Why is it that a site with "linux" in the name has the annoying problem where their quotes display as question marks? Have they even viewed their own site on an open-source platform? I'm disgusted.
If you can show that the software in question
breaks less frequently and/or is quicker to
configure, in other words that it consumes fewer
human-hours, in my opinion you have a very strong
argument.
I spent two grand on an Apple. What did I get? Two 450MHz G4 CPUs w/1MB L2 cache, 256 MB RAM (half of it was thrown in for free by Outpost), 30 GB ATA hard disk, gigabit ether, 56K modem, case, power supply, keyboard, mouse.
I could probably have gotten a faster PC for that price, but still, that's not shabby. Certainly no other non-PC vendor would have given me that much machine for my money.
(BTW, I did not buy an Apple monitor, I thought they were overpriced.)
I think Jailbreakr's point is that interoperability
doesn't come from acronyms. NT is or was able to use
the POSIX label -- marginally -- but I'm pretty sure none
of the free BSDs are. Which do you think will give you
more trouble compiling and running common
POSIX[-ish] applications?
From my perspective as a long-term reader of the FreeBSD developer mailing lists, it doesn't seem to me that Apple has anything to apologize for. The people who work on FreeBSD understand that their code is available for anyone to use for any purpose, and none of them seem peeved at Apple's actions. One of FreeBSD's core team members even works on Darwin as well.
Apple has a policy of submitting as many changes as possible "upstream" to the open-source projects that they include in Darwin. If that's not good citizenship, what is?
Also, as an aside, they have open-sourced the Darwin Streaming Server.
I followed your link and read the page, but I didn't see how MOSX bypasses Mach. Could you elaborate on this a little, please?
BTW, the diagram there surprised me -- I thought that things like Carbon and Cocoa used some of the functionality provided by the BSD layer. The VFS, for example, and the networking code. Could the diagram be wrong?
--
Re:Just One Little Problem - I Can't Find It
on
FreeBSD 4.3 Released
·
· Score: 1
Well, the manual would tell them about "make kernel", presumably. Also about editing/etc/make.conf.
I've never been a "Mac person", but I bought a Mac so I could run MOSX. No regrets so far, but I knew what I was getting into, since I've been using a NeXT for a few years.
I think you misread me. I was responding to a post wherein someone said that if users knew that MHz didn't compare directly, they would all switch to the G4.
I don't really see people switching platforms from Mac to PC just because they think the CPU is better. Who would find it worthwhile? Graphic designers, but only because they can get the apps they need on a Mac, and anyway they already know the deal about CPUs if they're paying that level of attention to their hardware.
Would you agree that language is socially constructed? Or do you consider it absolute? If facts are absolute but language is shifty, what happens when you try to express facts in language?
--
Re:What an incoherent posting. Don't waste your ti
on
Why Community Matters
·
· Score: 2
I have my doubts about capitalism and I *certainly* ain't libertarian. Please don't try to speak for "we at slashdot".
There has been some confusion over this. Yes, it is Mach. But the BSD code is running in the same address space as the Mach stuff. A crash in the BSD code would crash the whole kernel (um... big whoop, having only Mach running doesn't do you a whole lot of good). So basically, MOSX/Darwin aren't using Mach as a microkernel, they're using it as the basis for a nicely modular but "monolithic" kernel.
This was all covered pretty well in the Ars Technica review of MOSX that was linked off Slashdot a couple of days ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is it that a site with "linux" in the name has the annoying problem where their quotes display as question marks? Have they even viewed their own site on an open-source platform? I'm disgusted.
--
If you can show that the software in question
breaks less frequently and/or is quicker to
configure, in other words that it consumes fewer
human-hours, in my opinion you have a very strong
argument.
--
But the BSDs ship plenty of non-BSD-licensed software. Like ... oh, I don't know, the compiler.
--
Man, those Samoans are a surly bunch.
--
Could you please post some more information about this? I'd appreciate some specific instances of the coding assumptions you're talking about.
--
Wow.
You'll note that my purchase did *not* include a monitor.
No regrets though, I wanted to play with Mac OS X and that's what I'm doing -- if I wanted speed, I'd be using a different OS, hardware issues aside.
--
I spent two grand on an Apple. What did I get? Two 450MHz G4 CPUs w/1MB L2 cache, 256 MB RAM (half of it was thrown in for free by Outpost), 30 GB ATA hard disk, gigabit ether, 56K modem, case, power supply, keyboard, mouse.
I could probably have gotten a faster PC for that price, but still, that's not shabby. Certainly no other non-PC vendor would have given me that much machine for my money.
(BTW, I did not buy an Apple monitor, I thought they were overpriced.)
--
I think Jailbreakr's point is that interoperability
doesn't come from acronyms. NT is or was able to use
the POSIX label -- marginally -- but I'm pretty sure none
of the free BSDs are. Which do you think will give you
more trouble compiling and running common
POSIX[-ish] applications?
--
From my perspective as a long-term reader of the FreeBSD developer mailing lists, it doesn't seem to me that Apple has anything to apologize for. The people who work on FreeBSD understand that their code is available for anyone to use for any purpose, and none of them seem peeved at Apple's actions. One of FreeBSD's core team members even works on Darwin as well.
Apple has a policy of submitting as many changes as possible "upstream" to the open-source projects that they include in Darwin. If that's not good citizenship, what is?
Also, as an aside, they have open-sourced the Darwin Streaming Server.
--
gets() is unsafe; use fgets()
--
From your web page:
> Carbon consists of most of the classic Macintosh > APIs save for reentrant code.
What do you mean by this? It could be read a couple of different ways, and one of them isn't correct.
--
I followed your link and read the page, but I didn't see how MOSX bypasses Mach. Could you elaborate on this a little, please?
BTW, the diagram there surprised me -- I thought that things like Carbon and Cocoa used some of the functionality provided by the BSD layer. The VFS, for example, and the networking code. Could the diagram be wrong?
--
Well, the manual would tell them about "make kernel", presumably. Also about editing /etc/make.conf.
--
Duh, I meant to say "PC to Mac", not "Mac to PC" -- no wonder my point didn't get across.
--
I've never been a "Mac person", but I bought a Mac so I could run MOSX. No regrets so far, but I knew what I was getting into, since I've been using a NeXT for a few years.
--
I think you misread me. I was responding to a post wherein someone said that if users knew that MHz didn't compare directly, they would all switch to the G4.
--
Or maybe an airplane.
--
d00d, do you mean to say that while you compile a kernel, you don't do anything else?!
--
I don't really see people switching platforms from Mac to PC just because they think the CPU is better. Who would find it worthwhile? Graphic designers, but only because they can get the apps they need on a Mac, and anyway they already know the deal about CPUs if they're paying that level of attention to their hardware.
--
Sure am, thanks!
--
As someone else posted so astutely, go read some Hume and get back to me.
--
Check out _Proofs and Refutations_ by Imre Lakatos and see if you still feel the same way about mathematical communication.
--
Would you agree that language is socially constructed? Or do you consider it absolute? If facts are absolute but language is shifty, what happens when you try to express facts in language?
--
I have my doubts about capitalism and I *certainly* ain't libertarian. Please don't try to speak for "we at slashdot".
--
There has been some confusion over this. Yes, it is Mach. But the BSD code is running in the same address space as the Mach stuff. A crash in the BSD code would crash the whole kernel (um ... big whoop, having only Mach running doesn't do you a whole lot of good). So basically, MOSX/Darwin aren't using Mach as a microkernel, they're using it as the basis for a nicely modular but "monolithic" kernel.
This was all covered pretty well in the Ars Technica review of MOSX that was linked off Slashdot a couple of days ago.
--