Just to quickly try to open your eyes: servers are not only the big iron that you're talking of. The Sun you're talking of is a great machine, but there are many other categories of servers. Apple is not in the market to try to displace Sun, IBM, HP or others from the market you're thinking of. They are targeting what is often referred to as "workgroup" servers.
I have no statistics on web server sales, but in terms of units, I guarantee that the single and dual-processor systems stemming from traditional desktop architectures are pretty considerable. Apple wants to be able to sell you the whole solution right now. Not only do they want to have an iMac or a G4 Tower on your desktop, but they also want some machine running OS X server as the file/web/print/mail/calendar/etc. server. It is comparable to the position that NT took when it first came out in a way.
Also, with a dual or a quad-processor system, Apple will be able to gain market share in the web server market, especially to have a stronger platform to deploy WebObjects on.
Anyway, work is calling, but please realize that your needs aren't everyone else's needs.
Finally someone's understood the issue at hand. Every company requires you to sign some confidentiality/non-disclosure agreement when you join them. What Apple is achieving with this suit is that they can figure out who was involved, not only at the sites that posted them, but who inside Apple released the info. They just want names and want to set a precedent for the future. If someone hacked into their computer system (I doubt it) to get the info, they would figure that out too. I think it's perfectly fair what they're doing.
Apple's problem in a way is that it just has a cult following and in such a fast-paced market, time is everything. Why not let Apple do it's own thing? Everyone seems to like the outcome (except Cobalt), so why moan about it? It's not going to affect you one bit, unless you own one of those mac rumor sites, which have a pretty bad track record anyhow and are often technically awful. Get over it!
MacOS has had co-operative multitasking since System 7 (ca. 1990) and while applications currently don't have memory protection (I believe), the Finder is in protected memory. It's a nice feature, but if you have well-written apps and a good OS, memory protection becomes less important, because an illegal address is less likely to happen.
A session of Netscape gone haywire will just die by itself most of the time and not harm the system one bit.
Slashdot Mirror
Just to quickly try to open your eyes: servers are not only the big iron that you're talking of. The Sun you're talking of is a great machine, but there are many other categories of servers. Apple is not in the market to try to displace Sun, IBM, HP or others from the market you're thinking of. They are targeting what is often referred to as "workgroup" servers.
I have no statistics on web server sales, but in terms of units, I guarantee that the single and dual-processor systems stemming from traditional desktop architectures are pretty considerable. Apple wants to be able to sell you the whole solution right now. Not only do they want to have an iMac or a G4 Tower on your desktop, but they also want some machine running OS X server as the file/web/print/mail/calendar/etc. server. It is comparable to the position that NT took when it first came out in a way.
Also, with a dual or a quad-processor system, Apple will be able to gain market share in the web server market, especially to have a stronger platform to deploy WebObjects on.
Anyway, work is calling, but please realize that your needs aren't everyone else's needs.
Finally someone's understood the issue at hand. Every company requires you to sign some confidentiality/non-disclosure agreement when you join them. What Apple is achieving with this suit is that they can figure out who was involved, not only at the sites that posted them, but who inside Apple released the info. They just want names and want to set a precedent for the future. If someone hacked into their computer system (I doubt it) to get the info, they would figure that out too. I think it's perfectly fair what they're doing.
Apple's problem in a way is that it just has a cult following and in such a fast-paced market, time is everything. Why not let Apple do it's own thing? Everyone seems to like the outcome (except Cobalt), so why moan about it? It's not going to affect you one bit, unless you own one of those mac rumor sites, which have a pretty bad track record anyhow and are often technically awful. Get over it!
Have you ever used MacOS?
MacOS has had co-operative multitasking since System 7 (ca. 1990) and while applications currently don't have memory protection (I believe), the Finder is in protected memory. It's a nice feature, but if you have well-written apps and a good OS, memory protection becomes less important, because an illegal address is less likely to happen.
A session of Netscape gone haywire will just die by itself most of the time and not harm the system one bit.