I vaguely remember when Tiger was anounced that they were also kerberizing it. so iChat and their server will be kerberized. It's pretty cool they have kerberized a lot of the stock services on OS X Server. I use OS X Server to host my personal mail and use Mail.app as the client. I really liked the no fuss procedure to get up and running with kerberized mail service. I've come to REALLY like and respect Kerberos. I never really took the time to set Kerberos up using a Linux or Solaris or BSD before but it motivated me to really learn how it works. I'ved added in some non mac hosts to the kerberos keytab(via the CLI. there's no GUI that I know of) now so I can ssh with no passwords entry to, at least so far, a linux, an OpenBSD, and a FreeBSD host. OpenBSD's lack of nss support is a bit of a bummera and damn Solaris is a bugger. I was thinking it might be cool to have OpenLDAP export a NIS map for the OpenBSD host but I haven't looked into it very closely yet.
ok now that getting I'm off on a tangent I'll stop.
Well from talking to people at work about when Novell was king of the NOS world. Yeah I think at some point they were the lower price solution in the sense they weren't nickel an diming you to death like Novell was doing(oh you want a TCP/IP stack, a few thousand please). I don't think there is/was any different price for Mac CAL's for Windows. Novell has/had a specific Macintosh Client that cost more than the regular windows one. I think that crack dealer mentality surfaces here, get 'em hooked and then start charging out the ass for everything to make up for lost profits due to the few "free samples" supplied in the beginning
I'll have to try that. I've always used 112-1111111. I know that works for NT 4 Server CD i have around(I think it's either an early cd pressing or a retail copy) and Exchange 5.5.
In the case of NT 4 I"ve seen two serial schemes. one is the 112-1111111 scheme and then another that's similar to 34698 - OEM - 0039682 - 6536
I agree VPC is does not have enough speed for playing games in it's current incarnation. but I'm not talking about using VPC wholesale. just the emu tech behind it. I think the biggest issue would be figuring out a way to get the emulated graphics redrawn faster. IIRC on my early G4(550) the emulation speed was some where around the low-end PII's, if that's the case a CPU generation plus 1-2 of maturation time might be able to yeild the equivelent raw CPU power of a low-end PIII. I think the graphics speed is the issue more than anything. that was my biggest gripe with VPC.
Could this be the REAL purpose of the VirtualPC aquisition? That was my first thought after reading the MS is considering basing xbox around a PPC CPU. They could have possibly decided to switch to PPC when the IBM 970 was anounced but needed to consider backward compatibility and figured buying outside technology (and maybe developers??? i don't know if the deal included transfer of VirtualPC developers/engineers) instead of rolling their own x86 emulation software would be a safer bet, give them a head start, and possibly be easier and cheaper as well.
I use a powerbook with Mac OS X. I've played with VirtualPC and it's not too bad for most things. It's definately not a substitute for a physical x86 machine for any really hairy apps like Oracle or say Pro/Engineer or heavy Photoshop usage(it's just for the sake of argument. I know, why use Windows Photoshop when there is a native mac version) Terminal Services/Remote Desktop is much better for that purpose. If the release of Xbox 2 is still a year or two off. I'm sure IBM will have ramped up the speed even more. possibly by that time a G5 would easily be able to emulate a PIII 500 or 733 or what ever lower end PIII the xbox was using thus solving the possible backward compatiblity problem
I have the previous model, the 1200, and couldn't be happier. I snagged it when the 1300's first came out and so to clear out inventory, i assume, the price dropped to US299(from US399)I have it hooked up to a fruity iMac and it spools jobs from everything from linux to solaris to windows. The quality is good and it warms up quickly. So I'm sure the same applies to the 1300.
I know this because I'm in the process of figuring out what to do. I'm checking out how well samba can replace the file servers. I have a test print spooler setup and it kicks ass.
One of the companies my employer aquired over the last few years had an ERP system running on a s/360. The data was merged into our system and it sat dormant for a long time until was moved out of the server room and tossed in the garbage. The relic for free for the taking but nobody wanted the dinosaur.
I remember reading a comment that linus made, stating that he might not have even started the kernel if BSD wasn't under that cloud of litigation. He would have exactly what he wanted, a UNIX like OS with all source readily available for hacking on.
SCO's behavior seems like a page out of AT&T's play book....
When iMovie 2 came out that's how they did it. New computer's came with the current version. and if you were using version 1 and not buying a new computer or OS upgrade you could pay 10 or 20 bucks to get version 2 on a CD. iMovie is still not a free download and neither is iDVD. only free updates are minor revisions. ie 2.1
iPhoto/iTunes/iCal/iSync on the other hand.....
For some reason this sticks out in my mind. I remember reading somewhere that DOS itself will boot up and run on a modern computer but some apps won't run properly on anything above a pentium 90. I wish I could remember where I read that bit at. I think it was some rant about running windows 3.1/DOS on a modern computer and how fast it was compared to other operating system's GUIs but the article stated that some poorly written/designed DOS apps wouldn't run well because the computer was too fast and would sort of get ahead of itself and crash. maybe someone could coroborate that.
Re:Slow. Very slow. but not for me....
on
Is Mac OS X Slow?
·
· Score: 1
I use OS X on a PowerBook G4 550. I can second that statement about Terminal.app's text smoothing being slooooow but I don't experience a wait time to get a prompt even with text smoothing on. with text smoothing on, if I just do an "ls -al" there would be a pause and then the folder contents would display slowly and as meantioned before, "choppy". I turned off smoothing and Terminal.app is fine. type "ls -al" and the contents spit right back out on the terminal.
If it took 30 seconds to get a terminal window something else had to be going on in the backround at the time. the only time I saw something like that I was compiling some software, ripping an audio CD, downloading some stuff and someone was copying some crap via FTP from my laptop.
Some advantages of the TiBook get overlooked.....
on
Porsche Designs a Laptop
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The thing I think most people over look with the TiBook(and other Apple hardware) are all the hardware tricks like:
1.)
target disk mode(the ability to boot up in a external hard drive mode) and be directly attach to a another computer via firewire as an external hard drive. That's a much faster way to transfer GBs of files between computers than over a network.
2.)
being able to directly hook up to another computer via ethernet with either a straight through OR cross-over cable 3.)
somewhat hot-swappable batteries(you only have to put it to sleep and you have about 2-3 minutes to switch the batteries),
4.)
better battery life than any Intel laptops I've dealt with
5.)
the first laptops, even though the switches are still a little pricey but getting close to affordable by the every man, with gigabit ethernet stock.
I don't know of any Intel laptops capable of all(or even most) of those things.
As far as PC laptops go it looks pretty nice especially if it supports, Linux/FreeBSD/OpenBSD well but once you touch and feel it it could have a cheap feel like some PC laptops like Toshiba.
Kind of like how people have been saying Apple is dying for the entire 7 or 8 years I've been using a mac. as in "Oh, you use mac, mac is going out of business." who the fuck is mac anyway. last i know the company's name was apple.
When I was younger I had to go to the dentist and have some cavities filled. Since most people are given novacaine to deaden the feeling while the dentist hacks up your teeth that's what I was given. He stuck me with the needle, waited and the feeling was still there. Stuck me again, waited and same crap, feeling was still there. stuck me a third time and got the same result, feeling. So i got annoyed and said start drilling and that's when I discovered I didn't need the novacaine to be worked on. Still when I have to to get some cavities filled I don't use novacaine. You get quite a look of scepticism when the dentist is all ready to stick you and I tell them to forget about the novacaine and start working. It rules because I'm in and out in 10-15 minutes. So, I could see the anesthesia thing but I don't know about it being due to pain sensitivity comment. I'm a BMX'er and your BMX bike can be a love/hate relationship. I don't think I'm overly sensitive to the crashes, cuts, bruises that come with the territory.
maybe it doesn't use fstab out the box for the typical single partition setup but it doesn't stop you from using it. heres the contents of my/etc/fstab that I use:
IIRC tar/gz/bzip2 doesn't retain resource forks for classic style files. so for some people that could be a problem. it would still be a good project though.
I like to think of Microsoft as Crack Dealers.(no offense to crack dealers) Their business practices share some similiarities. They let you get hooked with some "free" shit and before long you've got to pay out the ass to keep operating smoothly. Then you either cut the shit out and start over clean or keep paying the dopeman.
I use mozilla pretty much exclusively on Mac OS X. I t's not any slower starting up than the windows version(as long as you aren't comparing it to windows with the quick load option set, there isn't a mac equivalent AFAIK) How much memory does your mac have. My TiBook has 512 and g3 iMac has 1GB. maybe it's a memory thing???
It's probably better that way. I would rather have chimera using the native cocoa GUI than the cross-platform GUI. Instead of developer's spending time on a Mac OS X version of Phoenix I'd rather see them lend a hand to Chimera Essentially Chimera and Phoenix would be somewhat redundant projects, for Mac OS X that is. In the end the core is still the same, gecko.
Actually it's not really that expensive IF you are currently using a second phone line for dial-up only. you figure just a basic phone line(at least from Ameritech) will run you about about 18 bucks. Standard ISP prices are about 20 bucks. So if you drop the second phone line and dialup account you've got a budget of about 40 bucks. standard broadband is about 40-50 bucks. so for about 10 bucks(or less) a month you get a much more usable net connections. I think it's worth the extra 10 bucks a month for a(albeit crappy by design) PPPoE DSL account or a cable connection.
NeXT brought Apple Unix roots. This has completely changed the market perception of Apple. Folks and companies who never would have considered Apple are now testing the waters.
I wholeheartedly agree with this.
I've been a staunch Mac user/advocate for about 7 or 8 years. I first started mucking around with linux in 96-97? and later moved on the Free/OpenBSD. I eventually I got hooked on the UNIX thing and became regular command line jockey and would always have a a few ssh sessions open on my mac at any point in time. I probably would have lost some interest in the Mac if they wouldn't have gone the NeXT/UNIX route. first I started playing with apache and FTP, then BIND, then sendmail, then samba, now apache/php/postgres/oracle. Odds are I wouldn't have been able to run those on whatever Copland/Gershwin would have produced. just like you can't usually run that stuff on OS 7/8/9. The OS is usuall just a bit too strange to make porting very easy. I don't think I would have dropped the Mac in lieu of windows to occasionally run some commericial software but I also don't think I'd be as excited about the OS/hardware as I am now with my Powerbook and OS X and it's ability to easily(relatively speaking) compile/run just about any popular UNIX app/server in addition to all the commercial wares. So if a really staunch Mac supporter would have possibly lost some interest, I seriously doubt apple would have seen all the interest from potential Linux/UNIX "switchers" checking to see if the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.
Slashdot Mirror
I vaguely remember when Tiger was anounced that they were also kerberizing it. so iChat and their server will be kerberized. It's pretty cool they have kerberized a lot of the stock services on OS X Server. I use OS X Server to host my personal mail and use Mail.app as the client. I really liked the no fuss procedure to get up and running with kerberized mail service. I've come to REALLY like and respect Kerberos. I never really took the time to set Kerberos up using a Linux or Solaris or BSD before but it motivated me to really learn how it works. I'ved added in some non mac hosts to the kerberos keytab(via the CLI. there's no GUI that I know of) now so I can ssh with no passwords entry to, at least so far, a linux, an OpenBSD, and a FreeBSD host. OpenBSD's lack of nss support is a bit of a bummera and damn Solaris is a bugger. I was thinking it might be cool to have OpenLDAP export a NIS map for the OpenBSD host but I haven't looked into it very closely yet.
ok now that getting I'm off on a tangent I'll stop.
jerky
Well from talking to people at work about when Novell was king of the NOS world. Yeah I think at some point they were the lower price solution in the sense they weren't nickel an diming you to death like Novell was doing(oh you want a TCP/IP stack, a few thousand please). I don't think there is/was any different price for Mac CAL's for Windows. Novell has/had a specific Macintosh Client that cost more than the regular windows one. I think that crack dealer mentality surfaces here, get 'em hooked and then start charging out the ass for everything to make up for lost profits due to the few "free samples" supplied in the beginning
I'll have to try that. I've always used 112-1111111. I know that works for NT 4 Server CD i have around(I think it's either an early cd pressing or a retail copy) and Exchange 5.5.
In the case of NT 4 I"ve seen two serial schemes.
one is the 112-1111111 scheme and then another that's similar to 34698 - OEM - 0039682 - 6536
I agree VPC is does not have enough speed for playing games in it's current incarnation. but I'm not talking about using VPC wholesale. just the emu tech behind it. I think the biggest issue would be figuring out a way to get the emulated graphics redrawn faster. IIRC on my early G4(550) the emulation speed was some where around the low-end PII's, if that's the case a CPU generation plus 1-2 of maturation time might be able to yeild the equivelent raw CPU power of a low-end PIII. I think the graphics speed is the issue more than anything. that was my biggest gripe with VPC.
Could this be the REAL purpose of the VirtualPC aquisition? That was my first thought after reading the MS is considering basing xbox around a PPC CPU. They could have possibly decided to switch to PPC when the IBM 970 was anounced but needed to consider backward compatibility and figured buying outside technology (and maybe developers??? i don't know if the deal included transfer of VirtualPC developers/engineers) instead of rolling their own x86 emulation software would be a safer bet, give them a head start, and possibly be easier and cheaper as well.
I use a powerbook with Mac OS X. I've played with VirtualPC and it's not too bad for most things. It's definately not a substitute for a physical x86 machine for any really hairy apps like Oracle or say Pro/Engineer or heavy Photoshop usage(it's just for the sake of argument. I know, why use Windows Photoshop when there is a native mac version) Terminal Services/Remote Desktop is much better for that purpose. If the release of Xbox 2 is still a year or two off. I'm sure IBM will have ramped up the speed even more. possibly by that time a G5 would easily be able to emulate a PIII 500 or 733 or what ever lower end PIII the xbox was using thus solving the possible backward compatiblity problem
I have the previous model, the 1200, and couldn't be happier. I snagged it when the 1300's first came out and so to clear out inventory, i assume, the price dropped to US299(from US399)I have it hooked up to a fruity iMac and it spools jobs from everything from linux to solaris to windows. The quality is good and it warms up quickly. So I'm sure the same applies to the 1300.
Security patch support is until December of next year. I couldn't find the the link to the actually EOL roadmap but this is just a good.
ZDNET atticle
I know this because I'm in the process of figuring out what to do. I'm checking out how well samba can replace the file servers. I have a test print spooler setup and it kicks ass.
actually I think it was Scully that make the decision to go PowerPC. Jobs was outsted and doing NeXT at that time.
jerky
One of the companies my employer aquired over the last few years had an ERP system running on a s/360. The data was merged into our system and it sat dormant for a long time until was moved out of the server room and tossed in the garbage. The relic for free for the taking but nobody wanted the dinosaur.
I remember reading a comment that linus made, stating that he might not have even started the kernel if BSD wasn't under that cloud of litigation. He would have exactly what he wanted, a UNIX like OS with all source readily available for hacking on.
SCO's behavior seems like a page out of AT&T's play book....
When iMovie 2 came out that's how they did it. New computer's came with the current version. and if you were using version 1 and not buying a new computer or OS upgrade you could pay 10 or 20 bucks to get version 2 on a CD. iMovie is still not a free download and neither is iDVD. only free updates are minor revisions. ie 2.1
iPhoto/iTunes/iCal/iSync on the other hand.....
For some reason this sticks out in my mind. I remember reading somewhere that DOS itself will boot up and run on a modern computer but some apps won't run properly on anything above a pentium 90. I wish I could remember where I read that bit at. I think it was some rant about running windows 3.1/DOS on a modern computer and how fast it was compared to other operating system's GUIs but the article stated that some poorly written/designed DOS apps wouldn't run well because the computer was too fast and would sort of get ahead of itself and crash. maybe someone could coroborate that.
the words of Nelson:
ah ha!
I use OS X on a PowerBook G4 550. I can second that statement about Terminal.app's text smoothing being slooooow but I don't experience a wait time to get a prompt even with text smoothing on. with text smoothing on, if I just do an "ls -al" there would be a pause and then the folder contents would display slowly and as meantioned before, "choppy". I turned off smoothing and Terminal.app is fine. type "ls -al" and the contents spit right back out on the terminal.
If it took 30 seconds to get a terminal window something else had to be going on in the backround at the time. the only time I saw something like that I was compiling some software, ripping an audio CD, downloading some stuff and someone was copying some crap via FTP from my laptop.
The thing I think most people over look with the TiBook(and other Apple hardware) are all the hardware tricks like:
1.) target disk mode(the ability to boot up in a external hard drive mode) and be directly attach to a another computer via firewire as an external hard drive. That's a much faster way to transfer GBs of files between computers than over a network.
2.) being able to directly hook up to another computer via ethernet with either a straight through OR cross-over cable
3.) somewhat hot-swappable batteries(you only have to put it to sleep and you have about 2-3 minutes to switch the batteries),
4.) better battery life than any Intel laptops I've dealt with
5.) the first laptops, even though the switches are still a little pricey but getting close to affordable by the every man, with gigabit ethernet stock.
I don't know of any Intel laptops capable of all(or even most) of those things.
As far as PC laptops go it looks pretty nice especially if it supports, Linux/FreeBSD/OpenBSD well but once you touch and feel it it could have a cheap feel like some PC laptops like Toshiba.
Kind of like how people have been saying Apple is dying for the entire 7 or 8 years I've been using a mac. as in "Oh, you use mac, mac is going out of business." who the fuck is mac anyway. last i know the company's name was apple.
When I was younger I had to go to the dentist and have some cavities filled. Since most people are given novacaine to deaden the feeling while the dentist hacks up your teeth that's what I was given. He stuck me with the needle, waited and the feeling was still there. Stuck me again, waited and same crap, feeling was still there. stuck me a third time and got the same result, feeling. So i got annoyed and said start drilling and that's when I discovered I didn't need the novacaine to be worked on. Still when I have to to get some cavities filled I don't use novacaine. You get quite a look of scepticism when the dentist is all ready to stick you and I tell them to forget about the novacaine and start working. It rules because I'm in and out in 10-15 minutes. So, I could see the anesthesia thing but I don't know about it being due to pain sensitivity comment. I'm a BMX'er and your BMX bike can be a love/hate relationship. I don't think I'm overly sensitive to the crashes, cuts, bruises that come with the territory.
maybe it doesn't use fstab out the box for the typical single partition setup but it doesn't stop you from using it. heres the contents of my /etc/fstab that I use:
/Volumes/.named ufs rw 1 2 /Volumes/.src ufs rw 1 2 /Volumes/.swap ufs rw 1 2
LABEL=named
LABEL=src
LABEL=swap
one is for a chrooted BIND, one is to contain src code of app I've compiled myself, and the other keeps the swap files into their own partition.
IIRC tar/gz/bzip2 doesn't retain resource forks for classic style files. so for some people that could be a problem. it would still be a good project though.
I like to think of Microsoft as Crack Dealers.(no offense to crack dealers) Their business practices share some similiarities. They let you get hooked with some "free" shit and before long you've got to pay out the ass to keep operating smoothly. Then you either cut the shit out and start over clean or keep paying the dopeman.
I use mozilla pretty much exclusively on Mac OS X. I t's not any slower starting up than the windows version(as long as you aren't comparing it to windows with the quick load option set, there isn't a mac equivalent AFAIK) How much memory does your mac have. My TiBook has 512 and g3 iMac has 1GB. maybe it's a memory thing???
It's probably better that way. I would rather have chimera using the native cocoa GUI than the cross-platform GUI. Instead of developer's spending time on a Mac OS X version of Phoenix I'd rather see them lend a hand to Chimera Essentially Chimera and Phoenix would be somewhat redundant projects, for Mac OS X that is. In the end the core is still the same, gecko.
Actually it's not really that expensive IF you are currently using a second phone line for dial-up only. you figure just a basic phone line(at least from Ameritech) will run you about about 18 bucks. Standard ISP prices are about 20 bucks. So if you drop the second phone line and dialup account you've got a budget of about 40 bucks. standard broadband is about 40-50 bucks. so for about 10 bucks(or less) a month you get a much more usable net connections. I think it's worth the extra 10 bucks a month for a(albeit crappy by design) PPPoE DSL account or a cable connection.
here's the path for Mac OS X.
$HOME/Library/Mozilla/Profiles/default/.slt
NeXT brought Apple Unix roots. This has completely changed the market perception of Apple. Folks and companies who never would have considered Apple are now testing the waters.
I wholeheartedly agree with this.
I've been a staunch Mac user/advocate for about 7 or 8 years. I first started mucking around with linux in 96-97? and later moved on the Free/OpenBSD. I eventually I got hooked on the UNIX thing and became regular command line jockey and would always have a a few ssh sessions open on my mac at any point in time. I probably would have lost some interest in the Mac if they wouldn't have gone the NeXT/UNIX route. first I started playing with apache and FTP, then BIND, then sendmail, then samba, now apache/php/postgres/oracle. Odds are I wouldn't have been able to run those on whatever Copland/Gershwin would have produced. just like you can't usually run that stuff on OS 7/8/9. The OS is usuall just a bit too strange to make porting very easy. I don't think I would have dropped the Mac in lieu of windows to occasionally run some commericial software but I also don't think I'd be as excited about the OS/hardware as I am now with my Powerbook and OS X and it's ability to easily(relatively speaking) compile/run just about any popular UNIX app/server in addition to all the commercial wares. So if a really staunch Mac supporter would have possibly lost some interest, I seriously doubt apple would have seen all the interest from potential Linux/UNIX "switchers" checking to see if the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.