Um, yeah, take a look at the globe, and compare the size of South Korea to the size of the United States (as well as the rest of the countries that have "got us beat"). In terms of infrastructure, how much do you think it costs to lay fiber from one end of S. Korea or Japan, or Austria to the other, compared to the US? Those are relatively small and densly populated countries, compared to the United States, a large country with more vast, unpopulated areas than any other industrial nation.
Is it illegal to post this sort of information? If not, can Apple convince a judge that posting this information is harming them, and thus win a civil suit? I doubt it.
I suppose it would have something to do with the laws of a particular country. In some countries, it's probably actionable, and not in others. Which is why this is probably an exercise in futility. I'm sure somebody will eventually set up a site in a country where it's legal.
I'm not really sure why Apple is even bothering. Having looked over the process, I decided it was more of a pain in the ass than it was worth, and if it isn't even worth the aggrevation to me, I can't imagine Joe User will be making a habit out of hacking OS X, either. The only people who will bother will be the ones that can't afford to buy Apple's computers, anyway.
I've already made comments like this only to get this response in LARGE numbers:
"But Apple is a hardware company."
At one time, that was true. The majority of their revenue came from Mac hardware. It still does, but now they have additional revenue streams such as iPod and iTunes. Also, they've greatly increased their portfolio of software applications. Before, the only software they really could have sold seperate from the hardware would have been Mac OS itself, and a few minor applications. Contrast that to Microsoft who sells an OS, along with the major application suite that runs on it.
If they manage to broaden their product line such that they aren't so dependent on Mac hardware for revenue, such as expanding their application software offerings, then I could imagine them licensing OS X to 3rd parties.
Whether or not they can do that remains to be seen. But I doubt it will happen unless they find some way of making up the revenue stream from the hardware.
Isn't a BSD distro going to be about the same as a Linux distro? Does the kernel make that big of a difference?
Well, since this article concerns a desktop implementations, I'd be inclined to say no, not much difference. It's probably more relevant to ask about the benefits of KDE vs, Gnome. Your average Joe user will rarely if ever open a command shell, and even if he does, most of the commands are very similar if not identical. Now for specialized applications and servers, there are probably some (marginal) advantages of one over the other, but if, like me, you only use your desktop PC as a desktop PC, KDE still looks and acts like KDE, regardless of what's running under the hood.
On a PC I usually use Linux, because I'm used to it, and on a Mac, I use OS X, which is based on BSD. For my purposes, both are adequate. But does one have any inherent advantage over the other? None that I can tell. YMMV.
I honestly could care less whether a mouse uses two switches or one intelligent sensor, if you are using two fingers to get two seperate results with the mouse, it has two buttons.
I don't either. What I am curious about is how this is eventually going to be implemented on laptops.
No, I don't want to be dragging around an external mouse for the damn thing.
Having just gone through an RFP process for an enterprise SAN, we looked at HP since most of our servers were HP.
Don't do it! You'll never get another decent night of sleep again! HP's Unix servers are tolerable (although not great), but their storage products are for shit. Fortunately, our enterprise SANs are all IBM and EMC. More fortunately still, the few HP disk arrays that we have will be replaced with those SANs by this time next year.
Every HP disk array I have in the shop has had to have major service, such as having the backplanes or the controllers replaced within a year (and sometimes several times). We have a HP Sure Sore 2300 that has a charming habit of mysteriously "losing" several disks at a time for no apparent reason. After six months, and having replaced every damn part in the thing, it still does it, and HP support still can't figure it out.
Buy any HP storage product, and you'll live to regret it!
How would you feel, if the dns would be controlled for example in China, regardless how neutrally they do it?
I'll tell you what - if the internet were developed by the Chinese military on the Chinese people's dime, Chinese control of dns would be their prerogative, regardless of how I felt about it.
As it happens, the net was developed by the American military, on the American taxpayer's dime. The fact that the rest of the world derives a benefit from an infrastructure built largely by the US government, at the expense of the US taxpayer, does not necessarily entitle them to tell us how to run it.
Veritas is so 90s. Vxvm is extremely overrated with features that cannot possibly be deployed in a mission critical environment. If you stick to your regular mirrors, stripes, raids... you mind as well use the FREE Aix LVM or Solaris VM. Which I swear are simpler and better nowadays.
That's not entirely true. For example, LVM relies on volume definitions in the ODM, which in a clustered environment, can easily get out of sync on one of your servers with the definitions in the VGDA if a logical volume has been modified outside of the HACMP environment. This can cause you some major headaches when you try to fail over to your other node if the VGDA no longer agrees with ODM on your failover node. That's not a problem you have if you're using Veritas instead of LVM.
That isn't to say that LVM sucks, it doesn't, and in most cases you don't need anything else. But there are situations, particularily in clustered environments, where there are definite advantages to using Veritas over LVM.
The current rumor, according to the Veritas technician who has been helping us with the i3 product, is that IBM is looking at Symantec.
That's interesting, for several reasons. One is that I've heard that the guys who founded Veritas were ex-IBMer's, who also designed AIX's LVM. Oddly, besides LVM, AIX has kernel-level support for Veritas. Based on my discussions with people who have used Veritas in conjunction with HACMP, Veritas actually works with it better than LVM.
Also, as of Veritas 4.2, if you're moving large SAN-attached filesystems from one server to another, all you have to do is zone your LUNs to be visible to the new server, export them from the old one, and import them to the new one. And it works across platforms, too. Perhaps IBM has ideas about helping customers easily migrate off of Solaris to AIX or Linux hosts. Moving massive SAN-attached databases and filesystems between platforms is usually a big PITA. Being able to accomplish that easily might help them close a few deals they might have otherwise lost
Well, you have to give them credit - about 2 years ago they were in bankruptcy, now they're swallowing competitors like guppies.
I always did like Mandrake's desktop (mostly). I never used Lycoris, but what I've heard, their desktop was even better, so hopefully they'll be able to painlessly merge the greatest strengths of both of them (although we all know things don't always work out that way).
I hope they decide to do business under the Lycoris trade name. "Mandriva" sounds like something a dentist would use on you.
IBM's been working on new OS features, but they've been contributing them to Linux, not doing much with them in AIX.
I'd have to disagree with that. The improvements may not be obvious from a user perspective, but they're certainly there. For example, AIX 5.3 now supports being able to partition a single processor (Power 5 only), has various improvements in the LVM and NIM now supports installs using secure sockets. You now have the ability to force unmounts of wedged NFS filesystems without having to reboot your system. And those are just the few improvement that come to mind off the top of my head.
I love Linux, don't get me wrong, but for high-end hardware it isn't a contest. I'd take AIX over Linux every time. Once you find your way around it (and I concede that compared to Solaris or Linux or HP-UX, etc., it is a little on the weird side), it's probably the most versatile, stable and easily managed *nix implementation out there.
That's assuming it gets ported to Apple hardware. The only thing I saw on their web site was the statement that the Pegasos would be the standard reference platform. Which is probably a logical choice, given that at the moment, it's the only affordable commodity PPC platform with a future.
I wish there was a little more information regarding the project on their web site. I'm interested in following this project myself.
You have to consider that the only thing that would keep x86 OS X applications from running on vanilla x86 systems would be OS and driver issues, not issues inherent in the applications themselves.
If Apple wanted to transform themselves from a hardware company to a software company, what better way to do it than:
1.) Create machines on a closed x86 platform.
2.) Wait until the platform is well supported by 3rd party software and hardware vendors, and you've built up a large enough market share and you have a large enough catalogue of software offerings established to survive as a software vendor alone.
3.) After you've developed an ecosystem around your platform, release a version of OS X that runs on generic x86 boxes, and at that point it's too damn late for Microsoft or anyone else to do anything about it.
IBM might have said that they weren't going to spend any R&D on the G5/970 for the laptop for instance.
And Apple was forced to take the plunge.
And now they are desperately trying to make this sound as if it will be an advantage to the end user and that it is a great thing.
But behind the scenes Steve Jobs is cursing IBM.
I don't think anyone is cursing anyone. I hate to say it, but it was the appropriate business move for both sides.
While PPC may be a great architecture, it's future, unfortunately, isn't in desktop PC's.
From IBM's perspective, it wasn't worth the money to develop chips of the variety and specifications Apple wanted. With only one major computer manufacturer using those chips, the money wasn't on the table to justify the expense.
From Apple's perspective, while x86 may not be as architecturally elegant as PPC, Intel has the economy of scale to justify the R&D to produce a wide range of chips to various specifications. Even their "niche" products are going to outsell any PPC desktop chip, just on the basis that almost every PC manufacturer in the world is going to be buying the product.
It does no good for IBM to produce chips it can't sell profitably, and it does Apple no good to commit to an architecture that isn't going to be available to the specifications they require.
That's just the economics of the issue, and I'm sure both IBM and Jobs are smart enough to understand it. No hard feelings necessary.
In the long run I think the Apple move to Intel will help non-windows people in general by creating a more dominant force of alternative operating systems on the Intel platform.
I really can't see that Apple moving to Intel will have any effect on anyone, except maybe a few Linux on PPC vendors.
A Mac still remains a Mac, and a PC still remains a PC. It's not as if OS X is going to be competing head to head with Windows or Linux as a shrink wrapped OS that will run on any white box hardware. And while I'm sure there will be a few people out there who will do it, I don't think Apple is planning to market the Mac as a platform for running Mandrake or Windows on.
It may help Apple out by providing them with slightly less expensive and more consistent supply of processors, but other than that I don't see how what processor Apple uses changes the dynamics of the platform wars in the slightest. You're still going to have to buy an Apple computer to run OS X. (Yeah, Yeah, I know OS X/x86 will eventually be hacked to run on white boxes. Seriously though, how large of a segment of the user community will that be?)
Exactly, what changes by this that will all of sudden make Mac's attractive to people who aren't using them now? I love my iBook, but really, there's nothing about it's behavior that would be any different if it was running on x86. While I think PPC is a great processor, objectively, by the behavior of the machine alone, I couldn't tell you what processor was in it. I bought a Mac because I wanted to run OS X. How Apple makes that happen is transparent to me, and if they had been using a different processor, it wouldn't have altered my choice of computers, or my user experience, in the slightest.
At the Stevenote, he informed devs that they would be supporting both platforms for a long time to come.
You have to wonder if maybe he's hedging his bets. If IBM or one of the PPC licensees comes out of their coma and delivers, he has plenty of opportunities to backstroke. Nothing like having some options.
There's no way Intel could push out a PPC-like chip in the year or two timeframe that Apple has designated for the move, even if some inhouse developing has already been done.
You might want to consider that Intel has perhaps already developed an attractive PPC chip, which might have been what they used to entice Apple into their camp in the first place.
I will concede that your other point is interesting--that it's hard to imagine that Intel could make better PPCs than IBM
Well, "better" might be relative to the application. IBM's vision for PPC is in the embedded and large server arena. To IBM, desktop PC's aren't a major focus. I understand one of the bones of contention between Apple and IBM is that IBM doesn't really want to put the resources into R&D to provide the variety of chips Apple would like to buy.
To Intel, OTOH, desktop processors are what pays the rent, so they have a lot more incentive to develop PPC implementations that are optimized for that purpose.
Yeah, I'll second that emotion... Although my primary machine is a PowerMac G5, my secondary runs Win2k for games, and stuff that "only happens on Windows" (which ain't too much anymore.)
Heh! I'm still running Win2k on my G3 iBook, with Virtual PC. (Yes, still a G3 iBook. So shoot me, I'm too cheap to upgrade.) Kind of a drag MS is trying to obsolete it. If I'm forced to upgrading to XP, I will have to upgrade to a G5 just to run the bloated pig. Fortunately, IE isn't one of the things I run Win2k to use.
Yeah, no joke. No one wants to drop $30,000 on an education only to have their job outsourced to some guy who won't see $30,000 in his lifetime.
Actually, they probably will see it. The demand for IT talent in India is driving up the price of wages. If you live in the US, this is Good News. Eventually, if wages keep rising, it will be cheaper to do the work here than to outsource it.
So what you're saying here is that you don't like Apple because we're making your job obsolete?;-)
Ha! If it were only that simple to make my job obsolete! Actually, this only makes obsolete one of the little pain in the ass situations I could do without. I wouldn't mind if AIX adopted launchd at all, not to mention HPUX and Solaris.
Come to think of it, the rumor mill says you guys and IBM plan on sharing more code going forward. Any chance of this showing up in AIX anytime soon? And not a few command line features from AIX would be welcome in Mac OS, as well. What's going on there?
Because the shuttle is only a supported flight platform for a very narrow range of parameters on a given mission. Yes, even with all the contingencies. We *know* the ISS is a predictable, stable environment, as opposed to a failed shuttle (whatever the failure is) requiring extended docking with the ISS. Therefore, living in cramped quarters for a while and losing/abandoning a shuttle is far desirable to potentially losing a shuttle due to yet-unknown circumstances, *and* the ISS, and all of the occupants of both.
Actually, it's probably simpler than that. IIRC, ISS has limited docking facilities, I believe it can only accommodate one shuttle at a time.
In order to accommodate shuttle one, it would need to jettison shuttle one, and make sure it's a safe distance away from ISS.
Comcast gives large discount if you have cable TV on their internet service.
This is true. I priced it out and realized that between Comcast and Vonage, I can get broadband, VOIP, and cable TV for cheaper than I'm getting POTS service and DSL from SBC.
The issue is really with powerbooks which only support one button on the case trackpad- a major pain - will apple release a two button config with the new PB's as well? I hope so.
My dream laptop would be a Powerbook that sported a Thinkpad keyboard and mouse.
Maybe now that IBM is getting out of the PC business, this would be a good time to discuss a licensing arrangement.
Slashdot Mirror
Have the U.S. beat . . .
Um, yeah, take a look at the globe, and compare the size of South Korea to the size of the United States (as well as the rest of the countries that have "got us beat"). In terms of infrastructure, how much do you think it costs to lay fiber from one end of S. Korea or Japan, or Austria to the other, compared to the US? Those are relatively small and densly populated countries, compared to the United States, a large country with more vast, unpopulated areas than any other industrial nation.
This report is comparing apples to oranges.
Is it illegal to post this sort of information? If not, can Apple convince a judge that posting this information is harming them, and thus win a civil suit? I doubt it.
I suppose it would have something to do with the laws of a particular country. In some countries, it's probably actionable, and not in others. Which is why this is probably an exercise in futility. I'm sure somebody will eventually set up a site in a country where it's legal.
I'm not really sure why Apple is even bothering. Having looked over the process, I decided it was more of a pain in the ass than it was worth, and if it isn't even worth the aggrevation to me, I can't imagine Joe User will be making a habit out of hacking OS X, either. The only people who will bother will be the ones that can't afford to buy Apple's computers, anyway.
I've already made comments like this only to get this response in LARGE numbers:
"But Apple is a hardware company."
At one time, that was true. The majority of their revenue came from Mac hardware. It still does, but now they have additional revenue streams such as iPod and iTunes. Also, they've greatly increased their portfolio of software applications. Before, the only software they really could have sold seperate from the hardware would have been Mac OS itself, and a few minor applications. Contrast that to Microsoft who sells an OS, along with the major application suite that runs on it.
If they manage to broaden their product line such that they aren't so dependent on Mac hardware for revenue, such as expanding their application software offerings, then I could imagine them licensing OS X to 3rd parties.
Whether or not they can do that remains to be seen. But I doubt it will happen unless they find some way of making up the revenue stream from the hardware.
Isn't a BSD distro going to be about the same as a Linux distro? Does the kernel make that big of a difference?
Well, since this article concerns a desktop implementations, I'd be inclined to say no, not much difference. It's probably more relevant to ask about the benefits of KDE vs, Gnome. Your average Joe user will rarely if ever open a command shell, and even if he does, most of the commands are very similar if not identical. Now for specialized applications and servers, there are probably some (marginal) advantages of one over the other, but if, like me, you only use your desktop PC as a desktop PC, KDE still looks and acts like KDE, regardless of what's running under the hood.
On a PC I usually use Linux, because I'm used to it, and on a Mac, I use OS X, which is based on BSD. For my purposes, both are adequate. But does one have any inherent advantage over the other? None that I can tell. YMMV.
I honestly could care less whether a mouse uses two switches or one intelligent sensor, if you are using two fingers to get two seperate results with the mouse, it has two buttons.
I don't either. What I am curious about is how this is eventually going to be implemented on laptops.
No, I don't want to be dragging around an external mouse for the damn thing.
Having just gone through an RFP process for an enterprise SAN, we looked at HP since most of our servers were HP.
Don't do it! You'll never get another decent night of sleep again! HP's Unix servers are tolerable (although not great), but their storage products are for shit. Fortunately, our enterprise SANs are all IBM and EMC. More fortunately still, the few HP disk arrays that we have will be replaced with those SANs by this time next year.
Every HP disk array I have in the shop has had to have major service, such as having the backplanes or the controllers replaced within a year (and sometimes several times). We have a HP Sure Sore 2300 that has a charming habit of mysteriously "losing" several disks at a time for no apparent reason. After six months, and having replaced every damn part in the thing, it still does it, and HP support still can't figure it out.
Buy any HP storage product, and you'll live to regret it!
How would you feel, if the dns would be controlled for example in China, regardless how neutrally they do it?
I'll tell you what - if the internet were developed by the Chinese military on the Chinese people's dime, Chinese control of dns would be their prerogative, regardless of how I felt about it.
As it happens, the net was developed by the American military, on the American taxpayer's dime. The fact that the rest of the world derives a benefit from an infrastructure built largely by the US government, at the expense of the US taxpayer, does not necessarily entitle them to tell us how to run it.
We built it, we're keeping it. Sorry.
Veritas is so 90s. Vxvm is extremely overrated with features that cannot possibly be deployed in a mission critical environment. If you stick to your regular mirrors, stripes, raids... you mind as well use the FREE Aix LVM or Solaris VM. Which I swear are simpler and better nowadays.
That's not entirely true. For example, LVM relies on volume definitions in the ODM, which in a clustered environment, can easily get out of sync on one of your servers with the definitions in the VGDA if a logical volume has been modified outside of the HACMP environment. This can cause you some major headaches when you try to fail over to your other node if the VGDA no longer agrees with ODM on your failover node. That's not a problem you have if you're using Veritas instead of LVM.
That isn't to say that LVM sucks, it doesn't, and in most cases you don't need anything else. But there are situations, particularily in clustered environments, where there are definite advantages to using Veritas over LVM.
The current rumor, according to the Veritas technician who has been helping us with the i3 product, is that IBM is looking at Symantec.
That's interesting, for several reasons. One is that I've heard that the guys who founded Veritas were ex-IBMer's, who also designed AIX's LVM. Oddly, besides LVM, AIX has kernel-level support for Veritas. Based on my discussions with people who have used Veritas in conjunction with HACMP, Veritas actually works with it better than LVM.
Also, as of Veritas 4.2, if you're moving large SAN-attached filesystems from one server to another, all you have to do is zone your LUNs to be visible to the new server, export them from the old one, and import them to the new one. And it works across platforms, too. Perhaps IBM has ideas about helping customers easily migrate off of Solaris to AIX or Linux hosts. Moving massive SAN-attached databases and filesystems between platforms is usually a big PITA. Being able to accomplish that easily might help them close a few deals they might have otherwise lost
The whole idea that announcing a transition will destroy Apple's market share is just stupid.
I won't be eating crow in a year, either.
Well, I for one will be very disappointed if you aren't eating crow a year from now...
I was hoping for a steep discount on a new 17-inch PowerBook!
Damn!!
Well, you have to give them credit - about 2 years ago they were in bankruptcy, now they're swallowing competitors like guppies.
I always did like Mandrake's desktop (mostly). I never used Lycoris, but what I've heard, their desktop was even better, so hopefully they'll be able to painlessly merge the greatest strengths of both of them (although we all know things don't always work out that way).
I hope they decide to do business under the Lycoris trade name. "Mandriva" sounds like something a dentist would use on you.
IBM's been working on new OS features, but they've been contributing them to Linux, not doing much with them in AIX.
I'd have to disagree with that. The improvements may not be obvious from a user perspective, but they're certainly there. For example, AIX 5.3 now supports being able to partition a single processor (Power 5 only), has various improvements in the LVM and NIM now supports installs using secure sockets. You now have the ability to force unmounts of wedged NFS filesystems without having to reboot your system. And those are just the few improvement that come to mind off the top of my head.
I love Linux, don't get me wrong, but for high-end hardware it isn't a contest. I'd take AIX over Linux every time. Once you find your way around it (and I concede that compared to Solaris or Linux or HP-UX, etc., it is a little on the weird side), it's probably the most versatile, stable and easily managed *nix implementation out there.
That's assuming it gets ported to Apple hardware. The only thing I saw on their web site was the statement that the Pegasos would be the standard reference platform. Which is probably a logical choice, given that at the moment, it's the only affordable commodity PPC platform with a future.
I wish there was a little more information regarding the project on their web site. I'm interested in following this project myself.
You have to consider that the only thing that would keep x86 OS X applications from running on vanilla x86 systems would be OS and driver issues, not issues inherent in the applications themselves.
If Apple wanted to transform themselves from a hardware company to a software company, what better way to do it than:
1.) Create machines on a closed x86 platform.
2.) Wait until the platform is well supported by 3rd party software and hardware vendors, and you've built up a large enough market share and you have a large enough catalogue of software offerings established to survive as a software vendor alone.
3.) After you've developed an ecosystem around your platform, release a version of OS X that runs on generic x86 boxes, and at that point it's too damn late for Microsoft or anyone else to do anything about it.
4.) Profit!
IBM might have said that they weren't going to spend any R&D on the G5/970 for the laptop for instance.
And Apple was forced to take the plunge.
And now they are desperately trying to make this sound as if it will be an advantage to the end user and that it is a great thing.
But behind the scenes Steve Jobs is cursing IBM.
I don't think anyone is cursing anyone. I hate to say it, but it was the appropriate business move for both sides.
While PPC may be a great architecture, it's future, unfortunately, isn't in desktop PC's.
From IBM's perspective, it wasn't worth the money to develop chips of the variety and specifications Apple wanted. With only one major computer manufacturer using those chips, the money wasn't on the table to justify the expense.
From Apple's perspective, while x86 may not be as architecturally elegant as PPC, Intel has the economy of scale to justify the R&D to produce a wide range of chips to various specifications. Even their "niche" products are going to outsell any PPC desktop chip, just on the basis that almost every PC manufacturer in the world is going to be buying the product.
It does no good for IBM to produce chips it can't sell profitably, and it does Apple no good to commit to an architecture that isn't going to be available to the specifications they require.
That's just the economics of the issue, and I'm sure both IBM and Jobs are smart enough to understand it. No hard feelings necessary.
In the long run I think the Apple move to Intel will help non-windows people in general by creating a more dominant force of alternative operating systems on the Intel platform.
I really can't see that Apple moving to Intel will have any effect on anyone, except maybe a few Linux on PPC vendors.
A Mac still remains a Mac, and a PC still remains a PC. It's not as if OS X is going to be competing head to head with Windows or Linux as a shrink wrapped OS that will run on any white box hardware. And while I'm sure there will be a few people out there who will do it, I don't think Apple is planning to market the Mac as a platform for running Mandrake or Windows on.
It may help Apple out by providing them with slightly less expensive and more consistent supply of processors, but other than that I don't see how what processor Apple uses changes the dynamics of the platform wars in the slightest. You're still going to have to buy an Apple computer to run OS X. (Yeah, Yeah, I know OS X/x86 will eventually be hacked to run on white boxes. Seriously though, how large of a segment of the user community will that be?)
Exactly, what changes by this that will all of sudden make Mac's attractive to people who aren't using them now? I love my iBook, but really, there's nothing about it's behavior that would be any different if it was running on x86. While I think PPC is a great processor, objectively, by the behavior of the machine alone, I couldn't tell you what processor was in it. I bought a Mac because I wanted to run OS X. How Apple makes that happen is transparent to me, and if they had been using a different processor, it wouldn't have altered my choice of computers, or my user experience, in the slightest.
At the Stevenote, he informed devs that they would be supporting both platforms for a long time to come.
You have to wonder if maybe he's hedging his bets. If IBM or one of the PPC licensees comes out of their coma and delivers, he has plenty of opportunities to backstroke. Nothing like having some options.
There's no way Intel could push out a PPC-like chip in the year or two timeframe that Apple has designated for the move, even if some inhouse developing has already been done.
You might want to consider that Intel has perhaps already developed an attractive PPC chip, which might have been what they used to entice Apple into their camp in the first place.
I will concede that your other point is interesting--that it's hard to imagine that Intel could make better PPCs than IBM
Well, "better" might be relative to the application. IBM's vision for PPC is in the embedded and large server arena. To IBM, desktop PC's aren't a major focus. I understand one of the bones of contention between Apple and IBM is that IBM doesn't really want to put the resources into R&D to provide the variety of chips Apple would like to buy.
To Intel, OTOH, desktop processors are what pays the rent, so they have a lot more incentive to develop PPC implementations that are optimized for that purpose.
Yeah, I'll second that emotion... Although my primary machine is a PowerMac G5, my secondary runs Win2k for games, and stuff that "only happens on Windows" (which ain't too much anymore.)
Heh! I'm still running Win2k on my G3 iBook, with Virtual PC. (Yes, still a G3 iBook. So shoot me, I'm too cheap to upgrade.) Kind of a drag MS is trying to obsolete it. If I'm forced to upgrading to XP, I will have to upgrade to a G5 just to run the bloated pig. Fortunately, IE isn't one of the things I run Win2k to use.
Yeah, no joke. No one wants to drop $30,000 on an education only to have their job outsourced to some guy who won't see $30,000 in his lifetime.
Actually, they probably will see it. The demand for IT talent in India is driving up the price of wages. If you live in the US, this is Good News. Eventually, if wages keep rising, it will be cheaper to do the work here than to outsource it.
So what you're saying here is that you don't like Apple because we're making your job obsolete? ;-)
Ha! If it were only that simple to make my job obsolete! Actually, this only makes obsolete one of the little pain in the ass situations I could do without. I wouldn't mind if AIX adopted launchd at all, not to mention HPUX and Solaris.
Come to think of it, the rumor mill says you guys and IBM plan on sharing more code going forward. Any chance of this showing up in AIX anytime soon? And not a few command line features from AIX would be welcome in Mac OS, as well. What's going on there?
Because the shuttle is only a supported flight platform for a very narrow range of parameters on a given mission. Yes, even with all the contingencies. We *know* the ISS is a predictable, stable environment, as opposed to a failed shuttle (whatever the failure is) requiring extended docking with the ISS.
Therefore, living in cramped quarters for a while and losing/abandoning a shuttle is far desirable to potentially losing a shuttle due to yet-unknown circumstances, *and* the ISS, and all of the occupants of both.
Actually, it's probably simpler than that. IIRC, ISS has limited docking facilities, I believe it can only accommodate one shuttle at a time.
In order to accommodate shuttle one, it would need to jettison shuttle one, and make sure it's a safe distance away from ISS.
Comcast gives large discount if you have cable TV on their internet service.
This is true. I priced it out and realized that between Comcast and Vonage, I can get broadband, VOIP, and cable TV for cheaper than I'm getting POTS service and DSL from SBC.
Goodbye SBC!
The issue is really with powerbooks which only support one button on the case trackpad- a major pain - will apple release a two button config with the new PB's as well? I hope so.
My dream laptop would be a Powerbook that sported a Thinkpad keyboard and mouse.
Maybe now that IBM is getting out of the PC business, this would be a good time to discuss a licensing arrangement.