my stance for macs.

[solrac]

From someone bagging on macs, my reply below his...

Haha, ok the cute thing was a cheap shot, but I will stand to my point and I'm sure you'll stand to yours. You say you use the Unix features of OS X because you're learning them, but that to me doesn't really constitute for actually having a use. Yes, you are technically running programs and learning command line functions, but you really are not doing anything else but learning. I can simply partition my HD so I dual boot any flavor of *nix I want, even FreeBSD. When I think of using FreeBSD or the like, I think of what it was normally intended for, webservers to be the main one and then servers/workstations in a LAN/WAN environment. You will rarely or never see OS X do these things because it is just not a good idea. In that department, *nix variants or even WinNT/2k will be the top choices.

Your only solid point is what you probably really use it for. Photoshop and Flash(though I don't think programming flash really makes a difference in either platform). As a person who does photo/video editing as a profession, I'm sure the Mac is the choice platform, but you have to understand, that is a very slim percentage of computer users.

The average user would probably rather have the PC for the performance/price ratio. No matter what, PCs will be the easiest choice because of that. I really don't think learning Windows is all that hard to do, and crashing is not the end of the world.

Also, before you jump to conclusions about me, I do use Macs at work and I know how they work and whatnot. I do like them, but I have to still say PCs are much better for normal use. Where I work, there is a PC lab and a Mac lab. In both labs, both platforms will crash, but the PCs seem to be a better workstation computer.

Well that's the beauty of mac: I got to learn unix stuff (FreeBSD technically) WITHOUT having to partition anything, it just is part of it, and at the same time, have this SUPER easy to use interface.

And I'm not JUST learning UNIX. I've actually learned some stuff and successfully used it. Especially FTP, File browsing, searching files with advanced tags and even regular expressions. All great stuff to learn. I actually think the greates thing is that I can do all this WITHOUT a dual boot system. (I can still make this a dual boot system, by the way, and put Linux on it if I wanted to learn that for example.)

And like you said, Photoshop and Flash is what I use it for. And more. Actually, it's Photoshop, Flash, Dreamweaver, After Effects (soon), Word, Excel, all the main web browsers (for testing), Illustrator, and InDesign.

Now, all those programs are ONLY available on Mac and Windows. There is no other choice. Mac used to **** as an OS. Windows used to ****, too, in different ways. The only really good OS was a *nix. But none of the above software =(

Now... windows ****s a lot less as an OS, but Mac is AWESOME as an OS.

In fact, Mac is truly the best OS in the world. Because it is a true *nix, with the ease of use known of Macs (their only greatest asset), and all the software.

And one more thing macs have hands down, that M$ is trying to catch up with. Multimedia for the people. Apple has iPhoto (digital camera), iTunes (digital music), iMovie and iDVD (digital movies), these all link together to any device you plug into the mac, and makes the whole digital world really easy, simple, and awesome for n00b computer users. It's even good software for professionals! And anyway, that's what Apple needs, n00b users, to gain market share, but they keep the professionals happy too, ALL the time.

It's true that PC architecture is currently faster if you buy the best ****. Like think of a dual 2.53 GHZ P4 system. That will rock any mac right now because the fastest mac is a dual 1 GHZ G4. But the dual 1 GHZ will still be faster than a dual 2.53 GHZ in certain tasks. And even then, if we are talking average users here, they will NEVER EVER EVER NEVER tap all that power. Not even close.

One thing you PC people never understand, is that the chip speed and hardware make very little difference. It's the software that counts.

Look at flash player. On Macs, it ****s. Animation is SLOW. Very slow. It's simply bad software. Now, take a Pentium 2 266 mhz computer. OLD ****ING ****. Now, LOL, put flash player on it. It's WAYYYY Faster than the dual 1 GHZ mac!!! Now you can't say that's a faster computer. It's not. It's a Pentium 2 266 mhz. It's the flash software that just WORKS on PC, not on mac.

Mac has way better software. It's a true *nix OS with the Mac ease of use, it's got Apple's digital collection, it's got better pro tools for video and audio (don't forget audio, macs RULE in audio), AND it has M$ Office and all the Adobe **** you can get on PC like Photoshop, etc. Meaning equal or better software.

Yes PC has more software. A lot more, but quantity means nothing. Mac has like 5 audio converting utilities. PC has like 500. But they all do the same ****. So the 5 on mac are just as good as the 500 on PC. The only thing PC really has more of is games.

Now it's very easy for a PC to come out seeming like a better workstation at your work. Older macs ****, especially if they do NOT have OS X. But try this. Go to your work, and try using (if there is) a brand new fast top of the line mac, with OS X, lots of RAM, and the right software on it. You'll see it's just better to use than the PC if you're willing to learn the software.

And one more thing.... you talk about webservers and servers/workstations in a LAN/WAN environment to be rarely or never seen used on OS X because it is just not a good idea. You say that in that department, *nix variants or even WinNT/2k will be the top choices.

But that's just a false statement. First of all, Mac OS X is a fully POSIX compliant *nix variant. Second, why is it not a good idea? Since it is *nix it is actually a very good idea. And Apple sells Mac OS X Server OS. And it is better than windows. (Same reason, it's *nix, and has the mac ease of use.) Also, apple just released XServe, their rackmounted server solution. It's a GREAT start and a badass server. Within the next year or two, you will see Apple getting a lot of business in the server market and eventually you'll hear people say "Oh yeah, you know what. That Mac server is actually pretty damn good." Also, currently the ONLY server provider that sells a server AND hardware AND the OS ALL from the same company is Sun. Sun makes its own hardware, they make their hardware, and they make their own OS (IRIX, etc.). Now, Apple is the second. The only other company that makes the hardware, makes the OS, and provides the server.

You'll see Apple's image turn around totally. In 5 years, this whole "Oh mac ****s. It's overpriced, ****ty OS, no software...."

Oh my god that is so gonna be in the past. Very much so. Give it a chance, dude.

 

[Nummi_G4]

wow dude. congrats on the largest post ever You are too smart for me If you talk to a peecee lover like that... their head will explode.

 

[homer]

I agree with you.

There is one flaw, however:

You cite Flash as being bad software for Mac, and then you say that Mac has "way better" software. I know it's a little thing, but still. . . .

 

[uoba]

On the web server point, this alone makes me prey in the direction of Cupertino every morning. 3 macs... 3 webservers for testing, thank you Jobs.

This will swing web designers/companies back to OSX (if Apple market this fact a bit more)!!

Nice work, did he give a reply?

 

[solrac]

i didn't get a reply yet.
Here is my friend's reply. He is a network admin and programmer, and web developer.

You don't have to have a different partition to run Linux on a PC running
Windows either. There are distros that install right on top of Windows.

Learning UNIX to FTP, file browse, search files and regular expressions are
really nothing. That's not the power of UNIX and any OS can do that. I can
appreciate your efforts, and give you mad props, but that doesn't count as a
point to OS X.

Apple only pulled this new OS because: it got all the code from an already
good OS. All they had to do was to put an interface on it. Now you may ask:
If all they did was create an interface, how come other flavors of UNIX
don't have a nice GUI? Well, that's because Apple is the home of all things
cute. And it actually has some money to throw at interface designers. The
Open Source Community, however, depends on individuals that work on the
project as they can, and they often spend more time fixing or creating core
features than making it look cute. I'm sure that even Microsoft could make a
better OS if they used a *nix kernel and developed a new GUI. In fact, Mac
OS X IS a Microsoft OS. Don't forget that M$ OWNS YOOOOO.

How can Apple make multimedia easy for people? By manufacturing everything.
Come one now. Even Enola Technologies could do this if we could make
everything from the computer down to the MP3 player. They know all there is
to know about a particular device. That's their field. But they aren't a
good programming platform. Every platform has a strong point, and Apple's is
multimedia.

Now about architecture, just read above. You can't really compare a platform
that has thousands of manufacturers (PC) to one that only has one (Mac). I
know you can add off-the-shelf hardware to a Mac, but you can also buy very
stable PC computers, like Dell.

Now WTF are you talking about? Only software matters? Then you ALREADY lost
this argument. The best OS runs on PC, not Mac. You obviously don't know WTF
you're talking about. If what you say it's true, go grab a G3, I'll get a
quad Xeon and let's see who wins. I agree that Flash player IS the "de
facto" POS on Mac, but that's the exception, not the rule.

How does Mac have better software? Adobe, Macromedia, Microsoft, etc ...
they're all the same on the PC. And Mac OS X is nothing but a cute interface
to a PC developed OS. So if 500 is the same as 5, why not just one? Because
they DO have different features, programming style, bugs and prices. Why not
have just ONE OS with ONE word processor, ONE programming language, ONE
video editing software, ONE and ONLY ONE of anything? Because that would
**** MAJOR BLUE WHALE'S BALLS!!! If that's what you want, run Microsoft
software. It's essentially the same thing. They want the same. They want
ONLY their software in the world, no other choices.

For a workstation, Macs just don't do the trick. Since Macs only have a
limited number of programs they can run, and that's the desired effect
apparently, it's very hard. You can always write custom software, as most
big companies do. But Mac lacks an easy programming language, so the TCO is
very high. Besides, you can buy a $500 PC and have the same performance as a
Xserver, based on your point of view. But even if hardware DID make a
difference, or does it, a regular office worker doesn't require anything
better than that $500 PC.

Mac is not a good idea for a server environment because, again, it lacks the
software. You think that because you can run Apache and PHP on a Mac, you
have a server sitting in your desk? NO! A server is not defined by the
computer's ability to run a web server. Even Windows 3.0 can do that. There
are various other things to consider on a server, security being on the top
of the list. As POSIX compliant, even Windows can do that. Ease of use does
NOT matter on a server. All it has to do is sit there and not crash. Windows
can do that too.

Being a newcomer is not a good thing in the NOS business. True it has UNIX
on it's veins, but it's not a proven platform. SysAdmins don't jump on new
technologies like that, at least not the good ones. ;-) And don't give me
that BS about manufacturing everything. The best database server is not made
by Apple, nor is the best web server, SMTP server or NOS.

Apple will not thrive just because of these new changes. Apple has been
innovating every day and they still have a marginal marketshare. Microsoft
has legions of programmers and they still ****! Open Source is the only way
to go. And Apple is just taking advantage of it. Wanna make Mac really good?
Open the source code and give programmers a decent license. Then you'll see
what happens.

- Marco Machado

 

[solrac]

my reply to marco (above) since this stupid UBB won't allow this many characters in one post

I didn't mean to say Windows couldn't install linux distros. Of course it can. Just that other dude in the first post seemed to say u could not install Linux on a mac, or something like that.

I used UNIX to learn more the ftp, file browse, etc. I know that's not the power of UNIX but I am learning these commands and CLI and the fact that OS X is *nix is what even made this possible. But the point to OS X is that it is protected memory, pre-emptive multitasking, symmetric multiprocessing, dynamic memory handling, etc. etc.. Basically more crash proof than windows now. (If you want to get into the power of UNIX thing.)

You say that Apple only pulled this new OS because: it got all the code from an already good OS. All they had to do was to put an interface on it. EXACTLY!!! THAT WAS F'IN GENIUS!!!! They ****ed as an OS company anyway. Their best success was at the interface. (The so called legendary mac ease of use.)

And, since the core of OS X is open source, Apple constantly implements the newest updates and changes to the kernel and its BSD layer, all the time. You make it sound like Apple is not open source at all. It is. That's why they made that whole "come on in, it's open" logo. As updates are released in the community Apple will definetely include them in frequent software updates.

And I don't buy your whole OS X is a Microsoft OS BS. Just because M$ owns a bunch of Apple stock? Whatever... So if I buy a buttload of Apple shares it is now an enola technologies OS hehehe.

Now I must repeat again, YES ONLY SOFTWARE MATTERS. Yes, I'll grab a G3, and you get a quad Xeon, and give them to two equally stupid users, and tell them to set up their email. Guess who will have it up and running first. The Mac. So the G3 is better for that, because of the software on it. That's why Sega lost out to Nintendo after the video game wars of so long ago, because even though Nintendo's hardware was less powerful, the games were more fun. SOFTWARE!!! Flip it around. Give me a Dual 1 GHZ Mac and you get a Pentium 2 266 mhz. Let's both play a flash animation. You're gonna WIN BIG TIME. Because the software for that on the PC is much better. Ironically, you're right. The de facto POS software on the mac IS flash player, and it IS the exception, not the rule. That's what I'm saying. Every other software on the mac, just about, is damn good. (To homer, who posted above, that's what I meant, it was not a flaw in my post.) And the best OS no longer runs on PC, it now runs on mac. Unless you think that Windows OS is better than a *nix??

And yes, I do agree with you that Adobe, Macromedia, etc. software is the same on PC. That's why I said EQUAL or better software.

And yes, 500 different choices for the same kind of software on PC is just as good as 5 or 10 choices on the Mac. But not just one. PC is just overloaded with software. I like having 5 - 10 different choices. I get different features, programming style, etc. Having 500 choices on PC is just overkill. I'll NEVER go through 500 audio players, for example. I'll probably go through 5 or 10, lol. I don't agree with the "just one" thing, I hate M$ for trying to be the only one, no other choices, too!!! The only reason there's so many choices on PC is because there's so many developers that are just used to writing software on PC. Mac has to be getting out to more developers, and Cocoa is a very good platform. I disagree with you if you say it's not.

Now you say that based on my point of view, I can get a $500 PC and it's as good as XServe. Well not really. Now we're talking servers and servers need good hardware, because they have to serve to many many users. But yeah, the $500 PC is probably just as good as an XServe box if it's gonna be for a single user that needs word, excel, internet, and email.

So you say mac lacks the software to be a successful server. Well it has Mac OS X. So it can do more than run Apache and PHP as you say. It's a true *nix system, and all that. It has very good security. It's nothing new dude. It's the BSD kernel, pretty good security actually by what I've read about it. Ease of use DOES matter. Not for just sitting there and not crashing, but what about setting it up??? And is Windows POSIX compliant??? Or did you screw up when you said that???

True, being a newcomer is not good in that business, but at least it makes the business possible. That's what Apple needs, more business. That's why I said it'll take a couple years or more for Apple to get in there. But every journey starts with one step.

You say "Wanna make Mac really good? Open the source code and give programmers a decent license. Then you'll see what happens." How would this be done? Isn't it already like that? How could more so??

Well anyway the only point you have, that I can't argue with you, is when you say Mac is not a good development platform. I don't know why really. It's got its native Cocoa language (obj-C), and Project Builder from apple, or Metrowerks CodeWarrior. For web dev, you got PHP, Perl, etc. built in. Oracle is now working with Mac even to get its **** on there. Of course you can't do .NET stuff and M$ DB stuff but that's cuz it's M$, who cares. What makes mac a bad dev platform? Just wondering.

 

[klamps]

Before I start talking again, I just want to clarify that I'm not, BY NO MEANS, defending Windows! I hate Windows just as much as anyone that uses it. I just think that the whole "Mac is the best thing in the world" is bs. Mac users are know for that.

Windows XP does have better memory management and multitasking. But it has that stupid interface as default. At least you can change it back. What makes Windows crash so much is what's called "DLL Hell", where a new program updates a library file and old programs crash. They're solving this problem with the new .NET framework. With .NET, different assemblies can co-exist using different "environments".

The core of OS X is open source, but what about the interface? Correct me if I'm wrong, but is Apple giving back to the community? I don't think so.

If Enola Technologies buys a truckload of shares from Apple and M$, it'll own BOTH!

On the software issue. You're referring to the interface, but that's not what makes the computer run. Even a stupid user can setup their email using Outlook Express, it's very easy. So if you take a Mac and a PC, running the same (relatively) hardware and software, they should perform the same. If not, then one of them is better than the other. But what caused it to be better? The hardware or software? Actually, I'm confused.

Mac runs one flavor on *nix, PCs run many. And each one of them has it's own cons and pros.

Cocoa is not a platform. It's just an interface. And there are many Windows and *nix programs out there because developers are encouraged to do so. That's not true with Apple. Everybody knows that.

I'm gonna repeat this. Mac OS X IS new software. Even though it runs BSD, it had to be modified somehow. If I take a Linux kernel and modify it, it's considered new software. What if I modified something that made some software crash? You can't assume it's exactly the same thing just because I used a Linux kernel. That's what I mean when I say that Mac OS X is an unproven platform. Besides it's cheaper to go with a free *nix variant. But on a environment where uptime is everything, responsible people will go with what's proven to be secure.

Ease of use does NOT matter on a server environment. We're talking about skilled people. Not end users. They're supposed to know the OS inside out. That's part of the problem with M$ server systems. You control the server using wizards and sometimes you just need complete control over it. That's why *nix uses text files. You can see and modify everything right there. Is it hard? Hell yeah! But that gives you the confidence to know that your system is setup to YOUR specifications, not what stupid M$ thinks is right.

Novell had a huge share of the NOS market. Not anymore! So what makes Apple a good candidate?

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

I'm not familiar with Apple's licensing system, but does it allow you to take Aqua and modify it?

The reason why Mac doesn't have a good programmer's base is because Apple doesn't want it. They don't like outside developers and everybody knows that.

- Marco Machado

 

[solrac]

Originally posted by klamps
Before I start talking again, I just want to clarify that I'm not, BY NO MEANS, defending Windows! I hate Windows just as much as anyone that uses it. I just think that the whole "Mac is the best thing in the world" is bs. Mac users are know for that.

I'm not. I say that anything pre OS X is pure crap. Pure, liquid crap to be exact. But I say Mac OS X is the best OS because it is a true *nix, AND has an easy to use interface for the novices, AND has all the software. No other OS in the world has that combination.

Windows XP does have better memory management and multitasking. But it has that stupid interface as default. At least you can change it back. What makes Windows crash so much is what's called "DLL Hell", where a new program updates a library file and old programs crash. They're solving this problem with the new .NET framework. With .NET, different assemblies can co-exist using different "environments".

That sounds cool. But sounds complicated, too. I'm sure Windows will come up with some framework that works a LOT better than it used to but I don't think it will ever be as rock solid and proven as a true *nix core. And who cares, it's M$ stuff anyway.

The core of OS X is open source, but what about the interface? Correct me if I'm wrong, but is Apple giving back to the community? I don't think so.

No the interface is not open source, but how does that make apple take away from the community? That makes no sense. Anyway, Mac OS 9 you could change the interface and make all these crazy colors and shapes using Kaleidescope. That's not a big deal. Anyway, most people don't want to change the interface, they want to get their work done quickly and predictably. Changing the interface is cool, but just a toy, and anyway, you can change the interface in OS X if you really want to. Later on, Apple will make it easier, but that's just a toy.

On the software issue. You're referring to the interface, but that's not what makes the computer run. Even a stupid user can setup their email using Outlook Express, it's very easy. So if you take a Mac and a PC, running the same (relatively) hardware and software, they should perform the same. If not, then one of them is better than the other. But what caused it to be better? The hardware or software? Actually, I'm confused.

I'm saying where there's 2 computers with both different software AND hardware. Where the hardware on one computer is 10000000 times better, but the software is worse, it renders the hardware USELESS. Just like a 2 billion dollar scanner is useless without a driver. All that matters is software. Hardware is secondary. People think that hardware is important because that's how you build a computer with hardware. But it's not. Without software, hardware is just plastic and sand. But how about two computers, with different hardware and equal software? Then one will be much better. But there's no such thing. The software is always different when comparing Mac to Windows. And usually mac software is better. But now you can compare OS X to other *nix boxes with EQUAL software. You see, this is a very good thing. Mac software used to be its own world. Windows its own world. And *nix its own world. Now there is no more mac OS. It's just *nix and Windows. That gives Windows a much harder beast to fight and it's time for Windows to die anyway. So back to the point. The only scenario here will be a computer with both different hardware and different software. The Mac (today) has slower hardware with better software. I'll take that any day over a Quad Xeon with bad software. And the mac hardware is not even that much slower if you buy the $$$$$ one.

Mac runs one flavor on *nix, PCs run many. And each one of them has it's own cons and pros.

False. I can install Yellowdog Linux and LinuxPPC on my mac if I want. I can run XWindows (X11) something like that on here too, side by side with OS X. I'm sure there's other *nix I can install on PPC too.

Cocoa is not a platform. It's just an interface. And there are many Windows and *nix programs out there because developers are encouraged to do so. That's not true with Apple. Everybody knows that.

I don't know that. What's the proof Apple hates developers? Why do they host the WWDC (World Wide Developers Conference). Cocoa is not just an interface. It means the whole development using Obj-C. To create your interface in Aqua you use another tool called Interface Builder.

I'm gonna repeat this. Mac OS X IS new software. Even though it runs BSD, it had to be modified somehow. If I take a Linux kernel and modify it, it's considered new software. What if I modified something that made some software crash? You can't assume it's exactly the same thing just because I used a Linux kernel. That's what I mean when I say that Mac OS X is an unproven platform. Besides it's cheaper to go with a free *nix variant. But on a environment where uptime is everything, responsible people will go with what's proven to be secure.

Yes but it's modified very very little. In fact, it's almost not modified at all. What if I quit the Finder and all applications and just run in single user (command line) mode? It's basically an untouched FreeBSD. The interface is just applications running. These applications modify the config files in the BSD layer, which you can modify by hand also if you'd like. Which leads to where you say...

Ease of use does NOT matter on a server environment. We're talking about skilled people. Not end users. They're supposed to know the OS inside out. That's part of the problem with M$ server systems. You control the server using wizards and sometimes you just need complete control over it. That's why *nix uses text files. You can see and modify everything right there. Is it hard? Hell yeah! But that gives you the confidence to know that your system is setup to YOUR specifications, not what stupid M$ thinks is right.

Same in OS X. It's not wizards. It's software Apple made to run the system more easily. But all the config files are there. You can open and edit using vi, or emacs, or TextEdit or whatever you want. This is not a "modified" or "unproven" "new" system. It's BSD, dude, with some changes to make it run on a G4, and some apps which create this interface, and the quartz layer for graphics. None of that stuff messes with the OS kernel in any major way.

Novell had a huge share of the NOS market. Not anymore! So what makes Apple a good candidate?

I don't know anything about Novell but Apple is a good candidate because the hardware is good, the software is the best (true *nix with great interface and even photoshop, yay!). And it's using STANDARDS. Standards in the OS. Standards in the hardware. Standards everywhere. And Apple is doing it open source, too, in the best way it can.

I'm not familiar with Apple's licensing system, but does it allow you to take Aqua and modify it?

Again, you don't want or need to modify Aqua. But if you really want to you can. It's your system so if you want to change all the buttons to green or something Apple doesn't care. For the new Xserve, you get an unlimited use license of Mac OS X Server. That's pretty cool.

The reason why Mac doesn't have a good programmer's base is because Apple doesn't want it. They don't like outside developers and everybody knows that.

You always say that but I don't know why. I don't see that image. It just sounds like you're mad about something in the past. Apple is changing its whole company around to fix all its problems and keep what it had good. So think of Apple and developers only as far back as 1 year at the MAX. Why would you think this of apple, I'm curious.

 

[klamps]

That sounds cool. But sounds complicated, too. I'm sure Windows will come up with some framework that works a LOT better than it used to but I don't think it will ever be as rock solid and proven as a true *nix core. And who cares, it's M$ stuff anyway.

FYI, *nix uses shared libraries just like Windows do. And they do conflict. I've encountered several problems with this. Sometimes you need to upgrade a shared library and it breaks another program.

No the interface is not open source, but how does that make apple take away from the community? That makes no sense. Anyway, Mac OS 9 you could change the interface and make all these crazy colors and shapes using Kaleidescope. That's not a big deal. Anyway, most people don't want to change the interface, they want to get their work done quickly and predictably. Changing the interface is cool, but just a toy, and anyway, you can change the interface in OS X if you really want to. Later on, Apple will make it easier, but that's just a toy.

Apple IS taking away from the community because it's using a *nix kernel, it developed a cool GUI, but they didn't release that back. Of course they don't have to, but it would've been nice. But they know that if they do that, people are going to take it, put on top of their favorite distro and **** Apple!

I'm saying where there's 2 computers with both different software AND hardware. Where the hardware on one computer is 10000000 times better, but the software is worse, it renders the hardware USELESS. Just like a 2 billion dollar scanner is useless without a driver. All that matters is software. Hardware is secondary. People think that hardware is important because that's how you build a computer with hardware. But it's not. Without software, hardware is just plastic and sand. But how about two computers, with different hardware and equal software? Then one will be much better. But there's no such thing. The software is always different when comparing Mac to Windows. And usually mac software is better. But now you can compare OS X to other *nix boxes with EQUAL software. You see, this is a very good thing. Mac software used to be its own world. Windows its own world. And *nix its own world. Now there is no more mac OS. It's just *nix and Windows. That gives Windows a much harder beast to fight and it's time for Windows to die anyway. So back to the point. The only scenario here will be a computer with both different hardware and different software. The Mac (today) has slower hardware with better software. I'll take that any day over a Quad Xeon with bad software. And the mac hardware is not even that much slower if you buy the $$$$$ one.

OK. What if you have the same software? Then the most powerfull computer will prevail right? Software won't matter here. And you can't just take any software and run on a Mac. You can't take Apache for Red Hat and run on Slackware. They're different platforms. It's true that it's Windows and *nix, but *nix has it's own branches and they rarely run the exact same software. Something is going to be different.

False. I can install Yellowdog Linux and LinuxPPC on my mac if I want. I can run XWindows (X11) something like that on here too, side by side with OS X. I'm sure there's other *nix I can install on PPC too.

That's about it. The *nix world has many, MANY variants. Many of them only available to the i386 platform.

I don't know that. What's the proof Apple hates developers? Why do they host the WWDC (World Wide Developers Conference). Cocoa is not just an interface. It means the whole development using Obj-C. To create your interface in Aqua you use another tool called Interface Builder.

The proof is on the number of developers it currently has.

Yes but it's modified very very little. In fact, it's almost not modified at all. What if I quit the Finder and all applications and just run in single user (command line) mode? It's basically an untouched FreeBSD. The interface is just applications running. These applications modify the config files in the BSD layer, which you can modify by hand also if you'd like. Which leads to where you say...

So you're saying that you take a FreeBSD program and compile under Mac OS X with no problems?

Same in OS X. It's not wizards. It's software Apple made to run the system more easily. But all the config files are there. You can open and edit using vi, or emacs, or TextEdit or whatever you want. This is not a "modified" or "unproven" "new" system. It's BSD, dude, with some changes to make it run on a G4, and some apps which create this interface, and the quartz layer for graphics. None of that stuff messes with the OS kernel in any major way.

So tell me why I should run a Mac OS X server instead of a FreeBSD server that runs on much cheaper hardware?

I don't know anything about Novell but Apple is a good candidate because the hardware is good, the software is the best (true *nix with great interface and even photoshop, yay!). And it's using STANDARDS. Standards in the OS. Standards in the hardware. Standards everywhere. And Apple is doing it open source, too, in the best way it can.

You're getting confused. A server doesn't need Photoshop. And if you want the best integration of hardware and software, there's Sun with alot more experience than Apple.

You always say that but I don't know why. I don't see that image. It just sounds like you're mad about something in the past. Apple is changing its whole company around to fix all its problems and keep what it had good. So think of Apple and developers only as far back as 1 year at the MAX. Why would you think this of apple, I'm curious.

Programmers are very busy people. They need tools to help them develop software better and faster. Apple doesn't offer that. I don't have a problem with it, because I don't write software for Macs. Even Microsoft helps developers in a variety of ways. As a programmer, I would love ways to port software to Mac. You know that. I already mentioned to you that I would like to make my program run on all platforms, but that's not an easy task. Maybe I should spend more time on the Apple Dev section and find out more of what's going on. Maybe I'll even like it. Who knows.

 

[solrac]

Originally posted by klamps

FYI, *nix uses shared libraries just like Windows do. And they do conflict. I've encountered several problems with this. Sometimes you need to upgrade a shared library and it breaks another program.

Well I'm no expert at that stuff, but anyway the point is that *nix is better than Windows, it's just a fact in today's industry. Of course anything can happen in the future.

Apple IS taking away from the community because it's using a *nix kernel, it developed a cool GUI, but they didn't release that back. Of course they don't have to, but it would've been nice. But they know that if they do that, people are going to take it, put on top of their favorite distro and **** Apple!

Actually it would be cool if that happened. Then people would put Aqua on Slackware, and SuSe, and RedHat, and OpenBSD, LOL, that would rock. And everyone would know that was Apple's thing. And they'd still have to go through Apple to get the newest updates to it. But for now, in the marketplace, that kind of thing is not necessary.

OK. What if you have the same software? Then the most powerfull computer will prevail right? Software won't matter here. And you can't just take any software and run on a Mac. You can't take Apache for Red Hat and run on Slackware. They're different platforms. It's true that it's Windows and *nix, but *nix has it's own branches and they rarely run the exact same software. Something is going to be different.

Sure if you have equal software then hardware is what matters, but software is always different. So it comes down to the better software. But maybe in some place they got equal software on different boxes, with equally proficient users. Then it's just a matter of hardware, but that's the easy part.

The proof is on the number of developers it currently has.

No that's only proof that Apple used to have a very unique OS that dates back to 1984 which was actually a very lame OS in the late 90s, and developers didn't really care to write code on a lame OS.

So you're saying that you take a FreeBSD program and compile under Mac OS X with no problems?

Yup. I read about some scientists who ported some analytical tools on their *nix boxes to OS X in just a few minutes. They did have to change some stuff in the source, like line endings or something, but it only took a matter of minutes, then a standard recompile. Sometimes it might take hours for something more complicated but I think it's only a matter of changing line endings or something? I'm no expert in this, but I know its VERY easy to port to Mac OS X.

So tell me why I should run a Mac OS X server instead of a FreeBSD server that runs on much cheaper hardware?

That's what Apple needs to answer to sell more Xserves. I think maybe in a company where the admins don't know the software like super experts, they may find an Xserve to be easier and less of a hassle. Then slowly the coolness of Apple will spread over the years and Apple will gain market share. They make some good hardware and software, dude. But totally... some guy can put FreeBSD on his custom built box, master it, run it all through CLI, and have it run way better than a Mac OS X Server, but only because he's a better computer user. And that's cool. It's cool to see some BSD box running beautifully. But even that guy might get an Apple just cuz he's interested and thinks it's cool to play with. Then he might find something he really likes about it and order another one. It'll take a long time, but Apple will slowly become cool as a server.

You're getting confused. A server doesn't need Photoshop. And if you want the best integration of hardware and software, there's Sun with alot more experience than Apple.

Yes but now Apple is here, and they admitted... they need to gain more customer service experience in this server market. But in terms of speed, software, hardware, tech support, they got it down. Nice competition for Sun. And I know it doesn't need Photoshop, I was just saying that it is cool that it has sooo much software. Mac OS X has more software than any *nix system now. It is also now the most widely distributed *nix system on the planet.

Programmers are very busy people. They need tools to help them develop software better and faster. Apple doesn't offer that. I don't have a problem with it, because I don't write software for Macs. Even Microsoft helps developers in a variety of ways. As a programmer, I would love ways to port software to Mac. You know that. I already mentioned to you that I would like to make my program run on all platforms, but that's not an easy task. Maybe I should spend more time on the Apple Dev section and find out more of what's going on. Maybe I'll even like it. Who knows.

But you're wrong! Apple DOES provide this now! The Obj-C libraries and interface libraries... are all very good. Developers are loving how fast and easy it is to put an application together. Apple offers a lot of support and documentation too!! As for making a program that runs on all platforms, well there's Java but that *****. But good cross-platform development is still a ways off I think. But you should check out what the Apple dev section really has. I hear there's some really good stuff going on there.

 

[xaqintosh]

I think this thread wins "The thread with the longest posts" award

 

[klamps]

Well I'm no expert at that stuff, but anyway the point is that *nix is better than Windows, it's just a fact in today's industry. Of course anything can happen in the future.

Agreed.

Actually it would be cool if that happened. Then people would put Aqua on Slackware, and SuSe, and RedHat, and OpenBSD, LOL, that would rock. And everyone would know that was Apple's thing. And they'd still have to go through Apple to get the newest updates to it. But for now, in the marketplace, that kind of thing is not necessary.

Hell yeah! That WOULD be cool, but it can't be because Apple is an egoist beyotch. And that IS necessary. What's the only thing that prevents mass acceptance of other *nix flavors? The GUI. From the end user point of view, of course.

Sure if you have equal software then hardware is what matters, but software is always different. So it comes down to the better software. But maybe in some place they got equal software on different boxes, with equally proficient users. Then it's just a matter of hardware, but that's the easy part.

See beyotch?

No that's only proof that Apple used to have a very unique OS that dates back to 1984 which was actually a very lame OS in the late 90s, and developers didn't really care to write code on a lame OS.

They don't seem to care about it now either.

Yup. I read about some scientists who ported some analytical tools on their *nix boxes to OS X in just a few minutes. They did have to change some stuff in the source, like line endings or something, but it only took a matter of minutes, then a standard recompile. Sometimes it might take hours for something more complicated but I think it's only a matter of changing line endings or something? I'm no expert in this, but I know its VERY easy to port to Mac OS X.

Why don't you try and let me know?

That's what Apple needs to answer to sell more Xserves. I think maybe in a company where the admins don't know the software like super experts, they may find an Xserve to be easier and less of a hassle. Then slowly the coolness of Apple will spread over the years and Apple will gain market share. They make some good hardware and software, dude. But totally... some guy can put FreeBSD on his custom built box, master it, run it all through CLI, and have it run way better than a Mac OS X Server, but only because he's a better computer user. And that's cool. It's cool to see some BSD box running beautifully. But even that guy might get an Apple just cuz he's interested and thinks it's cool to play with. Then he might find something he really likes about it and order another one. It'll take a long time, but Apple will slowly become cool as a server.

Admins that don't know the software they run are NOT real admins. They're just playing. Coolness will NOT win market share. Besides you can't expect the market to freeze and wait for Apple.

Yes but now Apple is here, and they admitted... they need to gain more customer service experience in this server market. But in terms of speed, software, hardware, tech support, they got it down. Nice competition for Sun. And I know it doesn't need Photoshop, I was just saying that it is cool that it has sooo much software. Mac OS X has more software than any *nix system now. It is also now the most widely distributed *nix system on the planet.

You're seriously mistaken. Mac OS X does NOT have more software than any *nix. RedHat does. If there's a program for *nix, there's a port for Red Hat. How can Mac OS X be the most distributed *nix system on the planet? You're obviously forgetting about Red Hat. It's FREE! You can login to ftp.redhat.com right now and get a copy. Can you do that with Mac OS X?

But you're wrong! Apple DOES provide this now! The Obj-C libraries and interface libraries... are all very good. Developers are loving how fast and easy it is to put an application together. Apple offers a lot of support and documentation too!! As for making a program that runs on all platforms, well there's Java but that *****. But good cross-platform development is still a ways off I think. But you should check out what the Apple dev section really has. I hear there's some really good stuff going on there.

Maybe now more people will write software for the Mac OS X. Let's see. And don't even mention Java. It runs even on my coffee mug, but what a pain in the arse.

So resuming everything:

- F-U-C-K Apple for stealing open source code
- Red Hat is the best OS in the planet
- M$ suc ks blue whale's balls
- I just wasted my whole day doing this, which shows how stupid, therefore unqualified to do this, I really am ...

 

[klamps]

Originally posted by Nummi_G4
wow dude. congrats on the largest post ever You are too smart for me If you talk to a peecee lover like that... their head will explode.

I still have my head in perfect condition (if you call this perfect). And I'm ready for more ! bring it on Solrac !!!

 

[klamps]

Originally posted by xaqintosh
I think this thread wins "The thread with the longest posts" award

OMFG !!! I actually clicked on this guy's website link. It's SOO KOO! Specially because he talks about giraffes. Too bad it wasn't flying giraffes, but we, eNoLa, are the experts on the flying giraffe business.

If you would like to talk more about FG's, please email sam eNoLa.

 

[solrac]

Originally posted by klamps
Hell yeah! That WOULD be cool, but it can't be because Apple is an egoist beyotch. And that IS necessary. What's the only thing that prevents mass acceptance of other *nix flavors? The GUI. From the end user point of view, of course.

no it's just that by keeping it Apple only, they can sell more copies of Mac OS X, not cuz they are egoist beyotches. Hahhaha this stupid UBB can't filter out the word beeyotch can it??? HAHHAHAHAH beyotch beyotch beyotch beyotch beyotch beyotch beyotch beyotch beyotch beyotch beyotch beyotch

They don't seem to care about it now either.

But they do. But the new Apple is brand new. Give developers time to realize that it's actually becoming great.

Why don't you try and let me know?

I don't know where to find the info. Just use google. Look for "porting unix or linux software to Mac OS X, and it's problems and its easiness" or whatever lol

Admins that don't know the software they run are NOT real admins. They're just playing. Coolness will NOT win market share. Besides you can't expect the market to freeze and wait for Apple.

They are real admins if they're getting paid to do something. Maybe they're not real GOOD admins. Heheheh. But Apple will use any method it can to get its Xserve boxes in the marketplace.

You're seriously mistaken. Mac OS X does NOT have more software than any *nix. RedHat does. If there's a program for *nix, there's a port for Red Hat. How can Mac OS X be the most distributed *nix system on the planet? You're obviously forgetting about Red Hat. It's FREE! You can login to ftp.redhat.com right now and get a copy. Can you do that with Mac OS X?

OK, what I meant is that Mac OS X has more software than any *nix over ALL. Red Hat may have more commands in /usr/bin or whatever, but Mac OS X has Photoshop, InDesign, Dreamweaver, After Effects, Final Cut Pro, etc. etc. That's what I meant by more software. And there are tons of *nix ports coming out for OS X all the time. One cool one i think they are gonna work on is this tool called midnight commander. Anyway, Mac OS X is more widely distributed than Red Hat. Remember, Apple is a HUGE company, and within a year they surpassed Red Hat's distribution numbers. There are more Mac OS Xs out there than Red Hats, unless what I read was false. Yes there are more Mac OS X even though it is not available on an FTP server. Only a carracho server heheeheh j/k.

Maybe now more people will write software for the Mac OS X. Let's see. And don't even mention Java. It runs even on my coffee mug, but what a pain in the arse.

I hope so. It's pretty predictable.

So resuming everything:

- F-U-C-K Apple for stealing open source code
- Red Hat is the best OS in the planet
- M$ suc ks blue whale's balls
- I just wasted my whole day doing this, which shows how stupid, therefore unqualified to do this, I really am ...

LOLOLOLOL You can't steal open source code!!!!!! HAHAHAH That's funny though. That's like stealing a free newspaper and putting cool graphics on it and selling it??? HAHHAHAHAHA

Red Hat ***** cuz the interface is hard to learn and harder to install and you can't get photoshop. Heheheheheh.

M$ suc ks mucho blue whale's balls but not as much as Azteca.net

I waste EVERY day doing this, so, um nevermind

 

[klamps]

no it's just that by keeping it Apple only, they can sell more copies of Mac OS X, not cuz they are egoist beyotches. Hahhaha this stupid UBB can't filter out the word beeyotch can it??? HAHHAHAHAH beyotch beyotch beyotch beyotch beyotch beyotch beyotch beyotch beyotch beyotch beyotch beyotch

So they can't make money without keeping the GUI? How come Red Hat makes money then?

They are real admins if they're getting paid to do something. Maybe they're not real GOOD admins. Heheheh. But Apple will use any method it can to get its Xserve boxes in the marketplace.

Hmmm ... sounds like M$.

OK, what I meant is that Mac OS X has more software than any *nix over ALL. Red Hat may have more commands in /usr/bin or whatever, but Mac OS X has Photoshop, InDesign, Dreamweaver, After Effects, Final Cut Pro, etc. etc. That's what I meant by more software. And there are tons of *nix ports coming out for OS X all the time. One cool one i think they are gonna work on is this tool called midnight commander. Anyway, Mac OS X is more widely distributed than Red Hat. Remember, Apple is a HUGE company, and within a year they surpassed Red Hat's distribution numbers. There are more Mac OS Xs out there than Red Hats, unless what I read was false. Yes there are more Mac OS X even though it is not available on an FTP server. Only a carracho server heheeheh j/k.

Nah beyotch. I'm not talking about command line commands. I'm talking about actual software. Go look at FreshMeat or SourceForge for example. Now the fact that OS X runs the other stuff like you mentioned only proves my point that Apple modified the kernel. How else would it run?

LOLOLOLOL You can't steal open source code!!!!!! HAHAHAH That's funny though. That's like stealing a free newspaper and putting cool graphics on it and selling it??? HAHHAHAHAHA

Exactly! Why do you think they used BSD? Because of it's license! GNU/GPL requires you to give back to the community, and Apple doesn't want to do that.

Red Hat ***** cuz the interface is hard to learn and harder to install and you can't get photoshop. Heheheheheh.

It has The Gimp which is FREE! So you don't have to resort to carracho's servers.

M$ suc ks mucho blue whale's balls but not as much as Azteca.net

I waste EVERY day doing this, so, um nevermind

Nothing su cks more than Azteca.Net.

Since you waste everyday doing this, that makes you ultimately brain-dead.

 

[RacerX]

I'm only jumping in to correct the more annoying of the mistakes and some of the weaker point in the arguments (from all sides) that has been posted so far. I'm not going to post who said what (you guys know who you are) and I'm not trying to take sides anyway.

Let the water shed begin.

Also, currently the ONLY server provider that sells a server AND hardware AND the OS ALL from the same company is Sun. Sun makes its own hardware, they make their hardware, and they make their own OS (IRIX, etc.). Now, Apple is the second. The only other company that makes the hardware, makes the OS, and provides the server.

This statement does not ring completely true. You do have Sun (which uses Solaris, not IRIX), Silicon Graphics (they use IRIX), IBM (which uses AIX), and HP (which uses HP-UX). Apple is actually one of many.

Apple only pulled this new OS because: it got all the code from an already
good OS. All they had to do was to put an interface on it.

That good (I would say great) OS was OPENSTEP, which was the last (NeXT) developed OS of the NEXTSTEP series (OPENSTEP was version 4.x, Apple did continue on with Rhapsody which was version 5.x). I would point out that NEXTSTEP predates FreeBSD (something you guys often forget).

Mac is not a good idea for a server environment because, again, it lacks the
software. You think that because you can run Apache and PHP on a Mac, you
have a server sitting in your desk? NO! A server is not defined by the
computer's ability to run a web server. Even Windows 3.0 can do that. There
are various other things to consider on a server, security being on the top
of the list.

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 )

True it has UNIX on it's veins, but it's not a proven platform.

In almost every way (with the notable exception of the Carbon APIs) Mac OS X is a proven platform with a longer history than both Windows (even considering that the Windows NT/2000/xp line started with OS/2) and Linux.

And yes, I do agree with you that Adobe, Macromedia, etc. software is the same on PC.

Yes, I'll agree to disagree with you guys on that. The way Windows is set up requires most apps to run rooted in a single window. This means that apps like Photoshop actually feel very different on Windows than on Macs (or SGIs for that matter, I have Photoshop running on my Indy, and it feels more like the Mac version than the Windows version).

The core of OS X is open source, but what about the interface? Correct me if I'm wrong, but is Apple giving back to the community? I don't think so.

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.

Cocoa is not a platform. It's just an interface.

Actually it's a cross-platform programing environment based on Yellow Box, which was based on OpenStep, which was based on NeXTSTEP APIs. Though Apple has not used it in that way, Cocoa could be used in the same way that Java (inspired by OpenStep) has been. In fact NeXT and Sun worked together to make OpenStep's runtime environment portable to other operating systems (including Solaris and Windows). I currently have Windows NT 4.0 with Apple's Yellow Box installed that lets me use many Mac only apps in Windows (if the developer wrote them to be portable that is). Examples would be TextEdit, TIFFany3 and Create.

I'm gonna repeat this. Mac OS X IS new software. Even though it runs BSD, it had to be modified somehow. If I take a Linux kernel and modify it, it's considered new software. What if I modified something that made some software crash? You can't assume it's exactly the same thing just because I used a Linux kernel. That's what I mean when I say that Mac OS X is an unproven platform. Besides it's cheaper to go with a free *nix variant. But on a environment where uptime is everything, responsible people will go with what's proven to be secure.

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 familiar with Apple's licensing system, but does it allow you to take Aqua and modify it?

Aqua is not open source, and is a unique Apple product. It is not required to run Darwin, so it does not effect Darwin's licensing. As an end user, you may do what you want to Aqua, but you may not make it available to others.

The reason why Mac doesn't have a good programmer's base is because Apple doesn't want it. They don't like outside developers and everybody knows that.

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.

Also, Mac OS X comes with the developers tools needed to create Mac apps. I would point out that these same tools for OPENSTEP were an additional $4999 on top of the price for a single user license ($799) for the operating system. The only thing Apple could possibly do to make life easier for developers would be to write the applications for them.

I'm not. I say that anything pre OS X is pure crap. Pure, liquid crap to be exact.

I would say that that is an inexperienced point of view (and I can say that as it is quite clear that I have more experience).

Apple IS taking away from the community because it's using a *nix kernel, it developed a cool GUI, but they didn't release that back. Of course they don't have to, but it would've been nice. But they know that if they do that, people are going to take it, put on top of their favorite distro and **** Apple!

As I pointed out earlier, Apple has more than given back. Darwin can be use on both PPC and i386 systems, and can be set up in much the same way that OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD and Linux can. Aqua receives nothing from open source, so Apple doesn't owe Aqua to the open source community.

So tell me why I should run a Mac OS X server instead of a FreeBSD server that runs on much cheaper hardware?

FreeBSD as a server is a build it yourself system. That type of system requires an experienced admin who is going to cost a ton of money on an on going basis. Mac OS X Server can be set up by an experienced admin, who can actually leave much of the normal admin tasks to someone who already works for that business. This has been the beautiful part of AppleShare IP and it has transferred over to Mac OS X Server very nicely.

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.

You're getting confused. A server doesn't need Photoshop. And if you want the best integration of hardware and software, there's Sun with alot more experience than Apple.

Sun is mainly a server maker who also makes workstations. Apple is mainly a desktop/workstation maker who also makes servers. Beyond a certain point Sun, IBM, and many others would be a better choice than Apple, but Apple has just moved that point quite a ways higher than it used to stand.

So they can't make money without keeping the GUI? How come Red Hat makes money then?

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?

Now the fact that OS X runs the other stuff like you mentioned only proves my point that Apple modified the kernel. How else would it run?

As I said earlier, none of this is actually new, and it work before Apple acquired NeXT. If it isn't broken, they most likely didn't fix it. Changes made by Apple: the BSD interface layer of Darwin was originally based on 4.4BSD, with the additions of libs and apps from OpenBSD, NetBSD and FreeBSD, but Apple started to use more and more aspects of FreeBSD. This is still not that different from the kernel used for NeXTstep 0.8 back in 1988.

Exactly! Why do you think they used BSD? Because of it's license! GNU/GPL requires you to give back to the community, and Apple doesn't want to do that.

As I stated many times, the use of BSD was a choice made by NeXT back in the late 80's long before GNU/GPL. To pretend that there was any other reason only shows that you have not actually studied this subject.

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.

 

[mdnky]

Reply to Marco Machado's statement...

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.

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?

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.

 

[solrac]

RacerX, you rule!!! You're now my favorite member here heheh. I still must requote you and say more crap on my part!!!

This statement does not ring completely true. You do have Sun (which uses Solaris, not IRIX), Silicon Graphics (they use IRIX), IBM (which uses AIX), and HP (which uses HP-UX). Apple is actually one of many.

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.

That good (I would say great) OS was OPENSTEP, which was the last (NeXT) developed OS of the NEXTSTEP series (OPENSTEP was version 4.x, Apple did continue on with Rhapsody which was version 5.x). I would point out that NEXTSTEP predates FreeBSD (something you guys often forget).

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

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 )

Good point!!!

In almost every way (with the notable exception of the Carbon APIs) Mac OS X is a proven platform with a longer history than both Windows (even considering that the Windows NT/2000/xp line started with OS/2) and Linux.

Wow, this is true. Yes everyone forgets about NextStep and NeXt and all that stuff goes back to like 1988 or more....

Yes, I'll agree to disagree with you guys on that. The way Windows is set up requires most apps to run rooted in a single window. This means that apps like Photoshop actually feel very different on Windows than on Macs (or SGIs for that matter, I have Photoshop running on my Indy, and it feels more like the Mac version than the Windows version).

True but the stability and functionality of the apps is about the same on mac and PC. Even though PC has the rooted window stuff, that's just a different feel, analogous to having different colors on different OSes. I personally don't mind the Windows implementation but I'm more used to the mac's floating windows, which I do like better.

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.

This is true. It's great, free, stuff.

Actually it's a cross-platform programing environment based on Yellow Box, which was based on OpenStep, which was based on NeXTSTEP APIs. Though Apple has not used it in that way, Cocoa could be used in the same way that Java (inspired by OpenStep) has been. In fact NeXT and Sun worked together to make OpenStep's runtime environment portable to other operating systems (including Solaris and Windows). I currently have Windows NT 4.0 with Apple's Yellow Box installed that lets me use many Mac only apps in Windows (if the developer wrote them to be portable that is). Examples would be TextEdit, TIFFany3 and Create.

Very cool!!!

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.

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!!!

Aqua is not open source, and is a unique Apple product. It is not required to run Darwin, so it does not effect Darwin's licensing. As an end user, you may do what you want to Aqua, but you may not make it available to others.

Right, that's what I was trying to say about Aqua.

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.

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

Also, Mac OS X comes with the developers tools needed to create Mac apps. I would point out that these same tools for OPENSTEP were an additional $4999 on top of the price for a single user license ($799) for the operating system. The only thing Apple could possibly do to make life easier for developers would be to write the applications for them.

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.

[about mac os 9 being pure liquid crap] I would say that that is an inexperienced point of view (and I can say that as it is quite clear that I have more experience).

Yes you do have more experience obviously. I am totally respecting you right now. I am RECKA'NIZING!!! But.... I don't change my opinion that OS 9 is pure crap. As an end user, it was horrible for me. It would crash twice a day. Even on a clean install after formatting a drive with 0s and no viruses and only standard programs, it would always end up crashing like twice a day or more. Sometimes it would last the whole day without crashing and I'd be like "coooool." Horrible OS with a great interface.

As I pointed out earlier, Apple has more than given back. Darwin can be use on both PPC and i386 systems, and can be set up in much the same way that OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD and Linux can. Aqua receives nothing from open source, so Apple doesn't owe Aqua to the open source community.

Klamps just got beyotch-slapped!! HAHAHA

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.

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.

Sun is mainly a server maker who also makes workstations. Apple is mainly a desktop/workstation maker who also makes servers. Beyond a certain point Sun, IBM, and many others would be a better choice than Apple, but Apple has just moved that point quite a ways higher than it used to stand.

Yes, exactly... they entered into the marketplace.. and like I said, it will be slow, but soon Apple will be mentioned in every day conversations among server dudes and stuff.

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?

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 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.

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?????????

Thanks for the history lesson and info RacerX, but I did challenge you on at least 2 of your points above (the OS 9 thing and the Apple and Sun thing)... let me know what you think

 

[RacerX]

I hate to see Steve wrong as much as the next person, but if he said (and I don't remember hearing him say that, but I was working on some stuff during the presentation) that Apple was second behind Sun in the server market on companies that produce both the hardware and the operating system, then there isn't much else to say. Lets look at some examples:

Sun Microsystems:

• 
  operating system: Solaris
  hardware: not only makes their own, they make their own processors (UltaSPARC)

Apple Computer:

• 
  operating system: Mac OS X Server
  hardware: makes their own

IBM:

• 
  operating system: AIX
  hardware: not only makes their own, they make their own processors (PowerPC)

Silicon Graphics, Inc. :

• 
  operating system: IRIX
  hardware: makes their own, owns one of the companies that makes their processors (MIPS)

As for Mac OS 9, I have had uptimes of weeks without crashes. Any system that crashes as much as the one you were talking about has other issues (most likely hardware). I test systems by starting Photoshop on a task (usually a 15 minute rendering filter), while the system is working on that I start up a few more apps, fire up the default browser of the person who's system I am working on, go to Apple's quicktime site and watch some trailers while waiting for Photoshop to finish. If a system can't handle that type of load, then I haven't finished fixing it yet.

My livelihood depends on making Mac OS 9 work better than any other system (that can run QuarkXPress natively). I would love to have more clients move to Mac OS X, but currently what they need is Mac OS 9 with the best performance they can get. All of my clients I've gotten by word of mouth. If I couldn't keep Mac OS 9 up and running, I would be out of a job.

Then again, I'm not earning any money when Mac OS 9 is not crashing and I'm not getting any calls for weeks at a time either. I currently care for 57 systems (43 of which are Macs running Mac OS 8/9), if they were crashing as much as your system was, I would be working all the time. Yesterday I didn't have any calls, today I upgraded an AppleShare IP server to handle FileMaker Pro 5.0 server and installed ATM deluxe on someone's system, tomorrow I'll go see Star Wars for the 5th time (and 6th time if I don't get any calls ). I spend the last few weeks hunting down viruses on a half dozen Windows systems (which also required me to install Windows 2000 twice and Windows ME once while trying to get these systems productive again). As my wife would be very happy to point out, I am not over worked.