OS/X on 'regular' box | death of Linux?
coo...@nospamverizon.net
tech-heads - all major Linux, Unix nerds. Someone showed a hacked
version os OS/X running on a vanilla Dell - qeustion went around the
group - if OS/X were released for (say) $50-100 for any machine out
there, would you buy it, and dump whatever you're currently using?
Answer was 11/12 said 'absolutely' (the one who said no is a Solaris
fanatic who has been using it so long he still thinks Sun is a player
in anything - right along with SGI). So, even the guys who comile
weird kernels in Linux just for grins have pretty well said they'd
ditch Linux overnight. And the 32-4 who do heavy app developement said
something like 'Cool - no KDE vs Gnome bs to deal with either'.
I have to admit, as I survey my own collection of boxes, running
various distros, and the amount of time I've had to spend tweaking
them, OS/X looks like a nice alternative. Mind you, I don't mind the
tweaking, but for mission critical stuff, its a pain in the butt.
I'd be willing to bet major $$$ that part of the deal when Micro$oft
invested $$$ in Apple a few years back that the big clause underlined
in red 10 times was 'Thou shalt not release OS/X to the general
masses'.
Of course, Jobs is so anal-retentive (he probably awakens each night
wondering if anal-retentive shoul be hyphenated, or not) that OS/X
public release wil never happen. But, an interesting thought...
Liam Slider
<snip>
I call bullshit.
Hell... I call Flatfish!
Colin Day
And what comes standard with OS X? Does it include TeX/LaTeX, a
C/C++ compiler, a decent text editor like GNU emacs (or vi)? Does it
include a web server? a database? Can I have multiple desktops like
KDE out of the box? I don't want to download them, I just want them
already there.
Also, doesn't Apple make more money on its hardware?
Colin Day
Larry Qualig
There's nothing in your list that couldn't be easily added. Most (as in
nearly all) of my neighbors have computers. They want a machine for
web-browsing, email, paying bills, taxes and the occasional letter or
spreadsheet. Not one of them could care about having a C++ compiler,
Emacs, a web-server or a database on their machine.
Anyone who is going to use a C++ compiler or emacs can easily download
it off the web. (Or install it from the CD/DVD). This is one of the
barriers Linux advocates need to get over... very, very few people give
a damn whether or not their OS comes with emacs, vi or a database
server. Installing this stuff isn't a feature to them... it's an
obstacle.
Duke Robillard
> And what comes standard with OS X? Does it include TeX/LaTeX, a
> C/C++ compiler, a decent text editor like GNU emacs (or vi)? Does it
> include a web server? a database? Can I have multiple desktops like
> KDE out of the box? I don't want to download them, I just want them
> already there.
The only thing you get out of the box in that list is
the C/C++ compiler.
It's not that hard to find the rest, but it's not stock.
(Except for the virtual desktop--I ended up buying (!) one.
Whoa. Been a long time since I paid for some piece of
software that wasn't a video game. :->)
Duke
ray
> I was recently at a meeting of sysops I hang out with - total
> tech-heads - all major Linux, Unix nerds. Someone showed a hacked
> version os OS/X running on a vanilla Dell - qeustion went around the
> group - if OS/X were released for (say) $50-100 for any machine out
I think that is the kicker, right there. I don't see Apple releasing boxed
sets for less than $100 dollars. I don't even really see them releasing
boxed sets for general sale. They want to control the whole shebang -
hardware and software.
Rex Ballard
$2000, certainly not in the same league as some of these AMD-64
machines selling for $800-900, but not unreasonable.
The Mac kills any attempt to claim that *nix is too expensive or too
hard to learn. And the Intel Mac just shows that *nix on Intel is a
wise decision.
Linux can do at least as much as the Mac can, but just isn't as
artistic as the Mac. The Mac is like a Porshe or Jaguar, but those who
can't afford these cars can get a Mazda, Nissan, or even a sporty
american car - but the sports car creates the attraction for the
stickshift, and the other sport cars offer their machines with a stick
too.
The Intel-Mac is an alarm bell to the OEMs who traditionally use
Microsoft. They need to find some way to blend their offerings in such
a way as to retain the Microsoft market, but also begin to capture
shares of a frantically growing *nix market.
Remember the 1970s? GM, Ford, and Chrysler were selling gas guzzling
"Muscle Cars", but a fuel shortage and the sudden transition of
baby-boomers from living with their parents to supporting themselves -
led to a very sudden and dramatic shift in the car market from big
muscle cars to small economical compact cars. The problem was that GM,
Ford, and Chrysler were still building big heavy muscle cars. The
market suddenly exploded with cars from Honda, Toyota, Datsun, and
VolksWagon. It took Detroit nearly 2 years to "tool up" for this new
market, Chrysler even needed a "Bail Out" from the.federal government.
coo...@nospamverizon.net
>On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 15:08:15 -0500, cooch17 wrote:
>
>> I was recently at a meeting of sysops I hang out with - total
>> tech-heads - all major Linux, Unix nerds. Someone showed a hacked
>> version os OS/X running on a vanilla Dell - qeustion went around the
>> group - if OS/X were released for (say) $50-100 for any machine out
>
>I think that is the kicker, right there. I don't see Apple releasing boxed
>sets for less than $100 dollars. I don't even really see them releasing
>boxed sets for general sale. They want to control the whole shebang -
>hardware and software.
>
Bit *if* they did, what would you, or anyone else do? As I note in the
OP, these were a bunch of total techies (a couple even own stock in
RH, I think), and they were pretty well ready to ditch their current
distros for OS/X. Not for Darwin, but for the GUI, and development,
environment, basically. have you command line, and eat eye candy too.
Why not? I've been chugging along with RH for 8+ years, and am pretty
happy with it, all in all, but the time it took to tweak...
Larry Qualig
Jobs owes Gates nothing. With the recent move to Intel chips this may
be something that Jobs is contemplating. I'm sure he realizes that
there's more profit to be had selling 20x as much software than there
is in selling the current hardware.
ray
IF the moon were made of green cheese, MicroSoft would be out of business.
Prime rule of logic: a false premise leads to any conclusion.
Linønut
> I was recently at a meeting of sysops I hang out with - total
> tech-heads - all major Linux, Unix nerds. Someone showed a hacked
> version os OS/X running on a vanilla Dell - qeustion went around the
> group - if OS/X were released for (say) $50-100 for any machine out
> there, would you buy it, and dump whatever you're currently using?
> Answer was 11/12 said 'absolutely' (the one who said no is a Solaris
> fanatic who has been using it so long he still thinks Sun is a player
> in anything - right along with SGI). So, even the guys who comile
> weird kernels in Linux just for grins have pretty well said they'd
> ditch Linux overnight. And the 32-4 who do heavy app developement said
> something like 'Cool - no KDE vs Gnome bs to deal with either'.
Listen up. Nobody believes this shit.
> I have to admit, as I survey my own collection of boxes, running
> various distros, and the amount of time I've had to spend tweaking
> them, OS/X looks like a nice alternative. Mind you, I don't mind the
> tweaking, but for mission critical stuff, its a pain in the butt.
Wotta loada bull.
> I'd be willing to bet major $$$
Virtual major $$$, I'm sure.
> that part of the deal when Micro$oft
> invested $$$ in Apple a few years back that the big clause underlined
> in red 10 times was 'Thou shalt not release OS/X to the general
> masses'.
>
> Of course, Jobs is so anal-retentive (he probably awakens each night
> wondering if anal-retentive shoul be hyphenated, or not) that OS/X
> public release wil never happen. But, an interesting thought...
--
Q: Why does a GNU/Linux user compile his kernel?
A: Because he can.
Liam Slider
> Bit *if* they did, what would you, or anyone else do?
I for one would never switch to yet another limited, proprietary OS.
Linønut
>> > I was recently at a meeting of sysops I hang out with - total
>> > tech-heads - all major Linux, Unix nerds. Someone showed a hacked
>> > version os OS/X running on a vanilla Dell - qeustion went around the
>> > group - if OS/X were released for (say) $50-100 for any machine out
>> > there, would you buy it, and dump whatever you're currently using?
>> > Answer was 11/12 said 'absolutely' (the one who said no is a Solaris
>> > fanatic who has been using it so long he still thinks Sun is a player
>> > in anything - right along with SGI). So, even the guys who comile
>> > weird kernels in Linux just for grins have pretty well said they'd
>> > ditch Linux overnight. And the 32-4 who do heavy app developement said
>> > something like 'Cool - no KDE vs Gnome bs to deal with either'.
>
> Anyone who is going to use a C++ compiler or emacs can easily download
> it off the web. (Or install it from the CD/DVD). This is one of the
> barriers Linux advocates need to get over... very, very few people give
> a damn whether or not their OS comes with emacs, vi or a database
> server. Installing this stuff isn't a feature to them... it's an
> obstacle.
Note above that the original poster was positing a group of techoids,
not consumer-level users.
And installing such stuff is not an obstacle. The consumer-level user
simply won't even know to do it, or, if the distro installs such stuff
by default, the user won't even know to look for it.
How can something invisible be an obstacle?
Linønut
> Remember the 1970s? GM, Ford, and Chrysler were selling gas guzzling
> "Muscle Cars", but a fuel shortage and the sudden transition of
> baby-boomers from living with their parents to supporting themselves -
> led to a very sudden and dramatic shift in the car market from big
> muscle cars to small economical compact cars. The problem was that GM,
> Ford, and Chrysler were still building big heavy muscle cars. The
> market suddenly exploded with cars from Honda, Toyota, Datsun, and
> VolksWagon. It took Detroit nearly 2 years to "tool up" for this new
> market, Chrysler even needed a "Bail Out" from the.federal government.
And Chrysler still has Lee Iacocca doing ads for 'em!
Linønut
> Jobs owes Gates nothing. With the recent move to Intel chips this may
> be something that Jobs is contemplating. I'm sure he realizes that
> there's more profit to be had selling 20x as much software than there
> is in selling the current hardware.
Sounds about right. Can get much higher margins with software.
Larry Qualig
Just because the user isn't aware that it's installed or can't find it
doesn't justify loading up their system with "crud." I quoted "crud"
because this is certainly useful to someone who wants/needs it but to a
dentist it's stuff he doesn't want which is the equivalent of crud.
-> How can something invisible be an obstacle?
If the daemons for the web server and database server are started it
would slow the startup time, use more memory, more system resources
(sockets, semaphores, ...) uses up disk space for no good reason, etc.
Just because an <average> user can't detect that a database and
web-server have been installed on their system doesn't justify
installing it.
Rick
And it would take time to tweak OS X too. And the cost of software could
put you into the poor house.
--
Rick
Wegie
> On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 15:08:15 -0500, cooch17 wrote:
>
> > I was recently at a meeting of sysops I hang out with - total
> > tech-heads - all major Linux, Unix nerds. Someone showed a hacked
> > version os OS/X running on a vanilla Dell - qeustion went around the
> > group - if OS/X were released for (say) $50-100 for any machine out
>
> I think that is the kicker, right there. I don't see Apple releasing boxed
> sets for less than $100 dollars. I don't even really see them releasing
> boxed sets for general sale. They want to control the whole shebang -
> hardware and software.
a portion of the mac's high popularity has to do with the fact apple
does control the hardware and software, so everything pretty much just
works. apple would never just release the software to run on "junky"
pcs. what would be the point? the user would suffer like they already do
using windows or linux, and nobody wants that.
--
.
GreyCloud
Lets see... C/C++/ObjeC, XCode for an IDE, emacs, vi, perl, python,
ruby, Java, and pretty much the BSD commands are included with OS X.
The berkeley db is there, as well as MySql.
The biggest difference is they use their own display server and fonts.
--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
GreyCloud
<snip> Off the subject here, but did you ever get a chance to install
Solaris yet?
TheLetterK
> On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 14:01:41 -0700, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 15:08:15 -0500, cooch17 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I was recently at a meeting of sysops I hang out with - total
>>>tech-heads - all major Linux, Unix nerds. Someone showed a hacked
>>>version os OS/X running on a vanilla Dell - qeustion went around the
>>>group - if OS/X were released for (say) $50-100 for any machine out
>>
>>I think that is the kicker, right there. I don't see Apple releasing boxed
>>sets for less than $100 dollars. I don't even really see them releasing
>>boxed sets for general sale. They want to control the whole shebang -
>>hardware and software.
>>
>
>
> Bit *if* they did, what would you, or anyone else do? As I note in the
> OP, these were a bunch of total techies (a couple even own stock in
> RH, I think), and they were pretty well ready to ditch their current
> distros for OS/X. Not for Darwin, but for the GUI, and development,
> environment, basically. have you command line, and eat eye candy too.
I would continue to depreciate my use of OS X in favor of
GNU/Linux--I've switched to OS X, *and* switched back because OS X
requires *way* too much work to operate properly.
>
> Why not? I've been chugging along with RH for 8+ years, and am pretty
> happy with it, all in all, but the time it took to tweak...
What on earth makes you think OS X doesn't require more work?
Larry Qualig
GreyCloud wrote:
> Larry Qualig wrote:
>
> <snip> Off the subject here, but did you ever get a chance to install
> Solaris yet?
Not yet. I was going to do it over the 3-day Presidents day weekend but
I installed Ubuntu on a spare machine and put that on-line. I have
everything I need downloaded (at least I think I do) but haven't done
it yet.
I should have time to do it this soon. My wife and two daughters left
for vacation this morning (France) and they won't be back until next
Friday night. So it's basically me and my son around here and he does
his own thing. So I should have plenty of free time to give it a shot.
How's your Solaris running for you? Any tips or things to lookout for?
Linønut
> If the daemons for the web server and database server are started it
> would slow the startup time, use more memory, more system resources
> (sockets, semaphores, ...) uses up disk space for no good reason, etc.
> Just because an <average> user can't detect that a database and
> web-server have been installed on their system doesn't justify
> installing it.
I was talking about stuff like compilers. Those servers won't get
installed unless you ask for them.
Linønut
> a portion of the mac's high popularity has to do with the fact apple
> does control the hardware and software, so everything pretty much just
> works. apple would never just release the software to run on "junky"
> pcs. what would be the point? the user would suffer like they already do
> using windows or linux, and nobody wants that.
Thanks for your vote of support for Apple's software development teams.
William Poaster
> On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 14:01:41 -0700, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 15:08:15 -0500, cooch17 wrote:
>>
>>> I was recently at a meeting of sysops I hang out with - total
>>> tech-heads - all major Linux, Unix nerds. Someone showed a hacked
>>> version os OS/X running on a vanilla Dell - qeustion went around the
>>> group - if OS/X were released for (say) $50-100 for any machine out
>>
>>I think that is the kicker, right there. I don't see Apple releasing
>>boxed sets for less than $100 dollars. I don't even really see them
>>releasing boxed sets for general sale. They want to control the whole
>>shebang - hardware and software.
>>
>>
> Bit *if* they did, what would you, or anyone else do?
I wouldn't change from linux. Why would I want a proprietry OS, with the
entailing licence restrictions? I can put linux on as many of my machines
as I want, without needing any extra licences.
> As I note in the OP, these were a bunch of total techies (a couple even
> own stock in RH, I think), and they were pretty well ready to ditch
> their current distros for OS/X. Not for Darwin, but for the GUI, and
> development, environment, basically. have you command line, and eat eye
> candy too.
>
> Why not? I've been chugging along with RH for 8+ years, and am pretty
> happy with it, all in all, but the time it took to tweak...
--
SuSE 10.1 OSS Beta3 (Agama Lizard)
Peter Köhlmann
> On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 14:01:41 -0700, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 15:08:15 -0500, cooch17 wrote:
>>
>>> I was recently at a meeting of sysops I hang out with - total
>>> tech-heads - all major Linux, Unix nerds. Someone showed a hacked
>>> version os OS/X running on a vanilla Dell - qeustion went around the
>>> group - if OS/X were released for (say) $50-100 for any machine out
>>
>>I think that is the kicker, right there. I don't see Apple releasing boxed
>>sets for less than $100 dollars. I don't even really see them releasing
>>boxed sets for general sale. They want to control the whole shebang -
>>hardware and software.
>>
>
> Bit *if* they did, what would you, or anyone else do?
No
> As I note in the
> OP, these were a bunch of total techies (a couple even own stock in
> RH, I think), and they were pretty well ready to ditch their current
> distros for OS/X.
I guess they weren't "a bunch of total techies" then
> Not for Darwin, but for the GUI, and development,
> environment, basically. have you command line, and eat eye candy too.
>
Whoever thinks that the GUI and development on OSX is to be preferred to
linux certainly is no "total techie". "Clueless idiot" would be a more
appropriate description. And that is the polite version
> Why not? I've been chugging along with RH for 8+ years, and am pretty
> happy with it, all in all, but the time it took to tweak...
OSX tweaks all by itself? Really?
--
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message, however, a
significant number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
Larry Qualig
There's a discrepency here because earlier Colin Day complained that it
doesn't come with any of these:
>And what comes standard with OS X? Does it include TeX/LaTeX, a
>C/C++ compiler, a decent text editor like GNU emacs (or vi)? Does it
>include a web server? a database? Can I have multiple desktops like
>KDE out of the box? I don't want to download them, I just want them
>already there.
Duke Robbilard then confirmed this by writing:
- "The only thing you get out of the box in that list is the C/C++
compiler. It's not that hard to find the rest, but it's not stock."
So I figure I'd get the story straight by looking at Apples own
web-site. Unfortunately they're not clear about this. (
http://www.apple.com/macosx/techspecs/ ) They don't mention any of this
but I suspect they are only listing the major software components that
end-users are going to care about.
Tim Smith
Others have also observed OS X attracting a lot of highly technical
people:
<http://www.paulgraham.com/mac.html>
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
Duke Robillard <du...@NOSPAMio.com> wrote:
> Colin Day wrote:
>
> > And what comes standard with OS X? Does it include TeX/LaTeX, a
> > C/C++ compiler, a decent text editor like GNU emacs (or vi)? Does it
> > include a web server? a database? Can I have multiple desktops like
> > KDE out of the box? I don't want to download them, I just want them
> > already there.
>
> The only thing you get out of the box in that list is
> the C/C++ compiler.
...and Emacs, vim, and Apache.
--
--Tim Smith
Colin Day
> GreyCloud wrote:
>
>>
>>Lets see... C/C++/ObjeC, XCode for an IDE, emacs, vi, perl, python,
>>ruby, Java, and pretty much the BSD commands are included with OS X.
>>The berkeley db is there, as well as MySql.
>>
>>The biggest difference is they use their own display server and fonts.
>
>
>
>
> There's a discrepency here because earlier Colin Day complained that it
> doesn't come with any of these:
>
Sorry if it sounded like a complaint. I was asking about those programs, as
I don't have a Mac.
Colin Day
Colin Day
> Colin Day wrote:
>
>>And what comes standard with OS X? Does it include TeX/LaTeX, a
>>C/C++ compiler, a decent text editor like GNU emacs (or vi)? Does it
>>include a web server? a database? Can I have multiple desktops like
>>KDE out of the box? I don't want to download them, I just want them
>>already there.
>
>
>
> There's nothing in your list that couldn't be easily added. Most (as in
> nearly all) of my neighbors have computers. They want a machine for
> web-browsing, email, paying bills, taxes and the occasional letter or
> spreadsheet. Not one of them could care about having a C++ compiler,
> Emacs, a web-server or a database on their machine.
>
> Anyone who is going to use a C++ compiler or emacs can easily download
> it off the web. (Or install it from the CD/DVD). This is one of the
> barriers Linux advocates need to get over... very, very few people give
> a damn whether or not their OS comes with emacs, vi or a database
> server. Installing this stuff isn't a feature to them... it's an
> obstacle.
>
>
But the subject mentioned Linux killer. Ie this really a Linux killer?
Colin Day
Linønut
> In article <Ib2dnXH9v7_d7prZ...@comcast.com>,
> Linųnut <linųn...@bone.com> wrote:
>>
>> Listen up. Nobody believes this shit.
>
> Others have also observed OS X attracting a lot of highly technical
> people:
>
> <http://www.paulgraham.com/mac.html>
Tim, we're talking about a COLA poster and his little "anecdote".
And I simply don't believe the blog you quote. "All the best hackers I
know"? Bullshit. He's talking about professors.
I have not seen one single person with Mac OSX. Not one. Zip. Zilch.
Linønut
> But the subject mentioned Linux killer. Ie this really a Linux killer?
No. It is nice that Mac OSX has some UNIXy stuff built into it, and
that it is so pretty that all the shiny happy college professors like it
(according to various anecdotal sources of dubious heritage).
But it isn't any kind of Linux killer.
Larry Qualig
Linønutlinøn...@bone.com wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
> > In article <Ib2dnXH9v7_d7prZ...@comcast.com>,
> >>
> >> Listen up. Nobody believes this shit.
> >
> > Others have also observed OS X attracting a lot of highly technical
> > people:
> >
> > <http://www.paulgraham.com/mac.html>
>
> Tim, we're talking about a COLA poster and his little "anecdote".
>
> And I simply don't believe the blog you quote. "All the best hackers I
> know"? Bullshit. He's talking about professors.
>
-> I have not seen one single person with Mac OSX. Not one. Zip.
Zilch.
Wow. That's surprising. My case is the exact opposite. I know far more
Mac users than would be statistically probable. (Most of the people
also own other systems too.)
Duke Robillard
Well, sort of. :-) The Emacs you get stock is pretty lame; it's
not the X version.
Nice to know about vim and apache.
Duke
Linønut
> Linųnutlinųn...@bone.com wrote:
>
> -> I have not seen one single person with Mac OSX. Not one. Zip.
> Zilch.
>
> Wow. That's surprising. My case is the exact opposite. I know far more
> Mac users than would be statistically probable. (Most of the people
> also own other systems too.)
Mac, or OSX? I know of a Mac user. Old-style Mac. Also, the dental
dept. at the Med U. here uses an old iMac for processing.
No OSX, though.
Ian Hilliard
> I was recently at a meeting of sysops I hang out with - total
> tech-heads - all major Linux, Unix nerds. Someone showed a hacked
> version os OS/X running on a vanilla Dell - qeustion went around the
> group - if OS/X were released for (say) $50-100 for any machine out
> there, would you buy it, and dump whatever you're currently using?
> Answer was 11/12 said 'absolutely' (the one who said no is a Solaris
> fanatic who has been using it so long he still thinks Sun is a player
> in anything - right along with SGI). So, even the guys who comile
> weird kernels in Linux just for grins have pretty well said they'd
> ditch Linux overnight. And the 32-4 who do heavy app developement said
> something like 'Cool - no KDE vs Gnome bs to deal with either'.
There are two problems with this theory.
- First: Apple has made it quite clear that they don't want to enter this
market. It appears that they are afraid of going head to head with
Microsoft. My guess is that they might do it if Linux were to break
Microsoft's strangle hold on the OEM market.
- Second (and this is a biggie): Apple are able to produce a very stable
OS because they have a very well defined hardware platform. If OSX had to
run on any hardware, there would be the need to write drivers and there
would be various reliability problems with flakey hardware and drivers.
This would quickly take the glance off OSX.
I wouldn't bet the farm on your theory. I think that we will find Linux
continuing to chip away at Microsoft's dominance for the next few years
and then becoming a major player. It will be very hard for OSX to compete
with a free OS, but we will just have to see.
OSX is a good OS, but it is the Apple hardware that makes it a great
combination for computer illiterates with money. In the forseeable future
this is likely not to change.
Ian
JEDIDIAH
> On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 14:01:41 -0700, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> I was recently at a meeting of sysops I hang out with - total
>>> tech-heads - all major Linux, Unix nerds. Someone showed a hacked
>>> version os OS/X running on a vanilla Dell - qeustion went around the
>>> group - if OS/X were released for (say) $50-100 for any machine out
>>
>>sets for less than $100 dollars. I don't even really see them releasing
>>boxed sets for general sale. They want to control the whole shebang -
>>hardware and software.
>>
>
> OP, these were a bunch of total techies (a couple even own stock in
> RH, I think), and they were pretty well ready to ditch their current
It's not just about the toys anymore. Many of us have had
better toys in the past. Unfortunately those mostly went the way of
the Dodo because of the way that the software works.
Jobs will always be in a position to shoot himself and his
platform in the foot. For that reason alone many of us will not
drink the OSX cool-aid.
That boat already sailed, 10 years ago.
> environment, basically. have you command line, and eat eye candy too.
>
> Why not? I've been chugging along with RH for 8+ years, and am pretty
> happy with it, all in all, but the time it took to tweak...
I tweak very little if anything these days. I do some extra
things in terms of security and other things that I would still bolt
onto any OS I used. If OSX were better at running Win32 apps while
running on standard hardware, that might be interesting.
Otherwise it's pretty redundnat at this point.
--
...as if the ability to run Cubase ever made or broke a platform.
|||
/ | \
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
JEDIDIAH
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Wegie belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> a portion of the mac's high popularity has to do with the fact apple
>> does control the hardware and software, so everything pretty much just
>> works. apple would never just release the software to run on "junky"
>> pcs. what would be the point? the user would suffer like they already do
>> using windows or linux, and nobody wants that.
>
> Thanks for your vote of support for Apple's software development teams.
>
Getting all that "Mac coolness" to run on a random collection
of spare parts is an entirely different matter than doing the same
with a system that is completely under their control.
GreyCloud
Believe me, it is in there. I didn't have to download anything or pay
extra for these. The C/C++/Objective-C compilers are of the Gnu
version, which is free and is included on the DVD. All you have to do
is load the development pkg onto the hard drive and your set.
GreyCloud
>
> But the subject mentioned Linux killer. Ie this really a Linux killer?
>
Nope.
GreyCloud
That emacs that apple ships with it IS the lamest version I've ever
seen. The one that ships with Solaris is very well endowed. The
comparison is like twiggy vs. Brittany Spears.
Sinister Midget
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Colin Day belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> But the subject mentioned Linux killer. Ie this really a Linux killer?
>
> No. It is nice that Mac OSX has some UNIXy stuff built into it, and
> that it is so pretty that all the shiny happy college professors like it
> (according to various anecdotal sources of dubious heritage).
>
> But it isn't any kind of Linux killer.
At best it's a linux co-exister. It may gain some with the eventual
demise of $CRAPWARE. But it's never going to make it to top dog unless
Job$ & Co dramatically alter the way they do things.
--
Microsoft is to operating systems and security as McDonalds is to
gourmet cooking.
GreyCloud
What I've found is that you have to edit these files to get on the
internet and also to get rid of the pesky "can't verify hostname,
sleeping for retry" message at the console.
/etc/resolv.conf: should have...
domain your-isps-true-name
nameserver nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn where you need to get from your isp.
nameserver an-alternate-address
/etc/inet/hosts & /etc/inet/ipnodes
nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn host-name.localnet host-name loghost
# cp /etc/nsswitch.dns /etc/nsswitch.conf
where the hosts: line must be
hosts: files dns
In my setup I use a static IP address because I'm using DHCP on my cisco
cheapy router box.
The reason you have to do all this for a standalone system is that Sun
expects you to already have a local dns server running that will take
care of this.
Also, download from Sun docs the related admin manuals, as they are very
useful to have around and seems to explain a lot of various setups and
how to modify the appropriate files.
GreyCloud
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>
>>In article <Ib2dnXH9v7_d7prZ...@comcast.com>,
>> Linønut <linøn...@bone.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Listen up. Nobody believes this shit.
>>
>>Others have also observed OS X attracting a lot of highly technical
>>people:
>>
>> <http://www.paulgraham.com/mac.html>
>
>
> Tim, we're talking about a COLA poster and his little "anecdote".
>
> And I simply don't believe the blog you quote. "All the best hackers I
> know"? Bullshit. He's talking about professors.
>
> I have not seen one single person with Mac OSX. Not one. Zip. Zilch.
>
Oohh... you never looked at my headers.
OS X is so-so but I needed this particular one to make room for my
vax4000 on my desk.
Otherwise, I'd have kept the HP P4-D and partitioned the drive and put
Linux on it.
Ruel Smith
> I was recently at a meeting of sysops I hang out with - total
> tech-heads - all major Linux, Unix nerds. Someone showed a hacked
> version os OS/X running on a vanilla Dell - qeustion went around the
> group - if OS/X were released for (say) $50-100 for any machine out
> there, would you buy it, and dump whatever you're currently using?
Nope.
> Answer was 11/12 said 'absolutely' (the one who said no is a Solaris
Pretty small sample, not to mention the lack of random sampling.
> fanatic who has been using it so long he still thinks Sun is a player
> in anything - right along with SGI). So, even the guys who comile
> weird kernels in Linux just for grins have pretty well said they'd
> ditch Linux overnight. And the 32-4 who do heavy app developement said
> something like 'Cool - no KDE vs Gnome bs to deal with either'.
There is not debate...KDE...
> I have to admit, as I survey my own collection of boxes, running
> various distros, and the amount of time I've had to spend tweaking
> them, OS/X looks like a nice alternative. Mind you, I don't mind the
> tweaking, but for mission critical stuff, its a pain in the butt.
OS X is micro kernel based and has been tested as slower than Linux because
of it's arhitecture limitations. It's not a true Unix, but rather Unix
based.
> I'd be willing to bet major $$$ that part of the deal when Micro$oft
> invested $$$ in Apple a few years back that the big clause underlined
> in red 10 times was 'Thou shalt not release OS/X to the general
> masses'.
>
> Of course, Jobs is so anal-retentive (he probably awakens each night
> wondering if anal-retentive shoul be hyphenated, or not) that OS/X
> public release wil never happen. But, an interesting thought...
Here's what Apple should do, IMHO: Roll its own Linux (using the actual
Linux kernel instead of the Mach kernel like it did before in MKLinux),
using the Quartz rendering engine, and all the fancy art that the Mac has.
Then, use its in-house programmers to develop excellent tools for
administration and package management, and sell it to the public. I
wouldn't mind one bit that it has proprietary software in it, so long as I
can run my usual Linux apps, plus some great apps from Apple and others.
Then, it would no longer be OS X, and they wouldn't have to care. I think
Apple on board would win over the public for switching to Linux, get some
major development help for the architecture from the community, tap into an
existing market, contribute in house to the open source communtiy, and have
little to do to port the existing software to the new OS. Maybe, they could
make it KDE based, and play a huge part in shaping KDE 4 for the better.
I know it won't happen, but hey...
Just my $.02...
Linønut
> Linønut wrote:
>> I have not seen one single person with Mac OSX. Not one. Zip. Zilch.
>
> Oohh... you never looked at my headers.
Oh, I know there are a few here. But I've seen one, face-to-face.
> OS X is so-so but I needed this particular one to make room for my
> vax4000 on my desk.
Cool! And all the world's a VAX!
GreyCloud
> After takin' a swig o' grog, GreyCloud belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>
>>Linųnut wrote:
>>
>>>I have not seen one single person with Mac OSX. Not one. Zip. Zilch.
>>
>>Oohh... you never looked at my headers.
>
>
> Oh, I know there are a few here. But I've seen one, face-to-face.
>
I haven't seen any OS X anywhere in the business world yet. I've seen
quite a few IBM/Linux new installations like Home Depot and Lowes.
>
>>OS X is so-so but I needed this particular one to make room for my
>>vax4000 on my desk.
>
>
> Cool! And all the world's a VAX!
>
I've finally acquired another vax4000 and trying to practice with the
old cluster software and see how it works. Seems like this is my only
hobby, being an old goat and retired.
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 03:08 PM, coo...@NOSPAMverizon.net said:
>Answer was 11/12 said 'absolutely'
I don't believe it. I don't believe that you could have gotten 11/12
to agree on much of anything.
>(the one who said no is a Solaris
>fanatic who has been using it so long he still thinks Sun is a player
>in anything - right along with SGI).
SUN may be weak on the desktop, but it's still a major presence in the
data center.
>And the 32-4 who do heavy app developement said
>something like 'Cool - no KDE vs Gnome bs to deal with either'.
What's to deal? Pick one and develop for it. The application will
still run under either.
>and the amount of time I've had to spend tweaking
>them,
What kind of tweaking, and how would OS/X avoid the need?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 15:08:15 -0500, cooch17 wrote:
> I was recently at a meeting of sysops I hang out with - total
> tech-heads - all major Linux, Unix nerds. Someone showed a hacked
> version os OS/X running on a vanilla Dell - qeustion went around the
> group - if OS/X were released for (say) $50-100 for any machine out
> there, would you buy it, and dump whatever you're currently using?
Would I buy it? Probably - having an extra skill set never hurts. Would
I dump Linux for it? Does the term "cold day in hell" ring any bells?
> I have to admit, as I survey my own collection of boxes, running various
> distros, and the amount of time I've had to spend tweaking them, OS/X
> looks like a nice alternative. Mind you, I don't mind the tweaking, but
> for mission critical stuff, its a pain in the butt.
This is *precisely* where Linux - actually, almost any *nix-like OS -
shines. Tweak *once*, then simply clone.
For example, our "real" servers - not the PC-class bitty boxes - are all
effectively the same thing, as far as the OS is concerned, apart from how
many NICs are installed, RAM, etc.
So I configure a Debian image to work on one, with appropriate options
(smp, highmem to 4Gb, whatever), build, voila; a core system now tuned to
the needs of all of the servers.
What else? Oh, yes, might need email, web, dhcp, whatever. Here's the
fun part: I can set all of those up on a single stock image, work out any
kinks, get everything ready, set, go... then I can simply clone the setup.
Need a web server? Easy; copy over the cloned setup, disable the
unnecessary bits, set the IP addresses, host names, whatever else needs
setting for the particular machine, click, done.
Maybe OSX can do the same sort of thing. Maybe it can't. Windows sure as
hell can't. However, whether OSX can or not, Linux *can*, so the issue of
tweaking is really pretty minimalized, despite being deployed to an entire
server farm.
For desktops, there might be a little more tweaking involved, especially
if you have weird or only partially supported hardware... but then again,
once you tweak it, you stop. You just *use* it from there on out. No
need to re-tweak. 'Sides, you have to do the same sort of thing in
Windows, so it's hardly novel.
And, of course, as OSX moves to PCs, it's going to be in the same boat;
it'll either have to completely restrict the "allowed" hardware to items
Apple is willing to support directly, or, if it's going to allow the
consumer to do what he does with Windows - i.e. basically buy any shiny
new thing, plug it in and see - then it, too, is going to have the same
sort of issues, especially if the hardware vendors fail to support it as
well as they do Windows.
Basically, it's facing the same challenges Windows and Linux face,
requiring the same sort of hassles and headaches, *or* it's going to have
to restrict supported devices, which will somewhat limit its popularity
for PC users.
--
MS, because work should be measured by effort, rather than result.
Matt
> I haven't seen any OS X anywhere in the business world yet. I've seen
> quite a few IBM/Linux new installations like Home Depot and Lowes.
There are at least a couple of fairly major government agencies here (.au)
running Mac OS.
New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority (a monster bureaucracy
employing heaps of staff) do, and I think the Queensland Police Service
still do as well.
atbu...@aol.com
#2 Linux is free, easyer than Mac OS X for windows guys, and
did i menchon free
#3 goverment agencys dont count because they dont make money
Grug
coo...@NOSPAMverizon.net wrote:
> I was recently at a meeting of sysops I hang out with - total
> tech-heads - all major Linux, Unix nerds. Someone showed a hacked
> version os OS/X running on a vanilla Dell - qeustion went around the
> group - if OS/X were released for (say) $50-100 for any machine out
> there, would you buy it, and dump whatever you're currently using?
> fanatic who has been using it so long he still thinks Sun is a player
> weird kernels in Linux just for grins have pretty well said they'd
> something like 'Cool - no KDE vs Gnome bs to deal with either'.
>
> various distros, and the amount of time I've had to spend tweaking
> them, OS/X looks like a nice alternative. Mind you, I don't mind the
> tweaking, but for mission critical stuff, its a pain in the butt.
>
> invested $$$ in Apple a few years back that the big clause underlined
> in red 10 times was 'Thou shalt not release OS/X to the general
> masses'.
>
> Of course, Jobs is so anal-retentive (he probably awakens each night
> wondering if anal-retentive shoul be hyphenated, or not) that OS/X
> public release wil never happen. But, an interesting thought...
Hmmm...
Well, I for one am very glad that linux exists... it forces MS to
compete, and because I like Windows, I am glad that it will force
innovation from MS.
Now, having said that, I think OSX is vastly superior to Linux in the
areas of user interface, and ease of use. However, Linux (and Windows
Server 2003) has been shown to be far higher performing on the server
than OSX. There was an article on Anandtech on this... maybe someone
can post the link.
Anyways, It's great that there is competition again in the OS world...
Linux, OSX and Windows, and they all get better.
I still vastly prefer Windows, but I also have Linux running on my G4
mac mini :)
Linønut
> Well, I for one am very glad that linux exists... it forces MS to
> compete, and because I like Windows, I am glad that it will force
> innovation from MS.
>
> Now, having said that, I think OSX is vastly superior to Linux in the
> areas of user interface, and ease of use. However, Linux (and Windows
> Server 2003) has been shown to be far higher performing on the server
> than OSX. There was an article on Anandtech on this... maybe someone
> can post the link.
>
> Anyways, It's great that there is competition again in the OS world...
> Linux, OSX and Windows, and they all get better.
>
> I still vastly prefer Windows, but I also have Linux running on my G4
> mac mini :)
Ahhh, nice post! (Not that I agree with /everything/ in it <grin>.)