Oh. Wait. I wear jeans. Never mind. Call me when they have stain-free levis.
Oh. Wait. It's pretty hard to notice stains on my black Levis anyway. I'm in no rush. Let's see if anyone links cancer rates to the teflon in these bad boys first- YOU wear them, all the time, OK? Thanks.
Yes, that was a pathetic attempt at humor. Hey, at least I'm trying. It beats working. As far as the protesters go? Maybe I'm not picky enough about nekid chicks, but anything that encourages more nekid chicks, I'm in favor of ( as long as nobody gets hurt- a few dozen more nekid chicks isn't worth a whole damn war ).
So, I'm finding my self in favor of *both* the teflon pants and the protesters. They should recruit some more chicks, and do more nekid protests. I'm all for that. Be sure to post lots of pictures on the web. In protest. For the cause. Do it for the children.
And Freescale have some really tasty new chips coming down the pipe.
Not only are these new Freescale chips not G5s, but, well, Apple has played the Freescale/Motorola game before, haven't they? If you're right, then Freescale has had even longer than IBM to come up with a powerhouse laptop chip, and they haven't done it either. The simple fact is, neither company has the desire to spend a lot of R&D money making the laptop chips Apple needs to stay competitive without larger sales volume anticpated for said chip.
Unless you know something about planned Freescale chips that Steve Jobs and I don't- in which case, could you please provide links? Just talking about tasty new chips without providing a link ( or sample chip package, mmm ) is just annoying.
So I did what you made me do, I went and googled. You know what I found? A roadmap with unfullfilled promises from Freescale. The e600 is not scaling in processor speed like they'd promised ( they wanted "beyond 2GHz", and the best they can promise is ">1.5GHz" ), leaving Apple's powerbooks looking at not much more than the current 1.67GHz. Of the products on their roadmap, only one actually shows up on their current PowerPC page. The 64-bit e700 is what Apple actually wants, but it's still vaporware, apparently. The dual-core e600 is pretty cool, and if Freescale can get quantities delivered to Apple in the next year, they might sell a few dual-core PowerPC PowerBooks before Intel models come out. But here's the kicker : Apple wants to be selling them now, and even when they come out, they're not looking to be much faster in clock speed than what's in a PowerBook right now. Meanwhile, what's a common Intel laptop? Pentium M laptops at 2GHz and up are all over the place. Yea, I know, it's not all about clock speed... but it is all about being able to deliver on promises, and in quantity.
$299 and you get to keep it - that's what a Select developer will probably pay.
Ooops, I screwed up again. $999 is the dev kit price for *either* Select or Premier membership developers. The 'free' level developer can't even get it.
And you're right, something like $299 is what a non-paying developer ( 'Online' developer account ) is going to get... to keep, in the form of an Intel Mini, when it's publicly available. Actually, it may cost more than $299, at least when it first comes out.
Of course, if you're going to be cheap about it, you can always be careful with your code, and compile your universal binaries without testing the Intel side. Not that I'd do that.
What, you want Apple to *lose* money on these dev kits? Not going to happen. Pretend you're leasing a 3.6 GHz Pentium 4 for a year and a half. $999 ain't so bad, plenty of folks are going to get these. Everyone else is going to buy whatever Intel machine comes out first.
If not enough developers bite on the dev kit, you may be right, Apple will drop it's price. I don't think they feel they need to, though, especially given the performance numbers Rosetta is turning in. If you don't provide a Univeral Binary for your app, it'll just seem slower than the competition's app for early Intel users. If that's your choice, that's your choice, but Apple's not going to take a loss to help you out- they're a business, and their top tier developers who they really count on will pop for these developer kits.
aw, c'mon, it's not like it was that good to begin with, or it'd have been harder to kill. The truth is way, way, more humorous.
something that is getting more rare by the day (a good joke that is, not the incessant pedantry)
wow! You want to discourage pedantry!?! This is slashdot, where did you think you were again?!?
Besides, I didn't kill the joke, I just flipped it. It's those Intel guys who like big bear hugs, see? Ah, never mind, look what an idiot I am, wasting time on ACs...
Question 1: What happened to the PowerPC's supposed performance advantage over Intel?
Still there. Notice Steve didn't say much about current performance. Sure, a lot of it had to do with marketing hype, and some of it had to do with Altivec. The PowerPC PowerMac marketing will not go away until there is a replacement Intel machine. Check Apple's website if you doubt that.
Folks who've bothered to pay attention know that the move to Intel is all about low-power ( i.e. laptop ) chips; that's why Steve talked about processing power per watt.
Question 2: What happened to Apple's 64-bit operating system?
Well, it's only 64-bit on the PowerMac G5, and I'm willing to believe that when the PowerMac line is updated to Intel processors, there will be some 64-bit machine in that lineup. That, or there will remain G5s or who knows? Maybe an AMD chip? The fact is, though, few people really care about 64-bit on the desktop. Sadly.
Question 3: Where the heck is AMD?
Sssh! ( see answer to previous question ). Ixnay on the DAM-ay !
Question 4: Why announce this chip swap a year before it will even begin for customers?
That's the dumbest question yet. Who was the announcement made to? DEVELOPERS. Who needs to be doing stuff and using their development boxes so programs are available to run on the new machines when they're available? Why would Cringely ask such a stupid question ? Steve doesn't want a product launch without apps to match. Sure, Apple will lose some sales in the mean time- but mostly on the low end, and not many. If you want OS X, getting a Macintosh is still the only way to do it. Kids going back to school this fall will still buy Powerbooks and iBooks, because the only other choice is Windows. Science geeks and other power users hot for 64-bit and Altivec are may snap up dual-core PowerMacs that are likely to be introduced before the Intel switch in that lineup. Legacy users addicted to Classic are going to snap up PowerPC machines even while Intel machines are available. They'll take a hit, but they've got the cash, and they'll still make some sales. It's not Osborne Computer by any stretch.
Besides, Intel machines are available. Just to developers. And they have to return them. But the fact remains, if you're totally hot to get yourself a developer kit, plunk down $500 bucks for a Premier ADC membership, order the $999 "kit", and you're good to go- MacIntel yours to use for the next year and a half or so.
Question 5: Is this all really about Digital Rights Management?
Cringely actually gets this one right. It's obvious, when you think about it, though. Apple plans on supporting current G5 machines for a good, long time. Let's say another 4 years at a _bare_ minimum. I'm certain it'll be much longer, but let's say 4 years. Will those G5s get no DRM while the Macintels get DRM? Next question.
Oh, wait, it's all about "Why is Apple _really_ switching to Intel?" isn't it? Why not believe Steve Jobs? It's about processing power per watt, it's about the current state of Apple's laptop lineup. Let's not play stupid. Apple's moving to Intel because people are buying more laptops than desktops and IBM is not making powerful laptop PowerPC-based chips. Nothing more, nothing less.
Apple, looking to compete with Microsoft?!? Please. They'll go to great lengths to avoid doing so where they can. Microsoft for the most part chooses to compete with Apple ( say, on music downloads and portable players ), not the other way around. From where I sit, it looks like Apple is doing their best to provide Microsoft with even more chances to sell copies of their OS and application stack on Apple hardware, without having their OS compete with Microsoft in the same way.
What's the incentive for Intel and Apple to join together? They both have more, better options as partners, and they're going to stay that way.
Jobs was clearly going for a handshake. It's those Intel guys you have to watch out for... Steve was clearly uncomfortable with the whole touchy-feely embrace thing.
Let the flameware begin! That whole 'excellent karma' thing gets dull after a while...
But seriously, Steve didn't seem to be down with the hug. He's doing this because IBM's not giving him what he wants, not because he's hot for Intel.
And yea, I know. You were trying to make a lame joke. But at least pin the queer behavior on the right CEO- Otellini.
seriously, unless you're rich enough to make up for looking like, well, Bill Gates, females are a lot like males in that they appreciate a good looking person.
It'll help if you're well-groomed and charming, but out of shape and ugly is still unattractive. You don't have to be a total jock, but there's a world of difference between fit and out-of-shape. Grooming is much the same- odd looks can be OK, but a ton of zits and greasy hair is never good.
Everyone likes someone who cares enough to at least *try* to present themselves well.
Sorry, I was trying to be funny, but I do have a real point.
When I say "really sensitive" I mean classified information
Merely classified? Classified what?
There are all kinds of levels of classified information, and it's re-classified and un-classified all the time. An example? Working as an intern for NASA, I once had the task of marking "declassified" on a stack of Environmental Impact Reports. Why they were ever classified is beyond me, but the point is that text was surely on someone's computer somewhere at the JPL, surely networked.
NSA and the Pentagon? Sure, lots of their most important data are secured and not network-reachable. All of their classified data, though? Not a chance.
And when it turns out that using OS X as though it were Unix is a quick and easy way to break it, they say no, stupid, of course you can't do that, it's not Unix, you need to port all that Unix software and make it play nicely with the Mac.
I wasn't saying that at all. If you're going to use OS X as if it were a Unix, go ahead... but remember you're doing so. Meaning, if you're going to install a bunch of crap in/usr/local/lib, some day you might find that you'll have to manage those libraries. You won't be just dragging applications in the trash to uninstall them- you'll be doing the same admin work you'd need to do on any *nix system.
I was pointing out that it's possible to take apps that would otherwise write libraries into/usr/local/lib/ and convert those libs to frameworks, and have framework versioning take care of some issues you run up against with shared libraries, but you'll still have to provide an uninstaller for a clean 'Mac' experience, so it's not often done. Usually code ends up statically linked because disk space is cheap and users like being able to grab an application and move it and have that be that.
As has been pointed out, it's entirely possible for OS X to be *nix and another layer of stuff. The GP was complaining that they'd had/usr/local -related problems which resulted in instability. I frankly have a hard time swallowing that, but regardless, that'd be a problem with just about any poorly admin'd OS.
And please don't paint me as a Mac zealot. I used CP/M, DOS, VMS, SunOS, NeXTStep, Solaris, Windows and then Linux, in that order, for years before ending up under OS X. Even then, I ended up here because my employer chose the system, not because of a choice I made. Before the switch to OS X, I'd completely written off Apple as a company. I hardly qualify as a Mac zealot. I'm just a guy who's day job includes hacking Objective-C.
Stupid AC anyway. Get an account. What the hell's wrong with you... posting AC is just lame, why even bother? God I hate that I respond to ACs, it's not like they can check their accounts to see who's replied to them...
if you think you are going to remember that password in another 4 years, or even another 3 months, you should really check your ego.
Things change. Your brain is organic matter. Brain cells die; neural pathways are pruned without your full conscious control.
I've known several admin types who've had to resort to writing down passwords and other crucial pieces of information as they age. You are no different. Write your passwords down and place them under lock and key, or be prepared for the day when you can't remember that one password.
I like his conclusions section, especially the part about Direct Action: If anyone wants to volunteer to pie Bill Gates again, I'll contribute to the defense fund. Or if you prefer, you could just kick him in the nuts.
After that fairly technical discussion of email filtering procedures, that made me laugh my ass off.
Unless the Pentagon and NASA have VERY VERY silly systems, their *really* important computers are simply *not* accessible to hackers. I really can't believe that truly ensitive systems wouldn't just be air-gapped from the world.
You've never worked for the government, have you ? It shows.
Believe, my lemming friend, and try to use those critical thinking skills every once in a while. The feds can hardly even define "really important", and certainly have a hard time keeping track of their own doings. Breaking into federal networks can't be too difficult, it's done all the time. This guy wasn't that good- he's been caught.
If you need libraries you're going to have to install them. OSX might want you to put everything into a single statically linked binary but it really doesn't work that way, except for very simple applications..
1) 97% of all applications fall into the "very simple applications" category, if needing libraries not already installed with OS X is your metric. The point the parent was trying to make is that Apple errs on the side of providing everything by default- they've given up on trying to keep the OS footprint small. Unless it's code specific to your app, it's likely already provided. Please provide an example if you want to refute that point- maybe there's something they should be including that they don't.
2) It doesn't actually have to be a single statically linked binary- that's just what most programmers do, because it's simple, and easier for the user to manage if you have everything self-contained in the application package. If you want, you can create your own application frameworks, and place them in standard locations ( not/usr/local, but rather/System/Library/Frameworks or ~/Library/Frameworks ). Frameworks have certain advantages ( versioning support being just one ) over standard dynamic libraries, and they're quite easy to use. Most OS X programmers don't do that because, well, they don't want to have to write an uninstaller.
Just because OS X is 'like Unix' doesn't mean that's all it is. I don't even want to know what you're doing to your mini that you've felt the need to reformat and reinstall twice. That's just crazy. May I recommend Fink for your Unix-ported program needs? The/sw directory is an excellent idea...
I've seen prepackaged binaries ( generally of ported Unix apps ) which write into/usr/local, and I have to say I personally dislike that practice. That said, if you choose to go that route and use/usr/local, managing it is no different than under any other OS- you have to do it yourself.
"Mac OS on Intel is to be given to developers (ADC "Select" and "Premier" members) now and to customers "this time next year."
I'm going to have to point out that the "developer transition kit" which includes a 3.2 GHz Pentium 4, is $999 to ADC Select and Premier members. And there's an interesting catch - you have to return the machine and software to Apple within 7 days of December 30. You're not buying the machine, you're paying to use it for a little less than 6 months.
This has me wondering if there's going to be a 6-month delay between the 'send the development machines back' date and the first publicly available Intel Macs. I'm thinking they're just hedging their bets, and we may see the Intel machines, at least in mini or eMac form, earlier than that this time next year.
It's still there, but it's clear that it's on the way out. OpenDirectory has taken over where it can, and what remains of netinfo is pretty well burried.
...just in time for the Apple switch to Intel products?
I love it when a plan comes together. - Hannibal
More seriously, maybe in time for the higher-end Apple desktops to come out. The low-end machines are scheduled first, remember? Like maybe some minis and laptops early on, using Celerons or Pentium Ms, then some of these dual-core chips in iMacs and/or PowerM... uh, they're not going to call it a PowerMac, are they now ? Although I guess they could...
After reading that, I don't know if Dvorak heard : OS X will not run on what was once known as an "IBM PC clone". You will *still* need to buy a Macintosh to run OS X, at least legally without some sort of emulation or hardware hack.
The announcement was not OS X for Intel PCs, the announcement was Intel processors in future Macintosh computers!
Even if you accept the basis of the argument that an Intel-based Mac will mean more OSS developers target OS X, how does adding a ( pretty damn easy ) port to your development tree hurt Linux ??
Really, supporting OS X with your *nix-targeted OSS software is as easy as, well, supporting BSD, almost. A good configure script pretty much does it. I just built SVN on OS X. It turns out I didn't have to lift a finger. Of course, someone put a lot of work into the scripts so I could just type "configure" and "make", but... since you have to possibly worry about endian issues and maybe building 'universal binaries', it would seem having two distinct hardware platforms for OS X would _lessen_ the chance of OSS developers directly supporting it, rather than increasing that chance. And I still don't see how that "hurts" Linux- if I know I can use all of these programs I use under OS X on Linux as well, maybe I'll install Linux on that spare Wintel machine someone gave me, and make it actually useful, rather than installing a Windows OS on it?
More generally, though, he's right- we've already seen instances of OS X replacing Linux in University labs and businesses ( like the one I work at ), since it's a bit easier on the user. If the switch to Intel processors has anything to do with this limited trend, it'll just be in possibly creating faster/cheaper hardware. But unless Apple changes it's tune and allows clones, or is overstating the difference between the future Intel Mac and the "IBM PC" design, you're not taking your current Linux/Wintel PC and installing a future copy of OS X on it, at least not just yet...
Of course, it'd be interesting to see how different the "developer transition kit" machines are from "IBM clone" PCs, but it's entirely likely that 10.5 or 10.4.x for Intel won't look like what ships with those...
That's a thing of beauty. Well, not really, it's a damn shame to waste a domain name on a nearly plain-text page, but it's still pretty funny. Does anyone really love google enough to host a page like that on their own? Wow, if so. I mean, I've always liked google, but would I rent out a domain to host a anti-anti-google website? I doubt it. Thanks for that, though. Definitely a +1 interesting from an AC.
We're starting to see a shift from lots of small time crooks to larger, more organized groups using increasingly more sophisticated attacks.
It might be better to say have started to see, though... it's a trend that's been on the upswing for the past several years. What's new is that it's really, really getting noticed. It'll be interesting to see if these guys try to lie low, or if they try to show off to their competition... I think they'll show off, and thing will get even more interesting than they are. Sadly, the networks ( and some users ) will suffer for it.
Does this mean that AOL is about to go the way of Netscape?
What, you mean, be bought by AOL, found to be expensive to maintain and impossible to make money from, then released as open source to die a slow death or be resurrected through the hard work of people unrelated to the original product creating entirely new code?
It's possible, except with the bonus that they don't have to buy anything...
And no, unless by "AOL" you mean the AIM client and a Winamp plugin or two. That's all this is about. There's plenty to AOL that's going to forever remain proprietary and will have to live or die on it's own. One does have to wonder how much AOL is finally figuring this out, and how much new content is being lost in Rainman-only development v.s. newer HTML initiatives, though.
The sad, important thing to keep note of is that it's just the IM _client_ that's being opened. Big deal. We have better clients already.
Where in that article, besides the title, does it talk about the "death" of PC gaming ? Why are we even talking about this nonsense masquerading as journalism ?
Let's put it this way; are great graphics the reason for the popularity of most PC games ? Despite the hype machine around high-end gaming rigs, the answer is not really.
Game publishers are going to create games which make them money. This means they're going to provide games to platforms people own. What's in more homes, a PC or a PS2 or an XBox or a Mac ? What platform sees the most game titles released for it ? See a pattern?
PC games are going to be just fine. Maybe there'll be fewer really, really high-end PC games if _everyone_ buys PS3s and XBox360s. But I doubt it highly.
I feel dirty having wasted my time reading this article, it's nothing more than some guy trolling for web page hits with a sensational title on an opinion piece. Except that he happens to work for CNET.
This is really starting to smack of organized crime.
Starting to? You haven't been paying attention. Botnets, phishing, traditional shipping scams and spam are not-even-terribly-new 'business' growth areas for organized crime 'gangs'. Many of the current attacks take a degree of sophistication and persistence not usually exhibited by your average script kiddie.
Not that it's shocking - people looking to make a buck are going to try just about anything that might work, and refine their efforts on the things that do work.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh. Wait. It's pretty hard to notice stains on my black Levis anyway. I'm in no rush. Let's see if anyone links cancer rates to the teflon in these bad boys first- YOU wear them, all the time, OK? Thanks.
Yes, that was a pathetic attempt at humor. Hey, at least I'm trying. It beats working. As far as the protesters go? Maybe I'm not picky enough about nekid chicks, but anything that encourages more nekid chicks, I'm in favor of ( as long as nobody gets hurt- a few dozen more nekid chicks isn't worth a whole damn war ).
So, I'm finding my self in favor of *both* the teflon pants and the protesters. They should recruit some more chicks, and do more nekid protests. I'm all for that. Be sure to post lots of pictures on the web. In protest. For the cause. Do it for the children.
Not only are these new Freescale chips not G5s, but, well, Apple has played the Freescale/Motorola game before, haven't they? If you're right, then Freescale has had even longer than IBM to come up with a powerhouse laptop chip, and they haven't done it either. The simple fact is, neither company has the desire to spend a lot of R&D money making the laptop chips Apple needs to stay competitive without larger sales volume anticpated for said chip.
Unless you know something about planned Freescale chips that Steve Jobs and I don't- in which case, could you please provide links? Just talking about tasty new chips without providing a link ( or sample chip package, mmm ) is just annoying.
So I did what you made me do, I went and googled. You know what I found? A roadmap with unfullfilled promises from Freescale. The e600 is not scaling in processor speed like they'd promised ( they wanted "beyond 2GHz", and the best they can promise is ">1.5GHz" ), leaving Apple's powerbooks looking at not much more than the current 1.67GHz. Of the products on their roadmap, only one actually shows up on their current PowerPC page. The 64-bit e700 is what Apple actually wants, but it's still vaporware, apparently. The dual-core e600 is pretty cool, and if Freescale can get quantities delivered to Apple in the next year, they might sell a few dual-core PowerPC PowerBooks before Intel models come out. But here's the kicker : Apple wants to be selling them now, and even when they come out, they're not looking to be much faster in clock speed than what's in a PowerBook right now. Meanwhile, what's a common Intel laptop? Pentium M laptops at 2GHz and up are all over the place. Yea, I know, it's not all about clock speed... but it is all about being able to deliver on promises, and in quantity.
Ooops, I screwed up again. $999 is the dev kit price for *either* Select or Premier membership developers. The 'free' level developer can't even get it.
And you're right, something like $299 is what a non-paying developer ( 'Online' developer account ) is going to get... to keep, in the form of an Intel Mini, when it's publicly available. Actually, it may cost more than $299, at least when it first comes out.
Of course, if you're going to be cheap about it, you can always be careful with your code, and compile your universal binaries without testing the Intel side. Not that I'd do that.
What, you want Apple to *lose* money on these dev kits? Not going to happen. Pretend you're leasing a 3.6 GHz Pentium 4 for a year and a half. $999 ain't so bad, plenty of folks are going to get these. Everyone else is going to buy whatever Intel machine comes out first.
If not enough developers bite on the dev kit, you may be right, Apple will drop it's price. I don't think they feel they need to, though, especially given the performance numbers Rosetta is turning in. If you don't provide a Univeral Binary for your app, it'll just seem slower than the competition's app for early Intel users. If that's your choice, that's your choice, but Apple's not going to take a loss to help you out- they're a business, and their top tier developers who they really count on will pop for these developer kits.
Ok, just MacIntel.
aw, c'mon, it's not like it was that good to begin with, or it'd have been harder to kill. The truth is way, way, more humorous.
something that is getting more rare by the day (a good joke that is, not the incessant pedantry)
wow! You want to discourage pedantry!?! This is slashdot, where did you think you were again?!?
Besides, I didn't kill the joke, I just flipped it. It's those Intel guys who like big bear hugs, see? Ah, never mind, look what an idiot I am, wasting time on ACs...
Still there. Notice Steve didn't say much about current performance. Sure, a lot of it had to do with marketing hype, and some of it had to do with Altivec. The PowerPC PowerMac marketing will not go away until there is a replacement Intel machine. Check Apple's website if you doubt that.
Folks who've bothered to pay attention know that the move to Intel is all about low-power ( i.e. laptop ) chips; that's why Steve talked about processing power per watt.
Question 2: What happened to Apple's 64-bit operating system?
Well, it's only 64-bit on the PowerMac G5, and I'm willing to believe that when the PowerMac line is updated to Intel processors, there will be some 64-bit machine in that lineup. That, or there will remain G5s or who knows? Maybe an AMD chip? The fact is, though, few people really care about 64-bit on the desktop. Sadly.
Question 3: Where the heck is AMD?
Sssh! ( see answer to previous question ). Ixnay on the DAM-ay !
Question 4: Why announce this chip swap a year before it will even begin for customers?
That's the dumbest question yet. Who was the announcement made to? DEVELOPERS. Who needs to be doing stuff and using their development boxes so programs are available to run on the new machines when they're available? Why would Cringely ask such a stupid question ? Steve doesn't want a product launch without apps to match. Sure, Apple will lose some sales in the mean time- but mostly on the low end, and not many. If you want OS X, getting a Macintosh is still the only way to do it. Kids going back to school this fall will still buy Powerbooks and iBooks, because the only other choice is Windows. Science geeks and other power users hot for 64-bit and Altivec are may snap up dual-core PowerMacs that are likely to be introduced before the Intel switch in that lineup. Legacy users addicted to Classic are going to snap up PowerPC machines even while Intel machines are available. They'll take a hit, but they've got the cash, and they'll still make some sales. It's not Osborne Computer by any stretch.
Besides, Intel machines are available. Just to developers. And they have to return them. But the fact remains, if you're totally hot to get yourself a developer kit, plunk down $500 bucks for a Premier ADC membership, order the $999 "kit", and you're good to go- MacIntel yours to use for the next year and a half or so.
Question 5: Is this all really about Digital Rights Management?
Cringely actually gets this one right. It's obvious, when you think about it, though. Apple plans on supporting current G5 machines for a good, long time. Let's say another 4 years at a _bare_ minimum. I'm certain it'll be much longer, but let's say 4 years. Will those G5s get no DRM while the Macintels get DRM? Next question.
Oh, wait, it's all about "Why is Apple _really_ switching to Intel?" isn't it? Why not believe Steve Jobs? It's about processing power per watt, it's about the current state of Apple's laptop lineup. Let's not play stupid. Apple's moving to Intel because people are buying more laptops than desktops and IBM is not making powerful laptop PowerPC-based chips. Nothing more, nothing less.
Apple, looking to compete with Microsoft?!? Please. They'll go to great lengths to avoid doing so where they can. Microsoft for the most part chooses to compete with Apple ( say, on music downloads and portable players ), not the other way around. From where I sit, it looks like Apple is doing their best to provide Microsoft with even more chances to sell copies of their OS and application stack on Apple hardware, without having their OS compete with Microsoft in the same way.
What's the incentive for Intel and Apple to join together? They both have more, better options as partners, and they're going to stay that way.
Dude, did you even watch the hug?
Jobs was clearly going for a handshake. It's those Intel guys you have to watch out for... Steve was clearly uncomfortable with the whole touchy-feely embrace thing.
Let the flameware begin! That whole 'excellent karma' thing gets dull after a while...
But seriously, Steve didn't seem to be down with the hug. He's doing this because IBM's not giving him what he wants, not because he's hot for Intel.
And yea, I know. You were trying to make a lame joke. But at least pin the queer behavior on the right CEO- Otellini.
It'll help if you're well-groomed and charming, but out of shape and ugly is still unattractive. You don't have to be a total jock, but there's a world of difference between fit and out-of-shape. Grooming is much the same- odd looks can be OK, but a ton of zits and greasy hair is never good.
Everyone likes someone who cares enough to at least *try* to present themselves well.
When I say "really sensitive" I mean classified information
Merely classified? Classified what?
There are all kinds of levels of classified information, and it's re-classified and un-classified all the time. An example? Working as an intern for NASA, I once had the task of marking "declassified" on a stack of Environmental Impact Reports. Why they were ever classified is beyond me, but the point is that text was surely on someone's computer somewhere at the JPL, surely networked.
NSA and the Pentagon? Sure, lots of their most important data are secured and not network-reachable. All of their classified data, though? Not a chance.
I wasn't saying that at all. If you're going to use OS X as if it were a Unix, go ahead... but remember you're doing so. Meaning, if you're going to install a bunch of crap in /usr/local/lib, some day you might find that you'll have to manage those libraries. You won't be just dragging applications in the trash to uninstall them- you'll be doing the same admin work you'd need to do on any *nix system.
I was pointing out that it's possible to take apps that would otherwise write libraries into /usr/local/lib/ and convert those libs to frameworks, and have framework versioning take care of some issues you run up against with shared libraries, but you'll still have to provide an uninstaller for a clean 'Mac' experience, so it's not often done. Usually code ends up statically linked because disk space is cheap and users like being able to grab an application and move it and have that be that.
As has been pointed out, it's entirely possible for OS X to be *nix and another layer of stuff. The GP was complaining that they'd had /usr/local -related problems which resulted in instability. I frankly have a hard time swallowing that, but regardless, that'd be a problem with just about any poorly admin'd OS.
And please don't paint me as a Mac zealot. I used CP/M, DOS, VMS, SunOS, NeXTStep, Solaris, Windows and then Linux, in that order, for years before ending up under OS X. Even then, I ended up here because my employer chose the system, not because of a choice I made. Before the switch to OS X, I'd completely written off Apple as a company. I hardly qualify as a Mac zealot. I'm just a guy who's day job includes hacking Objective-C.
Stupid AC anyway. Get an account. What the hell's wrong with you... posting AC is just lame, why even bother? God I hate that I respond to ACs, it's not like they can check their accounts to see who's replied to them...
Things change. Your brain is organic matter. Brain cells die; neural pathways are pruned without your full conscious control.
I've known several admin types who've had to resort to writing down passwords and other crucial pieces of information as they age. You are no different. Write your passwords down and place them under lock and key, or be prepared for the day when you can't remember that one password.
If anyone wants to volunteer to pie Bill Gates again, I'll contribute to the defense fund. Or if you prefer, you could just kick him in the nuts.
After that fairly technical discussion of email filtering procedures, that made me laugh my ass off.
You've never worked for the government, have you ? It shows.
Believe, my lemming friend, and try to use those critical thinking skills every once in a while. The feds can hardly even define "really important", and certainly have a hard time keeping track of their own doings. Breaking into federal networks can't be too difficult, it's done all the time. This guy wasn't that good- he's been caught.
1) 97% of all applications fall into the "very simple applications" category, if needing libraries not already installed with OS X is your metric. The point the parent was trying to make is that Apple errs on the side of providing everything by default- they've given up on trying to keep the OS footprint small. Unless it's code specific to your app, it's likely already provided. Please provide an example if you want to refute that point- maybe there's something they should be including that they don't.
2) It doesn't actually have to be a single statically linked binary- that's just what most programmers do, because it's simple, and easier for the user to manage if you have everything self-contained in the application package. If you want, you can create your own application frameworks, and place them in standard locations ( not /usr/local, but rather /System/Library/Frameworks or ~/Library/Frameworks ). Frameworks have certain advantages ( versioning support being just one ) over standard dynamic libraries, and they're quite easy to use. Most OS X programmers don't do that because, well, they don't want to have to write an uninstaller.
Just because OS X is 'like Unix' doesn't mean that's all it is. I don't even want to know what you're doing to your mini that you've felt the need to reformat and reinstall twice. That's just crazy. May I recommend Fink for your Unix-ported program needs? The /sw directory is an excellent idea...
I've seen prepackaged binaries ( generally of ported Unix apps ) which write into /usr/local, and I have to say I personally dislike that practice. That said, if you choose to go that route and use /usr/local, managing it is no different than under any other OS- you have to do it yourself.
You should leave the OS X development arena. It'll leave more room for me...
Oooops. Oh, thanks for that.
I'm going to have to point out that the "developer transition kit" which includes a 3.2 GHz Pentium 4, is $999 to ADC Select and Premier members. And there's an interesting catch - you have to return the machine and software to Apple within 7 days of December 30. You're not buying the machine, you're paying to use it for a little less than 6 months.
This has me wondering if there's going to be a 6-month delay between the 'send the development machines back' date and the first publicly available Intel Macs. I'm thinking they're just hedging their bets, and we may see the Intel machines, at least in mini or eMac form, earlier than that this time next year.
It's still there, but it's clear that it's on the way out. OpenDirectory has taken over where it can, and what remains of netinfo is pretty well burried.
I love it when a plan comes together.
- Hannibal
More seriously, maybe in time for the higher-end Apple desktops to come out. The low-end machines are scheduled first, remember? Like maybe some minis and laptops early on, using Celerons or Pentium Ms, then some of these dual-core chips in iMacs and/or PowerM... uh, they're not going to call it a PowerMac, are they now ? Although I guess they could...
The announcement was not OS X for Intel PCs, the announcement was Intel processors in future Macintosh computers!
Even if you accept the basis of the argument that an Intel-based Mac will mean more OSS developers target OS X, how does adding a ( pretty damn easy ) port to your development tree hurt Linux ??
Really, supporting OS X with your *nix-targeted OSS software is as easy as, well, supporting BSD, almost. A good configure script pretty much does it. I just built SVN on OS X. It turns out I didn't have to lift a finger. Of course, someone put a lot of work into the scripts so I could just type "configure" and "make", but... since you have to possibly worry about endian issues and maybe building 'universal binaries', it would seem having two distinct hardware platforms for OS X would _lessen_ the chance of OSS developers directly supporting it, rather than increasing that chance. And I still don't see how that "hurts" Linux- if I know I can use all of these programs I use under OS X on Linux as well, maybe I'll install Linux on that spare Wintel machine someone gave me, and make it actually useful, rather than installing a Windows OS on it?
More generally, though, he's right- we've already seen instances of OS X replacing Linux in University labs and businesses ( like the one I work at ), since it's a bit easier on the user. If the switch to Intel processors has anything to do with this limited trend, it'll just be in possibly creating faster/cheaper hardware. But unless Apple changes it's tune and allows clones, or is overstating the difference between the future Intel Mac and the "IBM PC" design, you're not taking your current Linux/Wintel PC and installing a future copy of OS X on it, at least not just yet...
Of course, it'd be interesting to see how different the "developer transition kit" machines are from "IBM clone" PCs, but it's entirely likely that 10.5 or 10.4.x for Intel won't look like what ships with those...
That's a thing of beauty. Well, not really, it's a damn shame to waste a domain name on a nearly plain-text page, but it's still pretty funny. Does anyone really love google enough to host a page like that on their own? Wow, if so. I mean, I've always liked google, but would I rent out a domain to host a anti-anti-google website? I doubt it. Thanks for that, though. Definitely a +1 interesting from an AC.
It might be better to say have started to see, though... it's a trend that's been on the upswing for the past several years. What's new is that it's really, really getting noticed. It'll be interesting to see if these guys try to lie low, or if they try to show off to their competition... I think they'll show off, and thing will get even more interesting than they are. Sadly, the networks ( and some users ) will suffer for it.
What, you mean, be bought by AOL, found to be expensive to maintain and impossible to make money from, then released as open source to die a slow death or be resurrected through the hard work of people unrelated to the original product creating entirely new code?
It's possible, except with the bonus that they don't have to buy anything...
And no, unless by "AOL" you mean the AIM client and a Winamp plugin or two. That's all this is about. There's plenty to AOL that's going to forever remain proprietary and will have to live or die on it's own. One does have to wonder how much AOL is finally figuring this out, and how much new content is being lost in Rainman-only development v.s. newer HTML initiatives, though.
The sad, important thing to keep note of is that it's just the IM _client_ that's being opened. Big deal. We have better clients already.
Let's put it this way; are great graphics the reason for the popularity of most PC games ? Despite the hype machine around high-end gaming rigs, the answer is not really.
Game publishers are going to create games which make them money. This means they're going to provide games to platforms people own. What's in more homes, a PC or a PS2 or an XBox or a Mac ? What platform sees the most game titles released for it ? See a pattern?
PC games are going to be just fine. Maybe there'll be fewer really, really high-end PC games if _everyone_ buys PS3s and XBox360s. But I doubt it highly.
I feel dirty having wasted my time reading this article, it's nothing more than some guy trolling for web page hits with a sensational title on an opinion piece. Except that he happens to work for CNET.
Starting to? You haven't been paying attention. Botnets, phishing, traditional shipping scams and spam are not-even-terribly-new 'business' growth areas for organized crime 'gangs'. Many of the current attacks take a degree of sophistication and persistence not usually exhibited by your average script kiddie.
Not that it's shocking - people looking to make a buck are going to try just about anything that might work, and refine their efforts on the things that do work.