I'm with 'ya on that! God knows Open Source can do without the images in the press of RMS picking fleas out of his beard as he pontificates on Socialism.
I have got two points of karma that say: While the parent may be flamebait, he also speaks the truth.
Anyone silly enough to doubt this needs to have a serious look at this craziness.
This is not a joke, you need to rethink your assumptions.
Gentoo is a fine choice for production servers, provided you are prepared to use the latest version of all software.
Debian with the most recent 2.[46] kernel will run on the widest variety of hardware of any distribution. This includes all new hardware that works with kernel.org sources.
- "Rolling upgrades" is how Gentoo handles "this is a security problem". This suits my needs.
If it doesn't suit yours, don't use Gentoo, because I highly doubt this is going to change anytime soon. There is no sense competing directly with Debian stable. Gentoo does not security patch old versions, it's as simple as that.
- The documentation should be in make.conf.example, but none of that stuff should be on by default. Enable it if you need it.
Collision-protect is not a crucial feature, but I agree that it would be nice if it worked, and it probably will work soon.
> the best balance of stability, high-level support options, security, rapid updates, and ease of administration
Surely Gentoo delivers the best balance of the above. The only real disadvantage is compilation time, but that can be negated by nice'ing long emerges overnight.
Now, if stability and security are paramount I would go with Debian stable. But Gentoo is light years ahead of all contenders in the rapid updates department.
Since when does having three of the top 20 spots: the Shanghai Supercomputer Center's Dawning 4000A at #10, the Los Alamos National Laboratory's Lightning at #11 and the Grid Technology Research Center's Super Cluster P-32 at #19 not qualify as hitting the top500 list ?
The mini is no good for serious gaming, it won't compile things quickly enough, and it doesn't have enough storage. I shan't elaborate, however, since I got Basil to admit that the Mini doesn't fit my needs and I don't feel like rehashing the same argument with you.
> Perhaps you neglected to include the part of the comment where you promised to describe something that would work just as well but would cost less. I didn't find that part in your comment.
Now that I understand how the Xserve works, I could describe an AMD64 system that costs less and outclasses the Xserve in terms of hardware, but it is really not worth the trouble if you require your server to run Open Directory, Filemaker, Meeting Maker, etc. I see now that it doesn't make sense for a primarily OS X shop to have a Linux server to quite the same extent as it does for a primarily Windows shop to have Linux servers (such as were I work). You see, a lot of effort has been put into making Linux servers useful on Windows networks, but no one has bothered to do as much for OS X because it's fairly irrelevant in the large scheme of things (think of the 95% figure, if you're lost).
But it is these kind of mindless statements:
> a front-end application on Windows or Linux would not, by definition, be useful
> A "free operating system" which cannot run any useful software. Absurd.
> Writing software for anything other than a Mac is an exercise in nostalgia. It's a waste of time.
..that net you a spot on my foes list. You may have raised a few interesting points earlier in our discussion, but I refuse to speak with anyone that incapable of objective thought.
> Thanks, but it was kind of a waste of time. We're not going to be talking about any of those things. Because they're irrelevant, you see. It's all about the software.
The software is not relevant to the fact that you cannot buy similarly priced PPC-based hardware that will compete favorably with the suggested $800 AMD64.
The software is only relevant to the fact that you are unwilling to use anything else. I place no such restrictions on myself, and neither do 95% of computer users.
> You have that backwards, and a little sideways. You cannot purchase nor assemble a non-Mac computer at any price that can do what a Mac can do for $499. Why? Because of the software.
As has been discussed, a Mac mini does not fit my needs. In fact, no Apple computer -- costing less than twice as much as my AMD64 -- really would.
> Please explain why inexpensive, multi-sourced hardware that can't do anything useful is superior to expensive (at $499), single-sourced hardware that does do useful things.
What I would do with an $800 system, the Mac Mini cannot do. The fact that it costs $300 less is of zero relevance, because it does not fit my needs.
> No, just failing to understand what you read.
Maybe you can help me with this. I said:
"OS X would be based on the Linux kernel if it weren't for the GPL. But no, Apple turned to BSD code"
Apple.com said:
> The BSD portion of the Mac OS X kernel is derived primarily from FreeBSD, a version of 4.4BSD that offers advanced networking, performance, security, and compatibility features. BSD variants in general are derived (sometimes indirectly) from 4.4BSD-Lite Release 2 from the Computer Systems Research Group (CSRG) at the University of California at Berkeley. BSD provides many advanced features, including the following:
Sure sounds like BSD code to me.
> I think it's a little deceptive to say that you've done anything of the kind "at last," because it's never come up before my last message. But of course PCs are better suited toward success in a marketplace where people like to buy cheap, poorly made computers that can't be used for anything useful. This surprises no one.
You got the cheap part right, at least. As in less expensive. My poorly made computer runs just fine, and is faster than any Apple machine you can buy in its price range.
> I'm lost. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
What I meant was painfully obvious, but I can go on paraphrasing myself indefinately if it will help: The iPod was only successful because it works with PCs. If it had only worked with Macs, it wouldn't have been successful.
> An absurd comparison, and you know it. You would seriously sit there and put computer software that lets freelancers create beautiful things (my things are merely pretty, but I aspire to beauty someday) and make money like it's going out of style on the same plane as arcade games? Once again, friend, I think you're not understanding the distinction between a tool with practical uses and a glorified Nintendo.
I see you are incapable of understanding that entertainment is a practical use. And that I have no interest in creating movies, thus my AMD64 system fits my needs like a glove (as well as many others' disparate needs). As no Mac would.
> Sigh. Piracy is not a legitimate use of one's time or one's tools.
Yeah. Fair use is such a bitch.
> Of course you will not, because others before you have tried and failed. The Xserve RAID is the best storage system in its class, and also happens to be the least expensive.
You want "specs?" I guess your Web browsing finger is broken or something, but let me give you some bullet points to contemplate: Seven 400 GB hard drives in a RAID-5 6+1 configuration, plus seven empty bays for more drives that I haven't needed to fill yet. Dual battery-back
Hardware counts. Hardware is, in fact, just as important as Software.
You just have to consider the two as seperate, distinct, modular components... which is difficult for macheads to do since they're so used to being vendor-locked into the one-company-and-size-fits-all mentality.
I'll tell you what the point is: No amount of slick interfacing will compensate for slow performance on the dollar.
For those of us who know what we are doing, the later is much bigger drawback than the former would be advantageous.
But go ahead, pay twice the money* for your pretty colors and dumbed-down, single-button, drag-n-drop, one-size-fits-all goodness-ness.
*this of course is in reference to full desktop systems. If the Mac Mini fits your needs then great. As you well pointed out yourself, it doesn't fit mine. And no Apple system under ~$2000 really does. But I only payed ~$1000.
You are ignoring my careful use of the word "context". Let us revisit what you said:
> You really are living in your own world. Which is fine and all. It's just kind of a shame that it's about ten years behind the rest of us.
Now I don't know about where you come from, but around here "in your own world" implies that one is living in an imaginative world inside their mind, and of their own devising. So from where I'm sitting, you were saying that I am a delusional x86 user, whereas "the rest of us" (that other 99.99999999999% of humanity) are somehow in the know about how kewl Apple is.
Back to business:
OSS stands for Open Source Software, as any/.er worth his salt soon learns.
Lets also clear up architecture nomanclature as you seem to be confused:
x86 is analogous to PPC. AMD64 is a superset of x86 PPC64 is a superset of PPC So AMD64 is to x86 as PPC64 is to PPC.
A Mac-centric explanation of what this means in the real world is:
x86 chips such as the Pentium 4 are analogous to PPC chips like the G4, only faster and cheaper.
and
AMD64 chips such as the Athlon64 are analogous to PPC64 chips like the G5, only faster and cheaper.
Get it? I hope so. Consult wikipedia and some hardware sites if you are still unclear on this.
Now let's look at how you decide to conveniently introduce the Mac Mini under the guise of a "full desktop machine", and just as conveniently stop talking about it when it comes to discussing storage:
> But they obviously cannot compete when it comes to producing a full desktop machine cheaply.
> Four hundred and ninety-nine dollars
[for the Mac Mini] isn't cheap? That's including $200 worth of top-quality software, too, so the actual price of the computer alone-if you could buy it that way -would be about $300. That's pretty darned cheap by anybody's estimation.
> You forgot inexpensive gigabytes of storage.
> I'm still not awed, I'm sorry to say. The price of a PC hard drive is precisely the same as a Mac hard drive;since there's no such thing as a "PC hard drive" or a "Mac hard drive." I have a
terabyte of storage in my G4, in the form of four 250-gigabyte hard drives. I paid the same price for mine as you paid for yours.
Think about this, please. Be objective. I'm sure even an Apple-centric fan like you can figure it out if you think long and hard enough.
But I will restate my point lest you choose to get sidetracked again: You simply cannot purchase nor assemble a similarly priced PPC-based hardware that will compete favorably with the suggested $800 AMD64.
> But of course this is a new development. It's only reasonable that you haven't wrapped your head around it yet. Paradigm-changing ideas are hard to absorb all at once. So let's take the Mac mini out of it. Apple is making money hand over fist by selling exceptional products at high prices. Explain to me, please, what's wrong with that business model?
It is wrong because it vendor-locks you to expensive, proprietary hardware. In particular, it fails miserably when pitted against the competition on an $800 budget. Or more generally speaking: on a $700-$1400 budget. But lets not go there just yet.
> Here is a hint: OS X would be based on the Linux kernel if it weren't for the GPL. But no, Apple turned to BSD code
> Once again, you're confused about the basic facts before us. Apple's kernel is entirely home-written.
> I'm not sure where this "x86" business came from.
Well then why am I sure where this "PPC" business came from, if it is only on ~5% of all machines? Maybe you should educate yourself!
> You're trying to say that you think PCs are good because they're popular?
No, I am trying to say that your use of that quantifier was incorrect in context. Mac users are "the few of us".
> How often, in your experience, is the popular thing also the best thing?
Often enough for the burden of proof to lie on that which is not popular. I find myself wondering if you really understand how capitalism works. Do you understand "survival of the fittest" ?
How many times has Apple *almost* gone bankrupt. Didn't they get bailed out by Microsoft on at least one occasion? If Apple's products were that great, they wouldn't be having so much trouble. Or maybe it's that Apples products are great, they're just too expensive and incompatible to really catch on? Maybe they are finally beginning to learn their lesson... OSX was a huge break, and the the Mac Mini certainly seems like a step in the right direction. But they obviously cannot compete when it comes to producing a full desktop machine cheaply.
> Thus far all I've heard is "I have this many gigabytes of storage" and "I am going to school to learn to write terrible software of my very own." You forgot inexpensive gigabytes of storage. My point is that no Mac offers anything remotely similar for the price.
Yeah, right.. the linux kernel is terrible, terrible software. Here is a hint: OS X would be based on the Linux kernel if it weren't for the GPL. But no, Apple turned to BSD code for salvation because that is the only way they could freeload from OSS and not have to fully open source the internals of OS X. Just like Microsoft copying the BSD TCP/IP stack, really.
> I'd very much like to hear about something productive that you do with your worse-than-useless computers and your terrible software.
Worse-than-useless? I'm posting here, at least. Not exactly "useless". I gave you a good idea of what I do, and I hardly think a jury of peers would classify it as being useless ad unproductive. Terrible.. well, now you are getting subjective. Not that I would expect a zealot like you to be capable of much else.
But how about we switch roles for a change. Since you are, after all, clearly in the minority, how about you share with "the rest of us"* a few "productive" and "useful" things you can do with your aerodynamic hardware, that I cannot do on my worse-than-useless computer?
*here I am using that quantifier in the correct context. Just an FYI, you know, in case you failed English.
> Robbed of sarcasm, you said that you are unhappy that I think Mac OS X is good and that other operating systems are bad.
No, robbed of sarcasm I am upset that you classify all x86 software as "shitty".
> What would be "a proper x86 program?" I haven't the foggiest idea what that expression is intended to mean.
One that isn't "shitty."
> You really are living in your own world.
I believe that particular phrase would be better applied to Macs users, who as you well know constitute ~5% of the market.
> Which is fine and all. It's just kind of a shame that it's about ten years behind the rest of us.
The rest of us? How the hell does ~5% of computer users even begin to qualify as "the rest of us" ?
> All I got out of that is that you're a college kid who thinks that the number of hard drives attached to his computer is going to impress somebody.
My hard drives are not meant to impress anybody, I was just pointing out that you can't get a similarly configured PPC machine for anywhere near that low of a pricetag!
Moreover, the only reason I made that post was because Basil asked what I do with my computers. And the only reason I linked to it here is because you said:
> You certainly won't be doing anything useful or productive with [your computers]."
here is an example of someone who may have been wondering. But even if he wasn't, I just wanted to make it clear to everyone that you are a particularly good embodiment of the phrase.
I am *not* upset over the fact that people care about what their computers can be used for rather than about how many bits can dance on the head of a pin.
I *am* upset over the fact that people like you seem to think OSX is A Divine Gift To All Mankind, whle classifying all x86 software as being "shitty".
Tell me, is iTunes "shitty" simply because it runs on x86?
(well actually, it *is* "shitty", but for another reason: Apple has no experience in how to write a proper x86 program. Not that I would have expected them to... quicktime for x86 has always been "shitty" as hell)
As for me doing useful or productive things, here is a short description of the kind of stuff I do with my hellspawn, non-Apple computer.
FYI, there is a lot of "non-PC and non-Mac specific software" via which *DIRECT* performance comparisons can be made. That is why I mentioned YellowDog, so you could get it through your thick skull that I wanted an apples to apples performance comparison (no pun intended).
As I have made clear earlier, I think the concept of "best" entails not only benchmarks (that is to say, direct price/performance comparisons), but also weighs the ability to make use of a larger variety of commodity hardware and software.
I saw that Cell article, and this comment sums up my reaction.
In particular, I refuse to give any credence to anything that mentiones the G5/970fx by name and implies they are better than anything x86 has to offer, while refusing to consider the direct competition: AMD64.
It would be like me comparing an old G4 Mac to an AMD64 hot off the line and completely ignoring the G5.t
The $800 question is relevant because there is no PPC system availeable near that price that would even come close in terms of performance. You would pretty much have to spend at least $1500 on a low-end G5, and even the $800 AMD64 hardware would still best it.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone silly enough to doubt this needs to have a serious look at this craziness.
Then you use Debian stable. It's quite simple really. Not everyone is a part of what you call a 'real production environment'.
This is not a joke, you need to rethink your assumptions.
Gentoo is a fine choice for production servers, provided you are prepared to use the latest version of all software.
Debian with the most recent 2.[46] kernel will run on the widest variety of hardware of any distribution. This includes all new hardware that works with kernel.org sources.
- "Rolling upgrades" is how Gentoo handles "this is a security problem". This suits my needs.
If it doesn't suit yours, don't use Gentoo, because I highly doubt this is going to change anytime soon. There is no sense competing directly with Debian stable. Gentoo does not security patch old versions, it's as simple as that.
- The documentation should be in make.conf.example, but none of that stuff should be on by default. Enable it if you need it.
Collision-protect is not a crucial feature, but I agree that it would be nice if it worked, and it probably will work soon.
Ubuntu is awesome for desktops but I would not touch a server with it. That is what Debian stable is for...
> the best balance of stability, high-level support options, security, rapid updates, and ease of administration
Surely Gentoo delivers the best balance of the above. The only real disadvantage is compilation time, but that can be negated by nice'ing long emerges overnight.
Now, if stability and security are paramount I would go with Debian stable. But Gentoo is light years ahead of all contenders in the rapid updates department.
Don't forget Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD.
Since when does having three of the top 20 spots: the Shanghai Supercomputer Center's Dawning 4000A at #10, the Los Alamos National Laboratory's Lightning at #11 and the Grid Technology Research Center's Super Cluster P-32 at #19 not qualify as hitting the top500 list ?
Yeah. Kind of similar to ASide, only mispelt.
Well it is one aspect, but definately an important one. Worth considering...
You'll have to excuse me if I am no longer pay close attention to thise thread.
Now are you going to answer my questions or not?
The mini is no good for serious gaming, it won't compile things quickly enough, and it doesn't have enough storage. I shan't elaborate, however, since I got Basil to admit that the Mini doesn't fit my needs and I don't feel like rehashing the same argument with you.
> Perhaps you neglected to include the part of the comment where you promised to describe something that would work just as well but would cost less. I didn't find that part in your comment.
Now that I understand how the Xserve works, I could describe an AMD64 system that costs less and outclasses the Xserve in terms of hardware, but it is really not worth the trouble if you require your server to run Open Directory, Filemaker, Meeting Maker, etc. I see now that it doesn't make sense for a primarily OS X shop to have a Linux server to quite the same extent as it does for a primarily Windows shop to have Linux servers (such as were I work). You see, a lot of effort has been put into making Linux servers useful on Windows networks, but no one has bothered to do as much for OS X because it's fairly irrelevant in the large scheme of things (think of the 95% figure, if you're lost).
But it is these kind of mindless statements:
> a front-end application on Windows or Linux would not, by definition, be useful
> A "free operating system" which cannot run any useful software. Absurd.
> Writing software for anything other than a Mac is an exercise in nostalgia. It's a waste of time.
..that net you a spot on my foes list. You may have raised a few interesting points earlier in our discussion, but I refuse to speak with anyone that incapable of objective thought.
Enjoy *your* world.
> Thanks, but it was kind of a waste of time. We're not going to be talking about any of those things. Because they're irrelevant, you see. It's all about the software.
The software is not relevant to the fact that you cannot buy similarly priced PPC-based hardware that will compete favorably with the suggested $800 AMD64.
The software is only relevant to the fact that you are unwilling to use anything else. I place no such restrictions on myself, and neither do 95% of computer users.
> You have that backwards, and a little sideways. You cannot purchase nor assemble a non-Mac computer at any price that can do what a Mac can do for $499. Why? Because of the software.
As has been discussed, a Mac mini does not fit my needs. In fact, no Apple computer -- costing less than twice as much as my AMD64 -- really would.
> Please explain why inexpensive, multi-sourced hardware that can't do anything useful is superior to expensive (at $499), single-sourced hardware that does do useful things.
What I would do with an $800 system, the Mac Mini cannot do. The fact that it costs $300 less is of zero relevance, because it does not fit my needs.
> No, just failing to understand what you read.
Maybe you can help me with this. I said:
"OS X would be based on the Linux kernel if it weren't for the GPL. But no, Apple turned to BSD code"
Apple.com said:
> The BSD portion of the Mac OS X kernel is derived primarily from FreeBSD, a version of 4.4BSD that offers advanced networking, performance, security, and compatibility features. BSD variants in general are derived (sometimes indirectly) from 4.4BSD-Lite Release 2 from the Computer Systems Research Group (CSRG) at the University of California at Berkeley. BSD provides many advanced features, including the following:
Sure sounds like BSD code to me.
> I think it's a little deceptive to say that you've done anything of the kind "at last," because it's never come up before my last message. But of course PCs are better suited toward success in a marketplace where people like to buy cheap, poorly made computers that can't be used for anything useful. This surprises no one.
You got the cheap part right, at least. As in less expensive. My poorly made computer runs just fine, and is faster than any Apple machine you can buy in its price range.
> I'm lost. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
What I meant was painfully obvious, but I can go on paraphrasing myself indefinately if it will help: The iPod was only successful because it works with PCs. If it had only worked with Macs, it wouldn't have been successful.
> An absurd comparison, and you know it. You would seriously sit there and put computer software that lets freelancers create beautiful things (my things are merely pretty, but I aspire to beauty someday) and make money like it's going out of style on the same plane as arcade games? Once again, friend, I think you're not understanding the distinction between a tool with practical uses and a glorified Nintendo.
I see you are incapable of understanding that entertainment is a practical use. And that I have no interest in creating movies, thus my AMD64 system fits my needs like a glove (as well as many others' disparate needs). As no Mac would.
> Sigh. Piracy is not a legitimate use of one's time or one's tools.
Yeah. Fair use is such a bitch.
> Of course you will not, because others before you have tried and failed. The Xserve RAID is the best storage system in its class, and also happens to be the least expensive.
You want "specs?" I guess your Web browsing finger is broken or something, but let me give you some bullet points to contemplate: Seven 400 GB hard drives in a RAID-5 6+1 configuration, plus seven empty bays for more drives that I haven't needed to fill yet. Dual battery-back
You want to make this about speed? Awesome, now we can use real numbers. But before we begin...
Are you suggesting OS X on a Mac Mini would be faster than $OTHER_OS on an AMD64? Or that you'd need G5?
> Needless to say i practice repartitioning a lot :)
And yet you are aparently unversed in the complex art of having multiple operating systems installed simultatneously on multiple partitions...
Oh? And what would software be without hardware?
A printout of 1s and 0s ?
Hardware counts. Hardware is, in fact, just as important as Software.
You just have to consider the two as seperate, distinct, modular components... which is difficult for macheads to do since they're so used to being vendor-locked into the one-company-and-size-fits-all mentality.
I'll tell you what the point is: No amount of slick interfacing will compensate for slow performance on the dollar.
For those of us who know what we are doing, the later is much bigger drawback than the former would be advantageous.
But go ahead, pay twice the money* for your pretty colors and dumbed-down, single-button, drag-n-drop, one-size-fits-all goodness-ness.
*this of course is in reference to full desktop systems. If the Mac Mini fits your needs then great. As you well pointed out yourself, it doesn't fit mine. And no Apple system under ~$2000 really does. But I only payed ~$1000.
> You really are living in your own world. Which is fine and all. It's just kind of a shame that it's about ten years behind the rest of us.
Now I don't know about where you come from, but around here "in your own world" implies that one is living in an imaginative world inside their mind, and of their own devising. So from where I'm sitting, you were saying that I am a delusional x86 user, whereas "the rest of us" (that other 99.99999999999% of humanity) are somehow in the know about how kewl Apple is.
Back to business:
OSS stands for Open Source Software, as any
Lets also clear up architecture nomanclature as you seem to be confused:
x86 is analogous to PPC.
AMD64 is a superset of x86
PPC64 is a superset of PPC
So AMD64 is to x86 as PPC64 is to PPC.
A Mac-centric explanation of what this means in the real world is:
x86 chips such as the Pentium 4 are analogous to PPC chips like the G4, only faster and cheaper.
and
AMD64 chips such as the Athlon64 are analogous to PPC64 chips like the G5, only faster and cheaper.
Get it? I hope so. Consult wikipedia and some hardware sites if you are still unclear on this.
Now let's look at how you decide to conveniently introduce the Mac Mini under the guise of a "full desktop machine", and just as conveniently stop talking about it when it comes to discussing storage:
Think about this, please. Be objective. I'm sure even an Apple-centric fan like you can figure it out if you think long and hard enough.
But I will restate my point lest you choose to get sidetracked again: You simply cannot purchase nor assemble a similarly priced PPC-based hardware that will compete favorably with the suggested $800 AMD64.
> But of course this is a new development. It's only reasonable that you haven't wrapped your head around it yet. Paradigm-changing ideas are hard to absorb all at once. So let's take the Mac mini out of it. Apple is making money hand over fist by selling exceptional products at high prices. Explain to me, please, what's wrong with that business model?
It is wrong because it vendor-locks you to expensive, proprietary hardware. In particular, it fails miserably when pitted against the competition on an $800 budget. Or more generally speaking: on a $700-$1400 budget. But lets not go there just yet.
My bad. I must have been imagining things
> That is to say, to be fittest is not necessarily to be good by
Well I am pretty sure a PCI ramdisk/drive is what the submitter wants...
Does anyone understand why someone would consider the above a troll?
> I'm not sure where this "x86" business came from.
Well then why am I sure where this "PPC" business came from, if it is only on ~5% of all machines? Maybe you should educate yourself!
> You're trying to say that you think PCs are good because they're popular?
No, I am trying to say that your use of that quantifier was incorrect in context. Mac users are "the few of us".
> How often, in your experience, is the popular thing also the best thing?
Often enough for the burden of proof to lie on that which is not popular. I find myself wondering if you really understand how capitalism works. Do you understand "survival of the fittest" ?
How many times has Apple *almost* gone bankrupt. Didn't they get bailed out by Microsoft on at least one occasion? If Apple's products were that great, they wouldn't be having so much trouble. Or maybe it's that Apples products are great, they're just too expensive and incompatible to really catch on? Maybe they are finally beginning to learn their lesson... OSX was a huge break, and the the Mac Mini certainly seems like a step in the right direction. But they obviously cannot compete when it comes to producing a full desktop machine cheaply.
> Thus far all I've heard is "I have this many gigabytes of storage" and "I am going to school to learn to write terrible software of my very own."
You forgot inexpensive gigabytes of storage. My point is that no Mac offers anything remotely similar for the price.
Yeah, right.. the linux kernel is terrible, terrible software. Here is a hint: OS X would be based on the Linux kernel if it weren't for the GPL. But no, Apple turned to BSD code for salvation because that is the only way they could freeload from OSS and not have to fully open source the internals of OS X. Just like Microsoft copying the BSD TCP/IP stack, really.
> I'd very much like to hear about something productive that you do with your worse-than-useless computers and your terrible software.
Worse-than-useless? I'm posting here, at least. Not exactly "useless". I gave you a good idea of what I do, and I hardly think a jury of peers would classify it as being useless ad unproductive. Terrible.. well, now you are getting subjective. Not that I would expect a zealot like you to be capable of much else.
But how about we switch roles for a change. Since you are, after all, clearly in the minority, how about you share with "the rest of us"* a few "productive" and "useful" things you can do with your aerodynamic hardware, that I cannot do on my worse-than-useless computer?
*here I am using that quantifier in the correct context. Just an FYI, you know, in case you failed English.
> Robbed of sarcasm, you said that you are unhappy that I think Mac OS X is good and that other operating systems are bad.
No, robbed of sarcasm I am upset that you classify all x86 software as "shitty".
> What would be "a proper x86 program?" I haven't the foggiest idea what that expression is intended to mean.
One that isn't "shitty."
> You really are living in your own world.
I believe that particular phrase would be better applied to Macs users, who as you well know constitute ~5% of the market.
> Which is fine and all. It's just kind of a shame that it's about ten years behind the rest of us.
The rest of us? How the hell does ~5% of computer users even begin to qualify as "the rest of us" ?
> All I got out of that is that you're a college kid who thinks that the number of hard drives attached to his computer is going to impress somebody.
My hard drives are not meant to impress anybody, I was just pointing out that you can't get a similarly configured PPC machine for anywhere near that low of a pricetag!
Moreover, the only reason I made that post was because Basil asked what I do with my computers. And the only reason I linked to it here is because you said:
> You certainly won't be doing anything useful or productive with [your computers]."
which is categorically false.
here is an example of someone who may have been wondering. But even if he wasn't, I just wanted to make it clear to everyone that you are a particularly good embodiment of the phrase.
I am *not* upset over the fact that people care about what their computers can be used for rather than about how many bits can dance on the head of a pin.
I *am* upset over the fact that people like you seem to think OSX is A Divine Gift To All Mankind, whle classifying all x86 software as being "shitty".
Tell me, is iTunes "shitty" simply because it runs on x86?
(well actually, it *is* "shitty", but for another reason: Apple has no experience in how to write a proper x86 program. Not that I would have expected them to... quicktime for x86 has always been "shitty" as hell)
As for me doing useful or productive things, here is a short description of the kind of stuff I do with my hellspawn, non-Apple computer.
FYI, there is a lot of "non-PC and non-Mac specific software" via which *DIRECT* performance comparisons can be made. That is why I mentioned YellowDog, so you could get it through your thick skull that I wanted an apples to apples performance comparison (no pun intended).
As I have made clear earlier, I think the concept of "best" entails not only benchmarks (that is to say, direct price/performance comparisons), but also weighs the ability to make use of a larger variety of commodity hardware and software.
I saw that Cell article, and this comment sums up my reaction.
In particular, I refuse to give any credence to anything that mentiones the G5/970fx by name and implies they are better than anything x86 has to offer, while refusing to consider the direct competition: AMD64.
It would be like me comparing an old G4 Mac to an AMD64 hot off the line and completely ignoring the G5.t
If anyone was wondering where the phrase "quasi-religious fascination with OSX" came from, this is precisely the sort of attitude it refers to.
The $800 question is relevant because there is no PPC system availeable near that price that would even come close in terms of performance. You would pretty much have to spend at least $1500 on a low-end G5, and even the $800 AMD64 hardware would still best it.