Sun to unveil sub-$1,000 Unix
Mayor Of R'lyeh
http://www.msnbc.com/news/536470.asp?0nm=-14P
Why buy an iMac when you can get a Unix workstation for the same
money?
Cuss and discuss.
Rick- The point is under your hat.
--
Every Mac user is an idiot. Every goddamned one of us.
Andy Walton
3/19/2000
Rob Barris
ev5...@hotmail.com wrote:
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/536470.asp?0nm=-14P
>
> Why buy an iMac when you can get a Unix workstation for the same
> money?
I'll email your question to my grandma (she's on AOL with an iMac)
and see what she thinks! What a maroon..
Rob
Jim Polaski
Mayor Of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/536470.asp?0nm=-14P
>
> Why buy an iMac when you can get a Unix workstation for the same
> money?
>
======
Because you'll be able to get BSD unix with the Mac GUI as a front end.
That's why!
--
Regards,Jim Polaski"The measure of a man is what he will do
knowing he will get nothing in return.
"COMPLETE MACINTOSH is now at http://people.ce.mediaone.net/jpolaski/index.html
Gav
wrote:
>In article <3a9b4ec9$0$1515$7ea9...@news.netdirect.net>,
> Mayor Of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.msnbc.com/news/536470.asp?0nm=-14P
>>
>> Why buy an iMac when you can get a Unix workstation for the same
>> money?
>>
>======
>Because you'll be able to get BSD unix with the Mac GUI as a front end.
>That's why!
Wow - so Apple have dropped Aqua then, and implemented the MacOS
GUI instead?
Gav
Woofbert
gavan-martin.moran@remove_this_to_reply.ubs.com.invalid (Gav) wrote:
Aqua *is* the MacOS GUI.
No, don't tell me you haven't read the new Macintosh Interface Guidelies
for Mac OS X! I'm sure that since you were such an expert on the
previous versions, you would have gone right to Apple's web site to get
the latest one and check out the new features.
--
Woofbert <woofbert at infernosoft dot com> -- http://www.infernosoft.com
"As any discussion of the Macintosh progresses, the likelihood of someone
claiming that the Mac UI was stolen from Xerox approaches 1. At this point,
the thread has degenerated to such an extent that it might as well end."
ZnU
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/536470.asp?0nm=-14P
>
> Why buy an iMac when you can get a Unix workstation for the same
> money?
Why buy a Sun Unix workstation when a copy of OS X can turn your iMac
into a Unix workstation that makes a much better desktop system?
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <z...@userhosting.com>
John Jensen
: Mayor Of R'lyeh wrote:
: >
: > http://www.msnbc.com/news/536470.asp?0nm=-14P
: >
: > Why buy an iMac when you can get a Unix workstation for the same
: > money?
: Because every GUI implemented to date on X windows is crap.
I wonder if John wrote this, or programmed an autoresponder ...
John
--
33° 39' 44N 117° 45' 07W
Josiah Fizer
L. Hansen) wrote:
>In article <3a9c0c23$0$1523$7ea9...@news.netdirect.net>,
>Mayor Of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:51:15 -0800, "John C. Randolph" <j...@idiom.com>
>>chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Mayor Of R'lyeh wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.msnbc.com/news/536470.asp?0nm=-14P
>>>>
>>>> Why buy an iMac when you can get a Unix workstation for the same
>>>> money?
>>>
>>>Because every GUI implemented to date on X windows is crap.
>>>
>>>-jcr
>>
>>You misspelled 'They aren't the same as MacOS and I'm too inflexible
>>to learn how to use anything but a Mac.'
>
>No, he was right the first time. They're crap. At least the ones I've
>seen are.
The GUI on Unix systems does not server the same purpose as that which
is on a Mac or Windows based system. im my opinion the best GUI for a
Unix workstation is TWM. What the buttons look like is of little
concern to people who are using applications rather then the OS to get
a job done. Ask yourself honestly, do you care what the GUI is once
your in Photoshop (bad example as the cross platform versions have
different interfaces then the Mac version)?
John Jensen
[on X Windows GUIs]
: No, he was right the first time. They're crap. At least the ones I've
: seen are.
I've seen a lot of change in the last three years. I kind of feel that
people who are harsh on X will be right every year ... until the first
year they are wrong. Human nature being what it is, some will continue
grumbling regardless.
Seriously, the big thing is the amount of resources being dumped on UNIX
GUIs right now. The desktop and palmtop are being supplied by dozens of
initiatives, including the two or three that get the headlines.
Apple is ahead, but I don't get why Apple always wants to go it alone.
Everybody else is out there building GUIs. You'd think Apple would want
to build some alliances and set some standards. That would allow them
some control of the industry. Instead they choose to compete with
everyone else at once. They'll leave it to small fry like Ximian or Eazel
to control the future.
History has proven that it is hard to prosper when you compete with
everyone else at once. I think my prediction (that Eazel will have a
higher user base in 2002 than Apple) is safe.
Edwin
"Mayor Of R'lyeh" <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3a9b4ec9$0$1515$7ea9...@news.netdirect.net...
>
>
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/536470.asp?0nm=-14P
>
> Why buy an iMac when you can get a Unix workstation for the same
> money?
The same money? The new Sun workstation is $995 without a monitor. This
is great news for workstation users, but I don't see how this affects iMac
buyers. The target audiences are hardly the same, and I doubt Solaris
sports the same applications and games as does the iMac.
Edwin
Josiah Fizer
Yup, diferent markets. Too bad Apple pulled MAE or I could run MacOS,
Soalris and NT on the same box with one of these.
Josiah Fizer
<nol...@nospam.myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>"Josiah Fizer" <jfi...@eshaman.com> wrote in message
>news:nj3o9tovli2l55f2v...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 12:08:45 -0800, "holism"
>> <nol...@nospam.myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Mayor Of R'lyeh" <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3a9b4ec9$0$1515$7ea9...@news.netdirect.net...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> http://www.msnbc.com/news/536470.asp?0nm=-14P
>> >>
>> >> Why buy an iMac when you can get a Unix workstation for the same
>> >> money?
>> >>
>> >> Cuss and discuss.
>> >>
>> >> Rick- The point is under your hat.
>> >
>> >Well, there's the obvious answer (which you already know of course), that
>> >iMacs will be UNIX workstations in a month, with better software support
>> >than a Sun.
>> >
>> >Besides, Suns are not that cool to use. We have some at my University and
>as
>> >far as everday usability goes, they blow. The sad thing is, I used them
>> >mostly for a graphics course and they were Ultra 60s decked out for
>graphics
>> >work and IMO they had sub-par graphics performance just compared to a
>> >GeForce (something about a 20K+ graphics machine that has no texture
>memory
>> >just gets me). Also for everyday tasks, like web browsing and compiling
>they
>> >seemed much slower than our commodity Intel PCs.
>> >
>> >I understand that in specific situations, like as servers or for
>> >computations that require 64bits Sun is the best choice, but as an
>everday
>> >desktop computer they made me want Windows....
>> >
>> >Nick
>> >
>>
>> In other words. You don't understand the advantages of Sun systems or
>> what they are used for. This is fine but don't expect other people to
>> share your opinion.
>
>No I don't, not really, but some are suggesting that the $1000 Sun would be
>a replacement for a Mac (or a PC for that matter) but I just don't think
>they fit into the same market. A Sun is just not a good computer for doing
>the things consumers want to do. It's $1000, but it's not a PC.
>
>Nick
>
True most consumers would be ill suited by such a system. Even with
the 600mhz SunPCi card to run NT alongside Solairs it faile to meat a
lot of peoples needs. However, for those of us that want to run Unix
without al lthe fluff that Apple seems to be adding to MacOS X these
are very tempting boxes. I for one plan on getting at least one latter
this month (with the SunPCi card if I can swing the cost). Right now I
use a SunSparc 10 for all my unix work and these new systems will blow
it away performance wise.
Gregory L. Hansen
I agree with you. All I really want out of a Unix GUI is someplace
to put my windows. But that's sort of the point. Why buy an iMac with
MasOS X instead of a Sun computer? Because the iMac is a Mac, and the Sun
is a Unix machine, that's why.
--
"'No user-serviceable parts inside.' I'll be the judge of that!"
Josiah Fizer
L. Hansen) wrote:
Bingo. MacOS X lacks the scailability of Solaris. So if I want to do
any serious Unix work I have to stick with Suns offerings. If however
I want an easy to use pretty Unix, I'll use Irix. If I want to use
Photoshop I use MacOS and if I want to use Delphi/C++ Builder I use
Windows. But then again that's why my apartment looks like a small
collages computer lab.
Steve Hix
Barris <rba...@quicksilver.com> wrote:
> In article <3a9b4ec9$0$1515$7ea9...@news.netdirect.net>,
> ev5...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > http://www.msnbc.com/news/536470.asp?0nm=-14P
> >
> > Why buy an iMac when you can get a Unix workstation for the same
> > money?
Because some applications that you might want/need to use
aren't available on the Unix workstation?
Which is why our multimedia lab has five Macs, from 8500/G4/450
to iMacs to G3/400 and G4/450...and two UltraSPARC machines.
Oh yeah...this happens to be in one of Sun's engineering
documentation groups.
And we did the documentation for the Sun Blade 100 and 1000
workstations. They *are* nice machines, and I'm tempted to
get a 100 for running Linux at home.
Steve Hix
<z...@userhosting.com> wrote:
> In article <3a9b4ec9$0$1515$7ea9...@news.netdirect.net>,
> ev5...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > http://www.msnbc.com/news/536470.asp?0nm=-14P
> >
> > Why buy an iMac when you can get a Unix workstation for the same
> > money?
>
> Why buy a Sun Unix workstation when a copy of OS X can turn your iMac
> into a Unix workstation that makes a much better desktop system?
Well, there are applications on the Sun machine that aren't
available on the Mac, even on MacOS X. The iMac would make a
better desktop system, granted.
Steve Hix
<jfi...@eshaman.com> wrote:
> On 27 Feb 2001 13:58:56 GMT, John Jensen <jj...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> >Mayor Of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> >
> >: http://www.msnbc.com/news/536470.asp?0nm=-14P
> >
> >: Why buy an iMac when you can get a Unix workstation for the same
> >: money?
> >
> >The previous Blade 1000 costs about ten times more (and runs 64-bit
> >UltraSPARC III CPUs at 600-900MHz). Here's an interesting page for those
> >into SPEC:
> >
> > http://www.sun.com/desktop/sunblade1000/
> >
> >I wonder what CPU the Blade 100 will use?
> >
> >BTW, the intesting implication is that these things will be running Gnome
> >at some point:
> >
> > http://www.sun.com/software/white-papers/wp-gnome-sunjoins/
> >
> >That will put these in similar territory to the iMac, UNIX+GUI. It will
> >have the wider support of a cross-platform, and cross-vendor, GUI of
> >course.
>
> These things run Gnome now. I have both Gnome and KDE running on my
> old Sparc10 without any problems.
It's just not supported (yet) by Sun.
A lot of their customers are *very* conservative about running
non-supported software. Heck, a lot of them won't upgrade OS versions
until the old ones are cut out from under them.
This is most *definitely* not the PC gaming market.
Steve Hix
<j...@idiom.com> wrote:
> Mayor Of R'lyeh wrote:
> >
> > http://www.msnbc.com/news/536470.asp?0nm=-14P
> >
> > Why buy an iMac when you can get a Unix workstation for the same
> > money?
>
> Because every GUI implemented to date on X windows is crap.
Oh, Gnome 1.2 and KDE 2.0 are pretty usable.
Josiah Fizer
I have to ask. Why would you want to run Linux rather then Solaris?
Rick
>
>
> Why buy an iMac when you can get a Unix workstation for the same
> money?
>
> Cuss and discuss.
>
> Rick- The point is under your hat.
>
> --
Cuss - you're still a psychotic asshole.
Discuss - why buy (insert name of any computer platform here) when you
can get a Unix workstation for the same money?
--
Rick
Rick
Are you really that stupid?
--
Rick
Rick
>
> On 27 Feb 2001 13:58:56 GMT, John Jensen <jj...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> >BTW, the intesting implication is that these things will be running Gnome
> >at some point:
> >
> > http://www.sun.com/software/white-papers/wp-gnome-sunjoins/
> >
> >That will put these in similar territory to the iMac, UNIX+GUI. It will
> >have the wider support of a cross-platform, and cross-vendor, GUI of
> >course.
>
> implementation.
>
> Anyone who is interested in running Unix on the desktop would have
> little reason to go the OS X route, unless an ability to run legacy
> Mac apps was a requirement.
>
> Gav
Anyone who is interested in running Unix on the dektop can do that quite
nicely right now. On a Mac. See my headers. Well, Im using Linux at the
moment, but Unix is available. WHen you buy a computer with MacOS X
installed you WILL get Mac legacy app support, MacOS X apps AND Unix
apps. That seems to be a better value for Mac people.
--
Rick
Rick
>
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 08:14:16 -0800, Josiah Fizer <jfi...@eshaman.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I think these are based on the new "birdsnest" motherboard. A 500mhz
> >Ultra Sparc with 256k of L2 cache. Not bad for a 64bit CPU, but the
> >rest of the motherboard specs are sub par. It uses IDE, and Solaris
> >has rather poor IDE drivers (Sol8 is better the Sol7, but the
> >performance is still not great). Oods are I'll pick one of these up to
> >replace my old Sparc10 workstation, and I'm getting 7 systems in based
> >on the "birdsnest" motherboard as soon as they get out of QA at sun.
> >Price wise this is very hard to beat, but it is not a perfect system
> >unless you realy want to use Solaris (or Linux I guess).
>
> For personal use, IDE isn't as bad as you might think. I have an
> Ultra 10 box at work and its extremely stable and nice to use for most
> day to day tasks.
>
> If you are doing a lot of disk I/O on it (like mounting a CD across
> a network to another machine for an install, or installing Oracle
> packages off it) it is a little unresponsive though.
>
> Overall, as a professional Unix desktop its really excellent - much
> better than a PC and likely much better than an OS X Mac will be.
>
So... you are saying Sun's Unix implementation is definitely better than
BSD?
> For home use I'll stick with x86 hardware and a removable HD system
> that allows me to have multiple OSes on completely seperate disks,
> and boot as needed.
>
> Gav
--
Rick
Rick
>
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:51:15 -0800, "John C. Randolph" <j...@idiom.com>
> chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Why buy an iMac when you can get a Unix workstation for the same
> >> money?
> >
> >
>
> You misspelled 'They aren't the same as MacOS and I'm too inflexible
> to learn how to use anything but a Mac.'
>
That's right. You keep right on telling people what they think. Thats a
good little psychotic.
--
Rick
Rick
... unless you also have reason to run MAc apps and like the Mac
experience... AND you want to run Unix/X Windows.
--
Rick
Rick
>
> In article <3a9c0c23$0$1523$7ea9...@news.netdirect.net>,
> Mayor Of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:51:15 -0800, "John C. Randolph" <j...@idiom.com>
> >chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>Mayor Of R'lyeh wrote:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.msnbc.com/news/536470.asp?0nm=-14P
> >>>
> >>> Why buy an iMac when you can get a Unix workstation for the same
> >>> money?
> >>
> >>Because every GUI implemented to date on X windows is crap.
> >>
> >>-jcr
> >
> >You misspelled 'They aren't the same as MacOS and I'm too inflexible
> >to learn how to use anything but a Mac.'
>
> No, he was right the first time. They're crap. At least the ones I've
> seen are.
>
I was very comfortable with fvwm2 and the KDE and GNOME libraries. Im
using sawfish at the moment and it seems pretty comfortable too.
--
Rick
Josiah Fizer
>Gav wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 08:14:16 -0800, Josiah Fizer <jfi...@eshaman.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I think these are based on the new "birdsnest" motherboard. A 500mhz
>> >Ultra Sparc with 256k of L2 cache. Not bad for a 64bit CPU, but the
>> >rest of the motherboard specs are sub par. It uses IDE, and Solaris
>> >has rather poor IDE drivers (Sol8 is better the Sol7, but the
>> >performance is still not great). Oods are I'll pick one of these up to
>> >replace my old Sparc10 workstation, and I'm getting 7 systems in based
>> >on the "birdsnest" motherboard as soon as they get out of QA at sun.
>> >Price wise this is very hard to beat, but it is not a perfect system
>> >unless you realy want to use Solaris (or Linux I guess).
>>
>> For personal use, IDE isn't as bad as you might think. I have an
>> Ultra 10 box at work and its extremely stable and nice to use for most
>> day to day tasks.
>>
>> If you are doing a lot of disk I/O on it (like mounting a CD across
>> a network to another machine for an install, or installing Oracle
>> packages off it) it is a little unresponsive though.
>>
>> Overall, as a professional Unix desktop its really excellent - much
>> better than a PC and likely much better than an OS X Mac will be.
>>
>
>So... you are saying Sun's Unix implementation is definitely better than
>BSD?
>
That depends on what you use it for. With Solaris the same application
I write on my Sparc desktop runs without changes on the 128cpu monster
down the hall. The level of scailability you get with Solaris is
incredible.
Rick
Actually, I wanted "Gav" to come up with some answer...
But, just how scaleable IS BSD ?
> >> For home use I'll stick with x86 hardware and a removable HD system
> >> that allows me to have multiple OSes on completely seperate disks,
> >> and boot as needed.
> >>
> >> Gav
--
Rick
Ben Reiter
<jfi...@eshaman.com> wrote:
My guess is, because he's used both Linux and Solaris in the past :)
\Ben
--
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher regard
those who think alike than those who think differently" - Nietzche
"Think Different" - Apple
My address above has no spamproofing - spam me, and I'll get your throwaway
account cancelled, guaranteed.
Ben Reiter
Did they do something to Irix since last I used it? It certainly wasn't
a 'pretty Unix' back then - kind of a bastard born of CDE and FVWM. I'm
not trying to be a jerk, but I really haven't used Irix in a while. It
struck me as very clunky and ugly at the time.
Josh McKee
wrote:
What 128 CPU monster is that? The E10K, currently Sun's top of the
line system, supports 64 CPU's.
Josh
Ben Reiter
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/536470.asp?0nm=-14P
>
> Why buy an iMac when you can get a Unix workstation for the same
> money?
>
> Cuss and discuss.
>
> Rick- The point is under your hat.
You misspelled "Why buy an Windows PC when you can get a Unix
workstation for the same money?".
Answer: because some people want to or need to run Windows. Just like
some people want to or need to run MacOS.
Next question?
ZnU
<se...@mac.com> wrote:
Sure, if you need a cheap Oracle development system or something. That
doesn't really matter to most people.
> The iMac would make a better desktop system, granted
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <z...@userhosting.com>
Robert Fovell
<z...@userhosting.com> wrote:
> In article <sehix-5733B7....@news.dsldesigns.com>, Steve Hix
> <se...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <znu-0DB607.0...@news.bellatlantic.net>, ZnU
> > <z...@userhosting.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <3a9b4ec9$0$1515$7ea9...@news.netdirect.net>,
> > > ev5...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > http://www.msnbc.com/news/536470.asp?0nm=-14P
> > > >
> > > > Why buy an iMac when you can get a Unix workstation for the same
> > > > money?
> > >
> > > Why buy a Sun Unix workstation when a copy of OS X can turn your
> > > iMac into a Unix workstation that makes a much better desktop
> > > system?
> >
> > Well, there are applications on the Sun machine that aren't available
> > on the Mac, even on MacOS X.
>
> Sure, if you need a cheap Oracle development system or something. That
> doesn't really matter to most people.
One something: Fortran. For the recalcitrant :-)
--
From the Revenge-is-a-dish-best-served-cold Dept. (Bozosity entry #9)
(http://home.pacbell.net/rfovell/bozosity.html)
"What's wrong with a wish to an end to a company that has a vocal (very
very small, but very loud) minority of people who bitch and moan that
their system is the best?" -- Jason McNorton 5/15/2000
Vareck Bostrom
500 MHz UltraSPARC IIe, 174 SPECint2000, 182 SPECfp2000.
Gav
>> Overall, as a professional Unix desktop its really excellent - much
>> better than a PC and likely much better than an OS X Mac will be.
>>
>
>So... you are saying Sun's Unix implementation is definitely better than
>BSD?
I'll take a Sun box with its large installated hardware base,
System V compliance, scaleability, proven stability and decades of
experience in Unix any day, over a new version of BSD on a G4 Mac.
Gav
Gav
>> Anyone who is interested in running Unix on the desktop would have
>> little reason to go the OS X route, unless an ability to run legacy
>> Mac apps was a requirement.
>>
>> Gav
>
>Anyone who is interested in running Unix on the dektop can do that quite
>nicely right now. On a Mac. See my headers. Well, Im using Linux at the
>moment, but Unix is available. WHen you buy a computer with MacOS X
>installed you WILL get Mac legacy app support, MacOS X apps AND Unix
>apps. That seems to be a better value for Mac people.
For Mac people, yes. Thats why I said " unless an ability to run
legacy Mac apps was a requirement."
For most existing Unix people, compatibility with the existing
well established and well support Sun/Solaris standard is more likely
to be the clincher.
Gav
Gav
<nol...@nospam.myrealbox.com> wrote:
>"Mayor Of R'lyeh" <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3a9b4ec9$0$1515$7ea9...@news.netdirect.net...
>>
>>
>> http://www.msnbc.com/news/536470.asp?0nm=-14P
>>
>> Why buy an iMac when you can get a Unix workstation for the same
>> money?
>>
>> Cuss and discuss.
>>
>> Rick- The point is under your hat.
>
>Well, there's the obvious answer (which you already know of course), that
>iMacs will be UNIX workstations in a month, with better software support
>than a Sun.
Better MAC software support you mean....
Jeez, do any of the OS X boosters ever visit the the real world
where Sun gear is powering many large enterprises and academic
institutions, right from the desktop workstation up to the
enterprise level server?
Yet you seriously think that just because you can whack an Apple
supported BSD Unix onto the Mac soon, that suddenly its a 'Unix
workstation with better software support than a Sun'?
I guess I'd grown so used to the level of cluelessness displayed in
the 'Mac vs PC' debate here that I grew numb to it, and so it comes
as a real shock when I see it displayed in a different form when it
comes to 'OS X vs Sun'.
Gav
Gregory L. Hansen
Some find the OpenStep programming environment attractive, too.
--
"'No user-serviceable parts inside.' I'll be the judge of that!"
Gregory L. Hansen
Good for you! But the target market for MacOS X is largely people that
want a Mac.
Gav
L. Hansen) wrote:
>>>> Anyone who is interested in running Unix on the desktop would have
>>>> little reason to go the OS X route, unless an ability to run legacy
>>>> Mac apps was a requirement.
>>>>
>>>> Gav
>>>
>>>Anyone who is interested in running Unix on the dektop can do that quite
>>>nicely right now. On a Mac. See my headers. Well, Im using Linux at the
>>>moment, but Unix is available. WHen you buy a computer with MacOS X
>>>installed you WILL get Mac legacy app support, MacOS X apps AND Unix
>>>apps. That seems to be a better value for Mac people.
>>
>>
>> For Mac people, yes. Thats why I said " unless an ability to run
>>legacy Mac apps was a requirement."
>>
>> For most existing Unix people, compatibility with the existing
>>well established and well support Sun/Solaris standard is more likely
>>to be the clincher.
>
>Some find the OpenStep programming environment attractive, too.
Ok, NeXT fans will also find OS X attractive.
Gav
Gav
L. Hansen) wrote:
I agree totally.
I was pointing out that people looking for Unix WS will most likely
consider a low cost Sun to be more attractive than an OS X equipped
Mac, and hence it will be a 'better' solution in this context. It
certainly would be for me if I was faced with the choice.
Gav
Mayor Of R'lyeh
chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>In article <3a9b4ec9$0$1515$7ea9...@news.netdirect.net>,
>ev5...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> http://www.msnbc.com/news/536470.asp?0nm=-14P
>>
>> Why buy an iMac when you can get a Unix workstation for the same
>> money?
>>
>> Cuss and discuss.
>>
>> Rick- The point is under your hat.
>
>You misspelled "Why buy an Windows PC when you can get a Unix
>workstation for the same money?".
I can have both. Look up Sun's PCi card sometime.
>Answer: because some people want to or need to run Windows. Just like
>some people want to or need to run MacOS.
http://www.sun.com/desktop/products/sunpci/
These things are great. I did some work at a place that had these in
their Suns. You can play Age of Empires while Catia renders your
model! 8)
>
>Next question?
Do you have a better answer for it than you did the last one? 8)
--
Every Mac user is an idiot. Every goddamned one of us.
Andy Walton
3/19/2000
Gregory L. Hansen
I like both worlds. Unix is fun, but I wouldn't spend the money for a
machine that only runs Unix. So I'm particularly thrilled about the
prospect of having Mac and Unix at the same time.
Ben Reiter
ev5...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 23:35:03 -0500, Ben Reiter <b...@geeklair.net>
> chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>
> >In article <3a9b4ec9$0$1515$7ea9...@news.netdirect.net>,
> >ev5...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.msnbc.com/news/536470.asp?0nm=-14P
> >>
> >> Why buy an iMac when you can get a Unix workstation for the same
> >> money?
> >>
> >> Cuss and discuss.
> >>
> >> Rick- The point is under your hat.
> >
> >You misspelled "Why buy an Windows PC when you can get a Unix
> >workstation for the same money?".
>
> I can have both. Look up Sun's PCi card sometime.
That's a neat little card; I wasn't aware it existed. But at $500, it
does bring the price of the whole system significantly above the price
of the iMac - and we haven't even added a monitor to the system yet.
> >Answer: because some people want to or need to run Windows. Just like
> >some people want to or need to run MacOS.
>
> http://www.sun.com/desktop/products/sunpci/
> These things are great. I did some work at a place that had these in
> their Suns. You can play Age of Empires while Catia renders your
> model! 8)
> >
> >Next question?
>
> Do you have a better answer for it than you did the last one? 8)
Hrm. Not having used the SunPCi, I can't really make any judgement on
it. I do think it's significant that with the card, the price of the
system is now more than the iMac, even without the monitor. It's also
significant that someone who buys an iMac is a pretty different class of
user than someone who buys a Unix workstation - Windows compatibility or
no. You can get a minivan or a Celica GTS for about the same price, but
their markets are completely different.
Josiah Fizer
wrote:
>In article <qg8o9tg1e64g1m0i5...@4ax.com>, Josiah Fizer
><jfi...@eshaman.com> wrote:
>> Bingo. MacOS X lacks the scailability of Solaris. So if I want to do
>> any serious Unix work I have to stick with Suns offerings. If however
>> I want an easy to use pretty Unix, I'll use Irix. If I want to use
>> Photoshop I use MacOS and if I want to use Delphi/C++ Builder I use
>> Windows. But then again that's why my apartment looks like a small
>> collages computer lab.
>
>Did they do something to Irix since last I used it? It certainly wasn't
>a 'pretty Unix' back then - kind of a bastard born of CDE and FVWM. I'm
>not trying to be a jerk, but I really haven't used Irix in a while. It
>struck me as very clunky and ugly at the time.
>
>\Ben
I don't know what version of Irix you've used. But everything I've had
experience with is very nice. Scalable spline based icons, integrated
audio & video, OpenGL etc.
Gav
wrote:
>Hrm. Not having used the SunPCi, I can't really make any judgement on
>it. I do think it's significant that with the card, the price of the
>system is now more than the iMac, even without the monitor.
Are you honestly suggesting that an iMac can be a 'Unix
Workstation' just by virtue of installing OS X on it?
It beggars belief that you could even consider an iMac to be in the
same class as a Sun Workstation (even the new ultra-cheap model).
> It's also
>significant that someone who buys an iMac is a pretty different class of
>user than someone who buys a Unix workstation - Windows compatibility or
>no. You can get a minivan or a Celica GTS for about the same price, but
>their markets are completely different.
Yes, thats more sensible. The iMac simply can't compete in the
same ballpark as any of the Suns when it comes to Unix workstations.
Gav
Eric Remy
wrote:
>Actually, I wanted "Gav" to come up with some answer...
>
>But, just how scaleable IS BSD ?
Which BSD? There are only about a dozen. For example, OpenBSD doesn't
scale at all: it doesn't have SMP support. They spent their time doing
security audits instead.
OSX isn't even a BSD technically: it's a BSD personality hosted on Mach.
It should scale to at least 2 processors (and up to 8 IIRC), but dual's
the biggest machine Apple makes. It's not in the same class as a Sun
E10K, or even a Dell quad Xeon box. Personally, I think this makes
sense: Apple has less than zero presence in the high end server market.
Why spend resources trying to compete there when you're best known for
ease of use?
--
Eric Remy. Chemistry Learning Center Director, Virginia Tech
"I don't like (quantum mechanics), | How many errors can
and I'm sorry I ever had anything | you find in my X-Face?
to do with it."- Erwin Schrodinger |
Eric Remy
Robert Fovell <rfo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>One something: Fortran. For the recalcitrant :-)
And none of this sissy Fortran90 crap either. (Pointers? Bah.)
Fortran77, or maybe IV. With lots of EQUIVALENCE statements, and
dynamic memory allocation done by dimensioning a single array the size
of MAXCORE on your machine.
Sorry, having flashbacks to my undergrad days, writing programs in
Fortran IVG and having to deal with JCL to get them to run on an IBM
mainframe. Once you've seen JCL, watching people claim that
[Mac,Windows,Unix] is hard to use or unintuitive is just hilarious.
Robert Fovell
<edr...@chemserver.chem.vt.edu> wrote:
> In article <rfovell-5890AD...@open-news.pacbell.net>,
> Robert Fovell <rfo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >One something: Fortran. For the recalcitrant :-)
>
> And none of this sissy Fortran90 crap either. (Pointers? Bah.)
> Fortran77, or maybe IV. With lots of EQUIVALENCE statements, and
> dynamic memory allocation done by dimensioning a single array the size
> of MAXCORE on your machine.
LOL! For my part, I like how Fortran code looks like equations and is (to me)
quite readable. Array syntax is simple and matrix-like. And indices naturally
start at "1" and not "0". Failing to account for the latter (and winding up
overwriting memory space) is probably the single most common error I see C
programmers do. I'm (unsurprisingly) surrounded by more and more of them all
the time, so I've been picking up C/C++ by accretion. [1]
>
> Sorry, having flashbacks to my undergrad days, writing programs in
> Fortran IVG and having to deal with JCL to get them to run on an IBM
> mainframe. Once you've seen JCL, watching people claim that
> [Mac,Windows,Unix] is hard to use or unintuitive is just hilarious.
//GO.SYSIN DD * !
[IIRC]
[1] Yes, that hurts as much as it might seem ;-)
--
From the He-sleeps-with-his-eyes-wide-open Dept. (Bozosity entry #10)
(http://home.pacbell.net/rfovell/bozosity.html)
"My worse [sic] nightmare involves too loose pants, a staple gun and a room
full of dwarves." -- "Your Mayor"
Ben Reiter
gavan-martin.moran@remove_this_to_reply.ubs.com.invalid (Gav) wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:21:32 -0500, Ben Reiter <b...@geeklair.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> >Hrm. Not having used the SunPCi, I can't really make any judgement on
> >it. I do think it's significant that with the card, the price of the
> >system is now more than the iMac, even without the monitor.
>
> Are you honestly suggesting that an iMac can be a 'Unix
> Workstation' just by virtue of installing OS X on it?
>
> It beggars belief that you could even consider an iMac to be in the
> same class as a Sun Workstation (even the new ultra-cheap model).
I don't think I made that claim at all. It would seem that the original
poster insinuated that someone shopping for an iMac might be better
served with a Sun, and I don't think that's true. Nor is there any
magical characteristic of a Sun workstation that makes it an infinitely
superior Unix workstation - certainly a very good one, but it's still
just a computer. I would like to use one of the Suns and see how it
compares to a G4 with OS X or an Athlon with Linux before I make any
claims. I certainly hope they boosted Slowlaris on single-processor
machines. 7 sucked (in my opinion) in a single-processor workstation.
Not that I'm claiming it sucks, per se, because it scales beyond
anything else out there, and that's where it REALLY shines. But in my
experience, Solaris on a single-processor workstation is a soccer mom
with an Urban Assault Vehicle.
Besides - why /wouldn't/ an iMac with OS X be a Unix workstation?
Describing a networked machine with a RISC CPU, BSD Unix, and a
proprietary windowing system would certainly describe quite a few Unix
Workstations. It would also describe the iMac.
> > It's also
> >significant that someone who buys an iMac is a pretty different class of
> >user than someone who buys a Unix workstation - Windows compatibility or
> >no. You can get a minivan or a Celica GTS for about the same price, but
> >their markets are completely different.
>
> Yes, thats more sensible. The iMac simply can't compete in the
> same ballpark as any of the Suns when it comes to Unix workstations.
Thank you for making half of my point - the other half is that Unix
workstations can't compete in the same ballpark as the iMac.
Number-crunching is not the sole measure of a computer when most of the
market wants to surf the web quickly and easily, and doesn't use the
processing power they have to begin with.
Josiah Fizer
wrote:
>In article <edremy-AD5BD6....@news.vt.edu>, Eric Remy
><edr...@chemserver.chem.vt.edu> wrote:
>
>> In article <rfovell-5890AD...@open-news.pacbell.net>,
>> Robert Fovell <rfo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >One something: Fortran. For the recalcitrant :-)
>>
>> And none of this sissy Fortran90 crap either. (Pointers? Bah.)
>> Fortran77, or maybe IV. With lots of EQUIVALENCE statements, and
>> dynamic memory allocation done by dimensioning a single array the size
>> of MAXCORE on your machine.
>
>LOL! For my part, I like how Fortran code looks like equations and is (to me)
>quite readable. Array syntax is simple and matrix-like. And indices naturally
>start at "1" and not "0". Failing to account for the latter (and winding up
>overwriting memory space) is probably the single most common error I see C
>programmers do. I'm (unsurprisingly) surrounded by more and more of them all
>the time, so I've been picking up C/C++ by accretion. [1]
>
You do know that "Fortran code looks like equations" and " naturally
start at "1" and not "0"" are mutually exclusive statements don't you?
Tim Streater
> In article <rfovell-5890AD...@open-news.pacbell.net>,
> Robert Fovell <rfo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >One something: Fortran. For the recalcitrant :-)
>
> And none of this sissy Fortran90 crap either. (Pointers? Bah.)
> Fortran77, or maybe IV. With lots of EQUIVALENCE statements, and
> dynamic memory allocation done by dimensioning a single array the size
> of MAXCORE on your machine.
Real Programmers can write FORTRAN in any language.
> Sorry, having flashbacks to my undergrad days, writing programs in
> Fortran IVG and having to deal with JCL to get them to run on an IBM
> mainframe. Once you've seen JCL, watching people claim that
> [Mac,Windows,Unix] is hard to use or unintuitive is just hilarious.
Mac and possibly Windows, I might agree. But Unix makes JCL look easy.
Unix is spiteful and arbitrary. JCL was merely tedious.
Ben Reiter
<jfi...@eshaman.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 23:29:37 -0500, Ben Reiter <b...@geeklair.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <qg8o9tg1e64g1m0i5...@4ax.com>, Josiah Fizer
> ><jfi...@eshaman.com> wrote:
> >> Bingo. MacOS X lacks the scailability of Solaris. So if I want to do
> >> any serious Unix work I have to stick with Suns offerings. If however
> >> I want an easy to use pretty Unix, I'll use Irix. If I want to use
> >> Photoshop I use MacOS and if I want to use Delphi/C++ Builder I use
> >> Windows. But then again that's why my apartment looks like a small
> >> collages computer lab.
> >
> >Did they do something to Irix since last I used it? It certainly wasn't
> >a 'pretty Unix' back then - kind of a bastard born of CDE and FVWM. I'm
> >not trying to be a jerk, but I really haven't used Irix in a while. It
> >struck me as very clunky and ugly at the time.
> >
> >\Ben
>
> I don't know what version of Irix you've used. But everything I've had
> experience with is very nice. Scalable spline based icons, integrated
> audio & video, OpenGL etc.
Unfortunately, I don't remember what version it was either. The
machines and their applications are great - but I was quite underwhelmed
by the default interface. Is it still the CDE knockoff?
John C. Randolph
Steve Hix wrote:
>
> In article <3A9C0534...@idiom.com>, "John C. Randolph"
> <j...@idiom.com> wrote:
>
> > Mayor Of R'lyeh wrote:
> > >
> > > http://www.msnbc.com/news/536470.asp?0nm=-14P
> > >
> > > Why buy an iMac when you can get a Unix workstation for the same
> > > money?
> >
> > Because every GUI implemented to date on X windows is crap.
>
> Oh, Gnome 1.2 and KDE 2.0 are pretty usable.
No, they only look good against MicroSquish windoze. They largely
emulate the NeXTSTEP look, but they sure don't have the feel.
The closest thing to a decent GUI I've ever seen on X is AfterStep and
its descendents, but they're still not quite there yet.
-jcr
John C. Randolph
Rick wrote:
>
> Mayor Of R'lyeh wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:51:15 -0800, "John C. Randolph" <j...@idiom.com>
> > chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Mayor Of R'lyeh wrote:
> > >>
> > >> http://www.msnbc.com/news/536470.asp?0nm=-14P
> > >>
> > >> Why buy an iMac when you can get a Unix workstation for the same
> > >> money?
> > >
> > >Because every GUI implemented to date on X windows is crap.
> > >
> > >-jcr
> >
> > You misspelled 'They aren't the same as MacOS and I'm too inflexible
> > to learn how to use anything but a Mac.'
> >
> > --
>
> That's right. You keep right on telling people what they think. Thats a
> good little psychotic.
Da Mayor doesn't seem to have picked up on the fact that I'm from the
NeXT camp.
-jcr
Josiah Fizer
wrote:
It has never looked anything like CDE other then using Motif for the
window manager. Also keep in mind that Irix predates CDE by a lot.
Ben Reiter
<jfi...@eshaman.com> wrote:
I guess my confusion is that my CDE usage predates my Irix usage by a
lot...
Honestly, they both look pretty lousy to me. SGIs and Suns are
incredible machines, but the interface is kind of disappointing to my
eye. I suppose it's all in the interest of conserving RAM and CPU for
the things that really need it.
For a really odd interface, try OpenWindows.
Josiah Fizer
wrote:
OpenWindows predates Solaris. It a holdover from SunOS, but I still
use it from time to time as it is far less intrusive then most window
managers. I dont know what setup of Irix you used, but half the stuff
that everyone is cheering over in MacOS X has been in Irix for a long
time.
This link is to some sub par screenshots of Irix and CDE, one thing to
note is that all the icons in Irix are spline based and can be resized
in real time.
http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/designer/sshots.html
Ben Reiter
<jfi...@eshaman.com> wrote:
ah, yes, the icon-size thumbwheel. That really was a neat little
feature, and there were a /lot/ of neat feautures on the SGI I used. It
really was a great machine, but in my opinion the execution of them was
not as elegant as it could have been, considering the technologies they
had to work with.
My opinion is based on a week or two of using Irix in school - I never
owned an SGI or used one for a great length of time. My opinion on its
interface shouldn't be confused with the opinion of someone who's used
Irix for a while.
Edwin
"Rick" <nom...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:3A9C40C5...@nomail.com...
> "Gregory L. Hansen" wrote:
> >
> > In article <3a9c0c23$0$1523$7ea9...@news.netdirect.net>,
> > Mayor Of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:51:15 -0800, "John C. Randolph" <j...@idiom.com>
> > >chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Mayor Of R'lyeh wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> http://www.msnbc.com/news/536470.asp?0nm=-14P
> > >>>
> > >>> Why buy an iMac when you can get a Unix workstation for the same
> > >>> money?
> > >>
> > >>Because every GUI implemented to date on X windows is crap.
> > >>
> > >>-jcr
> > >
> > >You misspelled 'They aren't the same as MacOS and I'm too inflexible
> > >to learn how to use anything but a Mac.'
> >
> > seen are.
> >
>
> I was very comfortable with fvwm2 and the KDE and GNOME libraries. Im
> using sawfish at the moment and it seems pretty comfortable too.
I had no idea those things are BONK compatible.
> --
> Rick
Simon Palko
"Josiah Fizer" <jfi...@eshaman.com> wrote in message
news:kbaq9t80fplir1nee...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:32:29 -0800, Robert Fovell <rfo...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <edremy-AD5BD6....@news.vt.edu>, Eric Remy
> ><edr...@chemserver.chem.vt.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <rfovell-5890AD...@open-news.pacbell.net>,
> >> Robert Fovell <rfo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >One something: Fortran. For the recalcitrant :-)
> >>
> >> And none of this sissy Fortran90 crap either. (Pointers? Bah.)
> >> Fortran77, or maybe IV. With lots of EQUIVALENCE statements, and
> >> dynamic memory allocation done by dimensioning a single array the size
> >> of MAXCORE on your machine.
> >
> >LOL! For my part, I like how Fortran code looks like equations and is
(to me)
> >quite readable. Array syntax is simple and matrix-like. And indices
naturally
> >start at "1" and not "0". Failing to account for the latter (and winding
up
> >overwriting memory space) is probably the single most common error I see
C
> >programmers do. I'm (unsurprisingly) surrounded by more and more of them
all
> >the time, so I've been picking up C/C++ by accretion. [1]
> >
>
> You do know that "Fortran code looks like equations" and " naturally
> start at "1" and not "0"" are mutually exclusive statements don't you?
Er? In all the matrix and vector math I ever did in college, the indices
for a matrix or vector always started at 1. This is the way most math is
done by hand. It's natural. Indices starting with 0 is non-natural. How
many times have you ever seen "the sum of R_n from n=0 to 4?" Indices
should start with 1. It feels right, like warm kisses from your highschool
sweetheart on the porch in the summer evening. Indices starting with 0
feels like scraping ice off your car to be to work on time for a performance
review with the boss you know hates you. ;)
--
-Simon Palko
"More fun than a barrel of monkeys... with dynamite strapped to their
backs!"
Gregory L. Hansen
We always start our indices at zero. The sum goes from 0 to N, but N is
almost never actually specified. If you're working with four-vectors from
relativity, the zeroeth component is time. If a Fourier series, the
zeroeth component is a constant offset. Sometimes you need both positive
and negative indices.
Rick
>
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 19:02:56 -0500, Rick <nom...@nomail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Overall, as a professional Unix desktop its really excellent - much
> >> better than a PC and likely much better than an OS X Mac will be.
> >>
> >
> >So... you are saying Sun's Unix implementation is definitely better than
> >BSD?
>
> I'll take a Sun box with its large installated hardware base,
> System V compliance, scaleability, proven stability and decades of
> experience in Unix any day, over a new version of BSD on a G4 Mac.
>
Fine. Take it. And leave.
--
Rick
Brian Fergerson
After reviewing a few more detailed specs on the 100.... I wonder how it is
that Apple can't be more price competitive with the G4 tower, regardless the
fact we are talking a Unix workstation vs. Mac.
Here, Sun has put together a quite nice "machine" or "PC" or whatever as far
as technology goes..... for an astounding price. For the most part.... it
has everything that a Mac has in the box.... on the web right now for
$950.... I've ordered two already.
I'm simply talking the machine.... not the OS ...because they can't be
compared equally..... but given that they were equal..... how the hell has
it happened that a Sun box is cheaper than a comparable Mac or PC? What has
happened?
should we prepare for the second coming?
weird.....
Brian Fergerson
Unix SysAdmin
John Jensen
: After reviewing a few more detailed specs on the 100.... I wonder how it is
: that Apple can't be more price competitive with the G4 tower, regardless the
: fact we are talking a Unix workstation vs. Mac.
I suspect it is a loss-leader. It might be analogous to the base iMac ..
they are less intrested in the per-unit profit ot the 100 than in hooking
people for the higher end models.
Actually "hooking" is too strong. It's win-win. ISVs get a lower cost
workstation for a lucrative market, and Sun gets more ISVs.
John
--
33° 39' 44N 117° 45' 08W
ZnU
<bri...@nomail.rain.com> wrote:
Sun is probably selling this box at or below cost to attract new users
to the platform. The idea is presumably that these new users might later
buy higher-end hardware, which is where Sun makes its real money, of
course.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <z...@userhosting.com>
Robert Fovell
ROTFL! That was very well said :-)
Stuart Krivis
>> >
>> > Why buy a Sun Unix workstation when a copy of OS X can turn your
>> > iMac into a Unix workstation that makes a much better desktop
>> > system?
>>
>> Well, there are applications on the Sun machine that aren't available
>> on the Mac, even on MacOS X.
>
>Sure, if you need a cheap Oracle development system or something. That
>doesn't really matter to most people.
OS X doesn't have X. That could be a drawback for some. It also is not
mature like Solaris. Then there's the whole SysV vs. BSD thing.
ps aux
damn!
ps -ef
:-)
Solaris is a known quantity at this point. Maybe after Mac OS X has been
out a while and things become available...
--
Stuart Krivis
Trevor Zion Bauknight
j...@mongo.krivis.com (Stuart Krivis) wrote:
> OS X doesn't have X.
Yes it does.
Trev
--
"I think Trevor is an idot. Just the kind of robot President CLITton likes.
Supid people!" - Husker Kev
Gav
<bri...@nomail.rain.com> wrote:
>http://www.sun.com/desktop/sunblade100/details.html#PGX64
>
>After reviewing a few more detailed specs on the 100.... I wonder how it is
>that Apple can't be more price competitive with the G4 tower, regardless the
>fact we are talking a Unix workstation vs. Mac.
>
>Here, Sun has put together a quite nice "machine" or "PC" or whatever as far
>as technology goes..... for an astounding price. For the most part.... it
>has everything that a Mac has in the box.... on the web right now for
>$950.... I've ordered two already.
>
>I'm simply talking the machine.... not the OS ...because they can't be
>compared equally..... but given that they were equal..... how the hell has
>it happened that a Sun box is cheaper than a comparable Mac or PC? What has
>happened?
two things:
(1) Apple are looking to maintain ridiculously high profit margins on
their G4 machines
(2) Sun clearly aren't looking to make a big profit on their new
machine. Seems like more of a bait to get people into using Sun gear.
Gav
Gav
wrote:
[..]
>Besides - why /wouldn't/ an iMac with OS X be a Unix workstation?
For the same reason that taking Solaris x86 and installing it on
the Compaq deskpro sitting next to the Ultra 10 on my desk, wouldn't
put the Deskpro into the Unix workstation league where the Ultra 10
resides.
>Describing a networked machine with a RISC CPU, BSD Unix, and a
>proprietary windowing system would certainly describe quite a few Unix
>Workstations. It would also describe the iMac.
If you really, really think that simply whacking a version of Unix
onto a machine immediately puts it into the 'Unix workstation' class
of machines, theres little point in anyone explaining to you why its
not.
>
>> > It's also
>> >significant that someone who buys an iMac is a pretty different class of
>> >user than someone who buys a Unix workstation - Windows compatibility or
>> >no. You can get a minivan or a Celica GTS for about the same price, but
>> >their markets are completely different.
>>
>> Yes, thats more sensible. The iMac simply can't compete in the
>> same ballpark as any of the Suns when it comes to Unix workstations.
>
>Thank you for making half of my point - the other half is that Unix
>workstations can't compete in the same ballpark as the iMac.
Absolutely.
>Number-crunching is not the sole measure of a computer when most of the
>market wants to surf the web quickly and easily, and doesn't use the
>processing power they have to begin with.
These days, even web surfing is no longer a non CPU intensive
task.
Gav
Gav
<nol...@nospam.myrealbox.com> wrote:
>> Yet you seriously think that just because you can whack an Apple
>> supported BSD Unix onto the Mac soon, that suddenly its a 'Unix
>> workstation with better software support than a Sun'?
>
>And it is. If you are a consumer. I guess I failed to make my point
>explicitly, but some are suggesting that with Sun selling UNIX workstations
>for $1000 there's no longer any reason to buy a Mac or PC.
<cough, splutter>!
I never suggested anything of the sort! I'm rebutting posts that
suggested that the Mac is about to become some sort of serious
challenger to the likes of Sun in the 'Unix Workstation' market.
Indeed, YOU were the person who made that claim. Here it is again:
-----------------------------------
Well, there's the obvious answer (which you already know of course),
that
iMacs will be UNIX workstations in a month, with better software
support
than a Sun.
-----------------------------------
You're quite clearly pitching an OS X Mac into the Unix workstation
field.
> I disagree.
You disagree with your original claim? Good for you, I'll join you
in that.
>If
>you need a Sun workstation, I'm sure it's great that they are now $1000.
>However, if you are a consumer, which people who are buying Macs or PCs
>often are, a Sun is basically useless no matter how cheap and/or powerful it
>is, because it does not support much (most? all?) of the software that a
>consumer would want to use. So, like I said in a previous post, it may be
>$1000 but it's not a Mac or a PC, and some of the posters in this ng are
>claiming it's a replacement for one.
Well, I'm certainly not claiming its a replacement for the Mac or
PC. That box has nothing to do with this market.
And I am definitely pointing out that a machine running OS X is in
no way any sort of serious competitor in the Unix field.
Gav
Rick
OS X does have X. Apparently there are Open and commercial
implementations( Xtools - http://www.tenon.com/products/xtools/). I ish
I had more references. I have had several conversations ith people in
#macntosh on Undernet that are using X windows under Mac OS X... at
least the beta that is out.
--
Rick
Rick
... more than one implementation, aparently. X Tools is one commercial
version, and I beleive there are open versions. IIRC, in a conversation
ith somone in #macintosh-Undernet, he said he installed XF86 and it ran
fine under the BSD layer. He said he used the "usual" key combo to
switch between X and Aqua... hatever that key combo is.
--
Rick
Ben Reiter
gavan-martin.moran@remove_this_to_reply.ubs.com.invalid (Gav) wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:37:57 -0500, Ben Reiter <b...@geeklair.net>
> wrote:
>
> [..]
> >Besides - why /wouldn't/ an iMac with OS X be a Unix workstation?
>
> For the same reason that taking Solaris x86 and installing it on
> the Compaq deskpro sitting next to the Ultra 10 on my desk, wouldn't
> put the Deskpro into the Unix workstation league where the Ultra 10
> resides.
>
>
>
> >Describing a networked machine with a RISC CPU, BSD Unix, and a
> >proprietary windowing system would certainly describe quite a few Unix
> >Workstations. It would also describe the iMac.
>
> If you really, really think that simply whacking a version of Unix
> onto a machine immediately puts it into the 'Unix workstation' class
> of machines, theres little point in anyone explaining to you why its
> not.
Thank you so much, Gav, for reminding me that I'm just too dim to
understand. Could you explain to the other people in the group, not the
people like me, but the normal people, what defines a Unix workstation,
if not a workstation running Unix?
Are Unix workstations just 'really fast'? If so, do they have
expiration dates? I have a Sparc II around here somewhere. It is slow
as shit. Is it a Unix Workstation? Was it a Unix workstation when it
came out, but lost it over the years? My Sparc 20 is faster. Is it a
Unix workstation, still? What about an ELC with a 20Mb disk? Was it
ever a Unix workstation? Are NeXT machines Unix workstations?
Do Unix workstations have lots of disk? Big displays? Lots of RAM?
What is this secret quality that makes one RISC-based Unix machine a toy
and one a Unix Workstation?
Is it the control key next to the 'a'?
> >
> >> > It's also
> >> >significant that someone who buys an iMac is a pretty different class
> >> >of
> >> >user than someone who buys a Unix workstation - Windows compatibility
> >> >or
> >> >no. You can get a minivan or a Celica GTS for about the same price,
> >> >but
> >> >their markets are completely different.
> >>
> >> Yes, thats more sensible. The iMac simply can't compete in the
> >> same ballpark as any of the Suns when it comes to Unix workstations.
> >
> >Thank you for making half of my point - the other half is that Unix
> >workstations can't compete in the same ballpark as the iMac.
>
> Absolutely.
>
>
> >Number-crunching is not the sole measure of a computer when most of the
> >market wants to surf the web quickly and easily, and doesn't use the
> >processing power they have to begin with.
>
> These days, even web surfing is no longer a non CPU intensive
> task.
Depends on the browser. iCab, Opera, and OmniWeb seem to get the same
job done in less time on less hardware than the big two.
\Ben
Gav
wrote:
>> If you really, really think that simply whacking a version of Unix
>> onto a machine immediately puts it into the 'Unix workstation' class
>> of machines, theres little point in anyone explaining to you why its
>> not.
>
>Thank you so much, Gav, for reminding me that I'm just too dim to
>understand. Could you explain to the other people in the group, not the
>people like me, but the normal people, what defines a Unix workstation,
>if not a workstation running Unix?
Sorry to have ruffled your feathers, but the criteria for entering
the 'Unix workstation' market clase is not defined merely by the
presence of a variety of Unix running on the hardware.
>Are Unix workstations just 'really fast'? If so, do they have
>expiration dates? I have a Sparc II around here somewhere. It is slow
>as shit. Is it a Unix Workstation? Was it a Unix workstation when it
>came out, but lost it over the years? My Sparc 20 is faster. Is it a
>Unix workstation, still? What about an ELC with a 20Mb disk? Was it
>ever a Unix workstation? Are NeXT machines Unix workstations?
Where did I say it was ever purely a speed issue? My
aforementioned Deskpro machine is probably quite a bit faster than the
neighbouring Ultra 10, and it can run Solaris x86, but theres a
reason why I carry out my Unix work on the Sun box and not the PC.
That reason is composed of a number of things. Not all Unices are
created equal, Solaris on the Sparc is more stable and better
integrated with the hardware than Solaris x86, the Sun hardware
being incredibly scaleable means I can check things out on my desktop
box that need to run on enterprise servers, the disk subsystems
simply work more effectively for Solaris than those on the PC, Sun
have a proven record of supporting and developing their Sparc hardware
and Solaris OS.
The Ultra10 simply makes a much better Unix box than an x86 with
Solaris x86 on it .. I know from using BOTH systems in my time.
>Do Unix workstations have lots of disk? Big displays? Lots of RAM?
>
>What is this secret quality that makes one RISC-based Unix machine a toy
>and one a Unix Workstation?
>
>Is it the control key next to the 'a'?
I've experienced administrating, using and supporting both Sparc
and x86 based Solaris hardware. What angle are you coming from?
What non-'typical professional Unix' systems do you have experience
of using in a business environment? Have you used and worked with low
end (Mac and x86 boxes) gear in a professional environment? How did
it compare with the 'professional' (SUN/ HP/ IBM etc) gear that you
also used?
If you've ever used both types of system, you'll know that the
dedicated Unix workstation comes out on top almost every time. We are
not talking about selling into the general consumer market here, if
it was acceptable to run something like PC hardware, the chances are
that it'd also make more sense to run NT on it instead of Unix.
Thats a generalisation of course, but substantively true. Sometimes
pure cost considerations can override all else and some startups have
used cheap x86 hardware.
Gav
Ben Reiter
gavan-martin.moran@remove_this_to_reply.ubs.com.invalid (Gav) wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 09:00:46 -0500, Ben Reiter <b...@geeklair.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> >> If you really, really think that simply whacking a version of Unix
> >> onto a machine immediately puts it into the 'Unix workstation' class
> >> of machines, theres little point in anyone explaining to you why its
> >> not.
> >
> >Thank you so much, Gav, for reminding me that I'm just too dim to
> >understand. Could you explain to the other people in the group, not the
> >people like me, but the normal people, what defines a Unix workstation,
> >if not a workstation running Unix?
>
> Sorry to have ruffled your feathers, but the criteria for entering
> the 'Unix workstation' market clase is not defined merely by the
> presence of a variety of Unix running on the hardware.
Sorry about getting defensive, but that was a pretty arrogant way of
making your point.
> >Are Unix workstations just 'really fast'? If so, do they have
> >expiration dates? I have a Sparc II around here somewhere. It is slow
> >as shit. Is it a Unix Workstation? Was it a Unix workstation when it
> >came out, but lost it over the years? My Sparc 20 is faster. Is it a
> >Unix workstation, still? What about an ELC with a 20Mb disk? Was it
> >ever a Unix workstation? Are NeXT machines Unix workstations?
>
> Where did I say it was ever purely a speed issue? My
> aforementioned Deskpro machine is probably quite a bit faster than the
> neighbouring Ultra 10, and it can run Solaris x86, but theres a
> reason why I carry out my Unix work on the Sun box and not the PC.
>
> That reason is composed of a number of things. Not all Unices are
> created equal, Solaris on the Sparc is more stable and better
> integrated with the hardware than Solaris x86, the Sun hardware
> being incredibly scaleable means I can check things out on my desktop
> box that need to run on enterprise servers, the disk subsystems
> simply work more effectively for Solaris than those on the PC, Sun
> have a proven record of supporting and developing their Sparc hardware
> and Solaris OS.
>
> The Ultra10 simply makes a much better Unix box than an x86 with
> Solaris x86 on it .. I know from using BOTH systems in my time.
Solaris-sun4u is better than Solaris-i386 because Sun makes it so. They
spec out their machines, they build their operating system. They, like
Apple, 'make the whole widget', and so they can naturally tailor their
OS to take advantage of the full power of their systems.
Which is why I was sort of puzzled when I replaced Solaris 7 on my Sparc
5 with Redhat 6.2. Redhad runs faster and is more stable (in my
experience, at least). Considering the Sun/Solaris advantage I'd
assumed above, this is pretty odd. Of course, this is on a
single-processor machine with 64Mb of RAM and a small SCSI array. If we
were talking about scaling machines up through the Sun line to an E10K,
there is naught but Solaris - I don't think Linux even boots on these
machines, and there's absolutely no reason to run Linux on some of that
iron, /ever/. If you're buying an E10K, you're buying it for the
multi-domain, hot-swappable hardware, high-availability, which are
features that only Solaris can support right now.
> >Do Unix workstations have lots of disk? Big displays? Lots of RAM?
> >
> >What is this secret quality that makes one RISC-based Unix machine a toy
> >and one a Unix Workstation?
> >
> >Is it the control key next to the 'a'?
>
> I've experienced administrating, using and supporting both Sparc
> and x86 based Solaris hardware. What angle are you coming from?
I use: Oracle, Perl, Linux/i386, Solaris 7, PostgreSQL (not in that
order, but often on the same project). I perform some administrative
tasks on the servers, though I'm not technically the administrator of
any but one of them.
> What non-'typical professional Unix' systems do you have experience
> of using in a business environment? Have you used and worked with low
> end (Mac and x86 boxes) gear in a professional environment? How did
> it compare with the 'professional' (SUN/ HP/ IBM etc) gear that you
> also used?
At my desk, I have:
- a Dell laptop (p75) running Debian purely for fun.
- my bronze-keyboard PowerBook G3, on which I keep my personal mail,
newsreader, ICQ, and MP3s
- A Sparc 5 running Redhat 6.2 as a testbed-on-my-desk for things I want
to observe right here instead of on the test server in the NOC.
- A PowerMac G4 which, aside from being the only machine on my desk that
I didn't bring from home, is where most of my development is done.
> If you've ever used both types of system, you'll know that the
> dedicated Unix workstation comes out on top almost every time. We are
> not talking about selling into the general consumer market here, if
> it was acceptable to run something like PC hardware, the chances are
> that it'd also make more sense to run NT on it instead of Unix.
I have used what would be termed a 'Unix workstation', and I'm not just
talking about the little old SparcStation 5 on my desk. I've used SGIs
and Sparcs in school, and while they were impressive, they were just as
impressive as the NT boxes in the next lab over, or the G4 that sits on
my desk now.
> Thats a generalisation of course, but substantively true. Sometimes
> pure cost considerations can override all else and some startups have
> used cheap x86 hardware.
here's a question: IBM makes machines based on the PowerPC which they
call 'Unix workstations'. Admittedly, some are based on the higher-end
PPCs, but many run on 604s. Why are these Unix Workstations whereas
Mach on PPC 7400 is not?
I'm not trying to be a prick - I really want to know why you don't
consider MacOS X on a G4* to be a Unix workstation.
\Ben
* yes, I realize that we were talking about iMacs. but I don't own an
iMac, so I can't really debate that.
Gav
wrote:
>> >Thank you so much, Gav, for reminding me that I'm just too dim to
>> >understand. Could you explain to the other people in the group, not the
>> >people like me, but the normal people, what defines a Unix workstation,
>> >if not a workstation running Unix?
>>
>> Sorry to have ruffled your feathers, but the criteria for entering
>> the 'Unix workstation' market clase is not defined merely by the
>> presence of a variety of Unix running on the hardware.
>
>Sorry about getting defensive, but that was a pretty arrogant way of
>making your point.
Sorry, debates here to get heated. By the average c.s.m.a.
standard, this is an unbelievably civilised debate.
>> The Ultra10 simply makes a much better Unix box than an x86 with
>> Solaris x86 on it .. I know from using BOTH systems in my time.
>
>Solaris-sun4u is better than Solaris-i386 because Sun makes it so. They
>spec out their machines, they build their operating system. They, like
>Apple, 'make the whole widget', and so they can naturally tailor their
>OS to take advantage of the full power of their systems.
>
>Which is why I was sort of puzzled when I replaced Solaris 7 on my Sparc
>5 with Redhat 6.2. Redhad runs faster and is more stable (in my
>experience, at least). Considering the Sun/Solaris advantage I'd
>assumed above, this is pretty odd. Of course, this is on a
>single-processor machine with 64Mb of RAM and a small SCSI array. If we
>were talking about scaling machines up through the Sun line to an E10K,
>there is naught but Solaris - I don't think Linux even boots on these
>machines, and there's absolutely no reason to run Linux on some of that
>iron, /ever/. If you're buying an E10K, you're buying it for the
>multi-domain, hot-swappable hardware, high-availability, which are
>features that only Solaris can support right now.
I've no experience of running Linux on SPARC hardware, but I hear
its pretty good through the grapevine. I'd bet you the workstation
hardware runs it much better than generic x86 PC clone stuff.
>> I've experienced administrating, using and supporting both Sparc
>> and x86 based Solaris hardware. What angle are you coming from?
>
>I use: Oracle, Perl, Linux/i386, Solaris 7, PostgreSQL (not in that
>order, but often on the same project). I perform some administrative
>tasks on the servers, though I'm not technically the administrator of
>any but one of them.
Well, from experience of two different Solaris platforms, the
SPARC hardware definitely comes out tops. Its simply way more stable/
robust / compatible than either Solaris or Linux on any x86 platform
I've used. I don't buy the suggestion that Sun would sabotage
performance of their x86 version somehow to boost SPARCstation sales.
>> What non-'typical professional Unix' systems do you have experience
>> of using in a business environment? Have you used and worked with low
>> end (Mac and x86 boxes) gear in a professional environment? How did
>> it compare with the 'professional' (SUN/ HP/ IBM etc) gear that you
>> also used?
>
>At my desk, I have:
>- a Dell laptop (p75) running Debian purely for fun.
>- my bronze-keyboard PowerBook G3, on which I keep my personal mail,
>newsreader, ICQ, and MP3s
>- A Sparc 5 running Redhat 6.2 as a testbed-on-my-desk for things I want
>to observe right here instead of on the test server in the NOC.
>- A PowerMac G4 which, aside from being the only machine on my desk that
>I didn't bring from home, is where most of my development is done.
>
>> If you've ever used both types of system, you'll know that the
>> dedicated Unix workstation comes out on top almost every time. We are
>> not talking about selling into the general consumer market here, if
>> it was acceptable to run something like PC hardware, the chances are
>> that it'd also make more sense to run NT on it instead of Unix.
>
>I have used what would be termed a 'Unix workstation', and I'm not just
>talking about the little old SparcStation 5 on my desk. I've used SGIs
>and Sparcs in school, and while they were impressive, they were just as
>impressive as the NT boxes in the next lab over, or the G4 that sits on
>my desk now.
If you look at the specs for most Unix workstations, they are
wholly unimpressive compared to x86 specs. When it comes down to
running heavy duty apps or hadling system-stretching tasks however,
they invariably perform better for that job.
>> Thats a generalisation of course, but substantively true. Sometimes
>> pure cost considerations can override all else and some startups have
>> used cheap x86 hardware.
>
>here's a question: IBM makes machines based on the PowerPC which they
>call 'Unix workstations'. Admittedly, some are based on the higher-end
>PPCs, but many run on 604s. Why are these Unix Workstations whereas
>Mach on PPC 7400 is not?
I've never seen these machines, but I'd guess a legacy of IBM
supporting and developing Unix machines over the years makes their
hardware and OS a much more viable choice for most companies than a
machine that runs the same type of CPU and happens to have a version
of Unix available.
>I'm not trying to be a prick - I really want to know why you don't
>consider MacOS X on a G4* to be a Unix workstation.
There is absolutely no pedigree of Mac hardware in the Unix sphere.
We don't know how reliable or compatible (with existing standards) a
Mac running Unix is going to be. People who buy Unix systems are
incredibly conservative, they will not readily adopt a new (to Unix)
hardware platform and OS variant.
The MacOS X variant of BSD is unproven.
There is no established commericial Unix software base for the
Mac.
There is no viable hardware or software support service in place
for Mac machines running OS X that can match what the likes of Sun/
IBM/ HP can offer.
Gav
Josiah Fizer
It is more likly due to a new unified hardware model. the birdsnest
OEM motherboard, SunBlade 100 and Netra X all share the same hardware
design and CPU. This allows lower costs as the research is spread
across several markets. Apple did this with the first G3 systems but
has since been jacking up the price as they spread out into more and
more models of computers.
Josiah Fizer
No, there are third party X implementations for OS-X. I can stick X
and BASH on my NT box. That wont make it a Unix system however.
Ben Reiter
gavan-martin.moran@remove_this_to_reply.ubs.com.invalid (Gav) wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 10:12:07 -0500, Ben Reiter <b...@geeklair.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> >> >Thank you so much, Gav, for reminding me that I'm just too dim to
> >> >understand. Could you explain to the other people in the group, not
> >> >the
> >> >people like me, but the normal people, what defines a Unix
> >> >workstation,
> >> >if not a workstation running Unix?
> >>
> >> Sorry to have ruffled your feathers, but the criteria for entering
> >> the 'Unix workstation' market clase is not defined merely by the
> >> presence of a variety of Unix running on the hardware.
> >
> >Sorry about getting defensive, but that was a pretty arrogant way of
> >making your point.
>
> Sorry, debates here to get heated. By the average c.s.m.a.
> standard, this is an unbelievably civilised debate.
I know - kinda neat, isn't it? :)
> >> The Ultra10 simply makes a much better Unix box than an x86 with
> >> Solaris x86 on it .. I know from using BOTH systems in my time.
> >
> >Solaris-sun4u is better than Solaris-i386 because Sun makes it so. They
> >spec out their machines, they build their operating system. They, like
> >Apple, 'make the whole widget', and so they can naturally tailor their
> >OS to take advantage of the full power of their systems.
> >
> >Which is why I was sort of puzzled when I replaced Solaris 7 on my Sparc
> >5 with Redhat 6.2. Redhad runs faster and is more stable (in my
> >experience, at least). Considering the Sun/Solaris advantage I'd
> >assumed above, this is pretty odd. Of course, this is on a
> >single-processor machine with 64Mb of RAM and a small SCSI array. If we
> >were talking about scaling machines up through the Sun line to an E10K,
> >there is naught but Solaris - I don't think Linux even boots on these
> >machines, and there's absolutely no reason to run Linux on some of that
> >iron, /ever/. If you're buying an E10K, you're buying it for the
> >multi-domain, hot-swappable hardware, high-availability, which are
> >features that only Solaris can support right now.
>
> I've no experience of running Linux on SPARC hardware, but I hear
> its pretty good through the grapevine. I'd bet you the workstation
> hardware runs it much better than generic x86 PC clone stuff.
It runs flawlessly on the old Sparc 5, much better than it would on a
comparable i386 system. Because of the common hardware, everything was
supported out of the box as well - very rare (in my experience) for
i386, where there's usually one or two devices that take a week or two
of tweaking before they can be used.
> >> I've experienced administrating, using and supporting both Sparc
> >> and x86 based Solaris hardware. What angle are you coming from?
> >
> >I use: Oracle, Perl, Linux/i386, Solaris 7, PostgreSQL (not in that
> >order, but often on the same project). I perform some administrative
> >tasks on the servers, though I'm not technically the administrator of
> >any but one of them.
>
> Well, from experience of two different Solaris platforms, the
> SPARC hardware definitely comes out tops. Its simply way more stable/
> robust / compatible than either Solaris or Linux on any x86 platform
> I've used. I don't buy the suggestion that Sun would sabotage
> performance of their x86 version somehow to boost SPARCstation sales.
I don't think Sun sabotaged the performance of Solaris-i386. I think
the steaming pile of almost-compatible hardware that is almost any
commodity x86 box sabotages the stability of Solaris-i386. Sun has much
better things to do than write drivers and debug for this very small
share of their OS users. Much better things - witness Solaris on E10K.
Precicely /because/ of their OS. The point I'm trying to make is not
that an iMac is inherently a better computer than a Sun, but that in my
experience, MacOS X (and MacOS X Server) are Unices of the same caliber
as the others I've used.
> >> Thats a generalisation of course, but substantively true. Sometimes
> >> pure cost considerations can override all else and some startups have
> >> used cheap x86 hardware.
> >
> >here's a question: IBM makes machines based on the PowerPC which they
> >call 'Unix workstations'. Admittedly, some are based on the higher-end
> >PPCs, but many run on 604s. Why are these Unix Workstations whereas
> >Mach on PPC 7400 is not?
>
> I've never seen these machines, but I'd guess a legacy of IBM
> supporting and developing Unix machines over the years makes their
> hardware and OS a much more viable choice for most companies than a
> machine that runs the same type of CPU and happens to have a version
> of Unix available.
>
>
>
> >I'm not trying to be a prick - I really want to know why you don't
> >consider MacOS X on a G4* to be a Unix workstation.
>
> There is absolutely no pedigree of Mac hardware in the Unix sphere.
> We don't know how reliable or compatible (with existing standards) a
> Mac running Unix is going to be. People who buy Unix systems are
> incredibly conservative, they will not readily adopt a new (to Unix)
> hardware platform and OS variant.
>
> The MacOS X variant of BSD is unproven.
No, but the NeXT variant of BSD is most proven, and MacOS X Server and
MacOS X are practically (though not officially) OpenSTEP 5 and 6.
> There is no established commericial Unix software base for the
> Mac.
No, there isn't. Not specifically for the Mac. I have heard rumors,
though I wish I could verify them, that Oracle will be supporting OS X
with their libraries if not a full instance. Furthermore, any
commercial or non-commercial Unix software for Java is automatically
software for OS X.
> There is no viable hardware or software support service in place
> for Mac machines running OS X that can match what the likes of Sun/
> IBM/ HP can offer.
No, that's true. Apple support is like the average PC clone vendor's
support, not like Sun's. If you want to see /really/ incredible
support, talk to the NetApp guys :)
\Ben
Steve
gavan-martin.moran@remove_this_to_reply.ubs.com.invalid (Gav) wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:37:57 -0500, Ben Reiter <b...@geeklair.net>
> wrote:
>
> [..]
> >Besides - why /wouldn't/ an iMac with OS X be a Unix workstation?
>
> For the same reason that taking Solaris x86 and installing it on
> the Compaq deskpro sitting next to the Ultra 10 on my desk, wouldn't
> put the Deskpro into the Unix workstation league where the Ultra 10
> resides.
>
And HERE, we find you doing what only you can do, Gav. I hope this guy
can stand up to your 'logic'. You're a riot, and absolute RIOT!
Steve
Edwin
"Steve" <fret...@home.com> wrote in message
news:fretwizz-36E3D9...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
Gav's logic is absolutely correct. The iMac doesn't have workstation-class
hardware, and that won't change no matter what OS you install on it.
Edwin
Steve
gavan-martin.moran@remove_this_to_reply.ubs.com.invalid (Gav) wrote:
> >I have used what would be termed a 'Unix workstation', and I'm not just
> >talking about the little old SparcStation 5 on my desk. I've used SGIs
> >and Sparcs in school, and while they were impressive, they were just as
> >impressive as the NT boxes in the next lab over, or the G4 that sits on
> >my desk now.
>
> If you look at the specs for most Unix workstations, they are
> wholly unimpressive compared to x86 specs. When it comes down to
> running heavy duty apps or hadling system-stretching tasks however,
> they invariably perform better for that job.
THIS is an answer to his question? Somehow, I get the feeling he was
looking for something with some meat on it. You know, something
SPECIFIC. He ALREADY alluded to the fact that some workstations are
faster than others and pointed out it was NOT a speed/performance issue,
something you have yet to EFFECTIVELY rebut, despite all your
'experience'. Lucky for you he was too polite to point out why your
'logic' didn't work for him. Then, perhaps this thread would not have
stayed so civil, eh Gavvie? C'mon Gav, educate him. I can't wait.
Steve
Steve
Ben Reiter <b...@geeklair.net> wrote:
> Precicely /because/ of their OS. The point I'm trying to make is not
> that an iMac is inherently a better computer than a Sun, but that in my
> experience, MacOS X (and MacOS X Server) are Unices of the same caliber
> as the others I've used.
And this is a valid opinion based on your experience, which I'd venture
to say, that in THIS instance, exceeds Gav's, but don't hold your breath
waiting for him to accede. This guy is a hard head of the first order.
Steve
Steve
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
Depends on who you ask. Like you so often do, Gav suffers from
definition problems when he prints his 'facts',(remember the 'fact' you
told me that PC mags don't have sale ads for USB floppy drives...). He
states most everything in the absolute, one of many things you both have
in common.
http://www.lanl.gov/projects/ia/stds/ia5612.html
Steve
ZnU
gavan-martin.moran@remove_this_to_reply.ubs.com.invalid (Gav) wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:37:57 -0500, Ben Reiter <b...@geeklair.net>
> wrote:
>
> [..]
> >Besides - why /wouldn't/ an iMac with OS X be a Unix workstation?
>
> For the same reason that taking Solaris x86 and installing it on
> the Compaq deskpro sitting next to the Ultra 10 on my desk, wouldn't
> put the Deskpro into the Unix workstation league where the Ultra 10
> resides.
This statement is based on some totally arbitrary definition of
"workstation" that you've cooked up. Is an old Sun that's less powerful
than the iMac a Unix workstation? If not, when does it stop being one?
If so, why? What about a G4 that's more powerful than an Ultra 10? Is
that a Unix workstation?
Or perhaps a computer system can only be a Unix workstation if it's
proprietary hardware that ships with a Unix OS? If so, that's every
machine Apple makes, come July.
[snip]
Gregory L. Hansen
ZnU <z...@userhosting.com> wrote:
>In article <3a9e2400...@news.ubs.ch>,
>gavan-martin.moran@remove_this_to_reply.ubs.com.invalid (Gav) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:37:57 -0500, Ben Reiter <b...@geeklair.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>> >Besides - why /wouldn't/ an iMac with OS X be a Unix workstation?
>>
>> For the same reason that taking Solaris x86 and installing it on
>> the Compaq deskpro sitting next to the Ultra 10 on my desk, wouldn't
>> put the Deskpro into the Unix workstation league where the Ultra 10
>> resides.
>
>This statement is based on some totally arbitrary definition of
>"workstation" that you've cooked up. Is an old Sun that's less powerful
>than the iMac a Unix workstation? If not, when does it stop being one?
>If so, why? What about a G4 that's more powerful than an Ultra 10? Is
>that a Unix workstation?
>
>Or perhaps a computer system can only be a Unix workstation if it's
>proprietary hardware that ships with a Unix OS? If so, that's every
>machine Apple makes, come July.
Come on, ZnU, it's a lot simpler than that! A Unix workstation is not a
Mac, and it's not a PC. Anything else that runs Unix is a Unix
workstation. But no software, no number of processors, no disk arrays or
anything else can turn a Mac or a PC into a Unix workstation, no matter
how well it performs. The control key next to the 'a' was almost right on
target.
--
"'No user-serviceable parts inside.' I'll be the judge of that!"
Rick
Mac OS X is BSD and there are X servers for it, wchich allo you to run
BSD X apps.
--
Rick
Rick
You never answered the question.. what makes one computer a Unix
workstation, and another computer running Unix NOT a workstation?
--
Rick
Rick
Go to usenet and ask the people running BSD on thier Macs how stable it
is
> The MacOS X variant of BSD is unproven.
>
BSD on MAcs is not unproven.
> There is no established commericial Unix software base for the
> Mac.
>
SO, what? Why does that mean a G4 running MacOS X (BSD) NOT a Unix
workstation?
> There is no viable hardware or software support service in place
> for Mac machines running OS X that can match what the likes of Sun/
> IBM/ HP can offer.
>
> Gav
No?
--
Rick
Rick
Check the thread some more, bunky. Ben asked why a G4 running Unix is
not a Unix workstation.
Why dont you tell us, precisely, what a Unix workstation is and when a
computer running Unix is allowed to be called a Unix orkstation?
--
Rick
Josiah Fizer
Scalability for one thing. A Solaris or Irix application can be
written on a single CPU box and run without modification of a
multi-CPU box. The Macintosh and PC platforms just don't scale well
enough.
Edwin
> In article <97m5cn$pgsaq$1...@ID-56786.news.dfncis.de>,
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > "Steve" <fret...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:fretwizz-36E3D9...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> > > In article <3a9e2400...@news.ubs.ch>,
> > > gavan-martin.moran@remove_this_to_reply.ubs.com.invalid (Gav) wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:37:57 -0500, Ben Reiter <b...@geeklair.net>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [..]
> > > > >Besides - why /wouldn't/ an iMac with OS X be a Unix workstation?
> > > >
> > > > For the same reason that taking Solaris x86 and installing it on
> > > > the Compaq deskpro sitting next to the Ultra 10 on my desk,
wouldn't
> > > > put the Deskpro into the Unix workstation league where the Ultra 10
> > > > resides.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And HERE, we find you doing what only you can do, Gav. I hope this guy
> > > can stand up to your 'logic'. You're a riot, and absolute RIOT!
> >
> > Gav's logic is absolutely correct. The iMac doesn't have
workstation-class
> > hardware, and that won't change no matter what OS you install on it.
> >
> > Edwin
> >
> >
>
> Depends on who you ask. Like you so often do, Gav suffers from
> definition problems when he prints his 'facts',(remember the 'fact' you
> told me that PC mags don't have sale ads for USB floppy drives...)
I told you no such thing.
> He
> states most everything in the absolute, one of many things you both have
> in common.
Neither he nor I do that.
> http://www.lanl.gov/projects/ia/stds/ia5612.html
Thanks for sharing this bureaucratic nonsense. I love the CPU requirement
stated simply as "170 MHz," as if all CPUs and architectures are the same,
differentiated only by speed.
Edwin
Ben Reiter
<jfi...@eshaman.com> wrote:
That's true for most classic Mac and Windows apps, but written properly,
a Cocoa app's threads can run on any processors you may have - the
limit, of course, being that Apple only offers duals right now.
Steve
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> "Steve" <fret...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:fretwizz-A7C4F6...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> > In article <97m5cn$pgsaq$1...@ID-56786.news.dfncis.de>,
> > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Steve" <fret...@home.com> wrote in message
> > > news:fretwizz-36E3D9...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> > > > In article <3a9e2400...@news.ubs.ch>,
> > > > gavan-martin.moran@remove_this_to_reply.ubs.com.invalid (Gav) wrote:
> > > >
(snip)
> > Depends on who you ask. Like you so often do, Gav suffers from
> > definition problems when he prints his 'facts',(remember the 'fact' you
> > told me that PC mags don't have sale ads for USB floppy drives...)
>
> I told you no such thing.
YOU may not have, but one of your identities did.
> > He
> > states most everything in the absolute, one of many things you both have
> > in common.
>
> Neither he nor I do that.
Look, as of now, Gav only has one identity and it definitely does that.
You, OTOH, are free to come and go and can't be held accountable for
what some of you post...
> > http://www.lanl.gov/projects/ia/stds/ia5612.html
>
> Thanks for sharing this bureaucratic nonsense. I love the CPU requirement
> stated simply as "170 MHz," as if all CPUs and architectures are the same,
> differentiated only by speed.
>
> Edwin
Not even a good strawman Ed ol' boy. There was a time when you were the
shit...NOW you just stink.
Steve
Trevor Zion Bauknight
wrote:
> > > OS X doesn't have X.
> >
> > Yes it does.
> >
> > Trev
> ... more than one implementation, aparently. X Tools is one commercial
> version, and I beleive there are open versions. IIRC, in a conversation
> ith somone in #macintosh-Undernet, he said he installed XF86 and it ran
> fine under the BSD layer. He said he used the "usual" key combo to
> switch between X and Aqua... hatever that key combo is.
Once your X server is running, you switch back to Aqua by using
Cmd-Opt-A...once in Aqua, you switch back to your X session by clicking
the X launcher icon in the Dock.
The ability to run X rootless so that your X apps appear on the same
desktop is a feature of Tenon's X Tools and also of recent builds of
XFree86 4 and XAqua (the OS X-side launcher). The latter is still
nascent technology, but it won't take long at the rate Torrey Lyons has
been progressing.