Note also that, even if our ears could pick up sounds around the 20Hz mark, we would be unlikely to hear them if listening in an ordinary room. At high power, we might feel the air moving at that frequency but the sound wave would simply be too long to propagate. Consider v=fl (using l for lambda here) where v is the speed of sound, f is the frequency of the sound and l is the sound's wavelength. Assuming that v=330m/s (a reasonably good approximation) and f=20Hz (as alluded to, above), we arrive at l = 330/20 = 16.5m, which is a wee bit longer than any axis of a room likely to be employed for computer use.
Nor is Linux. Linux is a kernel. GNU/Linux is not Unix, either. _G_nu's _N_ot _U_nix.
Unix is, IIRC, a trademark and a standard owned and defined by The Open Group and nothing is Unix unless it is Open Group certified. End of story.
"As we all know, Linux's greatest strength is in the latter, and my experience suggests that OS X is simply not ready for enterprise-class server applications."
Given your lack of knowledge of Unix systems, kiddo, I'd say that your "experience" ain't worth diddly.
A dual-processor G4 is undoubtedly going to be a very fast machine. Sure, it's still vapourware but it indicates that multiprocessing can be achieved easily. This is surely the purpose of the demonstration.
Some of the commentary alluded to the following and I'd like to correct some minor points:
1. People are asserting that Linux would be better run on some other system.
A1. True. Apple is about the integration of proprietary software with specifically constructed hardware. If you want an open system then look elsewhere.
2. Assertions that Mac don't make good web/workgroup servers.
A2. This was correct in the first instance until the release of MacOS X Server around a year ago. At the time of release, a Power Macintosh G3 running Apache was the fastest Apache server available. As concerns the notion of "workgroup servers", AppleShare IP is a very good solution for small workgroups. The AFP server available on OS X is quite up to the demands of serving to hundreds (even thousands) of clients and Samba runs on OS X, too.
3. Macs don't multitask.
A3. Not strictly true. There is no protected memory or pre-emptive multitasking in MacOS X but they're quite capable of the standard time-slicing methods used when running multiple applications/services. OS X is, essentially BSD Unix and the beta is due out in a matter of months. If a platform does the job for which it was intended (and the Mac may not be the choice for you) then its cost is both justifiable and supremely irrelevant.
Mr Q. Z. D.
Re:Actually, if anybody EXCEPT apple were managing
on
Apple announces the G4
·
· Score: 1
Let's take it from the top.
Firstly - yeah, Apple aren't the best marketers in the world. This should be a given by now, surely?
Secondly - MacOS has one advantage over UN*X-like OSs, BeOS and Windoze and that is ease of use and elegance in the UI. It walks over the competition in size 13 hob-nailed boots in that respect. MacOS users don't really care about the core OS, as long as their machine is relatively stable and reasonably speedy. Things may get better with OS X but time will tell.
Thirdly - Apple may be making the wrong choice about graphics cards but I am unsure as to the existence of drivers for other hardware under MacOS 8.x/9. At present, there is no graphics acceleration support under OS X Server but this should change with X Client.
Apple have always made the mistake of believing that because they have the best product they will win market share. Microsloth have proven this assumption utterly invalid.
Slashdot Mirror
Note also that, even if our ears could pick up sounds around the 20Hz mark, we would be unlikely to hear them if listening in an ordinary room. At high power, we might feel the air moving at that frequency but the sound wave would simply be too long to propagate. Consider v=fl (using l for lambda here) where v is the speed of sound, f is the frequency of the sound and l is the sound's wavelength. Assuming that v=330m/s (a reasonably good approximation) and f=20Hz (as alluded to, above), we arrive at l = 330/20 = 16.5m, which is a wee bit longer than any axis of a room likely to be employed for computer use.
*sigh*
"6. It's not a real Unix."
Nor is Linux. Linux is a kernel. GNU/Linux is not Unix, either. _G_nu's _N_ot _U_nix.
Unix is, IIRC, a trademark and a standard owned and defined by The Open Group and nothing is Unix unless it is Open Group certified. End of story.
"As we all know, Linux's greatest strength is in the latter, and my experience suggests that OS X is simply not ready for enterprise-class server applications."
Given your lack of knowledge of Unix systems, kiddo, I'd say that your "experience" ain't worth diddly.
If you want all of the "functionality" that you seem to want then there's a 101 button mouse sitting in front of you, isn't there?
Sheesh. Some people...
A dual-processor G4 is undoubtedly going to be a very fast machine. Sure, it's still vapourware but it indicates that multiprocessing can be achieved easily. This is surely the purpose of the demonstration.
Some of the commentary alluded to the following and I'd like to correct some minor points:
1. People are asserting that Linux would be better run on some other system.
A1. True. Apple is about the integration of proprietary software with specifically constructed hardware. If you want an open system then look elsewhere.
2. Assertions that Mac don't make good web/workgroup servers.
A2. This was correct in the first instance until the release of MacOS X Server around a year ago. At the time of release, a Power Macintosh G3 running Apache was the fastest Apache server available. As concerns the notion of "workgroup servers", AppleShare IP is a very good solution for small workgroups. The AFP server available on OS X is quite up to the demands of serving to hundreds (even thousands) of clients and Samba runs on OS X, too.
3. Macs don't multitask.
A3. Not strictly true. There is no protected memory or pre-emptive multitasking in MacOS X but they're quite capable of the standard time-slicing methods used when running multiple applications/services. OS X is, essentially BSD Unix and the beta is due out in a matter of months. If a platform does the job for which it was intended (and the Mac may not be the choice for you) then its cost is both justifiable and supremely irrelevant.
Mr Q. Z. D.
Let's take it from the top.
Firstly - yeah, Apple aren't the best marketers in the world. This should be a given by now, surely?
Secondly - MacOS has one advantage over UN*X-like OSs, BeOS and Windoze and that is ease of use and elegance in the UI. It walks over the competition in size 13 hob-nailed boots in that respect. MacOS users don't really care about the core OS, as long as their machine is relatively stable and reasonably speedy. Things may get better with OS X but time will tell.
Thirdly - Apple may be making the wrong choice about graphics cards but I am unsure as to the existence of drivers for other hardware under MacOS 8.x/9. At present, there is no graphics acceleration support under OS X Server but this should change with X Client.
Apple have always made the mistake of believing that because they have the best product they will win market share. Microsloth have proven this assumption utterly invalid.
Mr Q. Z. D.