Those programs run on Windows, too, but I don't think it's ready for enterprise-class server applications, either. Just because you can run them doesn't mean you should.
Ding ding ding! Thank you, dave-tx, we have a winner!
Why OS X on x86 won't kill Linux:
1. It's not free.
2. It's not that other free, either.
3. It won't run on a generic whitebox that you built from Newegg.
4. It probably won't run on those nice 1U rackmount servers you just bought from HP.
5. Loyalty. Loyal Mac users have taken Apple through all sorts of dark ages, but they aren't programmers. OTOH, most open source hackers are loyal Linux or BSD users, who aren't likely to switch.
6. It's not a real Unix. Of the tiny handful of Unix gurus I know who have switched, they have all switched on the desktop, not in the server room. As we all know, Linux's greatest strength is in the latter, and my experience suggests that OS X is simply not ready for enterprise-class server applications.
7. Netinfo. It's even worse than ncsd.
8. Cost. If you expect an Apple box to cost significantly less with a different processor, you're smoking crack.
9. Performance. Anyone who wants serious power will still go with Linux, especially since Apple is inexplicably going from a 64-bit processor with a 128-bit memory bus to a 32-bit clunky piece of junk.
Summary: We might see a blip in the desktop penetration of Linux, and possibly a fiery Clash of the Zealots, but that's about it.
Did anyone else eat the Swedish Chef's Croonchy Stars cereal? On the back of the box it had a suggestion to bury the box as deep as possible for about a million years, after which time the heat and pressure of the earth will have turned the carbon in the box into a diamond. I even found a picture (low-res, unfortunately) of the back of the box here -- I can just make out the heading "Amaze your mom! Turn this box into a REAL DIAMOND!"
Anyhow, just a suggestion. You probably wanted it a little sooner, eh?
I think they should have gone all the way and used one of the distros that has ports for both x86 and PPC -- run the same software on both platforms. (E.g., Debian, Ubuntu, FreeBSD, etc.) Then you'd get to test out the hardware. This way, you have two variables: hardware and OS. If you want real benchmarks, you have to isolate these. First test a G5 running Debian against an Opteron system running Debian; then test a G5 running Debian against a G5 running OS X. Hey presto, results that actually mean something.
Fact: His "long, stupid rant [was] currently modded half troll, half insightful."
Fact: His long, stupid rant is currently 50% insightful, 30% troll, and 20% overrated.
I dunno about you, but that's all I need to know that his so-called "hivemind" that ruthlessly crushes all those who disagree with the dogma of/. is a bogeyman, a myth that's every bit as real as Santa Claus, the easter bunny, and Amiga Persecution Complex.
For those of you that don't have time to read that much text, here's a translation:
<whining>A lot of people on/. have similar opinions, but since those opinions aren't mine I'll cry and bitch about a "hivemind." Don't you people understand that "consensus" and "agreement" are just fancy words for "oppression of dissent," and that "community" is slang for "intolerance"?</whining>
Your long, stupid rant is currently modded half troll, half insightful. So much for a hivemind.
I was hoping it'd be something incredible and barely believable, like OS X or BeOS or Plan 9. But no, it's just a derivative of the original XBox OS. Weak. All that suspense for almost nothing. This story is worse than the ending of Citizen Kane, when "Rosebud" turned out to be his sled.
That's pretty easy, but I have all of the SuSE boxen I administer set to auto-update nightly, so I never type a thing. Either way -- one line at the CLI or a few clicks when you set up the box -- it's pretty cheap. Of course, you can set Windows to auto-update, too, but it has to reboot every time, and only installs so-called "critical" updates.
Nonetheless, if updating any recent Linux distro is cheaper than any recent version of Windows, or vice-versa, it amounts to a rounding error in the grand scheme of things.
There is *lots* of software out there that requires RHEL. What does RH offer? Name recognition, and that's about it. Most of this software would just need a quick recompile at most to make it run on SuSE or Debian or whatever the distro-du-jour is, but that's more work compiling and more work supporting that the vendor has to do. So they choose a distro, and the distro that most suits have heard of is Redhat. The end. It's not that Redhat offers some nifty sweet functionality; it's just that people who wear ties know what Redhat is, but haven't a clue what "Debian" is, and think "Slackware" is a clothing line.
So it's a nice question to ask, but I always make sure to ask vendors when they'll support other distros, and the answer, often as not, is "never."
Slashdot Mirror
I totally want a shirt that says that.
Aaauugh, the typos! Comma splices! Run-ons! My bleeding eyes!
So does that mean that Microsoft designed this guy?
It's not a dupe, but close. Call it a parrot?
Those programs run on Windows, too, but I don't think it's ready for enterprise-class server applications, either. Just because you can run them doesn't mean you should.
2. One word: Windows. Popular != good.
I'm not saying the Pentium is no good. I'm saying it's no good compared to the G5. Or the Athlon64 or Opteron. Or even the Itanium.
Well, it will at least kill one Linux vendor.
Why OS X on x86 won't kill Linux:
1. It's not free.
2. It's not that other free, either.
3. It won't run on a generic whitebox that you built from Newegg.
4. It probably won't run on those nice 1U rackmount servers you just bought from HP.
5. Loyalty. Loyal Mac users have taken Apple through all sorts of dark ages, but they aren't programmers. OTOH, most open source hackers are loyal Linux or BSD users, who aren't likely to switch.
6. It's not a real Unix. Of the tiny handful of Unix gurus I know who have switched, they have all switched on the desktop, not in the server room. As we all know, Linux's greatest strength is in the latter, and my experience suggests that OS X is simply not ready for enterprise-class server applications.
7. Netinfo. It's even worse than ncsd.
8. Cost. If you expect an Apple box to cost significantly less with a different processor, you're smoking crack.
9. Performance. Anyone who wants serious power will still go with Linux, especially since Apple is inexplicably going from a 64-bit processor with a 128-bit memory bus to a 32-bit clunky piece of junk.
Summary: We might see a blip in the desktop penetration of Linux, and possibly a fiery Clash of the Zealots, but that's about it.
Anyhow, just a suggestion. You probably wanted it a little sooner, eh?
I think they should have gone all the way and used one of the distros that has ports for both x86 and PPC -- run the same software on both platforms. (E.g., Debian, Ubuntu, FreeBSD, etc.) Then you'd get to test out the hardware. This way, you have two variables: hardware and OS. If you want real benchmarks, you have to isolate these. First test a G5 running Debian against an Opteron system running Debian; then test a G5 running Debian against a G5 running OS X. Hey presto, results that actually mean something.
Unfortunately, it's a Lamborghini stuck in the mud of netinfo.
Your working environment must be verrrrrry different from mine....
Fact: His long, stupid rant is currently 50% insightful, 30% troll, and 20% overrated.
I dunno about you, but that's all I need to know that his so-called "hivemind" that ruthlessly crushes all those who disagree with the dogma of /. is a bogeyman, a myth that's every bit as real as Santa Claus, the easter bunny, and Amiga Persecution Complex.
Secretly Roland Piquepaille.
I was hoping it'd be something incredible and barely believable, like OS X or BeOS or Plan 9. But no, it's just a derivative of the original XBox OS. Weak. All that suspense for almost nothing. This story is worse than the ending of Citizen Kane, when "Rosebud" turned out to be his sled.
Not even Windows is a totally insurmountable problem.
That's pretty easy, but I have all of the SuSE boxen I administer set to auto-update nightly, so I never type a thing. Either way -- one line at the CLI or a few clicks when you set up the box -- it's pretty cheap. Of course, you can set Windows to auto-update, too, but it has to reboot every time, and only installs so-called "critical" updates. Nonetheless, if updating any recent Linux distro is cheaper than any recent version of Windows, or vice-versa, it amounts to a rounding error in the grand scheme of things.
There's only one way to find the truth: cage match between Dvorak and Percival. Whoever comes out alive wins.
So it's a nice question to ask, but I always make sure to ask vendors when they'll support other distros, and the answer, often as not, is "never."
Ouch. I used to use Mwave, and there's always Street Prices. I'd be as interested as you, though, in what alternatives are out there.
Yeah right.
Did I win?