One of the biggest advantages of running MacOS X on the Intel core is the ability to join the slobbering masses of MacOS advocates. Think of the joy of not only being a Linux Zealot but doubling up with being a MacOS Zealot as well!:)
You are right. It really doesn't make much of a difference for the Intel crowd since MacOS X/Darwin is a *BSD Unix system. How many *BSD distros are their already for Intel? It only really makes a difference if Apple allows Quartz and Aqua and the other components of the full MacOS X distro to migrate.
For all the blasting of Apple, I find it very cool that they are allowing the core of MacOS X to migrate to other platforms. If and when Apple allows Quartz, Aqua and the other various high level components for MacOS X to migrate, then the Joe Average Windows consumers (not you Linux Boxen Elite) might have an OS worth moving too. For as much as I love Linux for serving files, I really would not feel comfortable moving my Windows based employees to this great platform and expect them to hit the ground running as I have when moving them to a Mac.
Maybe in the future, Linux will hit the Joe Average Masses but I think MacOS X Intel might beat Linus to the punch. 20 Years of UI research at Apple is hard to combat but those Eazel folks might surprise us all.
Your post smacks simply of rancor towards Apple and the Mac Rumors press.
I have no rancor towards Apple. I LOVE APPLE! If Steve Jobs walked into the room right now, I might change my sexual orientation. What I have trouble with are all the wild rumors regarding Apple products that end up being false. It hurts Apple by giving users false hope that some product is coming out sooner than later thus leading them into making poor purchasing decisions.
The last great screw up by the rumor sites involves the "Pismo" PowerBook. Perfectly wonderful PowerBook G3/400s sat in the the distribution channels because of rumors that Pismo was going to be released on a certain date. My rep at one of the big Apple mail order companies said that they had a horrible quarter selling PowerBooks because users keep calling to ask when the Pismo talked about on the rumor sites would be available. Instead of buying an awesome notebook, they were lulled into believing vaporware was right around the corner. THAT IS HORRIBLE FOR APPLE!
Frankly, if I were Steve Jobs, I would start sending out the sharks and suing the pants off these sites for putting out completely false and deceptive information regarding Apple's products.
Slashdot had reported on this before regarding MacOS X beta and G4 MPs coming out at WWDC based on reporting from rumor sites (last week I think). That is why I was pointing this out. MacNN is a great news source. Unfortunately, it has jumped into the rumors business via its AppleInsider website.
It is amazing how often Slashdot gets burned by the Mac Rumor Web Sites. From now on, I would suggest that Slashdot completely ignore the ignorant and always inaccurate MacOSRumors web site. The fool that runs the site was been missing the mark nearly 100% on the release of MacOS X and is causing untold damage to Apple by firing everyone up for a non-event such as the WWDC release of MacOS X beta. The only thing notable about MacOSRumors is when it actually gets something right!
What Apple did release was MacOS X DP4 which MacOS Rumors falsely claimed had already been released to "select developers".
Here is the actual text from MacOS Rumors saying that MacOS X Beta was going to be released today, er, um 90% chance it would be released today.
From MacOS Rumors: Release of Mac OS X Beta to Developers: 90% Although sources have been unusually noncomittal about specific ship dates on Beta, the timing is right and the release is by all appearances very nearly ready to go.
Slashdot: Stick to the facts and please ignore the rumor web sites. They are an absolute waste of electrons!
Everytime I read the GPL I end up feeling like I am totally missing the point of contract. Can someone post a "GPL for Dummies" on this thread so I can finally figure what I can and cannot do under GPL and piss off IDG at the same time? Some areas I would like cleared up are: 1. Can I use code protected by GPL on a web site that has advertising? 2. If I write a commercial program that uses a line from GPL protected code, do I have to make all my code GPL? 3. Do I still own the copyright if I license something under GPL. These would be a good start in my understanding of GPL.
Actually the prices of DVD movies, to me at least, are fairly reasonable when compared to music CDs. I usually pay about $19.95 for a DVD movie and $14.99 for the music CD. Concidering that the DVD is a chuck full of data compared to the music CD, the DVD is a better value. About my only concern about DVDs is the potential to force me to buy advertising along with the movie I want. Even though I work for a magazine and a TV network, I am pretty much tired of seeing advertising being rammed down my throat at every turn. My freaking apples from the bodega have dot com ads on them!!!
It would appear if PC Week wanted to have a fair contest, PC Week would have set up a B&W PowerMac G3 serving with WebStar. Why didn't they include a PowerMac G3 in contest? Probably because they know what all Mac users know -- You can't hack a Mac over the Internet! If you visit Attrition.org's hacked web pages archive, you will notice that in the many years of cataloging hacks none of them are Mac servers. Majority of them are Linux and NT boxes. Face it, NT and Linux are inherently insecure by their design. The average MacOS user can set up a web server faster and more secure than the best Linux guru. On top of that, you don't need a firewall to protect the Mac like you do for the lowly Linux or NT server.
Only Apple's MacOS is the secure platform for serving web pages. Just ask the Army. They have seen the light and moved to Mac. If all web servers were MacOS based, the concept of hacking web sites would be moot. Open Source does not mean more secure. If it did, then Linux would have better net security than the closed source MacOS. Clearly this contest has proven, once again, that Linux is an insecure platform to serve web pages.
Free != Better MacOS Net Security > Linux Net Security Game, Set, Match, Apple!!!
Slashdot Mirror
One of the biggest advantages of running MacOS X on the Intel core is the ability to join the slobbering masses of MacOS advocates. Think of the joy of not only being a Linux Zealot but doubling up with being a MacOS Zealot as well! :)
You are right. It really doesn't make much of a difference for the Intel crowd since MacOS X/Darwin is a *BSD Unix system. How many *BSD distros are their already for Intel? It only really makes a difference if Apple allows Quartz and Aqua and the other components of the full MacOS X distro to migrate.
For all the blasting of Apple, I find it very cool that they are allowing the core of MacOS X to migrate to other platforms. If and when Apple allows Quartz, Aqua and the other various high level components for MacOS X to migrate, then the Joe Average Windows consumers (not you Linux Boxen Elite) might have an OS worth moving too. For as much as I love Linux for serving files, I really would not feel comfortable moving my Windows based employees to this great platform and expect them to hit the ground running as I have when moving them to a Mac.
Maybe in the future, Linux will hit the Joe Average Masses but I think MacOS X Intel might beat Linus to the punch. 20 Years of UI research at Apple is hard to combat but those Eazel folks might surprise us all.
Your post smacks simply of rancor towards Apple and the Mac Rumors press.
I have no rancor towards Apple. I LOVE APPLE! If Steve Jobs walked into the room right now, I might change my sexual orientation. What I have trouble with are all the wild rumors regarding Apple products that end up being false. It hurts Apple by giving users false hope that some product is coming out sooner than later thus leading them into making poor purchasing decisions.
The last great screw up by the rumor sites involves the "Pismo" PowerBook. Perfectly wonderful PowerBook G3/400s sat in the the distribution channels because of rumors that Pismo was going to be released on a certain date. My rep at one of the big Apple mail order companies said that they had a horrible quarter selling PowerBooks because users keep calling to ask when the Pismo talked about on the rumor sites would be available. Instead of buying an awesome notebook, they were lulled into believing vaporware was right around the corner. THAT IS HORRIBLE FOR APPLE!
Frankly, if I were Steve Jobs, I would start sending out the sharks and suing the pants off these sites for putting out completely false and deceptive information regarding Apple's products.
Slashdot had reported on this before regarding MacOS X beta and G4 MPs coming out at WWDC based on reporting from rumor sites (last week I think). That is why I was pointing this out. MacNN is a great news source. Unfortunately, it has jumped into the rumors business via its AppleInsider website.
It is amazing how often Slashdot gets burned by the Mac Rumor Web Sites. From now on, I would suggest that Slashdot completely ignore the ignorant and always inaccurate MacOSRumors web site. The fool that runs the site was been missing the mark nearly 100% on the release of MacOS X and is causing untold damage to Apple by firing everyone up for a non-event such as the WWDC release of MacOS X beta. The only thing notable about MacOSRumors is when it actually gets something right!
What Apple did release was MacOS X DP4 which MacOS Rumors falsely claimed had already been released to "select developers".
Here is the actual text from MacOS Rumors saying that MacOS X Beta was going to be released today, er, um 90% chance it would be released today.
From MacOS Rumors:
Release of Mac OS X Beta to Developers: 90% Although sources have been unusually noncomittal about specific ship dates on Beta, the timing is right and the release is by all appearances very nearly ready to go.
Slashdot: Stick to the facts and please ignore the rumor web sites. They are an absolute waste of electrons!
Everytime I read the GPL I end up feeling like I am totally missing the point of contract. Can someone post a "GPL for Dummies" on this thread so I can finally figure what I can and cannot do under GPL and piss off IDG at the same time? Some areas I would like cleared up are:
1. Can I use code protected by GPL on a web site that has advertising?
2. If I write a commercial program that uses a line from GPL protected code, do I have to make all my code GPL?
3. Do I still own the copyright if I license something under GPL.
These would be a good start in my understanding of GPL.
Actually the prices of DVD movies, to me at least, are fairly reasonable when compared to music CDs. I usually pay about $19.95 for a DVD movie and $14.99 for the music CD. Concidering that the DVD is a chuck full of data compared to the music CD, the DVD is a better value. About my only concern about DVDs is the potential to force me to buy advertising along with the movie I want. Even though I work for a magazine and a TV network, I am pretty much tired of seeing advertising being rammed down my throat at every turn. My freaking apples from the bodega have dot com ads on them!!!
It would appear if PC Week wanted to have a fair contest, PC Week would have set up a B&W PowerMac G3 serving with WebStar. Why didn't they include a PowerMac G3 in contest? Probably because they know what all Mac users know -- You can't hack a Mac over the Internet! If you visit Attrition.org's hacked web pages archive, you will notice that in the many years of cataloging hacks none of them are Mac servers. Majority of them are Linux and NT boxes. Face it, NT and Linux are inherently insecure by their design. The average MacOS user can set up a web server faster and more secure than the best Linux guru. On top of that, you don't need a firewall to protect the Mac like you do for the lowly Linux or NT server.
Only Apple's MacOS is the secure platform for serving web pages. Just ask the Army. They have seen the light and moved to Mac. If all web servers were MacOS based, the concept of hacking web sites would be moot. Open Source does not mean more secure. If it did, then Linux would have better net security than the closed source MacOS. Clearly this contest has proven, once again, that Linux is an insecure platform to serve web pages.
Free != Better
MacOS Net Security > Linux Net Security
Game, Set, Match, Apple!!!