But why does Apple and OSX being x86 change anything? Most of the differences in the programming model would be handled by the compiler and should be independant of the architecture. If these developers are leaving Linux, it's not because Apple went x86. From a programming perspective, unless they are doing kernel or driver work, it shouldn't make a difference.
Take a look at this add for the Mac mini: Introducing Mac mini If you look very, very, closely you'll find a single throwaway line that mentions UNIX. Apple doesn't market *nix, Apple markets Apple.
That's my point, exactly. Apple markets Apple and if the mass market sees that OSX is cool and wants to emulate it on their existing hardware (or new hardware if they can't afford Apple Hardware), Linux is the logical next best choice.
The mass market doesn't care what's under the hood (that's why the PPC to x86 isn't a big thing), only how it looks. A desktop oriented distro that can mimic a lot of the look and feel and coolness of OSX would be a shoe-in. Since most of the OSX appeal with the public is only skin deep (it is after all BSD), those changes to Linux should be fairly superficial to mimic. (For developers, that's a different story, Apple's appeal is about tools and the platform).
Maybe KDE will be the interface for those people wanting emulate Windows and Gnome would be the OSX choice. Who knows? The point is, to see the danger to Windows and the benefit to Linux (or the BSDs) you have to think like a marketer and not a geek.
Of course your assuming that no one will pick up those projects and develop for them. Most likely, if there is demand, somebody will continue to develop them. That's the advantage of open source. It's also quite possible that he will still want to run his creation on OSX and continue to develop them. As such, it should be relatively straight forward to backport any changes since OSX is BSD under the surface.
It's also quite possible that other Linux developers will end up developing for both systems, since they are similar. If so, that can only be a good thing.
Now if they were jumping to Windows, then that would be a problem.
In actuality, it is not any different. But the perception will be. People have a hard time differentiated between Apple and Wintel computers now. Sure, Apple comes out with new features, but they are copied pretty quickly. Once Apple computers start having an Intel Inside sticker on them, the mass market will think of the hardware just as any other computer from Dell, Gateway, etc. However, this computer has neat stuff that their Dell, Gateway, etc. doesn't -- OSX.
If OSX catches the public's eye, because it is now running on what the public believes is just another laptop or desktop (again, the computer will say Intel Inside, just like theirs does at home), they'll want those cool features.
Unfortunately, Windows won't provide them and OSX won't run on their standard Wintel box. But, in steps Linux. While not the same as OSX, it is very similar and can be made to mimic a lot of features, so that the public wanting that "me too" experience will be able to get, say 80% of it.
Those people, wanting the "me too" experience without wanting to purchase a new computer, would be Windows users. If Windows lost even 5% of it's installed base in this manner, while not a big blow to Microsoft, it would be a tremendous surge in Linux.
If Linux had that surge and capitalized on it, then it's quite possible that the momentum would be enough to hurt Microsoft, because the people who could afford it would go with OSX on true Apple equipment, a few geeks going with OSX hacked for other Intel boxes and the rest running a user friendly distro on Intel.
It's all about public perception. Betamax was a better technology than VHS, but the public doesn't care about that and VHS won. Same with every other consumer product. The public isn't going to be persuaded by which one is technically better, only which one is cooler. OSX is definately cooler, but an obstacle has been all the FUD about how it runs on "expensive" hardware (even though it's not significantly more than a comparable PC). With Apple going Intel, that perception will disappear. Oh, yeah, Apple will still cost more, but now, the hardware will be viewed just as an expensive compatable and the software will be the real focus.
Again, if that happens, and OSX takes off, then all the people wanting something like OSX but not able to afford to buy an Apple or wanting to get rid of their computer will go Linux as it's the next closest thing.
I don't know why everyone sees this as a threat to Linux. It's a real threat to Windows. If Apple sticks to only allowing OsX to run on Apple hardware, and is successful in marketing the advantages of a *nix system, then people are going to want something similar. Microsoft can't provide that (the *nix advantages). However, Linux can.
Apple's premium priced OsX on premium priced Intel systems positions Linux as the poor man's version of OsX on regular Intel systems. Apple, doesn't loose anything (they only allow OsX on their own equipment), however Microsoft easily could.
It's ironic that we keep hearing that Linux on the desktop won't take off until the average-joe can install it. And, now, someone is proposing that the same average-joe who can't install linux because it is too hard, is going to figure out how to hack and install OsX?
Back in college, my roommate used to visit every goddamn warez site he could find.
Ah, yes, the good old days: Back in college. Of course the closest thing we had to warez was a program we ran to intercept the data coming from the card readers to see how everyone else was implimenting their projects.
That being said, I keep kicking around in my head the concept of Apple allowing other PC manufacturers to build OS X compatible machines. While Apple attempts to stand for quality, it might be feasible for them to license their software to others. That way there could be the "cheap PC" version of OS X, and Apple would still make money with little damage to their rep. I can't quite decide whether it's a *good* idea, though. Once they start licensing to other manufacturers, they lose a modicum of control over their quality control.
Of course, if they did this, all of their Apple resellers and repair depots would be out of business.
Why a commercial company should be forced to dismantle and hand itself over to open source.
It would be antitrust if they forced another company to do this. Why isn't it antitrust if they're forced to do it by an immensely powerful entity?
It's not like Samba could be commercially harmed by Microsoft's actions. They're giving away their product for free! If anything (and I'm not saying this makes sense either) big business should be protected from open source because it wipes out their profits without any commercial gain and impacts taxable income!
It is because of antitrust that they are being forced to do this. Applying a remedy to a monopoly isn't a violation of antitrust, it's to level the field.
Samba wouldn't be harmed commercially, but any product that used it wouldn't be able to do so anymore, so they would be harmed.
Big business is built on open source. In the case of Microsoft, exactly where do you think the tcp/ip, dns, and the rest of the internet came from? It was all publicly funded research and published as such. Guess what, that's open source (just not GPL).
So the question should be, why should big business get to profit and have commercial gain of research that was funded by the public through taxes?
It seems that if the settlement says they have to open up the software to competitors then they should embrace Samba. The fact that it is open source doesn't impact one bit, the opening of the software to competitors. If anything, it guarantees it.
True, the developer systems that Apple is shipping to ISVs have a Phoenix BIOS and boot Windows just fine. That doesn't mean that the OS itself, when released to the public, will run on a vanilla system. It wouldn't take much for Apple to make it so it only boots on Apple hardware and that wouldn't affect the current development systems one bit.
I believe that even though they cache the sudo password, it is only for the process that started it (ie the terminal session). So, even if you sudo'd something, and this script were running, it would have to be running in the terminal session that had sudo running.
You can test this for your self. Open a terminal and sudo something. Then sudo something else and there is no password needed. Open a second terminal, however and sudo something and you will need a password for it.
Having sudo issued from the gui itself, as in launching synaptic, requires a password each time.
Because of this, I think the risk of what you are proposing is relatively low, not impossible, just low.
While I am familiar with how to enable the root account in both linux and OS X, my point was to try it their way, and it turns out I like it.
I think that with an enabled root account, a script running in the background would have it easier than using sudo. My reasoning is that the script just needs to check that it is logged in as root and if so, all heck can break loose. If not, quitely keep polling. Of course that would be in a gui mode. In a terminal, it would be the same risk as a cached sudo.
After using Ubuntu for six months or so, I can honestly say not having an enabled root account has not been a problem whatsoever, at least in my usuage and administration of the system.
Yeah, I should have said "do anything in the gui that requires root..." As an example, launching Synaptic pops up a password box, you enter your password and Synaptic starts.
Some people complained thinking that any user would have that option, but they do have to in the sudoers list and IIRC, only the first user is automatically added to it.
Anyway, now that I'm used to it, I prefer the sudo way to the su to root way. (Plus sudo creates a file showing you the commands you entered in case you need to troubleshoot what you did).
I should add, for others reading this, that this isn't unique to Ubuntu, several other distros take the same approach.
Some Linux distros have improved on the sudo issue. Ubuntu comes to mind. At least if you do something from the gui that requires sudo, it pops up a enter password dialogue, similar to OS X. However, on the command line, it is true that you get the permission denied message. I'm not sure that's bad though, because it does keep you from accidently trashing your system. The nice thing is that if you do use sudo in a terminal, it remembers the password for a period of time, so that future sudo commands issued in that terminal don't require the password.
When Ubuntu (and others) first came out with root not being enabled, I was not pleased. I was a heavy su user at the command line. That said, I do think I prefer the sudo way, now. Of course both sides (su vs sudo) argue which is more secure. But like the gnome vs kde or my-distro vs your-distro arguments, they board on religous fervor.
Regardless, though, I don't like the idea of having the normal user be a root user. It might be convienent, but it really is too easy to screw things up. I do think an OS should have some mechanism to protect itself. The default user being root doesn't allow for any protection.
Regarding Synaptic, I suggested it because I thought that part of your complaint was that a user shouldn't have to drop to the CLI to install it, and then you got those error messages.
In regards to Debian not having all software in their repository, that is true, there are only something like 15,000 packages in it. However, it is also true that Windows and OS X don't have it either, you have to get it from a vendor, most likely.
As for stable software being released by its creator but not available. I agree there is usually a lag, but even debian repositories usually have it in the testing or unstable branches in short order (assuming it is something that is even remotely popular). This is no different, and actually better than Windows and OS X. Steve Jobs said they've been running OS X on x86 for five years. It will be another before it's available to the public. Even debian itself releases quicker than that!
I do agree that when a new game is released on Windows you don't normally need to upgrade your OS, on the otherhand, you usually do need to upgrade your video card and ram, but that is a different story. The real problem is that most people wouldn't mind having to upgrade their linux distro if only the games were released for it!
Regarding centrally packaged software, well, yes, it is true that the distros expect the software to be centrally packaged and distributed, but then Apple expect it to be their way and Microsoft their way (for their respective OSs). However, is this really a distro problem or a programmer issue. There is nothing stopping me from installing firefox or thunderbird in my home directory. It doesn't need to be packaged in a.deb or.rpm. But, most programmers don't package their software to be able to install it that way. Part of the problem may be that linux by default is meant to be multi-user. And regardless that drive capacities have increased by leaps and bounds, I wouldn't want to install Office four times, so my wife and kids could use it, too. At least in linux I can choose to install from source, bzip, rpm or deb (an no, I don't use gentoo), so that if something is available in only one format, I can still install it.
Finally, as for the sudo issue, I really answered that above, it's not a distro problem that won't let you install something to your home directory. Firefox and thunderbird are examples of that. You don't need any special access to install them in home and they work fine. It's really up to the developer to determine how they want it installed. This again is no different than OS X and Windows, it's just that the developer's choices are more limited with those OSs.
I do agree that it is better to be able to test a package first in an isolated account then installing it system wide. However, if you are getting the package from an official repository, then that testing is supposed to already have occurred. If, on the other hand, you are compiling it yourself, then you can tell it to install wherever you want.
The fact, though, that you are talking about installing and testing and compiling, etc. Shows that you are using your computer somewhat differently than the target market for OS X and Windows (now the beauty of OS X, is that you really can have the best of both worlds, by doing it Apple's way and dropping into BSD and doing it *Nix way).
Finally, along that same comment about installing in your home directory. Surely, you would want somekind of verification of what you are installing, otherwise a malicious web page could install something there, too. So, if you are going to need somekind of "Are you sure" message, is that really any different than having to use sudo?
Anyway, I'm not arguing that the debian way (or anyother Linux way) is the best way or even better than the OS X way(you noticed, though I left Windows out of that disclaimer). I think they have different approaches because they try to cater to different users. The biggest difference, I think is that OS X from the start was a desktop operating system. Linux really focussed more on the server. It's packaging systems reflect that, although as desktop use has improved so has the package installation process.
You are mixing apples and oranges. You are comparing packaging systems using the command line in Linux but using the gui interfaces of Apple or Windows. Shouldn't you be using Synaptic for a fair comparison? At least that way, you don't have the problem of not finding the package, because it's in the list you are picking from.
Next, you complain that the debian packages are very often out of date, which is true, however, you confuse the issue of debian as distribution versus the way debian packages work. In otherwords, you are confusing one organizations implimentation instead of the actual methodology.
Along those same lines, when you complain about packages being out of date, again, they are, in the Apple or Windows world, with commercial software, how often do new updates come out? I'm not aware of anyone running Office 2005, so you could say that Office is also out of date.
Most of your complaints seem aimed specifically at debian itself. There are other debian based distros that have solved many of these.
One final comment, I am assuming that you are the sole user of your computer and it is at home or a small business, because you complain about having to become an admin to install software. Well, in most businesses, that would be a plus, because you don't want joe-worker to be installing whatever he pleases. At home, too, it is a plus, I don't know how often the kids have downloaded and installed something that broke Windows. However whether OS X, BSD or Linux, you could always enable sudo for the users you trust not to screw up the system and thus mitigate the problem. I believe that is the approach that OS X took, along with several of the debian based distros.
Yes, you can buy what are called dual core P4s for a third the price of an actual dual-core Opteron, but that's because you get what you are paying for.
Opterons have their own high-speed dedicated bus for core to core communication. Dual core P4s are really two separate P4s on a single chip and use the regular bus for communications (along with memory, i/o, etc.).
The dual core P4 you mentioned is operationally no better than dual P4s (single core).
9. Performance. Anyone who wants serious power will still go with Linux, especially since Apple is inexplicably going from a 64-bit processor with a 128-bit memory bus to a 32-bit clunky piece of junk.
I agree with most of your other points except for the performance one. Yes, the G5 is 64 bit, but both the powerbook and ibook are running G4 processors. Since notebooks are where the growth sector is, Apple won't be going from a 64 bit to 32 bit cpu.
OTOH, since it seems impossible to get a low power high speed G5 processor for a notebook, this switch means that eventually, the Apple notebooks will be going from a 32bit to a 64bit architecture, just not with a PowerPC chip as the heart and soul of it.
Since this device evidently extracts disolved gases from the saltwater, wouldn't that include toxic gases as well as oxygen/nitrogen? Would an undersea welder have problems with something like this? What about a researcher studying underwater polution? Or how about when that red tide comes in and strips the remaining oxygen?
I think I'll continue with my tried and true scuba tank where I know the air is good (unless they leave that window to the parking lot open, again!).
That's why Apple is switching to Intel: IBM isn't willing to take the risks involved in keeping up with Intel and AMD.
Or it could be that IBM has been putting all of it's resources into the chips for the XBox360 and PS3, which will far outsell any Macs over the next year or two.
This is just Econ 101, you know, supply and demand. The game console has the demand, so IBM chose to supply them instead of Apple.
The electric motors in question were being used in a performance vehicle, even a racing vehicle, according to the article.
As such a performance vehicle powered by a gasoline engine, doesn't usually get very good mileage, but for the sake of argument, lets be optimistic and say it gets 25mpg. A 500 mile trip will use 10 gallons of gas and take about 8 hours.
Now, lets say, instead we use the electic motors from the article, but instead of powering them from batteries, we power them from a small gas powered generator. Let's say it's of just average efficiency and will burn 1/2 gallon of gas per hour. The same 500 mile trip, taking 8 hours, only consumes 4 gallons of gas.
I'm not an engineer, mind you, but I believe the savings in fuel come from the fact that most gasoline engines are not very fuel efficient. Much energy is lost as heat. As such, said car has an overpowered engine for the task at hand.
The small generator also isn't the most fuel efficient device, because again, gas motors just aren't. However, it doesn't need to propel a vehicle from 0 - 60 in 10 seconds. It only needs to turn a generator (an alternator would be even more efficient). Therefore, it can be tuned to run at it's optimum rpm for fuel efficiency and geared to turn the generator at it's optimum efficiency, too. Since it is only used to generate electricy and not provide propulsion, it can be very small (lawnmower sized).
The electic motors are going to tack the energy created by the generator and convert it into the actual movement. They are very efficient motors, according to the article and are designed to be powered from a battery pack.
Since those batteries need to be charged, which involves turning a generator somewhere (usually at the local power plant), steps 2 and 3 are still involved, just not in the vehicle, itself.
My proposal is to eliminate the batteries and their inherent problems and put the power source in the vehicle itself.
Another option would be to go ahead and use the batteries and have a generator the generator kicked on to charge them, as needed. But, since the battery packs are quite heavy, it would waste energy, because of the need to use some of the energy just to transport the batteries.
Anyway, back to your original question, the fuel efficiency comes from using a smaller, more efficient engine to simply turn a generator. The generator is what provides the electricity to power the high efficiciency electric motors.
This is basically how diesel locomotives work, too, just on a significantly larger scale. And while it is true that they use massive diesel engines to turn the alternators that provide the current for the motors attached to the wheels, they are designed to move millions of pounds of train. A gas-electric car wouldn't have that same need and therefore could be powered from the smaller gas generator.
The problem with all battery power is that they need to be recharged and eventually the batteries won't hold charges and need to be replaced. Since most batteries used in electric cars have elements harmful to the environment, they can't simply be thrown away. In addition, unless you want a vehicle with an extra 1,000lbs of weight, you have to use more exotic batteries than the typical lead-acid type. The manufacturing of the these batteries creates a lot of toxic waste that must be disposed of.
While it is true that combustion engines harm the environment, all electrics aren't that friendly, either, at least on the manufacturing side and the disposal of spent batteries.
My suggestion of the small gas generator removes the pollution aspect mentioned above to all battery cars. While it doesn't eliminate the pollution from combustion engines, it would put out significantly less than the smallest four cylinder engine in use, today, thus cutting emissions.
Ultimately, though, the small gas generator, would be a stop gap measure until fuel-cell or some other technology becomes feasible in a consumer market. The beauty of it is that when that occurs, nothing needs to change in the vehicle design except for the power source. The engine and everything else would be the same, just the power source changes,
In reality, it wouldn't even have to be a gasoline powered generator. It could be diesel, but that's not much better. Propane would be very feasible and very low poluting. The main problem, would be having refueling stations (of course, you could just stop by Walmart and exchange your tank, in an emergency!!). Hydrogen would be better yet, but then we'd need a whole new infrastructure to provide it (at least most communities have propane sources available).
Ultimately, the gasoline combustion engine is dead. It just doesn't know it yet. If the oil companies don't want to suffer the same fate as the railroads, when new technology came out (automobiles and aircraft), they need to start re-thinking what they do. Are they oil producers or energy producers. If oil, they, too, have a limited life. Energy, on the other hand, whether, solar, wind, propane, oil, fuel cells, or whatever, that will be the future. And, producing cars and homes that utilize these new and eventually cheap energy sources will be too.
The gas generator proposal is just a transitional model to take care of some of todays problems with pollution and the limited supply of oil, until these other promising technologies can be developed for a consumer market.
If the motors run from battery power now, exactly how much power would the generator need to produce? The generator only needs to provide the equivalent of a the battery back. At 1hp=746w, that would mean that the battery pack would have to provide approximately 150,000w for the equivalent of a 200hp engine and be able to provide it for a number of hours. I think there is something more to the conversion than 1hp=746w or else you would need an awfully large vehicle just to hold the batteries (which the battery weight alone would be prohibitive).
Slashdot Mirror
But why does Apple and OSX being x86 change anything? Most of the differences in the programming model would be handled by the compiler and should be independant of the architecture. If these developers are leaving Linux, it's not because Apple went x86. From a programming perspective, unless they are doing kernel or driver work, it shouldn't make a difference.
Take a look at this add for the Mac mini: Introducing Mac mini If you look very, very, closely you'll find a single throwaway line that mentions UNIX. Apple doesn't market *nix, Apple markets Apple.
That's my point, exactly. Apple markets Apple and if the mass market sees that OSX is cool and wants to emulate it on their existing hardware (or new hardware if they can't afford Apple Hardware), Linux is the logical next best choice.
The mass market doesn't care what's under the hood (that's why the PPC to x86 isn't a big thing), only how it looks. A desktop oriented distro that can mimic a lot of the look and feel and coolness of OSX would be a shoe-in. Since most of the OSX appeal with the public is only skin deep (it is after all BSD), those changes to Linux should be fairly superficial to mimic. (For developers, that's a different story, Apple's appeal is about tools and the platform).
Maybe KDE will be the interface for those people wanting emulate Windows and Gnome would be the OSX choice. Who knows? The point is, to see the danger to Windows and the benefit to Linux (or the BSDs) you have to think like a marketer and not a geek.
Of course your assuming that no one will pick up those projects and develop for them. Most likely, if there is demand, somebody will continue to develop them. That's the advantage of open source. It's also quite possible that he will still want to run his creation on OSX and continue to develop them. As such, it should be relatively straight forward to backport any changes since OSX is BSD under the surface.
It's also quite possible that other Linux developers will end up developing for both systems, since they are similar. If so, that can only be a good thing.
Now if they were jumping to Windows, then that would be a problem.
In actuality, it is not any different. But the perception will be. People have a hard time differentiated between Apple and Wintel computers now. Sure, Apple comes out with new features, but they are copied pretty quickly. Once Apple computers start having an Intel Inside sticker on them, the mass market will think of the hardware just as any other computer from Dell, Gateway, etc. However, this computer has neat stuff that their Dell, Gateway, etc. doesn't -- OSX.
If OSX catches the public's eye, because it is now running on what the public believes is just another laptop or desktop (again, the computer will say Intel Inside, just like theirs does at home), they'll want those cool features.
Unfortunately, Windows won't provide them and OSX won't run on their standard Wintel box. But, in steps Linux. While not the same as OSX, it is very similar and can be made to mimic a lot of features, so that the public wanting that "me too" experience will be able to get, say 80% of it.
Those people, wanting the "me too" experience without wanting to purchase a new computer, would be Windows users. If Windows lost even 5% of it's installed base in this manner, while not a big blow to Microsoft, it would be a tremendous surge in Linux.
If Linux had that surge and capitalized on it, then it's quite possible that the momentum would be enough to hurt Microsoft, because the people who could afford it would go with OSX on true Apple equipment, a few geeks going with OSX hacked for other Intel boxes and the rest running a user friendly distro on Intel.
It's all about public perception. Betamax was a better technology than VHS, but the public doesn't care about that and VHS won. Same with every other consumer product. The public isn't going to be persuaded by which one is technically better, only which one is cooler. OSX is definately cooler, but an obstacle has been all the FUD about how it runs on "expensive" hardware (even though it's not significantly more than a comparable PC). With Apple going Intel, that perception will disappear. Oh, yeah, Apple will still cost more, but now, the hardware will be viewed just as an expensive compatable and the software will be the real focus.
Again, if that happens, and OSX takes off, then all the people wanting something like OSX but not able to afford to buy an Apple or wanting to get rid of their computer will go Linux as it's the next closest thing.
Even a PPC Mac is significantly less that $2500. Where are you getting pricing from?
I don't know why everyone sees this as a threat to Linux. It's a real threat to Windows. If Apple sticks to only allowing OsX to run on Apple hardware, and is successful in marketing the advantages of a *nix system, then people are going to want something similar. Microsoft can't provide that (the *nix advantages). However, Linux can.
Apple's premium priced OsX on premium priced Intel systems positions Linux as the poor man's version of OsX on regular Intel systems. Apple, doesn't loose anything (they only allow OsX on their own equipment), however Microsoft easily could.
It's ironic that we keep hearing that Linux on the desktop won't take off until the average-joe can install it. And, now, someone is proposing that the same average-joe who can't install linux because it is too hard, is going to figure out how to hack and install OsX?
I don't think so, Tim.
Back in college, my roommate used to visit every goddamn warez site he could find.
Ah, yes, the good old days: Back in college. Of course the closest thing we had to warez was a program we ran to intercept the data coming from the card readers to see how everyone else was implimenting their projects.
That being said, I keep kicking around in my head the concept of Apple allowing other PC manufacturers to build OS X compatible machines. While Apple attempts to stand for quality, it might be feasible for them to license their software to others. That way there could be the "cheap PC" version of OS X, and Apple would still make money with little damage to their rep. I can't quite decide whether it's a *good* idea, though. Once they start licensing to other manufacturers, they lose a modicum of control over their quality control.
Of course, if they did this, all of their Apple resellers and repair depots would be out of business.
Why a commercial company should be forced to dismantle and hand itself over to open source.
It would be antitrust if they forced another company to do this. Why isn't it antitrust if they're forced to do it by an immensely powerful entity?
It's not like Samba could be commercially harmed by Microsoft's actions. They're giving away their product for free! If anything (and I'm not saying this makes sense either) big business should be protected from open source because it wipes out their profits without any commercial gain and impacts taxable income!
It is because of antitrust that they are being forced to do this. Applying a remedy to a monopoly isn't a violation of antitrust, it's to level the field.
Samba wouldn't be harmed commercially, but any product that used it wouldn't be able to do so anymore, so they would be harmed.
Big business is built on open source. In the case of Microsoft, exactly where do you think the tcp/ip, dns, and the rest of the internet came from? It was all publicly funded research and published as such. Guess what, that's open source (just not GPL).
So the question should be, why should big business get to profit and have commercial gain of research that was funded by the public through taxes?
It seems that if the settlement says they have to open up the software to competitors then they should embrace Samba. The fact that it is open source doesn't impact one bit, the opening of the software to competitors. If anything, it guarantees it.
True, the developer systems that Apple is shipping to ISVs have a Phoenix BIOS and boot Windows just fine. That doesn't mean that the OS itself, when released to the public, will run on a vanilla system. It wouldn't take much for Apple to make it so it only boots on Apple hardware and that wouldn't affect the current development systems one bit.
I believe that even though they cache the sudo password, it is only for the process that started it (ie the terminal session). So, even if you sudo'd something, and this script were running, it would have to be running in the terminal session that had sudo running.
You can test this for your self. Open a terminal and sudo something. Then sudo something else and there is no password needed. Open a second terminal, however and sudo something and you will need a password for it.
Having sudo issued from the gui itself, as in launching synaptic, requires a password each time.
Because of this, I think the risk of what you are proposing is relatively low, not impossible, just low.
While I am familiar with how to enable the root account in both linux and OS X, my point was to try it their way, and it turns out I like it.
I think that with an enabled root account, a script running in the background would have it easier than using sudo. My reasoning is that the script just needs to check that it is logged in as root and if so, all heck can break loose. If not, quitely keep polling. Of course that would be in a gui mode. In a terminal, it would be the same risk as a cached sudo.
After using Ubuntu for six months or so, I can honestly say not having an enabled root account has not been a problem whatsoever, at least in my usuage and administration of the system.
Yeah, I should have said "do anything in the gui that requires root..." As an example, launching Synaptic pops up a password box, you enter your password and Synaptic starts.
Some people complained thinking that any user would have that option, but they do have to in the sudoers list and IIRC, only the first user is automatically added to it.
Anyway, now that I'm used to it, I prefer the sudo way to the su to root way. (Plus sudo creates a file showing you the commands you entered in case you need to troubleshoot what you did).
I should add, for others reading this, that this isn't unique to Ubuntu, several other distros take the same approach.
Some Linux distros have improved on the sudo issue. Ubuntu comes to mind. At least if you do something from the gui that requires sudo, it pops up a enter password dialogue, similar to OS X. However, on the command line, it is true that you get the permission denied message. I'm not sure that's bad though, because it does keep you from accidently trashing your system. The nice thing is that if you do use sudo in a terminal, it remembers the password for a period of time, so that future sudo commands issued in that terminal don't require the password.
When Ubuntu (and others) first came out with root not being enabled, I was not pleased. I was a heavy su user at the command line. That said, I do think I prefer the sudo way, now. Of course both sides (su vs sudo) argue which is more secure. But like the gnome vs kde or my-distro vs your-distro arguments, they board on religous fervor.
Regardless, though, I don't like the idea of having the normal user be a root user. It might be convienent, but it really is too easy to screw things up. I do think an OS should have some mechanism to protect itself. The default user being root doesn't allow for any protection.
Regarding Synaptic, I suggested it because I thought that part of your complaint was that a user shouldn't have to drop to the CLI to install it, and then you got those error messages.
.deb or .rpm. But, most programmers don't package their software to be able to install it that way. Part of the problem may be that linux by default is meant to be multi-user. And regardless that drive capacities have increased by leaps and bounds, I wouldn't want to install Office four times, so my wife and kids could use it, too. At least in linux I can choose to install from source, bzip, rpm or deb (an no, I don't use gentoo), so that if something is available in only one format, I can still install it.
In regards to Debian not having all software in their repository, that is true, there are only something like 15,000 packages in it. However, it is also true that Windows and OS X don't have it either, you have to get it from a vendor, most likely.
As for stable software being released by its creator but not available. I agree there is usually a lag, but even debian repositories usually have it in the testing or unstable branches in short order (assuming it is something that is even remotely popular). This is no different, and actually better than Windows and OS X. Steve Jobs said they've been running OS X on x86 for five years. It will be another before it's available to the public. Even debian itself releases quicker than that!
I do agree that when a new game is released on Windows you don't normally need to upgrade your OS, on the otherhand, you usually do need to upgrade your video card and ram, but that is a different story. The real problem is that most people wouldn't mind having to upgrade their linux distro if only the games were released for it!
Regarding centrally packaged software, well, yes, it is true that the distros expect the software to be centrally packaged and distributed, but then Apple expect it to be their way and Microsoft their way (for their respective OSs). However, is this really a distro problem or a programmer issue. There is nothing stopping me from installing firefox or thunderbird in my home directory. It doesn't need to be packaged in a
Finally, as for the sudo issue, I really answered that above, it's not a distro problem that won't let you install something to your home directory. Firefox and thunderbird are examples of that. You don't need any special access to install them in home and they work fine. It's really up to the developer to determine how they want it installed. This again is no different than OS X and Windows, it's just that the developer's choices are more limited with those OSs.
I do agree that it is better to be able to test a package first in an isolated account then installing it system wide. However, if you are getting the package from an official repository, then that testing is supposed to already have occurred. If, on the other hand, you are compiling it yourself, then you can tell it to install wherever you want.
The fact, though, that you are talking about installing and testing and compiling, etc. Shows that you are using your computer somewhat differently than the target market for OS X and Windows (now the beauty of OS X, is that you really can have the best of both worlds, by doing it Apple's way and dropping into BSD and doing it *Nix way).
Finally, along that same comment about installing in your home directory. Surely, you would want somekind of verification of what you are installing, otherwise a malicious web page could install something there, too. So, if you are going to need somekind of "Are you sure" message, is that really any different than having to use sudo?
Anyway, I'm not arguing that the debian way (or anyother Linux way) is the best way or even better than the OS X way(you noticed, though I left Windows out of that disclaimer). I think they have different approaches because they try to cater to different users. The biggest difference, I think is that OS X from the start was a desktop operating system. Linux really focussed more on the server. It's packaging systems reflect that, although as desktop use has improved so has the package installation process.
You are mixing apples and oranges. You are comparing packaging systems using the command line in Linux but using the gui interfaces of Apple or Windows. Shouldn't you be using Synaptic for a fair comparison? At least that way, you don't have the problem of not finding the package, because it's in the list you are picking from.
Next, you complain that the debian packages are very often out of date, which is true, however, you confuse the issue of debian as distribution versus the way debian packages work. In otherwords, you are confusing one organizations implimentation instead of the actual methodology.
Along those same lines, when you complain about packages being out of date, again, they are, in the Apple or Windows world, with commercial software, how often do new updates come out? I'm not aware of anyone running Office 2005, so you could say that Office is also out of date.
Most of your complaints seem aimed specifically at debian itself. There are other debian based distros that have solved many of these.
One final comment, I am assuming that you are the sole user of your computer and it is at home or a small business, because you complain about having to become an admin to install software. Well, in most businesses, that would be a plus, because you don't want joe-worker to be installing whatever he pleases. At home, too, it is a plus, I don't know how often the kids have downloaded and installed something that broke Windows. However whether OS X, BSD or Linux, you could always enable sudo for the users you trust not to screw up the system and thus mitigate the problem. I believe that is the approach that OS X took, along with several of the debian based distros.
Yes, you can buy what are called dual core P4s for a third the price of an actual dual-core Opteron, but that's because you get what you are paying for.
Opterons have their own high-speed dedicated bus for core to core communication. Dual core P4s are really two separate P4s on a single chip and use the regular bus for communications (along with memory, i/o, etc.).
The dual core P4 you mentioned is operationally no better than dual P4s (single core).
9. Performance. Anyone who wants serious power will still go with Linux, especially since Apple is inexplicably going from a 64-bit processor with a 128-bit memory bus to a 32-bit clunky piece of junk.
I agree with most of your other points except for the performance one. Yes, the G5 is 64 bit, but both the powerbook and ibook are running G4 processors. Since notebooks are where the growth sector is, Apple won't be going from a 64 bit to 32 bit cpu.
OTOH, since it seems impossible to get a low power high speed G5 processor for a notebook, this switch means that eventually, the Apple notebooks will be going from a 32bit to a 64bit architecture, just not with a PowerPC chip as the heart and soul of it.
Since this device evidently extracts disolved gases from the saltwater, wouldn't that include toxic gases as well as oxygen/nitrogen? Would an undersea welder have problems with something like this? What about a researcher studying underwater polution? Or how about when that red tide comes in and strips the remaining oxygen?
I think I'll continue with my tried and true scuba tank where I know the air is good (unless they leave that window to the parking lot open, again!).
That's why Apple is switching to Intel: IBM isn't willing to take the risks involved in keeping up with Intel and AMD.
Or it could be that IBM has been putting all of it's resources into the chips for the XBox360 and PS3, which will far outsell any Macs over the next year or two.
This is just Econ 101, you know, supply and demand. The game console has the demand, so IBM chose to supply them instead of Apple.
The electric motors in question were being used in a performance vehicle, even a racing vehicle, according to the article.
As such a performance vehicle powered by a gasoline engine, doesn't usually get very good mileage, but for the sake of argument, lets be optimistic and say it gets 25mpg. A 500 mile trip will use 10 gallons of gas and take about 8 hours.
Now, lets say, instead we use the electic motors from the article, but instead of powering them from batteries, we power them from a small gas powered generator. Let's say it's of just average efficiency and will burn 1/2 gallon of gas per hour. The same 500 mile trip, taking 8 hours, only consumes 4 gallons of gas.
I'm not an engineer, mind you, but I believe the savings in fuel come from the fact that most gasoline engines are not very fuel efficient. Much energy is lost as heat. As such, said car has an overpowered engine for the task at hand.
The small generator also isn't the most fuel efficient device, because again, gas motors just aren't. However, it doesn't need to propel a vehicle from 0 - 60 in 10 seconds. It only needs to turn a generator (an alternator would be even more efficient). Therefore, it can be tuned to run at it's optimum rpm for fuel efficiency and geared to turn the generator at it's optimum efficiency, too. Since it is only used to generate electricy and not provide propulsion, it can be very small (lawnmower sized).
The electic motors are going to tack the energy created by the generator and convert it into the actual movement. They are very efficient motors, according to the article and are designed to be powered from a battery pack.
Since those batteries need to be charged, which involves turning a generator somewhere (usually at the local power plant), steps 2 and 3 are still involved, just not in the vehicle, itself.
My proposal is to eliminate the batteries and their inherent problems and put the power source in the vehicle itself.
Another option would be to go ahead and use the batteries and have a generator the generator kicked on to charge them, as needed. But, since the battery packs are quite heavy, it would waste energy, because of the need to use some of the energy just to transport the batteries.
Anyway, back to your original question, the fuel efficiency comes from using a smaller, more efficient engine to simply turn a generator. The generator is what provides the electricity to power the high efficiciency electric motors.
This is basically how diesel locomotives work, too, just on a significantly larger scale. And while it is true that they use massive diesel engines to turn the alternators that provide the current for the motors attached to the wheels, they are designed to move millions of pounds of train. A gas-electric car wouldn't have that same need and therefore could be powered from the smaller gas generator.
The problem with all battery power is that they need to be recharged and eventually the batteries won't hold charges and need to be replaced. Since most batteries used in electric cars have elements harmful to the environment, they can't simply be thrown away. In addition, unless you want a vehicle with an extra 1,000lbs of weight, you have to use more exotic batteries than the typical lead-acid type. The manufacturing of the these batteries creates a lot of toxic waste that must be disposed of.
While it is true that combustion engines harm the environment, all electrics aren't that friendly, either, at least on the manufacturing side and the disposal of spent batteries.
My suggestion of the small gas generator removes the pollution aspect mentioned above to all battery cars. While it doesn't eliminate the pollution from combustion engines, it would put out significantly less than the smallest four cylinder engine in use, today, thus cutting emissions.
Ultimately, though, the small gas generator, would be a stop gap measure until fuel-cell or some other technology becomes feasible in a consumer market. The beauty of it is that when that occurs, nothing needs to change in the vehicle design except for the power source. The engine and everything else would be the same, just the power source changes,
In reality, it wouldn't even have to be a gasoline powered generator. It could be diesel, but that's not much better. Propane would be very feasible and very low poluting. The main problem, would be having refueling stations (of course, you could just stop by Walmart and exchange your tank, in an emergency!!). Hydrogen would be better yet, but then we'd need a whole new infrastructure to provide it (at least most communities have propane sources available).
Ultimately, the gasoline combustion engine is dead. It just doesn't know it yet. If the oil companies don't want to suffer the same fate as the railroads, when new technology came out (automobiles and aircraft), they need to start re-thinking what they do. Are they oil producers or energy producers. If oil, they, too, have a limited life. Energy, on the other hand, whether, solar, wind, propane, oil, fuel cells, or whatever, that will be the future. And, producing cars and homes that utilize these new and eventually cheap energy sources will be too.
The gas generator proposal is just a transitional model to take care of some of todays problems with pollution and the limited supply of oil, until these other promising technologies can be developed for a consumer market.
If the motors run from battery power now, exactly how much power would the generator need to produce? The generator only needs to provide the equivalent of a the battery back. At 1hp=746w, that would mean that the battery pack would have to provide approximately 150,000w for the equivalent of a 200hp engine and be able to provide it for a number of hours. I think there is something more to the conversion than 1hp=746w or else you would need an awfully large vehicle just to hold the batteries (which the battery weight alone would be prohibitive).
Well, my little emergency generator runs 12 hours on about 2 gallons of fuel and produces more than enough power than what these motors would need.
At 60 mph, for 12 hours on 2 gallons of gas, that comes out to 360mpg. That's how you would reduce the need for gas as compared to a regular car.