Remember, Microsoft can always be trusted. Granting a thrid party uninhibited access to your system (for whatever purpose) is a security breach by any means. But come on, it's Microsoft. You trust them. Don't you?
Discaimer: The poster of this message is not implying that Microsoft is trustworthy. The poster of this message does not trust Microsoft. This was a joke.:)
If I don't like iTunes, iPhoto, or iProductX, I can open up the finder, pick up the application, and drop it in the trash. Done. That's it, no more iApplication.
On Windows, I cannot delete IE. End of discussion. Microsoft says the OS will break. The Mac OS won't break if you remove iTunes.
The iApps are more or less "value-added" applications. If you buy a Dell, it will come with some Dell-sponsored camera software, possibly a media player, etc. Here is where the iApps fit into the picture. They are value-added features, and they can be easily removed.
Glad to see Oracle is finally making a public release of 9i for OS X, but what I really want are the development tools.
Oracle has given us a cross-platform version of Enterprise Manager, but it still sucks on anything other than Windows. The OEM included with 9i, Release 2 for Linux constantly locks up, or takes too long to conduct simple operations.
I think that OS X represents a great OS to finally replace MS Windows as the developement platform of choice. What we need are things like OEM for OS X, not just the database.
If Lindows is a not a trademark violation, than certainly neither is Mozilla.
Mozilla has nothing to do with Godzilla. Godzilla is a fictional character, Mozilla is a web browser and a user-agent. The term "Mozilla" as a user-agent has been around since the early days of Netscape. My guess is that any attempt to sue the Mozilla organization for trademark violation would be laughed out of court.
I know AOL was planning to do this anyway, but could this move be part of a new partnership between AOL and Apple?
OS X.2, will include an Apple derived IM client using AOL's network, and now AOL ditches IE on the Mac. Maybe the two are working up some larger plans in order to push on M$. They are already pushing AOL chat on OS X and now they are pushing IE off as well. If the Mac starts to make a resurgence on th e consumer's desktop, maybe this will make a people wake up and realize that there are other things other than M$ out there that deserve their attention.
Most kernels differentiate between processes and treads, however, the Linux kernel does not. In most OSes process context switches are slow, while thread context switches are fast. However, in Linux, process switches are fast. In Linux a process simply represents a schedulable entity. The scheduler does not care about the process or thread's shared resources. A linux processes has full control over its resources and child processes.
I rememebered the other place I saw some great info on Apple's Java implementation was Java Developer's Journal March 2002 issue. They have a 10 page spread discussing Java on OS X.
BTW, the blank overhead was supposed to be SMP. Java threads that take advantage of SMP are a requirement for server side tasks. Again, Sun's Solaris and Linux JVMs and Apple's OS X JVM, all already take advantage of this.
it also means each process has the initial overhead of starting the VM and the continuing overhead of the same duplicated code running in memory for each VM.
Startup time is not only an actual problem, but its gives a very bad impression when just launching a program takes a while.
Apple's JVM implementation for OS X already supports some of the features which you are requesting... For instance, Apple's JVM uses a shared memory space between JVM instances. This significantly reduces the memory footprint of each JVM instance and allows classes to be loaded only once. Example: I launch 2 Swing apps, they can share the same JFC classes, requiring class loading only once. I can stop and start the one of the appilcations without having to wait for Swing to be reloaded into memory.
Additionally, startup time is really not an issue on OS X. I am writing a fairly complex Java Swing application right now. On start up, it parses 3 (one of which is very large) configuration files, it creates a few Swing components, and finally displays a complex JFrame to the user. Total time for a cold start (no other JVM loaded) is approximately 2 seconds. That's certainly not slow. Not Sun needs to take a look at what Apple did and implement it back across their JVM implementations.
One big thing Java needs is a multi-process VM.
I don't really see what the advantage of this is. Again, the JVMs from Sun and Apple both use native threads. On most platforms, thread creation is less expensive than process creating. This is why Apache 2.0 is a hybird muli-threaded/multi-process application. Apache used to run a multi-process only model and it bogged down on Solaris b/c of process creation overhead. The new model overcomes this by using threads more heavily. As long as the threads take advantage of native thread features, like _____, thread use is most likely more efficient than process use.
BTW, on Linux, there is no real difference between a process and a thread, so Sun's JVM is already "multi-process" on Linux. And it's not any faster than their other implementations. As a matter of fact, Apple's JVM blows away Suns implementation on Linux and Windows (I haven't been able to test against Solaris).
Weird, i just tried to log back into NYT and that user/pass fails for me too. Maybe they did block it. Or maybe they blocked it because I gave them a fake email address.
Oh well, guess I deserve to be considered troll then.:)
Here's a user account I created to see this article at NY times without everyone having to register:
username: slashdot2233
password: slashdot
I'd hate to see anyone posting without having actually read the article.;-)
Just ordered OS X.2 from Amazon.com but I noticed something funny when I put 10.2 in my basket...
Mac OS 10.1 is still on sale from Amazon.com for $129.00. Shouldn't Apple have asked retailers to lower this to $109.00 or something? This way if I buy OS X today, I can upgrade to 10.2 for the same price as never buying 10.1. I don't see why they wouldn't want to do this. This way, they keep selling 10.1 until 10.2 is available. If I wanted OS X today - and I was still running 9 - I would be foolish to buy 10.1 because 10.2 would end up costing me $129 + $19!
Apple could continue to sell 10.1 and offer people their upgrade incentive without making it cost more money to make the change in 4 weeks.
Actually, the price of a dual processor Xserve with 2GB of ram is around the same price as a comparable linux server from Dell and cheaper than a Linux box from HP or IBM.
I am a software developer, right now working fairly exclusively in Java. For the past two years I had been a Linux on the desktop advocate and was willing to make due with some of my unhappiness with the available window managers. Gnome, KDE, etc, etc each have their strengths and weaknesses, but I am not here to start a Linux vs. XXX war.
Point is, earlier this year - after reading a bunch or articles about how great the new Mac OS is - I decided to go check the Mac out. Let me just say, I was very impressed. I recently replaced my Linux development box with a TiBook. The Aqua user interface is incredibly intuitive, easy on the eyes, and has support for many things that a desktop linux system just doesn't, IMHO.
Anyway, I still use Linux boxes for our servers but I have found the Mac to be the best development environment I've ever used. The UI might take a few days to get comfortable with (coming from the KDE/Gnome or Windows platform), but once you use it for bit, you really start to appreciate it's consistency and beauty.
That said, my interest has been peaked by the new Xserve. Like I said, I do a lot of Java development and the JVM implementation on OS X is nothing short of amazing. Java Swing apps look native and don't feel over-bloated and the speed and efficiency of the JVM for non-UI tasks is also astounding.
The pure java application that I am currently working on runs faster on my TiBook than on the Linux server on which I am also testing it. The process overhead and cpu usage for completing the same tasks are relatively lower on the Mac meaning I can run many more processes at once on the Mac. This is leading me to the conclusion that getting my hands on an Xserve might not be a bad idea before I go ahead and deploy on a Linux box.
I think everyone else should take a serious look at the Xserve as well.
Are these applications you need to demo like this, Java Swing apps? If so, you can use built-in javax APIs to do this. You could simulate user actions this way, mouse movements, etc as a "demo" mode for the user.
Obviously this would work on Linux, OS X, and Windows as well.
I think this was a smart move for HP. While Dell's plans to make their own printer line may help them in the long run, they still need the support of HP and Epson for now because as of today they still do not have their own line of printers.
So HP capitalizes on this and will hurt Dell in the short-term but not supplying Dell with HP's while Dell waits for its own brand to be ready.
This really is just capitalism at work. Like their printers or not, offering HP's line helps Dell sell more boxes and helped HP. Now Dell is in direct competition with HP, would you want to help out your comptetitor? Hell, no.
Dell and the other MS pushing shops need to add value wherever they can to the products that they sell yet don't have any control over. If I'm looking for a new Windoze box with an HP printer and I can get it from company X or company Y but X only offers X's own printer, I'll just go to Y and get my bundled printer. And I generalize with company X and Y b/c that's really all Dell, Compaq, and Gateway, etc, are in the PC business.
While Dell's lame commercials may have driven business from all the moron's who somehow think a Dell is better than a Gateway or any other brand, what it really comes down to is: "Dude, you got a Windoze box." Period.
No, they invented these differenct protocols because one did not exist at the time that suited their product's needs.
And while the idea of having a ubiqitous protocol (sort of like the protocol equivalent of XML) would be beneficial in a lot of ways, it is somewhat naive, IMHO, to think that it could be achieved. New ideas come up all the time, and people have created new protocols, languages, and ways of exchanging those ideas simply because the idea does not fit within the scope of that which already exists.
It's called innovation. As long as people continue to innovate, new ways of implementing those ides (protocols) will need to be created.
With OS X, it is possible that the OS could be moved (also run on?) the x86 platform. Apple has said that they have it running on x86 internally. But I don't see that move happening. Intel is (while somewhat indirectly) a competitor. Here are the other reasons:
Application vendors would have to support multiple platforms (recompiles, produce multiple binaries, etc)
After pulling a major OS change, Apple needs to cool down the radical changes for a bit to let 3rd parties and developers catch up
Bad PR: Apple bashes Intel for years, then turns around and uses their processors?
Significant improvements are on the way to the G4 chip. They plan to hit 1.4 ghz by the end of the year.
What Apple needs to concentrate on IMHO is throughput: faster buses, faster RAM, etc. I'm not saying that they don't want to keep their options open but if they make a move it will most likely be all or nothing - and it's not going to go towards Intel. Now those AMD Hammers may be a different story...
I think one of the reasons why so many internet companies are now.bombs is because of the illusion that the internet has given us that every service on the net should be free.
After reading most of the posts here, this is even more obvious. Companies thought they could provide free services to draw volume to their sites and show you annoying adds to pay for it. Well, it clearly did not work. Unless you have a real product, that offers some real benefit, you're out of business today.
This is a real product. It my not be tangible, but it's there to make you're life easier. And even though you can't touch it, it cost money to run it, and to store your email, files, web serving, etc on it. It just doesn't come for free.
I think $99 is a bit expensive, but I will consider paying for this. I used to use Yahoo but they squeeze you as well. $19 here for storage, $30 there for POP, no web hosting, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
With Sun's foray into the low end Linux market, it seems like they're going to be competing more directly with XServe than teaming up with Apple.
(C# - MSLockIn) == (Java - crossPlatformPortablility)
Discaimer: The poster of this message is not implying that Microsoft is trustworthy. The poster of this message does not trust Microsoft. This was a joke. :)
On Windows, I cannot delete IE. End of discussion. Microsoft says the OS will break. The Mac OS won't break if you remove iTunes.
The iApps are more or less "value-added" applications. If you buy a Dell, it will come with some Dell-sponsored camera software, possibly a media player, etc. Here is where the iApps fit into the picture. They are value-added features, and they can be easily removed.
Oracle has given us a cross-platform version of Enterprise Manager, but it still sucks on anything other than Windows. The OEM included with 9i, Release 2 for Linux constantly locks up, or takes too long to conduct simple operations.
I think that OS X represents a great OS to finally replace MS Windows as the developement platform of choice. What we need are things like OEM for OS X, not just the database.
I hope these tools come soon.
Mozilla has nothing to do with Godzilla. Godzilla is a fictional character, Mozilla is a web browser and a user-agent. The term "Mozilla" as a user-agent has been around since the early days of Netscape. My guess is that any attempt to sue the Mozilla organization for trademark violation would be laughed out of court.
OS X.2, will include an Apple derived IM client using AOL's network, and now AOL ditches IE on the Mac. Maybe the two are working up some larger plans in order to push on M$. They are already pushing AOL chat on OS X and now they are pushing IE off as well. If the Mac starts to make a resurgence on th e consumer's desktop, maybe this will make a people wake up and realize that there are other things other than M$ out there that deserve their attention.
Most kernels differentiate between processes and treads, however, the Linux kernel does not. In most OSes process context switches are slow, while thread context switches are fast. However, in Linux, process switches are fast. In Linux a process simply represents a schedulable entity. The scheduler does not care about the process or thread's shared resources. A linux processes has full control over its resources and child processes.
I rememebered the other place I saw some great info on Apple's Java implementation was Java Developer's Journal March 2002 issue. They have a 10 page spread discussing Java on OS X.
I also have read about their JVM implementation at O'Reilly's web site (sorry, don't have any links but I'll see if I can find you some).
So much for proof reading. :)
it also means each process has the initial overhead of starting the VM and the continuing overhead of the same duplicated code running in memory for each VM.
Apple's JVM implementation for OS X already supports some of the features which you are requesting... For instance, Apple's JVM uses a shared memory space between JVM instances. This significantly reduces the memory footprint of each JVM instance and allows classes to be loaded only once. Example: I launch 2 Swing apps, they can share the same JFC classes, requiring class loading only once. I can stop and start the one of the appilcations without having to wait for Swing to be reloaded into memory.Startup time is not only an actual problem, but its gives a very bad impression when just launching a program takes a while.
Additionally, startup time is really not an issue on OS X. I am writing a fairly complex Java Swing application right now. On start up, it parses 3 (one of which is very large) configuration files, it creates a few Swing components, and finally displays a complex JFrame to the user. Total time for a cold start (no other JVM loaded) is approximately 2 seconds. That's certainly not slow. Not Sun needs to take a look at what Apple did and implement it back across their JVM implementations.
One big thing Java needs is a multi-process VM.
I don't really see what the advantage of this is. Again, the JVMs from Sun and Apple both use native threads. On most platforms, thread creation is less expensive than process creating. This is why Apache 2.0 is a hybird muli-threaded/multi-process application. Apache used to run a multi-process only model and it bogged down on Solaris b/c of process creation overhead. The new model overcomes this by using threads more heavily. As long as the threads take advantage of native thread features, like _____, thread use is most likely more efficient than process use.
BTW, on Linux, there is no real difference between a process and a thread, so Sun's JVM is already "multi-process" on Linux. And it's not any faster than their other implementations. As a matter of fact, Apple's JVM blows away Suns implementation on Linux and Windows (I haven't been able to test against Solaris).
Oh well, guess I deserve to be considered troll then. :)
Try to do people a favor and this is the thanks one gets around here. ;)
username: slashdot2233
password: slashdot
sorry!
Here's a user account I created to see this article at NY times without everyone having to register: username: slashdot2233 password: slashdot I'd hate to see anyone posting without having actually read the article. ;-)
Mac OS 10.1 is still on sale from Amazon.com for $129.00. Shouldn't Apple have asked retailers to lower this to $109.00 or something? This way if I buy OS X today, I can upgrade to 10.2 for the same price as never buying 10.1. I don't see why they wouldn't want to do this. This way, they keep selling 10.1 until 10.2 is available. If I wanted OS X today - and I was still running 9 - I would be foolish to buy 10.1 because 10.2 would end up costing me $129 + $19!
Apple could continue to sell 10.1 and offer people their upgrade incentive without making it cost more money to make the change in 4 weeks.
It could help to reduce the OS X.1 stock, IMHO.
Actually, the price of a dual processor Xserve with 2GB of ram is around the same price as a comparable linux server from Dell and cheaper than a Linux box from HP or IBM.
Point is, earlier this year - after reading a bunch or articles about how great the new Mac OS is - I decided to go check the Mac out. Let me just say, I was very impressed. I recently replaced my Linux development box with a TiBook. The Aqua user interface is incredibly intuitive, easy on the eyes, and has support for many things that a desktop linux system just doesn't, IMHO.
Anyway, I still use Linux boxes for our servers but I have found the Mac to be the best development environment I've ever used. The UI might take a few days to get comfortable with (coming from the KDE/Gnome or Windows platform), but once you use it for bit, you really start to appreciate it's consistency and beauty.
That said, my interest has been peaked by the new Xserve. Like I said, I do a lot of Java development and the JVM implementation on OS X is nothing short of amazing. Java Swing apps look native and don't feel over-bloated and the speed and efficiency of the JVM for non-UI tasks is also astounding.
The pure java application that I am currently working on runs faster on my TiBook than on the Linux server on which I am also testing it. The process overhead and cpu usage for completing the same tasks are relatively lower on the Mac meaning I can run many more processes at once on the Mac. This is leading me to the conclusion that getting my hands on an Xserve might not be a bad idea before I go ahead and deploy on a Linux box.
I think everyone else should take a serious look at the Xserve as well.
Anyone wanna take me to lunch?
Obviously this would work on Linux, OS X, and Windows as well.
Hope this helps.
So HP capitalizes on this and will hurt Dell in the short-term but not supplying Dell with HP's while Dell waits for its own brand to be ready.
This really is just capitalism at work. Like their printers or not, offering HP's line helps Dell sell more boxes and helped HP. Now Dell is in direct competition with HP, would you want to help out your comptetitor? Hell, no.
Dell and the other MS pushing shops need to add value wherever they can to the products that they sell yet don't have any control over. If I'm looking for a new Windoze box with an HP printer and I can get it from company X or company Y but X only offers X's own printer, I'll just go to Y and get my bundled printer. And I generalize with company X and Y b/c that's really all Dell, Compaq, and Gateway, etc, are in the PC business.
While Dell's lame commercials may have driven business from all the moron's who somehow think a Dell is better than a Gateway or any other brand, what it really comes down to is: "Dude, you got a Windoze box." Period.
Mozilla has become so much better than IE lately that there is never a need to switch back and forth. Thanks Mozilla team, keep up the great work!
And while the idea of having a ubiqitous protocol (sort of like the protocol equivalent of XML) would be beneficial in a lot of ways, it is somewhat naive, IMHO, to think that it could be achieved. New ideas come up all the time, and people have created new protocols, languages, and ways of exchanging those ideas simply because the idea does not fit within the scope of that which already exists.
It's called innovation. As long as people continue to innovate, new ways of implementing those ides (protocols) will need to be created.
What Apple needs to concentrate on IMHO is throughput: faster buses, faster RAM, etc. I'm not saying that they don't want to keep their options open but if they make a move it will most likely be all or nothing - and it's not going to go towards Intel. Now those AMD Hammers may be a different story...
After reading most of the posts here, this is even more obvious. Companies thought they could provide free services to draw volume to their sites and show you annoying adds to pay for it. Well, it clearly did not work. Unless you have a real product, that offers some real benefit, you're out of business today.
This is a real product. It my not be tangible, but it's there to make you're life easier. And even though you can't touch it, it cost money to run it, and to store your email, files, web serving, etc on it. It just doesn't come for free.
I think $99 is a bit expensive, but I will consider paying for this. I used to use Yahoo but they squeeze you as well. $19 here for storage, $30 there for POP, no web hosting, etc.