my stance for macs.

[klamps]

Anyone who is using IIS has no business talking about security. If security is one of the criteria of for being a server, then Microsoft has yet to produce a true server (but hey, I think we all knew that one already )

Agreed. As I said on the beginning, I'm NOT defending M$ and it's products. That's why I run Linux on my servers.

In a recent review of streaming media server solutions, Quicktime streaming server running on Darwin not only out performed the Real and Windows Media solutions, it bettered them in price (Apple has made both Darwin and Quicktime streaming free). Sounds pretty giving to me.

Everybody knows that Real is a poor excuse for a streamming solution. At least anyone that ever had to deal with it. You can't expect M$ to be good either. Quicktime just rules.

You really should try not to repeat that. The combination of the Mach kernel and the BSD interface was started by NeXT back in the late 80's. I'm not sure what your definition of new is, but in the computer world that would be as far from being new software as you could get.

I'm not a Mac user, as anyone would've guessed, and I based my point on info given by solrac and news. So as I far as I knew, OS X was based on BSD.

That could not be any further from the truth. If Apple didn't care about developers, Rhapsody would have been released as Apple next generation operating system back in 1999. It was because Apple wanted to make sure people would develop for the Mac (specially classic Mac developers) that Apple put the OS on hold while it developed a new application environment, Carbon, that would make moving to Mac OS X easier for developers who already had a large investment into their current apps.

I'm a not Mac developer, but why is everybody else complaining? If what you say is true, then why people talk **** about Apple? I'm talking about Mac developers.

So tell me, which is better: hiring someone like me to set up Mac OS X Server and coming in when real problems actually occur (my best client only paid me $2500s last year, and only about $500 of that was for actual server admin tasks that I needed to perform), or buy the cheap hardware and FreeBSD and hire a full or part time admin at from $30,000 to $100,000 a year. Think about this really hard, I think the answer is very clear.

Actually, I manage servers (Linux and Windows) myself. I have servers that run without any problems, including Windows servers. So it doesn't really matter what kind of server it is, as long as you know what you're doing. So I could get a PC, install Linux, configure the network and leave it alone. They just need to call me when the computer crashes, which is not very often. Unless, of course, the hardware is faulty. Which can happen to a Mac as well. So it really depends on what kind of activity you have going on that server. Therefore, the answer is not that clear.

Where did you get the idea that Red Hat has been making money? If Red Hat was doing so great why did they sell out to AOL?

Because they only have a couple of products. They made money only by offering support and other minor activities. I never said they were doing great. But they did hang for quite a while.

Considering the amount of corrections needed, neither of you is in a position to call the other ultimately brain-dead. There is a rich history to all this stuff guys, take some time to learn it. [/B]

That's an inside joke that I wouldn't expect you to understand. Solrac is my personal friend. I will, however, take your advice and learn some more.

- Marco Machado

[klamps]

Biggest advantage is not crashing constantly like those d@%^ Windoze computers do. I run a 300mhz G3 with OSX (1997/1998 technology) and have VERY LITTLE (maybe once a month) problems with it. However, when I run the Dells at a remote location (866 PIII and a 1.6 P4) we have nothing but problems. Every 10-20 minutes Dreamweaver, Fireworks, Flash, Photoshop, or InDesign will cause the M$ Windoze (98 & ME) to crash. Not only is this time wasted in a business enviroment, it is a royal pain in the a$$! My stress levels are 300 times less, while my productivity is 100 times more on the Macs.

Any computer can crash. That's due to how computers work. My Windows doesn't crash very often either. I run Windows 2000 and I know that 98/ME is just crappy. I'm not saying that 2000 is perfect, but is alot better than 98/ME. Solrac used to have major problems with a G4 (OS 9)before, just as I had problems with 98. So you see, Macs can crash just as often as PCs.

As far as ease of use, it's been proven to the Mac's advantage before.A network admin had his but kicked by a 12 old in a machine set-up, and configuration test between Windoze and Mac machines. The veteran took 45 minutes to setup the Windoze machine and get it online...the 12 year old got the mac up and online in 10-15 minutes. Now which was easier to setup? Oh, did I mention the Windoze machine crashed when the guy finally got it online...embarrasing eh?

I know that Macs have a history of being easy to use. That's why M$ copied (poorly) Apple back then. A person that takes 45 minutes to configure a machine that crashes, cannot be called a veteran. This doesn't sound like a real story either. If both computers were brand new, freshly out of the box, I would expect both to take about the same time to setup. I recently bought a Sony laptop PC and I had it running in about 10 minutes. And no, it didn't crash.

The ony reason Windoze seems better for home users is that that's all they know. I started on a Commadore 64, progressed to a 386DX33 (WIN 3.1, later 95), a P-100 with 95 & 98, and finally my Mac 300 G3 with 8.6, then the 9 series and X series. All future purchases will be Macs. I spent most of my time online through a freenet using lynx from a 2400 modem dialup on a Unix provider. That was in 93. later to the smoking 14.4, and the killer 56k. Now it's a 768k DSL line. Sometimes I wish we were back in the days of text only, at least you could find what you're looking for. I'd rather my computer work correctly and efficently...the mac does, the Dell doesn't.

I never said that Windows is better for home users. As you said before, and I agree, Macs are easier to use. Funny thing, my second computer was a Commodore 64. I still have it. Altough it does run that good anymore. Seems that they didn't use good silicon for the memory chips. The only way to make it run is to have a super-fan on top of the chips. Anyway, if you say that you run Macs, how can you say that Dell's ****? My PC seems to run just fine for me, and I built it myself.

- Marco Machado

[klamps]

Steve Jobs said it himself at the Xserve demo: Sun is the only company which provides the hardware, its own software (OS), and the support channel, all from the same company. Apple is now the second.

Read RacerX's first reply. He claims that there are other companies that do the same thing, and I have to agree. It didn't come to my mind when I replied to you, but those companies DO offer hardware and software on their own. So who's right?

This is very cool info. Did Apple develop NextStep from scratch???

Wait! Did Apple develop NextStep? I though it was Jobs' other company.

Yes, once more, proving that Mac OS X is not a completely new system. It has been tried and tested and proven since the late 80's. It's Apple's fault for not publicizing this on their Mac OS X page and their XServe page. That's a big selling point!!!

Funny. This is the first time you say this. Did you forget about this before?

Yes I agree this whole "Apple hates developers" thing is a very poor argument.

Sigh. Then Apple developers are talking out of their a$$es.

Yes, free Dev tools rock. And klamps, isn't the .NET project builder thing like a lot of money??? Heheheh. Apple is pretty much su cking developer's cocks right now to show them how much they are appreciated and needed.

VisualStudio.NET costs money, but you can download the SDK for free.

Yes you are right. But klamps comes from the point of view of starting your own company, where you are your own server admin, so he was not actively thinking about an employer who needs to hire a guy, and choose a box.

But it's basically the same thing. You still have to do it. So you can have an idea of how much it would cost.

Yeah I heard Red Hat was having $$$ problems. Sure they have public stock but that doesn't mean much. Still, I'm sure they have more money than Azteca.net, and Vmatrix HAHAHAHAH.

Considering that Vmatrix actually paid my $59.80 and Mario, well ... Yes they do have more money. =)

Trust me, klamps is definetely ultimately brain dead because he has eaten too many jumbo jacks and smoked too many cigarettes. Wait, actually the reason is because he hangs out with Jobby too much. HAHAHHA. Why is jobby not posting in this thread?????????

That's actually not true. Even though I had some jj's last week, I had not eaten a single jj this week. I do smoke lots of cigarettes though. And I haven't seen Jobby since monday. And he's not posting because he's too lazy to create an account.

- Marco Machado

[klamps]

Actually. No, it can't. I go to tafe, and they use ibm pcs there. everyone else there uses pcs at home. i am ALWAYS hearing about how this happened or that happened. my friend recently went from win98 to win2k on his pc. guess what. the first release of win2k DIDN'T SUPPORT AGP. What's that you say, server OS. IT WAS PROFESSIONAL EDITION. ya know, the one that was SUPPOSED to replace win98 on desktops. I will admit right here, that i do not like having to use linux. i am not used to it, and sometimes things seem kinda backwards. but i would prefer to live my entire life having to use linux badly than using windows at an expert level, because no amount of know-how can stop windows from crashing. today i heard a story of someone's pc not booting to XP because they installed a burning program. thats right. clone-cd made XP hang at the loading screen. i admit that Macs have faults. even X. i had to re-install it today because it was bein stupid and the partition had some funky error. it still isnt quite right. i have had a couple of scary screens at bootup with text saying kernel panic, and we are halted. but because it is unix, i know it is happening for a reason, not because it's some dodgy microsoft ****. and now i can say two people have tried to tell me that MS owns Apple. funny thing is, the last guy was full of **** too.

I don't suppose you read my other replies. I hate Windows. But is something that I have to use because of my work. I develop for the web and there are no good tools for Linux. I'd rather run Linux on all my computers, but I simply can't. Sometimes I have to connect to a M$ SQL server, and they only have tools for Windows. So you see, you're wrong about me.

Problems can happen to any computer. Remember the iPod issue?

But you can't deny that M$ does own Apple shares, and that saved the company some years ago. Hey! I don't like AOL owning Red Hat either. But ....

- Marco Machado

[RacerX]

I'm a not Mac developer, but why is everybody else complaining? If what you say is true, then why people talk **** about Apple? I'm talking about Mac developers.

I think that is very vague. Windows developers complain far more than Mac developers (with better reason, considering the number of Windows software companies that Microsoft has forced out of business). And I assume that you use Linux for your desktop, and anyone who has written for X-Windows (specially if they have been around for more than ten years) knows just how broken that system has become, but in that case, the developers need only look to them selves for not sticking with standards. I think I can sum up my feelings for X-Windows and what it has become with the following:

• X-Windows: ...A mistake carried out to perfection.
  X-Windows: ...Dissatisfaction guaranteed.
  X-Windows: ...Don't get frustrated without it.
  X-Windows: ...Even your dog won't like it.
  X-Windows: ...Flaky and built to stay that way.
  X-Windows: ...Complex nonsolutions to simple nonproblems.
  X-Windows: ...Flawed beyond belief.
  X-Windows: ...Form follows malfunction.
  X-Windows: ...Garbage at your fingertips.
  X-Windows: ...Ignorance is our most important resource.
  X-Windows: ...It could be worse, but it'll take time.
  X-Windows: ...It could happen to you.
  X-Windows: ...Japan's secret weapon.
  X-Windows: ...Let it get in *your* way.
  X-Windows: ...Live the nightmare.
  X-Windows: ...More than enough rope.
  X-Windows: ...Never had it, never will.
  X-Windows: ...No hardware is safe.
  X-Windows: ...Power tools for power fools.
  X-Windows: ...Putting new limits on productivity.
  X-Windows: ...Simplicity made complex.
  X-Windows: ...The cutting edge of obsolescence.
  X-Windows: ...The art of incompetence.
  X-Windows: ...The defacto substandard.
  X-Windows: ...The first fully modular software disaster.
  X-Windows: ...The joke that kills.
  X-Windows: ...The problem for your problem.
  X-Windows: ...There's got to be a better way.
  X-Windows: ...Warn your friends about it.
  X-Windows: ...You'd better sit down.
  X-Windows: ...You'll envy the dead.

Um, yeah... you were saying something about Mac developers not liking Apple or something like that?

Actually, I manage servers (Linux and Windows) myself. I have servers that run without any problems, including Windows servers. So it doesn't really matter what kind of server it is, as long as you know what you're doing. So I could get a PC, install Linux, configure the network and leave it alone. They just need to call me when the computer crashes, which is not very often. Unless, of course, the hardware is faulty. Which can happen to a Mac as well. So it really depends on what kind of activity you have going on that server. Therefore, the answer is not that clear.

So your saying that managing tasks on Linux is as easy as on Mac OS X Server? That you could leave a server configured in the hands of someone without admin experience and you would not be needed again after that. I make it a point to make sure that if I fall off the face of the Earth tomorrow, that my clients systems aren't going to cost them an arm and a leg to get someone else in their to figure out what I have been doing up to that point (seeing as I have been in that position far too many times). I feel I should only be there for real problems, not because the only way to perform a task is via command line (when the task is not that complex and a GUI would let almost anyone do it).

Most terminal jockeys live to keep people in the dark. They want to be the only solution to any problem (no matter how small). I believe this is not the way to do good business, and Apple has produced a product (and AppleShare IP and Mac OS X Server 1.x where just as good) that does what is best for the consumer.

You, for yourself, can and should do what you want. I just hate to see people who need solutions being held hostage by people who really don't need to be there. Command line servers are going the way of the DOS desktops, most people are smart enough to solve problems when they aren't hidden in cryptic commands, and Apple has made strides towards that type of server solution.

Like I said, it is very clear (just not to those it would adversely effect ).

Solrac is my personal friend.

That's good to know, I was worried about some of the harsh comments.

Even though I had some jj's last week, I had not eaten a single jj this week.

I’ve had to go 5 years without a Jumbo Jack... life is hard here in Siberia.

Oh, and I think I forgot to mension that Windows NT was designed to be POSIX compliant originally (versions 3.1, 3.51 and 4.0) but I don’t know if Microsoft kept it up through to 2000 and xp.

[phatsharpie]

That according to Red Hat's latest SEC filing, its 2002 adjusted fiscal net income was -$140,000,000. In other words, RH lost $140 million last year.

They are not making money.

And the decision for Suse, Caldera, TurboLinux, etc. to united together to create UnitedLinux is as much a fiscal one as a technical one. The truth is that none of the Linux distrubitors have been able to make money via the open sourced model as of yet. This bothers me a great deal, because I think Linux is a great alternative on in the Intel world. However, to think that any of these companies are in a comfortable position is a major mistake.

RacerX, you rock!!! Sometimes I wonder what would've happened if OpenStep followed its course with Sun... Oh well.

P.S. Link to RH's SEC filings... http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir...HAT&script=700

[klamps]

I think that is very vague. Windows developers complain far more than Mac developers (with better reason, considering the number of Windows software companies that Microsoft has forced out of business). And I assume that you use Linux for your desktop, and anyone who has written for X-Windows (specially if they have been around for more than ten years) knows just how broken that system has become, but in that case, the developers need only look to them selves for not sticking with standards. I think I can sum up my feelings for X-Windows and what it has become with the following:
Um, yeah... you were saying something about Mac developers not liking Apple or something like that?

I'm not a X-Windows developer nor I use Linux on my desktop. But I would like to. I simply can't because of my work, as explained on a previous reply.

So your saying that managing tasks on Linux is as easy as on Mac OS X Server? That you could leave a server configured in the hands of someone without admin experience and you would not be needed again after that. I make it a point to make sure that if I fall off the face of the Earth tomorrow, that my clients systems aren't going to cost them an arm and a leg to get someone else in their to figure out what I have been doing up to that point (seeing as I have been in that position far too many times). I feel I should only be there for real problems, not because the only way to perform a task is via command line (when the task is not that complex and a GUI would let almost anyone do it).

Yes. Linux, specifically Red Hat, DO have administrative tools on the X environment. Graphical tools. I take you are a very good sysadmin, therefore your hourly rate is not cheap. But I would expect another person to able to offer the same services for the same price. So, if you don't cost an arm and a leg, why would anybody else?

Most terminal jockeys live to keep people in the dark. They want to be the only solution to any problem (no matter how small). I believe this is not the way to do good business, and Apple has produced a product (and AppleShare IP and Mac OS X Server 1.x where just as good) that does what is best for the consumer.

I agree with you. I never leave a customer in doubt and I encourage them to learn what I've done. I drove many times to customer's locations to do something real simple. Every single time I explained what caused the problem and the easiest way to fix it themselves.

That's good to know, I was worried about some of the harsh comments.

Don't worry. We do that on a constant basis. =)

I’ve had to go 5 years without a Jumbo Jack... life is hard here in Siberia.

That's one of the saddest things I've ever heard. Can't imagine life without JJs.

- Marco Machado

[[Scizo]]

Windows is not POSIX compliant by default, but there are emulators. But that doesn't matter because it has it's own API.

Hmmm... as for the Windows API it's basicly just a big load of cr*p!!! ... I'll take GTK+/Gnome programming over it _any_ day...

Ever wonder why the Windows API documentation ships on a DVD rom ?? .. it's your DLL h*ll all over again.
I havent had the time to study the Cocoa API yet.. (just bought my first Mac last week).. But from what i can tell the API is pretty small, which is good because it allows you to learn it / get familiar with it very quickly, and thus produce better bug free code. (fewer functions == better understanding)