Nobody is forcing you to use both. Just use the one that you want to use, based on the features it has (that appeal to you). Everybody has different needs, wants and preferences. ONE size does not fit all!
The nice thing is if KDE and GNOME interact, you *can* use both together, although it will use slightly more resources.
Competition is good. Monopoly on the desktop is bad.
I feel the same way. I use GNOME + E for my main desktop (at least for now), and I use KPPP and a few other KDE apps.
People need choice. Not everybody wants a KDE or a GNOME feature, they should be able to use the other desktop's feature (or none). Desktops should be so intergrated that this is easy.
When I first moved to GNOME, I used the KDE File Manger, since GNOME had nothing close at the time (gmc was a toy then).
I am glad to see this all working out. Please don't bash a certain desktop enviroment, since someday you'll be using it.
True developers don't bitch about desktop enviroment choices.
KDE already works pretty good on lesser known *nixes, such as SC0, AIX, or *BSD.
GNOME has some worked need on this portablity, I am sure this will happen in the future. GNOME has some little issues on big endian systems, such as the PowerPC. It also has some problems with certain OSes.
Niether one of them compiles easily enought on systems that use cc instead of gcc, but I think they are people working on those issues.
That's a problem in general with the Linux community, most developers lack the resources to extensively test on commerical properity systems or on cc instead of gnu c compilers.
Re: Apple Issue
Apple chose to work with FreeBSD and NetBSD developers to create the foundation for Mac OS X, because at the last minute they realized that this mach stuff wasn't going any wheres quickly. They have worked hard to create a *BSD, known as Darwin that uses the best parts of Mach, that they spent millions of dollars on, but still use the speed of *BSD. The Darwin project, was a natural reaction to work with *BSD developers, since it allowed community influence on their server base.
Wheither I agree with it or not, that's a whole another issue (maybe I am just to gpl biased).
Another reason why Office Apps are behind in Linux, is that Linux didn't become a platform to develop large flexable office Applications, until KDE/qt and GNOME/gtk+ were released.
Yes, their was older toolkits, but many of them were limited, ugly or preformed horribly. (examples: Athena, Motif). Lesstif is a new thing, that finally allowed workable Motif apps to run on Linux for nothing.
A good office program needs a good desktop enviroment behind it to work good, and compete modernly. APIs need to be in place from the desktop enviroment to work. That's what KDE and GNOME are all about. They provide APIs that make good office software possible.
Office programs are quickly catching up, the speed of development in Linux is faster then most commerical development (what desktop enviroment has recieved a full featured desktop, a powerful imaging program and a office program in like 3 years?). Microsoft Windows didn't have a really good image editing program until like 1993 to 1994. Windows 3.1 was hardly a full featured intergrated desktop, it had many holes, and often required editing text files. DOS mode programs were the norm in the first few years. Windows 98 was the first version of Windows that fully intergrated the Internet into WIndows.
The Mac OS didn't grow up over night either. Early versions of it were limited, you could run one program at the time, painting on a 9 inch screen was pretty limited, some of the first office choices sucked pretty bad (you want MacWrite or MacWrite with that machine?, MS Word for Macintosh was a distance awy).
It takes time. But if history shows the progress of a rapidly growing OS, Linux will become full featured sometime from 2000 to 20001.
Keep watching, developing, and enjoying!
Re:woah, woah... it is *NOT* as easy as Windows...
on
KDE & GNOME Cooperate
·
· Score: 2
I disagree.
Most older people, who have never used a computer before, really don't care about messing with configuration that much.
They really don't care about kernel version, or how much of a certain word the computer has.
They want something that does their work reliabily, without crashing and quickly. They don't want to configure things (except maybe Desktop Pictures, or maybe even icons/widgits color).
In my experience the vast amount of people want the following:
1) A good point an click e-mail program (preferably supporting HTML) This is still lacking! Maybe Netscape 5.0 will give us that.
2) A simple, easy to use web browser. Netscape 5.0, based on Mozilla could be great!
3) Word Processor like Microsoft Word with spelling under lining features, and simple but functional formating controls (like Microsoft Works 1.0 for Macintosh). AbiWord could do great here (when it's ready)!
4) Being able to print easily.
5) One click access to all of these features, on the desktop.
So little needs to be done to get this done. It can be done okay, today, but wait 6 months, and you'll find it is ready for the masses.
Joe Blow could care less about source code, or enlightenment or configuring advanced settings.
Leave them to the system adminstator. What?! Joe Blow is the system admin? Well, then we do need to intergrate GUI tools better.
Linux today, has the technology today to be vastly point and click adminstation, but in my experience no distro does a good job at showing them.
You would be hard pressed to find me a setting that you can not point and click on a Linux system (assuming you have the graphical tool installed.
KDE and GNOME are great, appealing to their own groups of people. Now if they just work together better, that would be great!
Those iMac clones would make nice Linux consumer / low end boxes. They are cheap and look nice on the shelf.
With the iMac being so broken in certain areas (such as OpenFirmware), the iMac clone would make installing Linux a bit easier, because you wouldn't have to mess with having to OS's just to use Linux.
But then again, I would miss having PowerPC hardware to play with, but I think I might be able to get over it for a machine, that is mainly one for the shelf.
1) Where the fsck is the PowerPC G3 Processor? 2) How come the iMac clone plastics look different? 3) Why is the shape rounder then the iMac? 4) Where is the AWACS sound controller? 5) Can it natively run my favorite Mac Programs or my favorite LinuxPPC programs? 6) I don't see any illegally ripped off Apple ROM? 7) Ehh... How come command-option-o-f doesn't drop me into OpenFirmware when I turn on the E-Power iMac clone.
The fact is it is not a clone. Maybe it's case looks somewhat similar to iMac cases, but it certainly not exact.
Yes, E_Power Machine is very much different in specs, and how it works. Heck, Proccessor designs are totally different, as is the motherboards.
Internally, a E_Power Machine is *NOTHING* like a iMac, only similaries inside that I can see is they both use ATAPI CD-ROMS and Hard Drives.
(heh... Didn't Apple bring ATAPI to the Mac). ATAPI sucks compared to SCSI, but it is cheap and works okay.
I think the main reason for the suit is over the quick look at the external appearence, it might confuse customers. That could be a bases of a *weak* lawsuit, but it would die quickly. But in general, it's a totally different machine.
Re: The point is that Apple IS the innovator here
on
iMac Clone Gets Sued
·
· Score: 1
Actually, Apple was one of the first companies to ship mainstream all in the one computers, aimed at reguluar people (Think about the Lisa, Mac Plus series, etc).
My Mac Plus is a great compact computer, it is still sticking away.
At anyrate, if you have seen the iMac clone PC, it is obviously not a clone. It is a hell of alot more harder to set up for one, it doesn't have a PowerPC processor, and almost all the rest of the hardware is different. You don't just spend five seconds setting up a ePower iMac Clone, you have to have to at least look once or twice at ports.
Different shell, different componets, etc.
Maybe it's just that I am becoming a dumb PC bigiot as I get old (although I still love my Macintosh), but I think Apple needs good hard competition.
Just remember, we might not be using CD-ROMs, USB or RAM SIMMs, had Apple tried to sue off all clones. Personally, I think this is a case of invation veruses monopolian.....
So basically you are saying, that in my office, we listen to Oldies 98 -- www.wtry.com, so we could get sued for playing and listening to it?
You mean just because us and are clients listen to that? That's total bullshit. Heck, they call this radio station, listen to us all day in the office. And guess what we do.
Is it illegal to listen to the radio in office, through the intercom? We are not selling radio or the intercom system. We just like listening to some good old grooves while we work.
I might be able to understand a TV/Radio store selling a TV displaying a show, but a small office is stupid. Is it now illegal to listen to radio?
I though Radio was a free technology for all that listens to it. Come on, we don't block the commericals, the whole office hears them throughout the day. So we are 'paying' for the music, in listening to commericals.
I guess bringing CDs to the office to play on the system, is a true crime!
How many offices do you know that plays music durning work?
Heck, even most of the NYS offices I have been in do. Is the goverment horribly breaking the law? I don't think so.
Is a radio station breaking the law, by encouraging people to put their radio station on during the work day? I think NOT.
When I go back to work today, if anybody comes in waring a uniform, I will have to turn the radio off (just in case)..
Really, I am selling the Radio, the radio is still free outside of the office, all I am doing is playing it for our enjoyment and for the enjoyment of the office people.
ASCAP is a bunch of B.S. Face it, if they ever call up my office in my life time I would be shocked!
I better let those people know at the local TV shop, they are not paying their dues to this ASCAP crap.
Netscape Navigator. is strong on everything besides Windows 98 and Windows NT 4.0, for the reason -- it just works better on other platforms. Microsoft Internet Explorer for the Mac is junk, it has lots of features, but it is unstable and dog slow. (Unlike Outlook Express for Macintosh which is fast and nice). I have heard of similar problems with Sparc.
However Netscape Navigator runs pretty good on most platforms (the gui is a bit sluggish on lesstif-based systems, but still), it's the best browser out there. Heck, I know some Windows users who sware that Netscape Navigator is great.
On Mac-centric websites often see a ratio 8:2 or 9:1 Netscape Navigator vs Internet Explorer. Basically that means that MSIE hasn't made a real splash on the Mac platform (at least for technical Mac users). And yes, MS has tried doing bunding shit with Mac OS 8.x so you get MSIE installed with Mac OS 8.x (surpise, surpise). At least the icon on the Mac OS desktop is deleteable (or switchable to Netscape Navigator).
Netscape Navigator is a well trusted browser for the various flavors of *nix. I have seen Netscape Communicator on these various *nixes for years, such as Solaris, HP/UNIX, Linux, LinuxPPC and a bunch of other werider ones. It's pretty hard to find a platform without Netscape Navigator support (except for small strange ones like BeOS and Amiga OS). Sorry if I insulted you guys, but those OS's lack many of the things found on tradional OS's such as X.
Re:That's logical, but Apple's not.
on
MkLinux Not Dead
·
· Score: 1
" I'd love to see a real linux port designed for NuBus Macs, but I am certainly not holding my breath. "
You will see one of these in the future, since a new version of MkLinux is almost ready for release, and that at least a few of LinuxPPC developers are working on Nubus Macintosh support.
" Could it be that they're worried about MacOS market share? "
"Apple doesn't give a flying rat's-you-know-what for what happens to old NuBus Macs."
That's very true (at least $$$ wise). Software is only a small part of their revenue (like 1% the last time I checked). Almost any profit made from Apple selling software is redirected back to paying software developers. Apple develops most of it programs, just to encourage people to buy Macintosh hardware, and through hardware sales make money (example A: Quicktime). Heck, they used to give away the Mac OS for free, until 1993, and after then, gave away old versions for free (example B: Window 95 costs you now still like $85, while Mac OS 7.5.5 costs nothing, it's a free download. Both released about the same time).
"OS X won't run on them anyway, so why should they care?"
Some people at Apple are actually happy to see their Macs continueing to run (some developers at Apple wanted Mac OS X to run on more then 5 different machines).
"The person who wants to run Linux on a NuBus Mac is the same kind that can't afford a monster G3 with OS X anyway."
Yes that is true in most cases. Anyways, Mac OS X is just a way to make people buy new macs to run this OS, if you don't have the money to do this, you can continue to run Mac OS 8.7/9.0 or a Linux on your PowerMac with out problems.
" I don't know the answers to these questions, but I'm sure that Apple stockholders would be strongly against the idea of diluting the already weakened profitmaking potential of Apple products. "
" *sigh* Sounds like flat-out Mac-bashing for little reason (yet again). I'm not going to try and claim that any Mac can flatten any Intel machine, because that's not the point. The point is, I already *have* that hardware and want to get the best out of it. That's the glory of Linux--I can install it on just about anything, and use it for just about anything. You can't do a hell of a lot with an old Pentium without Linux (or *BSD, for that matter), either. With it, you can do plenty.
That's not true. Windows 3.1 works pretty good on many 486s and Pentium machines out their, which can do quite a bit. Even Windows NT 3.5.1 (assuming you have the RAM), works okay on those machines.
Of course if you want to make a good webserver out of those machines, Linux (or *BSD) is the way to go.
Just because it wasn't released yesterday, doesn't mean it's useless. damn computer people;-P
People will continue to use MkLinux for years, even though something better might come out for the Nubus system, since they already have it installed.
Since it's open source, development will continue, even if it's only at a slow pace for some things.
Heck, somebody might in 30 years boot up a copy of MkLinux and be amazed how simple and how powerful it was, even on today's awful slow, low technology stuff.
If the technology is the best for the machine, people will continue to use it with out any development at all (my Mac Plus with 4 megs of RAM and System 6.0.8, hasn't been updated in 5 years with new software, yet it works perfectly for day to day work!)
Yes, people try to remember that MkLinux DR 3 is oldish distro, being almost a year old.
Much has changed in a year. A year ago libc5 was standard, KDE 1.0 was a hot new technology (first nicely intergrated desktop, that was easy to use), and the GIMP had just recently turned one. The standard stable Linux kernel of the time was 2.0.32 or something. GNOME was just barely to the.20 released and crashed all the time.
Much has happened in a year. But as Nester pointed out MkLinux Genric 7 Kernel works pretty good with updated Linux on the PowerPC distros, such LinuxPPC R5, with some little changes (and it's pretty well documented.
Don't fret, MkLinux Community team is working on releasing a update to the standard MkLinux distro (basically DR 4), including MkLinux Generic 7, glibc 2.1, KDE 1.1, GNOME 1.0, and the lastest of many other great packages.
MkLinux has been a very touchy subject for Linus and Linux and general. In many ways, MkLinux can be considered a fork off of the orginal code (since it is running on a mach kernel and has many changes).
In February of 1996 Apple and OSF publically announced the MkLinux project at the Free Software Foundation converence held in Boston.
Linus looked down at MkLinux and declared it *NOT* an offical version of Linux. In the months following, he eventualy starts to back down from that, but it's unlikely he will ever support MkLinux directly.
However, MkLinux was the reason why Linux on the PowerPC became successful, MkLinux created the first real Linux base on the PowerPC platform. MkLinux ran on cheap Nubus PowerPC hardware, compared to more expensive PCI PowerPC hardware, which often was purchased for new, at a expensive price.
These are some of the highlights of the development, the full story with the correct address is at:
http://gate.crashing.org/doc/ppc/doc003.htm
(Yes it is a.htm extention, even though it's on a Apache box running LinuxPPC R5).
Their are some people on LinuxPPC working on that. Right now the latest BootX booter supports Nubus Macs, but the kernel still panics on load, do to the kernel doesn't yet know about the Nubus-based archutechure in the early pre-1995 PowerMacs.
Native Linux support is underway, some drivers have been written, but still not enough is done to make it run natively.
Forently, MkLinux and Monolithic Kernels are pretty compatible with each other; it's not a problem to change from MkLinux to LinuxPPC or vise versa. Hell, I even have both MkLinux and LinuxPPC installed on my machine, via. BootX. Works great.
That saying, MkLinux is going to become glibc 2.1 pretty some, with a new version of distro being released as soon as the ftp server gets it new hard drive.
Almost all large sites use Dynamic content. Dynamic content is much easier to setup, change and work via. user preferences in a flash.
Static Content is mainly only used by smaller organisations or people, that can not afford a server / service that allows CGI, Perl or ASP processing.
Most people don't realize how powerful dynamic content is, and how little negative preformance drag their is, on a properly set up scripts.
In majority of time, static content on the web is actually cache of stuff produced dynamicaly, before serving out.
These benchmarks seem pretty stupid. What's next, Ford comparing cars to Izuzu because the Ford Ranger has a maxium speed of about 124 miles per hour versus the Izuzu Trooper who speed maxes out at 105. Really, how many of us drive at speeds over 100 miles per hour? (Besides you ppl in the midwest). Not many.
That statement assumes that Apache will never improve. That's certainly not true. Apache will be able to scale with bigger loads, given some patches and a faster, well supported configuration (such as that 1.5 ghz Pentium V processor), etc.
If you throw faster hardware behind Apache, you'll get better preformace than NT on the old machine.
Apache isn't locked into a speed, like DOS's 8.3 char filenames or 640k of RAM in DOS or Apple ProDOS 32meg disks...
IIS vs Apache will make each other stronger and better preforming (honest!)
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody is forcing you to use both. Just use the one that you want to use, based on the features it has (that appeal to you). Everybody has different needs, wants and preferences. ONE size does not fit all!
The nice thing is if KDE and GNOME interact, you *can* use both together, although it will use slightly more resources.
Competition is good. Monopoly on the desktop is bad.
I feel the same way. I use GNOME + E for my main desktop (at least for now), and I use KPPP and a few other KDE apps.
People need choice. Not everybody wants a KDE or a GNOME feature, they should be able to use the other desktop's feature (or none). Desktops should be so intergrated that this is easy.
When I first moved to GNOME, I used the KDE File Manger, since GNOME had nothing close at the time (gmc was a toy then).
I am glad to see this all working out. Please don't bash a certain desktop enviroment, since someday you'll be using it.
True developers don't bitch about desktop enviroment choices.
They are trying to do that.
KDE already works pretty good on lesser known *nixes, such as SC0, AIX, or *BSD.
GNOME has some worked need on this portablity, I am sure this will happen in the future. GNOME has some little issues on big endian systems, such as the PowerPC. It also has some problems with certain OSes.
Niether one of them compiles easily enought on systems that use cc instead of gcc, but I think they are people working on those issues.
That's a problem in general with the Linux community, most developers lack the resources to extensively test on commerical properity systems or on cc instead of gnu c compilers.
Re: Apple Issue
Apple chose to work with FreeBSD and NetBSD developers to create the foundation for Mac OS X, because at the last minute they realized that this mach stuff wasn't going any wheres quickly. They have worked hard to create a *BSD, known as Darwin that uses the best parts of Mach, that they spent millions of dollars on, but still use the speed of *BSD. The Darwin project, was a natural reaction to work with *BSD developers, since it allowed community influence on their server base.
Wheither I agree with it or not, that's a whole another issue (maybe I am just to gpl biased).
That's great news!
Compatibly is good for all GNOME and KDE app developers. It increases the potential user base, user choices and developer choices.
Another reason why Office Apps are behind in Linux, is that Linux didn't become a platform to develop large flexable office Applications, until KDE/qt and GNOME/gtk+ were released.
Yes, their was older toolkits, but many of them were limited, ugly or preformed horribly. (examples: Athena, Motif). Lesstif is a new thing, that finally allowed workable Motif apps to run on Linux for nothing.
A good office program needs a good desktop enviroment behind it to work good, and compete modernly. APIs need to be in place from the desktop enviroment to work. That's what KDE and GNOME are all about. They provide APIs that make good office software possible.
Office programs are quickly catching up, the speed of development in Linux is faster then most commerical development (what desktop enviroment has recieved a full featured desktop, a powerful imaging program and a office program in like 3 years?). Microsoft Windows didn't have a really good image editing program until like 1993 to 1994. Windows 3.1 was hardly a full featured intergrated desktop, it had many holes, and often required editing text files. DOS mode programs were the norm in the first few years. Windows 98 was the first version of Windows that fully intergrated the Internet into WIndows.
The Mac OS didn't grow up over night either. Early versions of it were limited, you could run one program at the time, painting on a 9 inch screen was pretty limited, some of the first office choices sucked pretty bad (you want MacWrite or MacWrite with that machine?, MS Word for Macintosh was a distance awy).
It takes time. But if history shows the progress of a rapidly growing OS, Linux will become full featured sometime from 2000 to 20001.
Keep watching, developing, and enjoying!
I disagree.
Most older people, who have never used a computer before, really don't care about messing with configuration that much.
They really don't care about kernel version, or how much of a certain word the computer has.
They want something that does their work reliabily, without crashing and quickly. They don't want to configure things (except maybe Desktop Pictures, or maybe even icons/widgits color).
In my experience the vast amount of people want the following:
1) A good point an click e-mail program (preferably supporting HTML) This is still lacking! Maybe Netscape 5.0 will give us that.
2) A simple, easy to use web browser. Netscape 5.0, based on Mozilla could be great!
3) Word Processor like Microsoft Word with spelling under lining features, and simple but functional formating controls (like Microsoft Works 1.0 for Macintosh). AbiWord could do great here (when it's ready)!
4) Being able to print easily.
5) One click access to all of these features, on the desktop.
So little needs to be done to get this done. It can be done okay, today, but wait 6 months, and you'll find it is ready for the masses.
Joe Blow could care less about source code, or enlightenment or configuring advanced settings.
Leave them to the system adminstator. What?! Joe Blow is the system admin? Well, then we do need to intergrate GUI tools better.
Linux today, has the technology today to be vastly point and click adminstation, but in my experience no distro does a good job at showing them.
You would be hard pressed to find me a setting that you can not point and click on a Linux system (assuming you have the graphical tool installed.
KDE and GNOME are great, appealing to their own groups of people. Now if they just work together better, that would be great!
Simple things. You can do better!
KEEP THE GREAT WORK UP GNOME AND KDE TEAMS!
My PowerMac 4400 is put together in America. PowerPC 603ev made in America. Hard Drive made in Twian, CDROM drive, American.
I was thinking about that also...
Those iMac clones would make nice Linux consumer / low end boxes. They are cheap and look nice on the shelf.
With the iMac being so broken in certain areas (such as OpenFirmware), the iMac clone would make installing Linux a bit easier, because you wouldn't have to mess with having to OS's just to use Linux.
But then again, I would miss having PowerPC hardware to play with, but I think I might be able to get over it for a machine, that is mainly one for the shelf.
I asked you this about the iMac clone:
1) Where the fsck is the PowerPC G3 Processor?
2) How come the iMac clone plastics look different?
3) Why is the shape rounder then the iMac?
4) Where is the AWACS sound controller?
5) Can it natively run my favorite Mac Programs or my favorite LinuxPPC programs?
6) I don't see any illegally ripped off Apple ROM?
7) Ehh... How come command-option-o-f doesn't drop me into OpenFirmware when I turn on the E-Power iMac clone.
The fact is it is not a clone. Maybe it's case looks somewhat similar to iMac cases, but it certainly not exact.
Yes, E_Power Machine is very much different in specs, and how it works. Heck, Proccessor designs are totally different, as is the motherboards.
Internally, a E_Power Machine is *NOTHING* like a iMac, only similaries inside that I can see is they both use ATAPI CD-ROMS and Hard Drives.
(heh... Didn't Apple bring ATAPI to the Mac). ATAPI sucks compared to SCSI, but it is cheap and works okay.
I think the main reason for the suit is over the quick look at the external appearence, it might confuse customers. That could be a bases of a *weak* lawsuit, but it would die quickly. But in general, it's a totally different machine.
Actually, Apple was one of the first companies to ship mainstream all in the one computers, aimed at reguluar people (Think about the Lisa, Mac Plus series, etc).
My Mac Plus is a great compact computer, it is still sticking away.
At anyrate, if you have seen the iMac clone PC, it is obviously not a clone. It is a hell of alot more harder to set up for one, it doesn't have a PowerPC processor, and almost all the rest of the hardware is different. You don't just spend five seconds setting up a ePower iMac Clone, you have to have to at least look once or twice at ports.
Different shell, different componets, etc.
Maybe it's just that I am becoming a dumb PC bigiot as I get old (although I still love my Macintosh), but I think Apple needs good hard competition.
Just remember, we might not be using CD-ROMs, USB or RAM SIMMs, had Apple tried to sue off all clones. Personally, I think this is a case of invation veruses monopolian.....
So basically you are saying, that in my office, we listen to Oldies 98 -- www.wtry.com, so we could get sued for playing and listening to it?
You mean just because us and are clients listen to that? That's total bullshit. Heck, they call this radio station, listen to us all day in the office. And guess what we do.
Is it illegal to listen to the radio in office, through the intercom? We are not selling radio or the intercom system. We just like listening to some good old grooves while we work.
I might be able to understand a TV/Radio store selling a TV displaying a show, but a small office is stupid. Is it now illegal to listen to radio?
I though Radio was a free technology for all that listens to it. Come on, we don't block the commericals, the whole office hears them throughout the day. So we are 'paying' for the music, in listening to commericals.
I guess bringing CDs to the office to play on the system, is a true crime!
How many offices do you know that plays music durning work?
Heck, even most of the NYS offices I have been in do. Is the goverment horribly breaking the law? I don't think so.
Is a radio station breaking the law, by encouraging people to put their radio station on during the work day? I think NOT.
When I go back to work today, if anybody comes in waring a uniform, I will have to turn the radio off (just in case)..
Really, I am selling the Radio, the radio is still free outside of the office, all I am doing is playing it for our enjoyment and for the enjoyment of the office people.
ASCAP is a bunch of B.S. Face it, if they ever call up my office in my life time I would be shocked!
I better let those people know at the local TV shop, they are not paying their dues to this ASCAP crap.
Netscape Navigator. is strong on everything besides Windows 98 and Windows NT 4.0, for the reason -- it just works better on other platforms. Microsoft Internet Explorer for the Mac is junk, it has lots of features, but it is unstable and dog slow. (Unlike Outlook Express for Macintosh which is fast and nice). I have heard of similar problems with Sparc.
However Netscape Navigator runs pretty good on most platforms (the gui is a bit sluggish on lesstif-based systems, but still), it's the best browser out there. Heck, I know some Windows users who sware that Netscape Navigator is great.
On Mac-centric websites often see a ratio 8:2 or 9:1 Netscape Navigator vs Internet Explorer. Basically that means that MSIE hasn't made a real splash on the Mac platform (at least for technical Mac users). And yes, MS has tried doing bunding shit with Mac OS 8.x so you get MSIE installed with Mac OS 8.x (surpise, surpise). At least the icon on the Mac OS desktop is deleteable (or switchable to Netscape Navigator).
Netscape Navigator is a well trusted browser for the various flavors of *nix. I have seen Netscape Communicator on these various *nixes for years, such as Solaris, HP/UNIX, Linux, LinuxPPC and a bunch of other werider ones. It's pretty hard to find a platform without Netscape Navigator support (except for small strange ones like BeOS and Amiga OS). Sorry if I insulted you guys, but those OS's lack many of the things found on tradional OS's such as X.
" I'd love to see a real linux port designed for NuBus Macs, but I am certainly not holding my breath. "
;-P
You will see one of these in the future, since a new version of MkLinux is almost ready for release, and that at least a few of LinuxPPC developers are working on Nubus Macintosh support.
" Could it be that they're worried about MacOS market share? "
"Apple doesn't give a flying rat's-you-know-what for what happens to old NuBus Macs."
That's very true (at least $$$ wise). Software is only a small part of their revenue (like 1% the last time I checked). Almost any profit made from Apple selling software is redirected back to paying software developers. Apple develops most of it programs, just to encourage people to buy Macintosh hardware, and through hardware sales make money (example A: Quicktime). Heck, they used to give away the Mac OS for free, until 1993, and after then, gave away old versions for free (example B: Window 95 costs you now still like $85, while Mac OS 7.5.5 costs nothing, it's a free download. Both released about the same time).
"OS X won't run on them anyway, so why should they care?"
Some people at Apple are actually happy to see their Macs continueing to run (some developers at Apple wanted Mac OS X to run on more then 5 different machines).
"The person who wants to run Linux on a NuBus Mac is the same kind that can't afford a monster G3 with OS X anyway."
Yes that is true in most cases. Anyways, Mac OS X is just a way to make people buy new macs to run this OS, if you don't have the money to do this, you can continue to run Mac OS 8.7/9.0 or a Linux on your PowerMac with out problems.
" I don't know the answers to these questions, but I'm sure that Apple stockholders would be strongly against the idea of diluting the already weakened
profitmaking potential of Apple products. "
" *sigh* Sounds like flat-out Mac-bashing for little reason (yet again). I'm not going to try and claim that any Mac can flatten any Intel machine, because that's not the point. The point is, I already *have* that hardware and want to get the best out of it. That's the glory of Linux--I can install it on just about anything, and use it for just about anything. You can't do a hell of a lot with an old Pentium without Linux (or *BSD, for that matter), either. With it, you can do plenty.
That's not true. Windows 3.1 works pretty good on many 486s and Pentium machines out their, which can do quite a bit. Even Windows NT 3.5.1 (assuming you have the RAM), works okay on those machines.
Of course if you want to make a good webserver out of those machines, Linux (or *BSD) is the way to go.
Just because it wasn't released yesterday, doesn't mean it's useless. damn computer people
People will continue to use MkLinux for years, even though something better might come out for the Nubus system, since they already have it installed.
Since it's open source, development will continue, even if it's only at a slow pace for some things.
Heck, somebody might in 30 years boot up a copy of MkLinux and be amazed how simple and how powerful it was, even on today's awful slow, low technology stuff.
If the technology is the best for the machine, people will continue to use it with out any development at all (my Mac Plus with 4 megs of RAM and System 6.0.8, hasn't been updated in 5 years with new software, yet it works perfectly for day to day work!)
Yes, people try to remember that MkLinux DR 3 is oldish distro, being almost a year old.
.20 released and crashed all the time.
Much has changed in a year. A year ago libc5 was standard, KDE 1.0 was a hot new technology (first nicely intergrated desktop, that was easy to use), and the GIMP had just recently turned one. The standard stable Linux kernel of the time was 2.0.32 or something. GNOME was just barely to the
Much has happened in a year. But as Nester pointed out MkLinux Genric 7 Kernel works pretty good with updated Linux on the PowerPC distros, such LinuxPPC R5, with some little changes (and it's pretty well documented.
Don't fret, MkLinux Community team is working on releasing a update to the standard MkLinux distro (basically DR 4), including MkLinux Generic 7, glibc 2.1, KDE 1.1, GNOME 1.0, and the lastest of many other great packages.
MkLinux isn't dead.
MkLinux has been a very touchy subject for Linus and Linux and general. In many ways, MkLinux can be considered a fork off of the orginal code (since it is running on a mach kernel and has many changes).
.htm extention, even though it's on a Apache box running LinuxPPC R5).
In February of 1996 Apple and OSF publically announced the MkLinux project at the Free Software Foundation converence held in Boston.
Linus looked down at MkLinux and declared it *NOT* an offical version of Linux. In the months following, he eventualy starts to back down from that, but it's unlikely he will ever support MkLinux directly.
However, MkLinux was the reason why Linux on the PowerPC became successful, MkLinux created the first real Linux base on the PowerPC platform. MkLinux ran on cheap Nubus PowerPC hardware, compared to more expensive PCI PowerPC hardware, which often was purchased for new, at a expensive price.
These are some of the highlights of the development, the full story with the correct address is at:
http://gate.crashing.org/doc/ppc/doc003.htm
(Yes it is a
I think you may have missed the last 5 years of Linux history or have not read some of his stuff.
Basically, he values anything that he considers to be true Linux, ported directly from the Linux source, such as Linux/PPC, Linux/Alpha kernels, etc.
Read about the story of Monolithic Linux/PPC at http://kernel.crashing.org
Yes Linux am Mac is a pretty nice site, I have been reading it since like Febuary, when it was starting to become somewhat English.
It does have a occational mistake on that, but thats not too bad, since nobody is perfect (execpt the nobody dude on my system)
Keep up the great work!.
Their are some people on LinuxPPC working on that. Right now the latest BootX booter supports Nubus Macs, but the kernel still panics on load, do to the kernel doesn't yet know about the Nubus-based archutechure in the early pre-1995 PowerMacs.
Native Linux support is underway, some drivers have been written, but still not enough is done to make it run natively.
Forently, MkLinux and Monolithic Kernels are pretty compatible with each other; it's not a problem to change from MkLinux to LinuxPPC or vise versa. Hell, I even have both MkLinux and LinuxPPC installed on my machine, via. BootX. Works great.
That saying, MkLinux is going to become glibc 2.1 pretty some, with a new version of distro being released as soon as the ftp server gets it new hard drive.
"hmm... I can't image reading Slashdot one day, and seeing on the bottom of the screen, powered by IIS on Microsoft Windows NT 2000(TM).
I guess that also makes Slashdot become the Microsoft portal on the web, featuring the lastest and greatest Microsoft product"
..phew, that was just a pipe dream... I am sure glad that isn't true...
Congrades on Slashdot and Andover.net!
KEEP THE GREAT WORK UP!
That's wrong.
Almost all large sites use Dynamic content. Dynamic content is much easier to setup, change and work via. user preferences in a flash.
Static Content is mainly only used by smaller organisations or people, that can not afford a server / service that allows CGI, Perl or ASP processing.
Most people don't realize how powerful dynamic content is, and how little negative preformance drag their is, on a properly set up scripts.
In majority of time, static content on the web is actually cache of stuff produced dynamicaly, before serving out.
These benchmarks seem pretty stupid. What's next, Ford comparing cars to Izuzu because the Ford Ranger has a maxium speed of about 124 miles per hour versus the Izuzu Trooper who speed maxes out at 105. Really, how many of us drive at speeds over 100 miles per hour? (Besides you ppl in the midwest). Not many.
That statement assumes that Apache will never improve. That's certainly not true. Apache will be able to scale with bigger loads, given some patches and a faster, well supported configuration (such as that 1.5 ghz Pentium V processor), etc.
If you throw faster hardware behind Apache, you'll get better preformace than NT on the old machine.
Apache isn't locked into a speed, like DOS's 8.3 char filenames or 640k of RAM in DOS or Apple ProDOS 32meg disks...
IIS vs Apache will make each other stronger and better preforming (honest!)
That's impossible. Benchmarks are almost alway byist, and if you get somebody who isn't NT byist, they will be Linux byist.
Also, benchmarks tend to be optimized for a certain platform, more then another one, no matter how generic the benchmark is.
You can make Linux unstable by poor adminsitration (although it's harder then NT to do).
For examples:
1) run as root all of the time. Besides being a security risk, it makes it alot easier for the system to crash.
2) Run highly developmental kernels, such as 2.3.8.
3) Run a developmental X Server, push it really hard, running in root.
Yes, those things are usually not done by default (nobody is that truely retarded to do those things on a important machine besides my ISP, I hope).
You can crash Linux, but it's usualy the users fault, unlike NT which can easily crash, when using stable versions of NT.
Just because Linux is more stable, it's not perfect.