Why do we need everything taxed? Why should we need, or want, a national sales tax? For the federal government to grow bigger, fatter, and more inefficient? Just because the government thinks it can spend money better than individuals can? Sorry, I don't want socialism. And before you reply and say "What about the poor," there are many ways that the poor can be helped without the use of the welfare state. Have you researched the negative income tax, school vouchers, and some other methods that don't require heavy taxation and boatloads of government programs and intervention? Even though I'm not rich at all, I'm also strongly against heavy taxation for corporations and rich people, because I feel that it isn't right for the government to tax people higher percentages just because they're a corporation or they make more money.
A big government ends up being more harmful to the people than it is helpful. Big government is expensive, inefficient, and interferes with individual freedom.
Downloading copyrighted materials without the permission of the holder of the copyright is, by definition, copyright infringement, which is illegal. For example, we may download FOSS software, iTunes songs, and books that the author/publisher chose to put online, but we may not download warez software, songs from your local P2P or Bittorrent source, and bootleg Harry Potter books. However, there are so many downloaders that the RIAA and MPAA cannot catch them all, so they go after the uploaders who provide the downloaders the infringed goods in the first place.
As far as I understand, most FOSS software is avaliable under a BSD or GPL license, which are both copyrights. Accodring to this law, you can't download Linux, BSD, Firefox, OpenOffice, and the rest of our favorite FOSS software because it is copyrighted.
The technical ignorance of the lawmakers worldwide is just appaling.
bloated: the java class libraries are huge and so deploying a java environment (and you can't assume a decent java system will already be installed by default) is a huge undertaking
Java does have a lot of class libraries, but inactuality, they're about the same size as a graphics toolkit like GTK, Glib, and a C library. Having them bundled with all Java distributions helps with compatibility with all applications and prevents users and developers from having to download/install extra libraries.
the fact that languages like java allow poor coders to produce code that kind of works rather than total failures probablly doesn't help the languages reputation either.
Isn't this the point of all programming languages? Making it easier for programmers to program? With your logic all C programmers should be coding in x86 assembly because "[C] allow[s] poor coders to produce code that kind of works rather than total failures[, and it] probably [doesn't] help the language's reputation[,] either." Even though I consider myself a competent C programmer, occasionally I use Java for certain programming tasks. With Java, I find that doing certain tasks are much easier with Java than under C. For example, Java has many helpful libraries, and the base classes are full of many helpful methods. In C, you find yourself having to either search for ready-made libraries that you'll have to learn how to use, or having to code certain helpful tasks by yourself.
I personally find Java to be a pretty nice environment to work in. No, it isn't "free," it's not as fast as C (exasperated by the fact that my fastest machine is a 475MHz K6-2 with 64MB RAM), and sometimes Java can be quite verbose. However, Java provides a lot of helpful classes and packages to choose from that makes development a lot easier. Plus, I don't have to worry about pointers, memory management, and all of that other stuff that I have to keep in mind when programming in C.
A game console is a computer, just specialized to play video games and with very great graphics features. The PS3 even has USB ports. Try getting the same Cell processor and same graphics card in a $400 PC. However, nothing is stopping a skilled person from porting an operating system (like Linux) to a PS3 or any other console.
Somebody is bound to port Linux/NetBSD to the PS3, and with a hard drive, you can turn your PS3 into a full-fledged *nix-computer, just with a smaller (and nicer-looking) case. All you need is a hard drive, some way to install Linux on it, and a USB keyboard/mouse.
There are many career frontiers for US workers to explore and even prosper in.
Yes, that's true. Burger flipping is the hottest growing career in the United States right now. People are exploring and even prospering in the art of burger flipping. People can even learn their skills of burger flipping at Hamburger University, too.
So for those Americans whose IT jobs have been just shipped to India or China, stop yo' whining. Get off the couch and walk to the nearest McDonalds. You can have a future in burger flipping waiting for you.
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
Compare that history to Windows (first released in 1985, although to be fair, Windows development and the release of DOS was in 1981), and to GNU/Linux (GNU project started in 1984, Linux started in 1991). Now, BSD has been freely available for just about the same time as Linux, though. Readyour history before you start flaming.
Secondly, the BSDs have a nice level of integration between the kernel and the userland, since the developers work on both parts. For example, the BSD developers work on the kernel, the userland, the C library, the manual pages, etc. The only parts that aren't developed by the BSDs are the C compiler (from GNU) and a handful of other GNU utilities. This is different from Linux, in which the kernel is developed by Linus and contributors, while the userland is developed mainly by the GNU project.
Finally, the BSDs have proven themselves over the last 25+ years that they are very stable and capable operating systems, with a lot of merit. BSD was the first operating system to implement TCP/IP. BSD was a major commercial player back in the days of 4.3BSD and the VAX, and it does behind the scenes work in many of the non-BSD operating systems that people use (e.g., the core of Mac OS X and many Windows networking tools). BSD was one of the first pieces of software that went from closed-source to open-source (but not without a fight from AT&T, which explains why Linux, and not BSD, seems to be more popular).
BSD is a very nice operating system, and developers like working on it because it is well engineered and is proven. Read some BSD history and try a BSD before you start flaming.
And what non-linux, non-BSD OSes are around now? (I hear OS X is due to be leaked for x86 any day now).
Well, there's always Windows. You did say non-Linux, non-BSD, right?
Other than that, for the x86, there is Solaris, Plan 9, Hurd, MS-DOS, DR-DOS, FreeDOS, BeOS, Darwin x86, NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP, Apple Rhapsody (there's a beta floating around somewhere for the x86, closest thing we're going to get to Mac OS for Dells other than NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP), and Minix.
If you have access to emulation, you have even more choices. Mac OS 6/7/8 (under the Basilisk 68k emulator), Mac OS X (under PearPC), OpenVMS, Unix 32/V (if you want to get really old school), AmigaOS, and probably many more that I don't know/forgot.
And if you want to have some fun with Linux/BSD, try running Linux 0.01 or 386BSD (its available somewhere). You can even find really ancient versions of BSD (such as 2.11BSD and 4.3BSD) if you felt like some emulation and going back in time.
To employ to the greatest possible advantage: exploit one's talents.
To make use of selfishly or unethically: a country that exploited peasant labor. See Synonyms at manipulate.
To advertise; promote.
Well, installing this exploit does employ the PSP to the greatest possible advantage, IMO, so that definition of the word works fine. Of course, exploit has ta negative definition, but I see nothing negative about using your PSP to play homebrew games, Linux, and other "unsupported" stuff, so I guess the definition of exploit is relative to the speaker/listener.
Microsoft, because it is their OS, has a moral responsibility to prevent internet worms and viruses by releasing patches to all users, regardless of the legality of the installation.
Microsoft has the right to refuse patches of their operating system to users who have illegally obtained the software. Why should Microsoft, or any other corporation, use its money and waste its time providing patches and other OS updates to people who have illegally obtained the OS? OS patches are a privilege, not a right.
Don't get me wrong; I do not support MS's annoying activation and registration policies. However, why should people who have pirated Windows be able to expect support from Microsoft at all? And Microsoft can't do anything about Internet worms and viruses at all. Even though Windows isn't very secure (and its long overdue for a complete rewrite), Microsoft has no control over what other software people make. Windows, or any other operating system, can't prevent worms and viruses. Only users can prevent worms and viruses. In order to avoid Internet nasties, you either need to use a more secure operating system, a less popular operating system, or stick with Windows and become educated about viruses/worms/malware/etc.
Well, there's Mesa, a nice standalone spreadsheet for Mac OS X (which dates back to the old NeXTSTEP days). Apple is supposedly working on a spreadsheet, rumored here. If "Numbers" is anything like Lotus Improv (a radically innovative spreadsheet from the old NeXTSTEP days, Google it for more information), then I would see the iWork suite becoming much more popular.
Yes, but if OS X becomes more popular, more people would buy Office for OS X, because you can't run the Windows version of Office on a Mac without emulation, not to mention that there aren't really any choices in the OS X office program market (MS Office, NeoJOffice, or iWork suite + a spreadsheet). All of those extra copies of Office bought will mean extra revenue for Microsoft, even if they aren't using Windows.
Microsoft might lose its monopoly on operating systems (Windows), but I feel that it has much to gain by maintaining its dominance with office suites. Imagine if Microsoft did a *nix port of Office. Even though it might cannibalize sales of Windows, Microsoft would be rolling in a lot of dough from *nix users who need MS Office. Heck, if its really good, I might buy a copy. Remember what happened to Internet Explorer on the Mac when Microsoft dropped it. Now Microsoft losts its browser dominance on the Mac (because they no longer have an up-to-date browser). I don't think its in Microsoft's best interest to drop Office for OS X.
Besides, if they do that, they might face legal issues again for using their office suite monopoly to try to force an operating system monopoly (or is it the other way around?).
IBM didn't release the specs to the IBM PC. Compaq reversed engineered the BIOS of the IBM PC, and the rest of the PC (the Intel 8086, floppy drives, video cards, etc.) can be bought off the shelf. IBM tried to stop the clones with the IBM PS/2, but by then it was too late. Compaq and the rest of the PC industry already because successful making "IBM-compatable" personal computers (even though some parts of the PS/2, such as their mouse/keyboard ports, did trickle down to the PC platform a few years later).
I can use a *nix desktop easily. On my 475MHz K6-2 box running FreeBSD, I use Window Maker as my window manager and some other applications like Firefox, AbiWord, mplayer, and a few more. I spend a lot of my time on the console as well. (And yes, I've used KDE and GNOME before, and I think that they're nice. However, I don't use them because they're slow on a 475MHz K6-2 with 64MB RAM; slower than Windows 98).
All I'm saying is why should a Mac user give up Mac OS X for Linux if Mac OS X provides everything that they need? Switching to Linux requires them to have to learn a lot of new things about how to deal with the computer, and also requires them to get used to completely different applications. Hey, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." People should switch OSes out of curiosity or because their current OS is inadequate for certain tasks, not because somebody says "this 05 1s teh r0cks0r!"
Many people love the Mac because of the ease of use and functionality that Mac OS X provides. Why do you think that there is still a community of people with NeXT computers are still running NEXTSTEP or OPENSTEP, and not running Linux instead? Better yet, why are they're still people running Windows, BeOS, NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP, and OS/2 instead of going to Linux? Even if Apple abandoned the PPC platform in Mac OS 10.7 and software developers wouldn't develop for them, many of them will continue to use the lastest Mac OS X version until their computers die.
I love Linux/BSD (I use it all of the time), but the ease of use, applications, and GUIs doesn't hold a candle to what Mac OS X (and even NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP) has to offer. Linux is very nice to explore and to learn from, but it isn't the easiest system to use, especially when it is time to set up hardware. And what if your computer can't handle GNOME and KDE, or any of the other very usable apps (like OpenOffice and Firefox)? What if your computer can't handle the usable distributions like Mandrake and Ubuntu? Oh well.
People use certain operating systems based on their needs. Most Mac users like their computers because the OS, Mac OS X, provides everything that they need. A computer doesn't just die when the vendor no longer supports it, most of them would stick with Mac OS X as long as it remains functional. Just ask any other user of an "unsupported" operating system why they continue to use it.
...because Linux and OS X serves two completely different markets. Linux is a hacker's (in the ESR definition) operating system. The source for everything is readily available, and all of the changes you want to make is just a compile away. You can learn just about everything about how the operating system, the utilities, the compiler, the graphical environment, and the applications work. Want to learn the architecture of the Linux kernel? It's all in your source directory. Developer tools are also freely available (thanks to the GNU toolchain), and anyone with programming knowledge can make their own programs as well. Linux is great for developers and hackers, but Linux's usability still needs some work. Some distributions are better than others, but sometimes setting up exotic hardware or laptops can be a PITA.
Mac OS X is the type of operating system that you use when you finished a long day, and you don't feel like struggling to get your printer or sound to work. Mac OS X is very easy to use and has a wide selection of very great applications (MS Office, Photoshop) that aren't available for Linux. Mac OS X inherited all of that NeXT goodness (which I still lust after), and made it even better. Mac OS X isn't as "hackable" as Linux/BSD is, but it is very easy to use and very pretty, and is very stable and is Unix-compatible whenever needed.
I don't think that Apple's switch to x86 is going to hurt Linux at all. Remember, just because Apple is using x86 computers with the same architecture as a PC (cough x86 cough BIOS cough) doesn't mean that you'll be able to run to the Apple store, buy the latest Mac OS X, and run it on your newest Dell or your beefed up Opteron. Mac OS X isn't an option for these people; the closest they'll ever get to Mac OS X for a "white box" is NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP/Rhapsody (which are still capable operating systems; I look forward to buying a copy for my old laptop), or OS X under PearPC. And even if there is a way to "crack" Mac OS X in order to get it to run on a regular x86, it would probably be very difficult.
If you're interested in computers and want to find out how an operating system work and do your computer science homework, then you'd use Linux, BSD, Plan 9, or GNU Hurd. If you want to sit down, type some essays, surf the Internet, listen to your latest music, and edit your photos hassle free, your best bet is Mac OS X. I have a FreeBSD machine for the former purpose and plan on getting NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP/Rhapsody (yes, I still lust after these OSes) or a brand new shiny Mac for the latter purpose.
The biggest difference I see between BSD and Linux is how they are built and assembled. When you use a BSD box and use a Linux box, it is very hard to tell them apart from first glances. They both have Unix commands and are reasonably POSIX-compatible, both run my favorite programs, both are very stable, etc. However, when you dig a little deeper inside the operating systems, there is a big difference in how they are engineered.
One big difference between BSD and Linux is the userland. Remember that in Linux, Linux refers to just the kernel. All of the other tools (ranging from little things like ls and grep to your editors and compilers) come from the outside, mostly from GNU. In BSD, on the other hand, the userland and the kernel is developed by the same group. For example, while Linux users get glibc (from GNU), BSD users have their own libc. The BSD userland has some non-BSD portions in it; gcc and groff (both GNU utilities) are installed by default, and there is no BSD equivalent (I guess McKusick, Karels, and Bostic didn't feel like rewriting AT&T's comiler and typesetting tools). However, those GNU utilities are adopted for BSD.
Another difference between BSD and Linux is the Unix-ness of the operating system. BSD sticks as close to the traditional Unix as much as possible. The man pages are very well written and the old Unix documentation written by Dennis Ritchie and others are still there (located in the/usr/share/doc/usd or/usr/share/doc/psd directories; thanks Caldera for releasing those sources). BSD sticks to the traditional Unix environment mostly because BSD is a direct descendant of AT&T Unix. Linux, on the other hand, doesn't really stick to the traditional Unix as much as BSD does, mainly because its utilities are from GNU (remember, GNU's Not Unix). For example, try reading the man pages for a GNU utility. It is usually poorly written, and tells you "well, we hate man pages; look up the info page." I personally hate info pages; I want all of my documentation for a utility on one page, not on hyperlinks.
Finally, I don't even want to get started on the virtues of BSD ports, which is literally a godsend. Linux's packaging managers are getting quite good; there's Debian's apt-get and Gentoo's portage.
Linux has many advantages to BSD, as well. Linux seems to get much better support from software developers than BSD does. I can buy Mathematica for Linux, run Java (officially supported by Sun), run Oracle, and other big commercial software. Linux is also officially supported by Mozilla, OpenOffice, and other important OSS software. BSD doesn't have the same type of commercial and OSS support that Linux gets, but FreeBSD runs Linux binaries very well, and most of the open source software works flawlessly on FreeBSD; I'm typing this in Firefox on FreeBSD, even though it is "unsupported" by Mozilla. Linux seems to get faster hardware support for the latest gadgets. Finally, Linux's popularity is much higher, meaning that you're more apt to find Linux support groups than BSD support groups.
All in all, the main difference, IMO, between BSD and Linux is its Unix-ness and its support. To put it like this, BSD is to Linux as vi is to emacs. (Interestingly enough, vi is written by Bill Joy, one of the original BSD developers. emacs is popularized by Richard Stallman, founder of the GNU project).
The reason why some of us are disappointed is because the Apple was the last bastion of computing that wasn't powered by the x86 platform. Everything else (MIPS, Motorola 68k, ALPHA, HP's PA-RISC) has either been relegated to embedded computing or discontinued, with the SPARC still holding out (but looks like it's in bad shape; I have a feeling that the SPARC will be discontinued within the next few years). The PowerPC, like the other chips that I mentioned, had an elegant design and was quite powerful. I especially liked the PowerMac G5. I am not a huge fan of Intel and the x86 at all; the x86 is an archaic architecture encumbered by decades of backwards-compatibility cruft. I personally don't like Intel that much as a company, either; but that's a post for another topic. My biggest beef with the whole switch to Intel is that, as of June 6, 2005, starting from 2007 there will be no more platform diversity in personal computing. There will be no more choices. Everything will be a x86 computer (either from Intel or AMD), and if your old computer dies out and you don't want to switch to x86, then your computing will be relegated to a game console (where the PowerPC holds strong) or some other embedded computer.
Oh well. But hey, this is the perfect opportunity to buy a PowerPC Mac while they still exist. If I had the money, I'd buy a NeXT box (I always lusted for them) and a PowerMac G5. I know that when Apple switches to Intel, they will still sell Macs with OS X, and they will still be nice looking, and I know that there is more to the Mac than the PPC. However, the feeling of buying a computer with a completely different architecture and "sticking it to the Dark Side" (Intel/Microsoft) will be gone. You can't avoid "the Dark Side" anymore. And that's why a lot of people have "their knickers in a knot over this." And I'm not even a Mac user (although I have lusted over them for about a year or so).
It is truly a sad state of affairs when it comes to processors. In the PC market, now that Apple has been consolidated^Wswitched to Intel, now the x86 is the only architecture available, either from Intel or from AMD. The Alpha is dead, the PPC is now relegated to game consoles, the MIPS is relegated to embedded computers and SGI workstations, and the SPARC is also relegated to Sun workstations. There is no choice for me at all. Unless I want to shell out $5000 or more for a brand spanking new Sun/SGI workstation, scrounge on eBay to find old Alphas, or buy myself a Mac within the next year now, I will be stuck with the x86....forever.
Rob Pike said it best five years ago: there is no innovation in computer architecture and systems software at all. Everybody is focused on being "cheap" and "compatable," but nobody is focused on making an architecture that is elegant and of good quality. Nobody wants to make a new architecture that blows everything else out of the water. Nobody wants to revolutionize operating systems (I'm talking about the architecture, not the usability; Apple's doing well in the usability department). Simply put, nobody wants to try something different. And anything that wasn't Microsoft or Intel technology ends up getting destroyed. Unix was spared, but market consolidation between Unix variants and Microsoft operating systems killed many operating systems (VMS, pre-OS X Macintosh, the various Lisp operating systems, etc.). Anything new and innovative seems to be held back (for example, look at Plan 9 and Hurd).
I just wish someone would be innovative and produce architectures that advance computer science and computer engineering rather than by just "going with the flow." I want to see something fresh and new on the market. I want to have the same processor choices that people enjoyed back in the 1980s. I want to see something new coming out of those factories and those universities. I don't want architecture research to die forever. I don't want Netcraft confirming that alternative architectures are dead. I don't want Intel and AMD to be the only avenues to buy CPUs: what happens when they impose DRM on us? Intel and AMD are already in the Trusted Computing Group. Who would we run to once Microsoft demands the use of DRM'd processors in Windows 2010 and Intel and AMD begin producing their DRM-encumbered processors? We need choice, and we need change before it's too late.
Until then, where can I buy PPC, SPARC, or MIPS motherboards?
Err, BSD wasn't able to free up their code because for a long time, most of BSD was AT&T code that couldn't be freed up. The FSF might have had some influence in getting the original Berkeley Unix developers to open their TCP/IP code (since it wasn't AT&T code at all), here is a quote from Twenty Years of Berkeley Unix: From AT&T Owned to Freely Redistributable:
With the increasing cost of the AT&T source licenses, vendors that wanted to build standalone TCP/IP-based networking products for the PC market using the BSD code found the per-binary costs prohibitive. So, they requested that Berkeley break out the networking code and utilities and provide them under licensing terms that did not require an AT&T source license. The TCP/IP networking code clearly did not exist in 32/V and thus had been developed entirely by Berkeley and its contributors. The BSD originated networking code and supporting utilities were released in June 1989 as Networking Release 1, the first freely-redistributable code from Berkeley.
The licensing terms were liberal. A licensee could release the code modified or unmodified in source or binary form with no accounting or royalties to Berkeley. The only requirements were that the copyright notices in the source file be left intact and that products that incorporated the code indicate in their documentation that the product contained code from the University of California and its contributors. Although Berkeley charged a $1,000 fee to get a tape, anyone was free to get a copy from anyone who already had received it. Indeed, several large sites put it up for anonymous ftp shortly after it was released. Given that it was so easily available, the CSRG was pleased that several hundred organizations purchased copies, since their fees helped fund further development.
The idea of releasing the rest of the BSD-only utilities and rewriting all of the AT&T-owned source code (such as the C library, little utilities like cat, sed and grep, and the kernel) came from Keith Bostic, who managed to get a group of developers to work on all of this code. After 18 months, they were left with six "contaminated" kernel source files. All of the unencumbered files were released as the Net/2 Release. (Unfortunately, AT&T and Berkeley got into a fight about those supposedly unencumbered files, which led to the infamous USL vs. BSDI/UCB lawsuit and almost halted development of 386BSD, the first free BSD)
So, it wasn't really the FSF's idea for BSD to release its source code, or to rewrite all of the old AT&T utilities and release them. However, the FSF does deserve credit for getting the free BSDs to switch their license from the orignial BSD license (with the advertisement clause) to something more or less like the MIT/X11 license.
Re:Membership
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Err, BSD doesn't use GNU libc (BSD has it's own C library), and the only reason why BSD uses gcc instead a BSD-license compiler is because when the original BSD developers decided to rewrite all of the AT&T code, GCC was already available, and I guess the BSD developers didn't feel like rewriting pcc (the compiler that shipped with AT&T Unix). I believe, looking at some old BSD source lists, that the BSD developers dropped pcc when the Net/2 release came out.
And with TenDRA becoming better each year, we might see the BSDs make the switch to this compiler. The BSDs are known for replacing GNU tools with BSD-licensed replacements. OpenBSD is working on a BSD-licensed CVS, and FreeBSD replaced GNU tar with a BSD-licensed tar in FreeBSD 5.3.
I agree. The PowerPC was a great platform. It was technically superior to the x86 and, like you said, having a computer that isn't a x86 is interesting to us geeks. Unfortunately, that's gone, and Apple was the last holdout for personal computer manufacturers who didn't produce x86 computers. (There are still Sun's SPARC workstations, but they aren't cheap).
I also believe that this move will hurt Apple in the end because this is the third major change that developers and users have to go through. When Apple switched from 68k to PowerPC, it took a while for developers to switch and people who bought 68k Macs during the transition were left in the cold when the transition was complete in 1996, since nobody would develop for those Macs. When Apple switched from Mac OS 8/9 to Mac OS X, it took a long time for developers to port their applications and for users to switch. Users who were stuck with OS 9 because their computers can't handle OS X are also left in the cold, because nobody wants to develop for Mac OS 9 anymore. (I don't even think there is an updated broswer for that platform. At least Windows 95 can run the latest Firefox). For example, when Apple bought NeXT, Apple promised developers and users that the PowerMac 9600 (released in 1997) would be able to run the next-generation Mac OS (then known as Rhapsody). After years of developing OS X, when OS X was released in 2001, the PowerMac 9600 was unsupported. Imagine those developers who spent the money to buy a computer that was guaranteed to run "the future Mac OS," just so in a few years they would be told, "Sorry: please spend another $2000."
Now the Mac users and developers have to go through this third transition. Developers would have to learn how the x86 works and would now have to target their applications for both the PPC and the x86. Apple still has to sell PPC computers for the next two years in order to stay afloat. However, people would be more sceptical of Apple purchases because they fear that the rug would be pulled from under them again, just like people who bought 68k Macs from 1994-1996 and those who were stuck with OS 9.
The biggest advantage to being a Linux/BSD user is that they can't pull the rug from under us. Linux and BSD is available for just about every modern platform. If I decide to buy a Mac now, I could either run Mac OS X and stick with it until Apple pulls the rug from under me, or I could use NetBSD or Linux and run that as long as the Mac stays alive. The beauty about Linux/BSD is that it doesn't matter what platform your computer is running on; just pick the platform and computer you like the best and pick a flavor of Linux or BSD that runs on that platform, compile your applications, and that's the end of it. Applications are abundant for just about every free *nix and for just about every platform. If the code doesn't compile or work properly, you can ask somebody to port it, or you can port it yourself. You don't have to worry about your computer ever being "unsupported" because you can always run the latest Linux and BSD along with the latest and greatest of FOSS software. That's why I love FOSS.
This can only help Linux in the long run, and will save some Macs from being in the dumpster once nobody makes any software for them. Just ask some former Mac OS 9 users: some of them who decided to keep their computers that couldn't run OS X decided to switch to *nix (or at least dual-boot between OS 9 and *nix).
Also it allows the client company to produce faster, cheaper computers
Faster and cheaper doesn't always imply better. The PowerPC was a great platform; it is a shame that IBM/Motorola did a bad job in chip production with that platform, so we're forced to deal with the cludgy x86....forever. Seeing the 64-bit PowerPC G5 get phased out in favor of an archaic, 32-bit Pentium 4 just looks sad.
All of the other good architectures have been either phased out or destroyed thanks to the domination of Microsoft and the x86. Now Apple is forced to assimilate to stay alive.
Well, if you can't beat them, join them. I wonder when are we ever going to see a new, non-x86 platform for personal computers?
AMD makes x86 processors; what do you think the Athlon, Athlon 64, and the Opteron are? Granted, the latter two are both x86-64 computers, but they are still x86 related.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do we need everything taxed? Why should we need, or want, a national sales tax? For the federal government to grow bigger, fatter, and more inefficient? Just because the government thinks it can spend money better than individuals can? Sorry, I don't want socialism. And before you reply and say "What about the poor," there are many ways that the poor can be helped without the use of the welfare state. Have you researched the negative income tax, school vouchers, and some other methods that don't require heavy taxation and boatloads of government programs and intervention? Even though I'm not rich at all, I'm also strongly against heavy taxation for corporations and rich people, because I feel that it isn't right for the government to tax people higher percentages just because they're a corporation or they make more money.
A big government ends up being more harmful to the people than it is helpful. Big government is expensive, inefficient, and interferes with individual freedom.
Downloading copyrighted materials without the permission of the holder of the copyright is, by definition, copyright infringement, which is illegal. For example, we may download FOSS software, iTunes songs, and books that the author/publisher chose to put online, but we may not download warez software, songs from your local P2P or Bittorrent source, and bootleg Harry Potter books. However, there are so many downloaders that the RIAA and MPAA cannot catch them all, so they go after the uploaders who provide the downloaders the infringed goods in the first place.
As far as I understand, most FOSS software is avaliable under a BSD or GPL license, which are both copyrights. Accodring to this law, you can't download Linux, BSD, Firefox, OpenOffice, and the rest of our favorite FOSS software because it is copyrighted.
The technical ignorance of the lawmakers worldwide is just appaling.
Java does have a lot of class libraries, but inactuality, they're about the same size as a graphics toolkit like GTK, Glib, and a C library. Having them bundled with all Java distributions helps with compatibility with all applications and prevents users and developers from having to download/install extra libraries.
Isn't this the point of all programming languages? Making it easier for programmers to program? With your logic all C programmers should be coding in x86 assembly because "[C] allow[s] poor coders to produce code that kind of works rather than total failures[, and it] probably [doesn't] help the language's reputation[,] either." Even though I consider myself a competent C programmer, occasionally I use Java for certain programming tasks. With Java, I find that doing certain tasks are much easier with Java than under C. For example, Java has many helpful libraries, and the base classes are full of many helpful methods. In C, you find yourself having to either search for ready-made libraries that you'll have to learn how to use, or having to code certain helpful tasks by yourself.
I personally find Java to be a pretty nice environment to work in. No, it isn't "free," it's not as fast as C (exasperated by the fact that my fastest machine is a 475MHz K6-2 with 64MB RAM), and sometimes Java can be quite verbose. However, Java provides a lot of helpful classes and packages to choose from that makes development a lot easier. Plus, I don't have to worry about pointers, memory management, and all of that other stuff that I have to keep in mind when programming in C.
A game console is a computer, just specialized to play video games and with very great graphics features. The PS3 even has USB ports. Try getting the same Cell processor and same graphics card in a $400 PC. However, nothing is stopping a skilled person from porting an operating system (like Linux) to a PS3 or any other console.
Somebody is bound to port Linux/NetBSD to the PS3, and with a hard drive, you can turn your PS3 into a full-fledged *nix-computer, just with a smaller (and nicer-looking) case. All you need is a hard drive, some way to install Linux on it, and a USB keyboard/mouse.
Yes, that's true. Burger flipping is the hottest growing career in the United States right now. People are exploring and even prospering in the art of burger flipping. People can even learn their skills of burger flipping at Hamburger University, too.
So for those Americans whose IT jobs have been just shipped to India or China, stop yo' whining. Get off the couch and walk to the nearest McDonalds. You can have a future in burger flipping waiting for you.
---Ronald McDonald.
Well, BSD has been along for a long time, since the late 1970s. In fact, here is the Berkeley copyright notice for FreeBSD:
Compare that history to Windows (first released in 1985, although to be fair, Windows development and the release of DOS was in 1981), and to GNU/Linux (GNU project started in 1984, Linux started in 1991). Now, BSD has been freely available for just about the same time as Linux, though. Read your history before you start flaming.
Secondly, the BSDs have a nice level of integration between the kernel and the userland, since the developers work on both parts. For example, the BSD developers work on the kernel, the userland, the C library, the manual pages, etc. The only parts that aren't developed by the BSDs are the C compiler (from GNU) and a handful of other GNU utilities. This is different from Linux, in which the kernel is developed by Linus and contributors, while the userland is developed mainly by the GNU project.
Finally, the BSDs have proven themselves over the last 25+ years that they are very stable and capable operating systems, with a lot of merit. BSD was the first operating system to implement TCP/IP. BSD was a major commercial player back in the days of 4.3BSD and the VAX, and it does behind the scenes work in many of the non-BSD operating systems that people use (e.g., the core of Mac OS X and many Windows networking tools). BSD was one of the first pieces of software that went from closed-source to open-source (but not without a fight from AT&T, which explains why Linux, and not BSD, seems to be more popular).
BSD is a very nice operating system, and developers like working on it because it is well engineered and is proven. Read some BSD history and try a BSD before you start flaming.
Well, there's always Windows. You did say non-Linux, non-BSD, right?
Other than that, for the x86, there is Solaris, Plan 9, Hurd, MS-DOS, DR-DOS, FreeDOS, BeOS, Darwin x86, NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP, Apple Rhapsody (there's a beta floating around somewhere for the x86, closest thing we're going to get to Mac OS for Dells other than NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP), and Minix.
If you have access to emulation, you have even more choices. Mac OS 6/7/8 (under the Basilisk 68k emulator), Mac OS X (under PearPC), OpenVMS, Unix 32/V (if you want to get really old school), AmigaOS, and probably many more that I don't know/forgot.
And if you want to have some fun with Linux/BSD, try running Linux 0.01 or 386BSD (its available somewhere). You can even find really ancient versions of BSD (such as 2.11BSD and 4.3BSD) if you felt like some emulation and going back in time.
From dictionary.com:
Well, installing this exploit does employ the PSP to the greatest possible advantage, IMO, so that definition of the word works fine. Of course, exploit has ta negative definition, but I see nothing negative about using your PSP to play homebrew games, Linux, and other "unsupported" stuff, so I guess the definition of exploit is relative to the speaker/listener.
Microsoft has the right to refuse patches of their operating system to users who have illegally obtained the software. Why should Microsoft, or any other corporation, use its money and waste its time providing patches and other OS updates to people who have illegally obtained the OS? OS patches are a privilege, not a right.
Don't get me wrong; I do not support MS's annoying activation and registration policies. However, why should people who have pirated Windows be able to expect support from Microsoft at all? And Microsoft can't do anything about Internet worms and viruses at all. Even though Windows isn't very secure (and its long overdue for a complete rewrite), Microsoft has no control over what other software people make. Windows, or any other operating system, can't prevent worms and viruses. Only users can prevent worms and viruses. In order to avoid Internet nasties, you either need to use a more secure operating system, a less popular operating system, or stick with Windows and become educated about viruses/worms/malware/etc.
Well, there's Mesa, a nice standalone spreadsheet for Mac OS X (which dates back to the old NeXTSTEP days). Apple is supposedly working on a spreadsheet, rumored here. If "Numbers" is anything like Lotus Improv (a radically innovative spreadsheet from the old NeXTSTEP days, Google it for more information), then I would see the iWork suite becoming much more popular.
Yes, but if OS X becomes more popular, more people would buy Office for OS X, because you can't run the Windows version of Office on a Mac without emulation, not to mention that there aren't really any choices in the OS X office program market (MS Office, NeoJOffice, or iWork suite + a spreadsheet). All of those extra copies of Office bought will mean extra revenue for Microsoft, even if they aren't using Windows.
Microsoft might lose its monopoly on operating systems (Windows), but I feel that it has much to gain by maintaining its dominance with office suites. Imagine if Microsoft did a *nix port of Office. Even though it might cannibalize sales of Windows, Microsoft would be rolling in a lot of dough from *nix users who need MS Office. Heck, if its really good, I might buy a copy. Remember what happened to Internet Explorer on the Mac when Microsoft dropped it. Now Microsoft losts its browser dominance on the Mac (because they no longer have an up-to-date browser). I don't think its in Microsoft's best interest to drop Office for OS X.
Besides, if they do that, they might face legal issues again for using their office suite monopoly to try to force an operating system monopoly (or is it the other way around?).
IBM didn't release the specs to the IBM PC. Compaq reversed engineered the BIOS of the IBM PC, and the rest of the PC (the Intel 8086, floppy drives, video cards, etc.) can be bought off the shelf. IBM tried to stop the clones with the IBM PS/2, but by then it was too late. Compaq and the rest of the PC industry already because successful making "IBM-compatable" personal computers (even though some parts of the PS/2, such as their mouse/keyboard ports, did trickle down to the PC platform a few years later).
I can use a *nix desktop easily. On my 475MHz K6-2 box running FreeBSD, I use Window Maker as my window manager and some other applications like Firefox, AbiWord, mplayer, and a few more. I spend a lot of my time on the console as well. (And yes, I've used KDE and GNOME before, and I think that they're nice. However, I don't use them because they're slow on a 475MHz K6-2 with 64MB RAM; slower than Windows 98).
All I'm saying is why should a Mac user give up Mac OS X for Linux if Mac OS X provides everything that they need? Switching to Linux requires them to have to learn a lot of new things about how to deal with the computer, and also requires them to get used to completely different applications. Hey, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." People should switch OSes out of curiosity or because their current OS is inadequate for certain tasks, not because somebody says "this 05 1s teh r0cks0r!"
No....
Many people love the Mac because of the ease of use and functionality that Mac OS X provides. Why do you think that there is still a community of people with NeXT computers are still running NEXTSTEP or OPENSTEP, and not running Linux instead? Better yet, why are they're still people running Windows, BeOS, NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP, and OS/2 instead of going to Linux? Even if Apple abandoned the PPC platform in Mac OS 10.7 and software developers wouldn't develop for them, many of them will continue to use the lastest Mac OS X version until their computers die.
I love Linux/BSD (I use it all of the time), but the ease of use, applications, and GUIs doesn't hold a candle to what Mac OS X (and even NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP) has to offer. Linux is very nice to explore and to learn from, but it isn't the easiest system to use, especially when it is time to set up hardware. And what if your computer can't handle GNOME and KDE, or any of the other very usable apps (like OpenOffice and Firefox)? What if your computer can't handle the usable distributions like Mandrake and Ubuntu? Oh well.
People use certain operating systems based on their needs. Most Mac users like their computers because the OS, Mac OS X, provides everything that they need. A computer doesn't just die when the vendor no longer supports it, most of them would stick with Mac OS X as long as it remains functional. Just ask any other user of an "unsupported" operating system why they continue to use it.
...because Linux and OS X serves two completely different markets. Linux is a hacker's (in the ESR definition) operating system. The source for everything is readily available, and all of the changes you want to make is just a compile away. You can learn just about everything about how the operating system, the utilities, the compiler, the graphical environment, and the applications work. Want to learn the architecture of the Linux kernel? It's all in your source directory. Developer tools are also freely available (thanks to the GNU toolchain), and anyone with programming knowledge can make their own programs as well. Linux is great for developers and hackers, but Linux's usability still needs some work. Some distributions are better than others, but sometimes setting up exotic hardware or laptops can be a PITA.
Mac OS X is the type of operating system that you use when you finished a long day, and you don't feel like struggling to get your printer or sound to work. Mac OS X is very easy to use and has a wide selection of very great applications (MS Office, Photoshop) that aren't available for Linux. Mac OS X inherited all of that NeXT goodness (which I still lust after), and made it even better. Mac OS X isn't as "hackable" as Linux/BSD is, but it is very easy to use and very pretty, and is very stable and is Unix-compatible whenever needed.
I don't think that Apple's switch to x86 is going to hurt Linux at all. Remember, just because Apple is using x86 computers with the same architecture as a PC (cough x86 cough BIOS cough) doesn't mean that you'll be able to run to the Apple store, buy the latest Mac OS X, and run it on your newest Dell or your beefed up Opteron. Mac OS X isn't an option for these people; the closest they'll ever get to Mac OS X for a "white box" is NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP/Rhapsody (which are still capable operating systems; I look forward to buying a copy for my old laptop), or OS X under PearPC. And even if there is a way to "crack" Mac OS X in order to get it to run on a regular x86, it would probably be very difficult.
If you're interested in computers and want to find out how an operating system work and do your computer science homework, then you'd use Linux, BSD, Plan 9, or GNU Hurd. If you want to sit down, type some essays, surf the Internet, listen to your latest music, and edit your photos hassle free, your best bet is Mac OS X. I have a FreeBSD machine for the former purpose and plan on getting NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP/Rhapsody (yes, I still lust after these OSes) or a brand new shiny Mac for the latter purpose.
The Woz went back to Berkeley and got his degree in 1982, while he took a break at Apple. Read more about Wozniak here.
The biggest difference I see between BSD and Linux is how they are built and assembled. When you use a BSD box and use a Linux box, it is very hard to tell them apart from first glances. They both have Unix commands and are reasonably POSIX-compatible, both run my favorite programs, both are very stable, etc. However, when you dig a little deeper inside the operating systems, there is a big difference in how they are engineered.
One big difference between BSD and Linux is the userland. Remember that in Linux, Linux refers to just the kernel. All of the other tools (ranging from little things like ls and grep to your editors and compilers) come from the outside, mostly from GNU. In BSD, on the other hand, the userland and the kernel is developed by the same group. For example, while Linux users get glibc (from GNU), BSD users have their own libc. The BSD userland has some non-BSD portions in it; gcc and groff (both GNU utilities) are installed by default, and there is no BSD equivalent (I guess McKusick, Karels, and Bostic didn't feel like rewriting AT&T's comiler and typesetting tools). However, those GNU utilities are adopted for BSD.
Another difference between BSD and Linux is the Unix-ness of the operating system. BSD sticks as close to the traditional Unix as much as possible. The man pages are very well written and the old Unix documentation written by Dennis Ritchie and others are still there (located in the /usr/share/doc/usd or /usr/share/doc/psd directories; thanks Caldera for releasing those sources). BSD sticks to the traditional Unix environment mostly because BSD is a direct descendant of AT&T Unix. Linux, on the other hand, doesn't really stick to the traditional Unix as much as BSD does, mainly because its utilities are from GNU (remember, GNU's Not Unix). For example, try reading the man pages for a GNU utility. It is usually poorly written, and tells you "well, we hate man pages; look up the info page." I personally hate info pages; I want all of my documentation for a utility on one page, not on hyperlinks.
Finally, I don't even want to get started on the virtues of BSD ports, which is literally a godsend. Linux's packaging managers are getting quite good; there's Debian's apt-get and Gentoo's portage.
Linux has many advantages to BSD, as well. Linux seems to get much better support from software developers than BSD does. I can buy Mathematica for Linux, run Java (officially supported by Sun), run Oracle, and other big commercial software. Linux is also officially supported by Mozilla, OpenOffice, and other important OSS software. BSD doesn't have the same type of commercial and OSS support that Linux gets, but FreeBSD runs Linux binaries very well, and most of the open source software works flawlessly on FreeBSD; I'm typing this in Firefox on FreeBSD, even though it is "unsupported" by Mozilla. Linux seems to get faster hardware support for the latest gadgets. Finally, Linux's popularity is much higher, meaning that you're more apt to find Linux support groups than BSD support groups.
All in all, the main difference, IMO, between BSD and Linux is its Unix-ness and its support. To put it like this, BSD is to Linux as vi is to emacs. (Interestingly enough, vi is written by Bill Joy, one of the original BSD developers. emacs is popularized by Richard Stallman, founder of the GNU project).
The reason why some of us are disappointed is because the Apple was the last bastion of computing that wasn't powered by the x86 platform. Everything else (MIPS, Motorola 68k, ALPHA, HP's PA-RISC) has either been relegated to embedded computing or discontinued, with the SPARC still holding out (but looks like it's in bad shape; I have a feeling that the SPARC will be discontinued within the next few years). The PowerPC, like the other chips that I mentioned, had an elegant design and was quite powerful. I especially liked the PowerMac G5. I am not a huge fan of Intel and the x86 at all; the x86 is an archaic architecture encumbered by decades of backwards-compatibility cruft. I personally don't like Intel that much as a company, either; but that's a post for another topic. My biggest beef with the whole switch to Intel is that, as of June 6, 2005, starting from 2007 there will be no more platform diversity in personal computing. There will be no more choices. Everything will be a x86 computer (either from Intel or AMD), and if your old computer dies out and you don't want to switch to x86, then your computing will be relegated to a game console (where the PowerPC holds strong) or some other embedded computer.
Oh well. But hey, this is the perfect opportunity to buy a PowerPC Mac while they still exist. If I had the money, I'd buy a NeXT box (I always lusted for them) and a PowerMac G5. I know that when Apple switches to Intel, they will still sell Macs with OS X, and they will still be nice looking, and I know that there is more to the Mac than the PPC. However, the feeling of buying a computer with a completely different architecture and "sticking it to the Dark Side" (Intel/Microsoft) will be gone. You can't avoid "the Dark Side" anymore. And that's why a lot of people have "their knickers in a knot over this." And I'm not even a Mac user (although I have lusted over them for about a year or so).
It is truly a sad state of affairs when it comes to processors. In the PC market, now that Apple has been consolidated^Wswitched to Intel, now the x86 is the only architecture available, either from Intel or from AMD. The Alpha is dead, the PPC is now relegated to game consoles, the MIPS is relegated to embedded computers and SGI workstations, and the SPARC is also relegated to Sun workstations. There is no choice for me at all. Unless I want to shell out $5000 or more for a brand spanking new Sun/SGI workstation, scrounge on eBay to find old Alphas, or buy myself a Mac within the next year now, I will be stuck with the x86....forever.
Rob Pike said it best five years ago: there is no innovation in computer architecture and systems software at all. Everybody is focused on being "cheap" and "compatable," but nobody is focused on making an architecture that is elegant and of good quality. Nobody wants to make a new architecture that blows everything else out of the water. Nobody wants to revolutionize operating systems (I'm talking about the architecture, not the usability; Apple's doing well in the usability department). Simply put, nobody wants to try something different. And anything that wasn't Microsoft or Intel technology ends up getting destroyed. Unix was spared, but market consolidation between Unix variants and Microsoft operating systems killed many operating systems (VMS, pre-OS X Macintosh, the various Lisp operating systems, etc.). Anything new and innovative seems to be held back (for example, look at Plan 9 and Hurd).
I just wish someone would be innovative and produce architectures that advance computer science and computer engineering rather than by just "going with the flow." I want to see something fresh and new on the market. I want to have the same processor choices that people enjoyed back in the 1980s. I want to see something new coming out of those factories and those universities. I don't want architecture research to die forever. I don't want Netcraft confirming that alternative architectures are dead. I don't want Intel and AMD to be the only avenues to buy CPUs: what happens when they impose DRM on us? Intel and AMD are already in the Trusted Computing Group. Who would we run to once Microsoft demands the use of DRM'd processors in Windows 2010 and Intel and AMD begin producing their DRM-encumbered processors? We need choice, and we need change before it's too late.
Until then, where can I buy PPC, SPARC, or MIPS motherboards?
Err, BSD wasn't able to free up their code because for a long time, most of BSD was AT&T code that couldn't be freed up. The FSF might have had some influence in getting the original Berkeley Unix developers to open their TCP/IP code (since it wasn't AT&T code at all), here is a quote from Twenty Years of Berkeley Unix: From AT&T Owned to Freely Redistributable:
The idea of releasing the rest of the BSD-only utilities and rewriting all of the AT&T-owned source code (such as the C library, little utilities like cat, sed and grep, and the kernel) came from Keith Bostic, who managed to get a group of developers to work on all of this code. After 18 months, they were left with six "contaminated" kernel source files. All of the unencumbered files were released as the Net/2 Release. (Unfortunately, AT&T and Berkeley got into a fight about those supposedly unencumbered files, which led to the infamous USL vs. BSDI/UCB lawsuit and almost halted development of 386BSD, the first free BSD)
So, it wasn't really the FSF's idea for BSD to release its source code, or to rewrite all of the old AT&T utilities and release them. However, the FSF does deserve credit for getting the free BSDs to switch their license from the orignial BSD license (with the advertisement clause) to something more or less like the MIT/X11 license.
Err, BSD doesn't use GNU libc (BSD has it's own C library), and the only reason why BSD uses gcc instead a BSD-license compiler is because when the original BSD developers decided to rewrite all of the AT&T code, GCC was already available, and I guess the BSD developers didn't feel like rewriting pcc (the compiler that shipped with AT&T Unix). I believe, looking at some old BSD source lists, that the BSD developers dropped pcc when the Net/2 release came out.
And with TenDRA becoming better each year, we might see the BSDs make the switch to this compiler. The BSDs are known for replacing GNU tools with BSD-licensed replacements. OpenBSD is working on a BSD-licensed CVS, and FreeBSD replaced GNU tar with a BSD-licensed tar in FreeBSD 5.3.
I agree. The PowerPC was a great platform. It was technically superior to the x86 and, like you said, having a computer that isn't a x86 is interesting to us geeks. Unfortunately, that's gone, and Apple was the last holdout for personal computer manufacturers who didn't produce x86 computers. (There are still Sun's SPARC workstations, but they aren't cheap).
I also believe that this move will hurt Apple in the end because this is the third major change that developers and users have to go through. When Apple switched from 68k to PowerPC, it took a while for developers to switch and people who bought 68k Macs during the transition were left in the cold when the transition was complete in 1996, since nobody would develop for those Macs. When Apple switched from Mac OS 8/9 to Mac OS X, it took a long time for developers to port their applications and for users to switch. Users who were stuck with OS 9 because their computers can't handle OS X are also left in the cold, because nobody wants to develop for Mac OS 9 anymore. (I don't even think there is an updated broswer for that platform. At least Windows 95 can run the latest Firefox). For example, when Apple bought NeXT, Apple promised developers and users that the PowerMac 9600 (released in 1997) would be able to run the next-generation Mac OS (then known as Rhapsody). After years of developing OS X, when OS X was released in 2001, the PowerMac 9600 was unsupported. Imagine those developers who spent the money to buy a computer that was guaranteed to run "the future Mac OS," just so in a few years they would be told, "Sorry: please spend another $2000."
Now the Mac users and developers have to go through this third transition. Developers would have to learn how the x86 works and would now have to target their applications for both the PPC and the x86. Apple still has to sell PPC computers for the next two years in order to stay afloat. However, people would be more sceptical of Apple purchases because they fear that the rug would be pulled from under them again, just like people who bought 68k Macs from 1994-1996 and those who were stuck with OS 9.
The biggest advantage to being a Linux/BSD user is that they can't pull the rug from under us. Linux and BSD is available for just about every modern platform. If I decide to buy a Mac now, I could either run Mac OS X and stick with it until Apple pulls the rug from under me, or I could use NetBSD or Linux and run that as long as the Mac stays alive. The beauty about Linux/BSD is that it doesn't matter what platform your computer is running on; just pick the platform and computer you like the best and pick a flavor of Linux or BSD that runs on that platform, compile your applications, and that's the end of it. Applications are abundant for just about every free *nix and for just about every platform. If the code doesn't compile or work properly, you can ask somebody to port it, or you can port it yourself. You don't have to worry about your computer ever being "unsupported" because you can always run the latest Linux and BSD along with the latest and greatest of FOSS software. That's why I love FOSS.
This can only help Linux in the long run, and will save some Macs from being in the dumpster once nobody makes any software for them. Just ask some former Mac OS 9 users: some of them who decided to keep their computers that couldn't run OS X decided to switch to *nix (or at least dual-boot between OS 9 and *nix).
Faster and cheaper doesn't always imply better. The PowerPC was a great platform; it is a shame that IBM/Motorola did a bad job in chip production with that platform, so we're forced to deal with the cludgy x86....forever. Seeing the 64-bit PowerPC G5 get phased out in favor of an archaic, 32-bit Pentium 4 just looks sad.
All of the other good architectures have been either phased out or destroyed thanks to the domination of Microsoft and the x86. Now Apple is forced to assimilate to stay alive.
Well, if you can't beat them, join them. I wonder when are we ever going to see a new, non-x86 platform for personal computers?
AMD makes x86 processors; what do you think the Athlon, Athlon 64, and the Opteron are? Granted, the latter two are both x86-64 computers, but they are still x86 related.