I must confess that I do not know the particulars, having never even considered attempting to recompile the Mac OS X kernel, so I'll take your word for it. The idea of token ring on a hand-crafted Mac OS X box is pretty cool though...
iqu:)
(I said two hands, because I considered it likely that some twat on here would otherwise take me to task for, say, grossly underestimating the significance of this chilling decision. Hmmm. In any case, I seem to have pissed an anonymong off already...)
I'm not as impressed as the moderators by you or your need to point out that you're British, nor do I equate rudeness with wit.
That's nice. Were you not anonymous, your opinion might have some value. Two points:
1. I am particularly touched that you have taken the time to peruse my comment history. What is surprising is the conclusion that you draw: that I "try to pass [myself] off as some kind of genious (sic)". Whilst I am flattered that you consider my writing the stuff of someone of advanced intellect (and, evidently, witty, because you must recognise it in order to dismiss it), I fail to understand how - given that it is unlikely that you know me - you feel able to judge that I am some kind of impostor. If memory serves, I have never claimed to be a genius, either on these pages or, indeed, elsewhere.
This Macworld writer is a fucking idiot. I'm willing to bet that the number of people who actually recompiled their kernel on Mac OS X can be counted on the fingers of, say, two hands. For that reason, this is a total non-issue. And as others have noted, this has been the case for quite a while and, well, most of the source is still open anyway.
Would that we could concentrate on some real news for a change.
Are you deliberately misunderstanding the situation, or are you just stupid? The piracy they refer to is the running of Mac OS X on Dell boxen, and, as others have noted, it has been this way for a while.
Indeed, and in this case, we are comparing a 729MHz PowerPC 970FX (i.e. what Apple were calling the G5 and which, by some accounts, is a pretty killer chip) with a 700MHz Intel Celeron. No contest really.:P
Still, it's certainly a valid observation that the jump between the GameCube's 485MHz chip and the Wii's 729MHz one is not particularly big - we shall have to wait and see whether that will matter. Personally, and given the pricing of Nintendo's previous offerings, I think it makes a $200 Wii a certainty.
As something of a Mac fanboy and not much of a gamer, I don't normally wade into these discussions, but the Wii has intrigued me, and the favourable view that most seem to take of Nintendo is rather reassuring - as Nintendo seems like the nice guy that ought to win, after all...
Anyway, the two graphs struck me as being a pretty poor effort on the part of a Sony fanboy to justify the gargantuan asking price of the PS3. That this was his sole intention is obvious from the fact that originally he did not even include the $600 price in his calculation, preferring to list only the crippled $500 model. At this juncture, some will point out that this was not unfair, as he did the same for the XBox 360, but remember that the missing features in the "crippled" XBox 360 are available separately, whereas the PS3 ones (i.e. like HDTV output) are not. Similar types also try to point out that the PS3 is the only true next-generation console, as the XBox 360 does not feature an HD-DVD drive by default - rather it requires an upgrade. Again, it should be obvious that this is a pretty spurious argument. Make no mistake about it - the only thing that really matters is the initial price, and with it set so high, this will prove a major deterrent.
So basically, it's a $600 console. When you look at that on the graph, whether adjusted for inflation or not, it is clear that it is a seriously pricey piece of kit. In fact, perversely, what the graph does show is that it is extremely likely that the PS3 will fail. Perhaps not horribly, because Sony has a significant fanbase upon which it can count for at least a reasonable showing at launch, but it will not sell well. It can't do - it is simply far too expensive.
In any case, the "inflation adjustment" argument is entirely bogus - it is, as I suggest above, nothing more than an attempt to "spin" the eminently undesirable $600 price tag into something slightly more palatable. What is far more important is the absolute cost difference between the PS3, the XBox 360 and the Wii, because at the end of the day, all three are - to most people anyway - just games consoles. The non-technical - parents, for example - will not be able to understand why whilst Nintendo's offering is $249 and Microsoft's a not insubstantial $399, Sony are asking $599 for their behemoth. It simply will not sell because of that. I can readily conceive of situations where children will ask for a PS3 for Christmas but be given a Wii or, at a stretch, an XBox 360, by budget-conscious parents who have looked that the prices of all three. They will doubtless be impressed by the all-round family appeal of the Wii.*
So Sony is pretty much preparing itself an enormous turkey - a flop of 3DO-esque proportions that this already beleaguered company really does not need at the present moment. In its desire to dominate the next generation format wars (i.e. by BluRay licensing), it is seeking to use the PS3 as a tool to promote the BluRay format. In this it will fail (for reasons eloquently explained here), and with a bit of luck, the champion of proprietary formats (witness Betamax, MD, UMD, MemoryStick...) and rootkits for all will implode under the weight of its own foolish arrogance.
May it bother us no more.
iqu:|
(* Nintendo have been particularly clever here, I think. There is much concern amongst a certain type of parent that kids are spending too much time in isolation, shut away in their rooms, shunning contact with the outside world.** Most of the current generation of video games encourage this - consider that Halo and GTA are not really the type of games that you might conceivably play with your own mother. But Mario is different. Mario is fun. The parents of the current generation of teenagers remember Mario if they had an old Game & Watch back in their younger days, and this, coupled again with the enormous price difference, can only work in Ni
I think you're spot on in your BluRay prediction, but just one minor point - the Japanese no longer think Sony can do no wrong. They are still obsessively brand-conscious, but Sony is not the darling it once was. Talk now is of the Sony timer, a reference to poor product lifespans, and anyway, in the console market, they love Nintendo more. I mean, it has cute puppies - who can compete with that!?
There was almost certainly a cost rationalisation behind the decision to drop FireWire support from the iPod, but it's also worth remembering that USB 2.0 is probably more appropriate than FireWire in the iPod too. Of course, when the original iPod came out, we only had USB 1.0, so FireWire offered a very significant speed benefit. It was one of the benefits that enabled Apple to charge a significant premium for the iPod, and made it very much worth the money.
But because of the slow speed of the iPod's internal hard drive, FireWire was always going to be overkill. Once USB 2.0 became standard on Macs, it was only going to be a matter of time before FireWire connectivity was removed from the iPod spec, especially once cost considerations were factored in.
But articles saying "Everything is OK, FireWire isn't dying" don't really generate the same kind of page views...
Hey, there is no need to be rude and insulting. You don't even know me.
Whoa, whoa, you must be new to these parts. This is Slashdot. Whilst in any other scenario you would indeed be correct, rude is the modus operandi here, so stop whining.
Anyway, to further comment...
...Why does that not work?
I was referring to the act of downloading music from the Internet rather than listening to it. I had thought that the former would have been particularly challenging in, say, the year of the album's release, given that that was quite some years before even the release of the Apples I and ][ (computers now, not records) and, well, about 30 years before the dawn of Napster. And, well, if you were listening 25 years ago, it still would have been pretty difficult to download tracks from the Net, so...well, I think you get my point:P
Anyway, fair cop on not paying much attention to label information, and especially the point you made in your original post - Geffen for the Eagles sprang to mind, but beyond that I got pretty stuck. Oh, Creation/EMI for Oasis and Food/Parlophone for Blur. I think Aerosmith are on Sony. But it doesn't go much further than that I'll admit. But the Beatles were different. Everyone* knows that the Beatles' label was Apple Records - at least, on this side of the pond, anyway.
As to paying attention to the covers - well, different strokes for different folks, I suppose. One of the reasons I continue to buy vinyl almost exclusively is because it just "feels" better, "feels" like more of a product and, oh, has a much bigger cover. Glorious. Sgt Pepper never looked so good.
Perhaps it's a matter of different minds at the end of the day. One might call me ridiculously inquisitive, but I'd probably have to read the label information once. Most of the time that information gets discarded (i.e. as with the artists' labels for most of my record collection), but sometimes it hangs around. I know I'm not the only one.
iqu:)
(* That might be an exaggeration, but it is well-known.)
I remember commenting on this before, and although one or two dismissed my suggestion that it was a braindead Americanism, others concurred, as did some here. The Yanks appeared to try to justify it by saying it was ironic and now a standard idiom, but in Britain at least, it is quite simply wrong, and "couldn't care less" is the correct term.
Personally I don't buy the justifications and believe it just boils down to pure stupidity, but then I am English, so of course I would think that.
Actually, Apple Corps were represented by Eversheds LLP, and it's a pretty safe bet that they use Microsoft Word for correspondence and court documents. Save for court forms, which will either be Adobe PDFs or Laserform.
I've been listening to the Beatles for over 25 years, but I had never heard of Apple Corps until the last legal altercation they had with Apple Computer.
Then either you need to wake up, or stop just downloading all your music from the Net...25 years ago. Hmmm. OK, that doesn't quite work, but didn't you ever wonder why there was a big fat apple on the CD? (Or, if you really were listening 25 years ago, in the middle of the record).
I've read those four over and over again and none of them make much sense. Neither does the original. The more I look at it the more absurd it becomes. Plus, it's late and I've been up for about 44 hours. It does things to the brain.
Of course, I've just realised what's jarring - it's the "us/they" thing, i.e. switching the person mid-sentence. I suppose it's not strictly incorrect, but it's bugging me.
Anyway, I can't help but wonder if he just meant "effete" as "effete", i.e. the typical Mac-using arty type, who is not necessarily gay (but, er, probably is, haha). I Googled and found this; I find the second sense - "an effete group of self-professed intellectuals" - to be particularly appropriate.
It's a grey area, and I know what you are getting at. But if we're moaning about media portrayals, I suggest we start with the more pressing matter of, say, Will & Grace, before moving on to disabuse poorly educated editors-in-chief* of the notion that all Mac users are gay.
iqu:)
(* Incidentally, what a fucking cunt he is. Every time I go to refer to the article, I have to see his big cunting grin in that userpic. Elsewhere I think I said I thought he looked like Darl McBride. Oh yes, and I have been drinking this evening.:P)
Re:The Article is Troll Bait, Don't Waste Your Tim
on
Boot Camp For Suckers?
·
· Score: 1
Idiot. It's humour. Read it again. Then, if you're still confused, ask a Brit to help you.
So it's a joke. It's still tasteless and crass. Would you print, say, a Polak joke in PC Magazine?
That's irrelevant. Quoth F12 (for I am, as it happens, a gay Mac user, yet I find myself baffled by your indignation):
effete: adjective (of a person) affected, overrefined, and ineffectual : effete trendies from art college. no longer capable of effective action : the authority of an effete aristocracy began to dwindle.
I didn't want to harp on with the American line too much, lest I got modded into oblivion, but, well, it was the first thought that sprang to mind. Licensing seems like a good idea.
You are undoubtedly right when you say that any lower ranking writer would have had it edited (or, with a spot of luck, it might not even have run in the first place), but, well, there we go. I presume the reason the article was only published two days ago (or, er, 5th March) was because he has spent so long writing it.
Besides, with that Vinny Slick grin, he reminds me of Darl Mc-fucking-Bride.
The whole article is supposed to be mildly sarcastic. I am British, so I can detect these things. It's not very well done, but it's the reason he links to himself calling himself "some idiot", and specifically namedrops Mac-compatible hardware (M-Audio and KONA) when wondering whether the stuff will be compatible or not.
Trouble is, it has rather gone over the average Slashdotter's head. He'll be laughing his arse off now.
I am English. I know sarcasm. It's what we do. And I think that's what he's trying to do here. It's not very well done, but there are little hints. It's why he links to himself and calls himself "some idiot". It's why he specifically mentions the M-Audio and Kona kit (the latter is Mac only). Of course it works with the Mac.
So all those who are praising him for his insight, for debunking the Mac myth - stop now. Same goes for the Mac fanbois who are trying to find fault with his article.
It's subtle, I'll allow that, but remember: always consult the nearest Brit before responding to something that sounds a little bit too stupid to be true. It probably is.
I've had numerous similar experiences with it over the years, and its elegant simplicity is always what wins me over in the end. Linux casts a wide net, and tries to be all things to all people, with the consequence that with things like driver support, it so frequently ends up being an ugly hack. Whereas with OpenBSD, if the hardware is supported, it works beautifully - wireless is a particularly good example of this.
I know that elsewhere on these pages I have likened OpenBSD (as a UNIX) to Mac OS X (as a desktop operating system) - both have an air of refinement and polish (even in text mode) that other OSes just lack. OpenBSD's install is a particularly good case in point - it is not particularly user-friendly in the conventional sense, but used in conjunction with the - as you say - excellent documentation, it makes light work of the task.
Slashdot Mirror
I must confess that I do not know the particulars, having never even considered attempting to recompile the Mac OS X kernel, so I'll take your word for it. The idea of token ring on a hand-crafted Mac OS X box is pretty cool though...
:)
iqu
(I said two hands, because I considered it likely that some twat on here would otherwise take me to task for, say, grossly underestimating the significance of this chilling decision. Hmmm. In any case, I seem to have pissed an anonymong off already...)
I'm not as impressed as the moderators by you or your need to point out that you're British, nor do I equate rudeness with wit.
:|
That's nice. Were you not anonymous, your opinion might have some value. Two points:
1. I am particularly touched that you have taken the time to peruse my comment history. What is surprising is the conclusion that you draw: that I "try to pass [myself] off as some kind of genious (sic)". Whilst I am flattered that you consider my writing the stuff of someone of advanced intellect (and, evidently, witty, because you must recognise it in order to dismiss it), I fail to understand how - given that it is unlikely that you know me - you feel able to judge that I am some kind of impostor. If memory serves, I have never claimed to be a genius, either on these pages or, indeed, elsewhere.
2. It's spelt "genius".
iqu
(Oh, and just for the record, Gentoo sucks.)
This Macworld writer is a fucking idiot. I'm willing to bet that the number of people who actually recompiled their kernel on Mac OS X can be counted on the fingers of, say, two hands. For that reason, this is a total non-issue. And as others have noted, this has been the case for quite a while and, well, most of the source is still open anyway.
:|
Would that we could concentrate on some real news for a change.
iqu
Are you deliberately misunderstanding the situation, or are you just stupid? The piracy they refer to is the running of Mac OS X on Dell boxen, and, as others have noted, it has been this way for a while.
:|
iqu
Indeed, and in this case, we are comparing a 729MHz PowerPC 970FX (i.e. what Apple were calling the G5 and which, by some accounts, is a pretty killer chip) with a 700MHz Intel Celeron. No contest really. :P
:)
Still, it's certainly a valid observation that the jump between the GameCube's 485MHz chip and the Wii's 729MHz one is not particularly big - we shall have to wait and see whether that will matter. Personally, and given the pricing of Nintendo's previous offerings, I think it makes a $200 Wii a certainty.
iqu
As something of a Mac fanboy and not much of a gamer, I don't normally wade into these discussions, but the Wii has intrigued me, and the favourable view that most seem to take of Nintendo is rather reassuring - as Nintendo seems like the nice guy that ought to win, after all...
:|
Anyway, the two graphs struck me as being a pretty poor effort on the part of a Sony fanboy to justify the gargantuan asking price of the PS3. That this was his sole intention is obvious from the fact that originally he did not even include the $600 price in his calculation, preferring to list only the crippled $500 model. At this juncture, some will point out that this was not unfair, as he did the same for the XBox 360, but remember that the missing features in the "crippled" XBox 360 are available separately, whereas the PS3 ones (i.e. like HDTV output) are not. Similar types also try to point out that the PS3 is the only true next-generation console, as the XBox 360 does not feature an HD-DVD drive by default - rather it requires an upgrade. Again, it should be obvious that this is a pretty spurious argument. Make no mistake about it - the only thing that really matters is the initial price, and with it set so high, this will prove a major deterrent.
So basically, it's a $600 console. When you look at that on the graph, whether adjusted for inflation or not, it is clear that it is a seriously pricey piece of kit. In fact, perversely, what the graph does show is that it is extremely likely that the PS3 will fail. Perhaps not horribly, because Sony has a significant fanbase upon which it can count for at least a reasonable showing at launch, but it will not sell well. It can't do - it is simply far too expensive.
In any case, the "inflation adjustment" argument is entirely bogus - it is, as I suggest above, nothing more than an attempt to "spin" the eminently undesirable $600 price tag into something slightly more palatable. What is far more important is the absolute cost difference between the PS3, the XBox 360 and the Wii, because at the end of the day, all three are - to most people anyway - just games consoles. The non-technical - parents, for example - will not be able to understand why whilst Nintendo's offering is $249 and Microsoft's a not insubstantial $399, Sony are asking $599 for their behemoth. It simply will not sell because of that. I can readily conceive of situations where children will ask for a PS3 for Christmas but be given a Wii or, at a stretch, an XBox 360, by budget-conscious parents who have looked that the prices of all three. They will doubtless be impressed by the all-round family appeal of the Wii.*
So Sony is pretty much preparing itself an enormous turkey - a flop of 3DO-esque proportions that this already beleaguered company really does not need at the present moment. In its desire to dominate the next generation format wars (i.e. by BluRay licensing), it is seeking to use the PS3 as a tool to promote the BluRay format. In this it will fail (for reasons eloquently explained here), and with a bit of luck, the champion of proprietary formats (witness Betamax, MD, UMD, MemoryStick...) and rootkits for all will implode under the weight of its own foolish arrogance.
May it bother us no more.
iqu
(* Nintendo have been particularly clever here, I think. There is much concern amongst a certain type of parent that kids are spending too much time in isolation, shut away in their rooms, shunning contact with the outside world.** Most of the current generation of video games encourage this - consider that Halo and GTA are not really the type of games that you might conceivably play with your own mother. But Mario is different. Mario is fun. The parents of the current generation of teenagers remember Mario if they had an old Game & Watch back in their younger days, and this, coupled again with the enormous price difference, can only work in Ni
I think you're spot on in your BluRay prediction, but just one minor point - the Japanese no longer think Sony can do no wrong. They are still obsessively brand-conscious, but Sony is not the darling it once was. Talk now is of the Sony timer, a reference to poor product lifespans, and anyway, in the console market, they love Nintendo more. I mean, it has cute puppies - who can compete with that!?
:P
iqu
So they can blame it on the hairy white foreign devil when it crashes and burns...?
:P
iqu
There was almost certainly a cost rationalisation behind the decision to drop FireWire support from the iPod, but it's also worth remembering that USB 2.0 is probably more appropriate than FireWire in the iPod too. Of course, when the original iPod came out, we only had USB 1.0, so FireWire offered a very significant speed benefit. It was one of the benefits that enabled Apple to charge a significant premium for the iPod, and made it very much worth the money.
:)
But because of the slow speed of the iPod's internal hard drive, FireWire was always going to be overkill. Once USB 2.0 became standard on Macs, it was only going to be a matter of time before FireWire connectivity was removed from the iPod spec, especially once cost considerations were factored in.
But articles saying "Everything is OK, FireWire isn't dying" don't really generate the same kind of page views...
iqu
It won't happen. The Japanese don't really do that sort of thing. Sony won't die either, but it will slowly limp further and further into obscurity.
:|
I'd say RIP, but I'd rather it burned horribly. Too many bad memories.
iqu
Two cases a busy few days of UK courts? I don't think so.
:D
Perhaps. But there's a good joke about civil servants in there somewhere...
iqu
Hey, there is no need to be rude and insulting. You don't even know me.
...Why does that not work?
:P
:)
Whoa, whoa, you must be new to these parts. This is Slashdot. Whilst in any other scenario you would indeed be correct, rude is the modus operandi here, so stop whining.
Anyway, to further comment...
I was referring to the act of downloading music from the Internet rather than listening to it. I had thought that the former would have been particularly challenging in, say, the year of the album's release, given that that was quite some years before even the release of the Apples I and ][ (computers now, not records) and, well, about 30 years before the dawn of Napster. And, well, if you were listening 25 years ago, it still would have been pretty difficult to download tracks from the Net, so...well, I think you get my point
Anyway, fair cop on not paying much attention to label information, and especially the point you made in your original post - Geffen for the Eagles sprang to mind, but beyond that I got pretty stuck. Oh, Creation/EMI for Oasis and Food/Parlophone for Blur. I think Aerosmith are on Sony. But it doesn't go much further than that I'll admit. But the Beatles were different. Everyone* knows that the Beatles' label was Apple Records - at least, on this side of the pond, anyway.
As to paying attention to the covers - well, different strokes for different folks, I suppose. One of the reasons I continue to buy vinyl almost exclusively is because it just "feels" better, "feels" like more of a product and, oh, has a much bigger cover. Glorious. Sgt Pepper never looked so good.
Perhaps it's a matter of different minds at the end of the day. One might call me ridiculously inquisitive, but I'd probably have to read the label information once. Most of the time that information gets discarded (i.e. as with the artists' labels for most of my record collection), but sometimes it hangs around. I know I'm not the only one.
iqu
(* That might be an exaggeration, but it is well-known.)
I remember commenting on this before, and although one or two dismissed my suggestion that it was a braindead Americanism, others concurred, as did some here. The Yanks appeared to try to justify it by saying it was ironic and now a standard idiom, but in Britain at least, it is quite simply wrong, and "couldn't care less" is the correct term.
:P
Personally I don't buy the justifications and believe it just boils down to pure stupidity, but then I am English, so of course I would think that.
iqu
But I've never heard of Apple Corp., I doubt a lot of consumers have heard of Apple Corp. even though they are a wealthy company.
:|
Just because you are ignorant does not make others so.
iqu
Actually, Apple Corps were represented by Eversheds LLP, and it's a pretty safe bet that they use Microsoft Word for correspondence and court documents. Save for court forms, which will either be Adobe PDFs or Laserform.
:P
iqu
I've been listening to the Beatles for over 25 years, but I had never heard of Apple Corps until the last legal altercation they had with Apple Computer.
:P
Then either you need to wake up, or stop just downloading all your music from the Net...25 years ago. Hmmm. OK, that doesn't quite work, but didn't you ever wonder why there was a big fat apple on the CD? (Or, if you really were listening 25 years ago, in the middle of the record).
iqu
Damn, someone who checks my post history...
:)
:P)
I've read those four over and over again and none of them make much sense. Neither does the original. The more I look at it the more absurd it becomes. Plus, it's late and I've been up for about 44 hours. It does things to the brain.
Of course, I've just realised what's jarring - it's the "us/they" thing, i.e. switching the person mid-sentence. I suppose it's not strictly incorrect, but it's bugging me.
Anyway, I can't help but wonder if he just meant "effete" as "effete", i.e. the typical Mac-using arty type, who is not necessarily gay (but, er, probably is, haha). I Googled and found this; I find the second sense - "an effete group of self-professed intellectuals" - to be particularly appropriate.
It's a grey area, and I know what you are getting at. But if we're moaning about media portrayals, I suggest we start with the more pressing matter of, say, Will & Grace, before moving on to disabuse poorly educated editors-in-chief* of the notion that all Mac users are gay.
iqu
(* Incidentally, what a fucking cunt he is. Every time I go to refer to the article, I have to see his big cunting grin in that userpic. Elsewhere I think I said I thought he looked like Darl McBride. Oh yes, and I have been drinking this evening.
Idiot. It's humour. Read it again. Then, if you're still confused, ask a Brit to help you.
:|
Twat.
iqu
So it's a joke. It's still tasteless and crass. Would you print, say, a Polak joke in PC Magazine?
:|
That's irrelevant. Quoth F12 (for I am, as it happens, a gay Mac user, yet I find myself baffled by your indignation):
effete: adjective (of a person) affected, overrefined, and ineffectual : effete trendies from art college.
no longer capable of effective action : the authority of an effete aristocracy began to dwindle.
I think the first sense fits remarkably well.
iqu
You'd exect (sic) this sort of thing from a random blogger or Slashdotter, not the freakin' editor-in-chief of PC Magazine.
:|
Yes you would because it's a joke, damnit! A lame effort, granted, but an effort nonetheless.
*sigh*
iqu
hehe
:|
I didn't want to harp on with the American line too much, lest I got modded into oblivion, but, well, it was the first thought that sprang to mind. Licensing seems like a good idea.
You are undoubtedly right when you say that any lower ranking writer would have had it edited (or, with a spot of luck, it might not even have run in the first place), but, well, there we go. I presume the reason the article was only published two days ago (or, er, 5th March) was because he has spent so long writing it.
Besides, with that Vinny Slick grin, he reminds me of Darl Mc-fucking-Bride.
iqu
The whole article is supposed to be mildly sarcastic. I am British, so I can detect these things. It's not very well done, but it's the reason he links to himself calling himself "some idiot", and specifically namedrops Mac-compatible hardware (M-Audio and KONA) when wondering whether the stuff will be compatible or not.
:P
Trouble is, it has rather gone over the average Slashdotter's head. He'll be laughing his arse off now.
iqu
It's not a "non-biased (sic)" article about Apple. It's humour. This is where you say, "D'oh!"
:P
iqu
Guys, guys, guys! Calm down, calm down!
:P
I think he's trying to be funny.
I am English. I know sarcasm. It's what we do. And I think that's what he's trying to do here. It's not very well done, but there are little hints. It's why he links to himself and calls himself "some idiot". It's why he specifically mentions the M-Audio and Kona kit (the latter is Mac only). Of course it works with the Mac.
So all those who are praising him for his insight, for debunking the Mac myth - stop now. Same goes for the Mac fanbois who are trying to find fault with his article.
It's subtle, I'll allow that, but remember: always consult the nearest Brit before responding to something that sounds a little bit too stupid to be true. It probably is.
iqu
Hear hear.
:)
I've had numerous similar experiences with it over the years, and its elegant simplicity is always what wins me over in the end. Linux casts a wide net, and tries to be all things to all people, with the consequence that with things like driver support, it so frequently ends up being an ugly hack. Whereas with OpenBSD, if the hardware is supported, it works beautifully - wireless is a particularly good example of this.
I know that elsewhere on these pages I have likened OpenBSD (as a UNIX) to Mac OS X (as a desktop operating system) - both have an air of refinement and polish (even in text mode) that other OSes just lack. OpenBSD's install is a particularly good case in point - it is not particularly user-friendly in the conventional sense, but used in conjunction with the - as you say - excellent documentation, it makes light work of the task.
Long may it continue.
iqu