD in the old 10.1 Server AD/LDAP PDF and in their System Administrators guide for 10.2 Server much too simply.
Recently I worked with Apple to receive an Xserve for two tests--getting a Macintosh to authenticate by AD (which is an LDAP superset) from login, and to provide authentication on file shares from AD using the Connect to Server command, where the shares would be provided by the Xserve.
I had no success in getting anything to work with 10.1 Server. After getting 10.2 Server from Apple, we had luck in getting authentication for file shares working. Part of the problem involved how LDAPv3 (the main component in Apple's Open Directory) relates to the AD schema. I'm not an AD expert, but Apple has got a "not-invented-here" mindset here; the LDAP components don't match up with with sysadmins expect. I was unable to get the login authentication component working at all.
As a result, I couldn't recommend an Xserve for my customers, and stuck in Services For Macintosh, a component in Windows 2000 Server that provides the same authentications to file shares by AD without the Xserve acting as a middleman for file sharing. It's got its own issues, but at least it worked as advertised; it took us only 5 minutes to set this up on a working W2K server.
Apple MUST have the documentation and software working and tested before making claims. This is a completely unacceptable way to sell their wares, and is worsening an already bad reputation for many in IT.
Just so you know, Macintosh system integration is my business, so I feel quite justified in flaming Apple for such a bad implementation. It's not really their technology, but how they sold this currently-snake oil concept to Mac professionals.
That's probably right, and I haven't time to check, but they look the same, superficially. Thanks.
Windows 95B's USB is mostly broken. I know--lots of us do. It doesn't count if it doesn't work.
The iMac showed up about the time that Windows 95B's time was setting and Windows 98 was imminent. Apple lit a fire under the computer industry's ass to get USB to where it is today.
The title should say "Can't Help..", by the way...damn keyboards
My guess is that at least a third of all current PC users have systems with computers without USB ports or Windows 98 (the minimum Microsoft OS that supports USB). This product would be useless to them, since, before USB, there was practically no common interface options available between Macs and PCs. PCs had parallel and serial ports, and Macs before 1998 had SCSI and their DIN-8 serial ports (which are commonly used now for PS/2 style connectors on PCs).
Older PCs don't have CD burners, either. So, to get your data from an older PC, you'd need at least one of the following, in order of ease:
- An Ethernet card (connect by Windows file sharing between Mac, which all have Ethernet, and PC)
- Windows 98 or greater (if USB is available)
- A CD burner
- The Internet (e-mail some files in small amounts to yourself or a friend)
The problem with this idea is that, today, the cost of using service parts would easily exceed the cost of a built system. Geez...I just received a quote for a replacement multiprocessor module for a 2000 500MHz dual-processor G4 that cost almost as much as it would to buy a new dual 867MHz system today.
I'm an Apple Service Tech.
You'd be better off buying the whole working computer from someone. There's plenty of Blue-and White Power Macintosh G3 cases, and maybe more G4s. Caveat emptor.
I'm a Mac consultant. (Yep, it's funny, too.)
There's still a few IT idiots and salespeople who think they're doing you a favor by encouraging you to drop what you have and know for their stuff. Wrong behavior. In enterprise, and even in small business, most of us already have our solutions. We just need the right technology to fit in. Arrogance from a salesperson is a sure way to have me show them the door, prematurely slamming it against their ass on their way out.
If a company cannot be flexible to the needs of a client, they will (and have) lost a sale for my customers. Period.