Pissed at OSDN

kilowatt

kilowatt

mach-o mach-o man
Perhaps this is the wrong place for this, but I feel it will reach the correct audiance.

Page 31, OPEN magazine, June, 2001:
"Suprisingly, the Mac OS X leaves out native NFS connectiity in the current release and only those servers actually running the Mac OS are recognized in the applet that currently replaces the classic Chooser."

Page 32:
"Our only disappointment in wireless testing occured with the Mac. As with Windows, the Mac's OS 9 cannot directly access NFS volumes without additional third-party software. We had anticipated that situation would all change with the BSD/Mach-based Mac OS X. Basic connectivity actually turns out to be slightly less with the initial OS X release.
The classic Chooser has been replaced with a "Go To" network applet that functions much like the old Chooser. Unfortunately, this applet could not discover any file servers not actually running the Mac OS including Windows NT/2000 servers running Apple Share. Nonetheless, it was possible to attach to these servers by entering the server's network ID. Unfortunately, not even with direct identification could we attach to an NFS server. With Open Source, this lack will not likely persist for long."

Well, well, well. Somebody didn't do their homework.....

Last I checked, on my redhat box, not a single server of any type appears in the gmc. I guess redhat doesn't support nfs, apple talk or samba.

Its that kind of stupid logic that really makes me mad. Those bozoes at open must be really good buddies with Linus...

Any coments?
 
I'm a little bitter about the reaction toward MacOSX by some Linux fans. It's almost like some won't approve of it just because it's a Mac. That type of logic is just plain irritating.
 
Screw Linux weenies. They have always been arrogant and full of shit. Take away the GPL and all you have is a crappy OS with year 2000 hype. Now that the party is over they have just gotten more bitter and abrasive.

If Windows is "good-enough computing", what is Linux? A less expensive way to waste a lot more time.
 
Hey, you guys are being a little harsh there.

If it wasn't for linux, I doubt UNIX would be anywhere. People would have given up in unix a long time ago.

Linux is one of the best operating systems.
Beats Windows. Beats Slowaris. Beats Irix. Beats lots of stuff.

We need linux in order for mac os x to succeed. Imagine if there was no linux. Would open-source be where it is today?

As it is, linux developers are porting their software over to Mac OS X. I doubt that many UNIX developers (hehe) would be porting to Mac OS X.

Everywhere you look, its "The power of UNIX with the simplicity of the Macintosh" or something like that.

But the big robust reputation of UNIX which proceeds it doesn't come from your old SPARC 10. Or your PDP-11, whatever that is. It comes from the huge linux croud. As it is, linux supports so many web sites, its unbelievable.

Just think, would Apache even be here if it wasn't for linux? I think we'd all be running arround with NCSA's web server. Or maybe we'd all either use winblows or a propritary unix on an expensive arcatecture.

Mac OS X is the perfect combination of open-source and closed-source. Open source kernel, closed source desktop. (Yeah, and closed source apps like textedit.app - who cares?) Its a great model of business, capitalism, and software.

And I think we have Linux to thank for that.

Some of you may argue that because NExT ran on a unix, Jobs used that as his reason to make OS X run UNIX. Not so. Jobs knows (as well as many others) that the linux communities have been waiting for this. The most powerfull computing platform, an open-source kernel, and an industry-supported operating system.

Linux and linux-users will fuel so much Mac OS X development, it will be unbelievable.

With or without Linus...

Sorry if I pissed anyone off... I feel like its my job to do that sometimes.
 
If it wasn't for linux, I doubt UNIX would be anywhere. People would have given up in unix a long time ago.

I agree. If it wasn't for Linux, there would be far less visibility for Unix in general. As far as I'm concerned, Linux is "unix-like" enough to be considered a Unix, and it's pretty decent at that.

As it is, linux developers are porting their software over to Mac OS X.

The problem with Linux being as well-known as it is, is that everybody assumes that anything remotely related to Unix has to do with Linux and only Linux. Not even GNU has it roots in Linux! GNU started in the 80's and their first GNU-specific OS was HURD, not Linux. Newbies wrongly assume that everything unix related has to do with Linux.

I doubt that many UNIX developers (hehe) would be porting to Mac OS X.

Ouch, you sure put your foot in your mouth there. Mac OS X is BSD Unix. Unix developers have been the foundation longer than you can imagine. NeXTstep existed as a *nix long before Linux did. NeXTstep even predates 386BSD. Without the support of REAL UNIX developers from way back in those days and continuously right up to modern times, there would be no MacOS X.

How many UNIX developers are porting to Mac OS X? Plenty. Some of them work for Apple, some are independent. Jordan Hubbard just joined a few weeks ago. Wilfredo Sanchez left Apple but still does amazing work with the open source Darwin project.

But the big robust reputation of UNIX which proceeds it doesn't come from your old SPARC 10. Or your PDP-11, whatever that is. It comes from the huge linux croud. As it is, linux supports so many web sites, its unbelievable.

Unix has been robust long before Linux ever existed. My SPARC ran SunOS for years and was a small part of a huge, thriving world of robust Unix that had absolutely NOTHING to do with Linux. Today that same SPARC 10 is sitting in my closet running OpenBSD. It doesn't need hype to be good. Those who recognize quality can discover it on their own.

a propritary unix on an expensive arcatecture

Like NeXT? Good thing Apple can at least point out the few open source tidbits in Mac OS X, otherwise we'd be in that same boat today. At least back in the day when SparcStations were the hip thing, Sun kept the architecture open. Companies like Tatung and Ross built a thriving market of Sun clones and Sun even supported SunOS and Solaris on the clones! Nowadays you can run Linux, NetBSD or OpenBSD on that old hardware.

The Linux "croud" is not terribly famous for robustness. Care to count how many exploits for RedHat are announced every month? The most unbelievable aspect of Linux is how fragmented it is and how moronic some of Slashdot trolls can be. OTOH, Linux *can* be made into an excellent OS and there are plenty of outstanding folks in the Linux community.

Apache? It wouldn't be the #1 webserver it is today without FreeBSD behind it.

Just remember that Linux is the flashy newcomer. Unix has been around long before Linux. It's annoying to hear people assume that Linux is all there is to Unix.

Linux and linux-users will fuel so much Mac OS X development, it will be unbelievable.

I absolutely agree :) Let's welcome them and make Mac OS X into a kick-ass operating system! I also hope that OS X will attract developers from the *BSDs, from commercial *nixes, from BeOS, and even Windows developers.
 
Originally posted by kilowatt
Hey, you guys are being a little harsh there.

If it wasn't for linux, I doubt UNIX would be anywhere. People would have given up in unix a long time ago.
Click to expand...

This is a good thing?!?!

Damn, where's my time machine so I can go kill Linux before he saves UNIX
 
Originally posted by kilowatt
Hey, you guys are being a little harsh there.

If it wasn't for linux, I doubt UNIX would be anywhere. People would have given up in unix a long time ago.

Linux is one of the best operating systems.
Beats Windows. Beats Slowaris. Beats Irix. Beats lots of stuff.
Click to expand...


Linux is not that great, I used linux since version .89 back in 1992, it was better back then than now. Today the standard install give you the worse windowmangers ever, tacky like windows, no gui guide line when developing apps. it each to his own. I have port linux to an arm processor on for a project with Ericsson a few years ago, and today I still here that multithreading is not native yet, threads are still created as PID, which taske more rsources, and each PID it's own memory pool allocted. When you kill the thread, the PID is left hanging. Linux sucks, I an programmer can write 90% of the code that the quick part, but to finish code to a high level takes time, and linux lacks that part, linux the grand hack. That's why MacOS X is based on BSD, a truely great OS, Apple has just made BSD better, I hate linux, I have windoze more. I love BSD, MacOS X, and even Solaris. Sun produce great products, and it consistant.

We need linux in order for mac os x to succeed. Imagine if there was no linux. Would open-source be where it is today?

As it is, linux developers are porting their software over to Mac OS X. I doubt that many UNIX developers (hehe) would be porting to Mac OS X.

Everywhere you look, its "The power of UNIX with the simplicity of the Macintosh" or something like that.

But the big robust reputation of UNIX which proceeds it doesn't come from your old SPARC 10. Or your PDP-11, whatever that is. It comes from the huge linux croud. As it is, linux supports so many web sites, its unbelievable.

Just think, would Apache even be here if it wasn't for linux? I think we'd all be running arround with NCSA's web server. Or maybe we'd all either use winblows or a propritary unix on an expensive arcatecture.

Mac OS X is the perfect combination of open-source and closed-source. Open source kernel, closed source desktop. (Yeah, and closed source apps like textedit.app - who cares?) Its a great model of business, capitalism, and software.

And I think we have Linux to thank for that.

Some of you may argue that because NExT ran on a unix, Jobs used that as his reason to make OS X run UNIX. Not so. Jobs knows (as well as many others) that the linux communities have been waiting for this. The most powerfull computing platform, an open-source kernel, and an industry-supported operating system.

Linux and linux-users will fuel so much Mac OS X development, it will be unbelievable.

With or without Linus...

Sorry if I pissed anyone off... I feel like its my job to do that sometimes.
Click to expand...

before linux was bsd, it a shame linus never got his hands on that, if you read about why he creat linux, it was because he did not know of bsd a much better freeware, and bsd does not have the GLP crap either, it the most truley open source ever quilt free OS.
 
I'm not at all suggesting that Linux is better than BSD. I'm simply saying that linux's popularity will contribute to Mac OS X's success.

I remember my first unix-like expierance. I had a copy of "Solaris Base Server 2.4" ($5 at a swap meet) and I installed it on an old 486. It booted fine, but had no gui, and, being a winblows user, I didn't know what to do. So I ran down to the bookstore, and got a copy of RedHat 6.1. I didn't know what I was getting into, but I knew it would be interesting. I couldn't download any distro I wanted because I didn't have a cd burner (and my friends are as poor as I am). Not to mention I wouldn't know exactly how. And I couldn't afford the steep prices of Free BSD (local computer store). So linux launched me on quite a trip. I even ended up installing solaris base server 2.4 again after I knew what I was doing (no real reason, just some variety). Later on I would purchase a SPARCstation 10 which had Solaris 2.5.6 on it.

But all in all, I tribute my use and administration of computers to a person I saw running RedHat many years ago. It looked cool, and it wasn't windows, so I went with it. If I haden't, I'd probably be a Mac OS X user that doesn't use the CLI any more than necessary.

And I know that, reguardless of how hacked and rat-packed linux is, it will contribute to Mac OS X's success simply because its popular.

And BTW, I do like solaris. I don't know what got into me calling it slowaris. It boots up exactly as fast as my Mac OS X G3.
 
I'm hooked up with a great organization here in Portland called "Free Geek" that refurbishes old PCs and sets them up with Linux, distributing them for free to people and organizations that need computers for whatever reason. There's a great core group there, very adamant Linux wizards who know lots about configuring networks and user accounts. Some of them even know how to program a fine shell script. And one or two are actually into making GUI based X-Windows stuff.

I recently assisted one of the more savvy guys in getting MacOS X onto a PowerComputing box. Although I own a G4 I was as interested as him in this experiment so I could get the hang of installing onto my G3-upgraded 8500. More than that I was interested to see what he'd want to do with it once he had it in his hands. So far it's a lot of mucking around in the Terminal, but the NeXT-incepted NetInfo is like an alien creature to him. "What do you mean the 'hosts' file is irrelevant??"

What Linux provides is a great platform for building cheap and easy-to-maintain networks with very quick security fixes and whatever hardware you can afford. Developers on these systems are more interested in the kinds of utilities that will help them maintain these boxen, and they're not especially interested in using them to play MP3s and process photos.

But things are rapidly changing in the Linux world. New GUIs exist, such as AfterStep, Enlightenment, FVWM, IceWM, Sawfish, and WindowMaker. Although many of these are ugly as sin they are continually getting better. One GUI whose name escapes me has super-neato features like file previews inside its icons and rollover preview of audio files (including MP3). Full desktop applications exist like GIMP, StarOffice, AbiWord, and Impress. Support for Palm devices is being added through tools like KPilot, JPilot, and pilot-link. As more and more developers donate time to these kinds of projects we'll be seeing a mad acceleration of feature implementation, bringing these into parity with proprietary cousins Photoshop, MS Office, and Apple's Aqua. It's inevitable.

Currently if you want to run any of these X-Windows-based apps under MacOS X you have to run XFree86 in "rootless" mode, and you can't use Aqua at the same time. But there's a good chance that by this time next year you'll be able to run X-Windows apps right alongside Aqua apps and you won't really be able to tell the difference. That makes Linux and Open Source developers extremely important to the Mac platform, because a lot of users will choose StarOffice over MS Office and the GIMP over Photoshop. And why shouldn't they? Companies that bank on users not being able to accomplish cool software on their own are bound to lose ground as more and more programmers decide to get involved and make software the way they want it to be instead of the way the big development houses want it to be. Not unlike Linux itself.

Helping to further this spirit are tools like RealBasic. The latest version lets you call through to any Unix command, grab the output and format it to fit your GUI. Just about anyone can pick up the rudiments of BASIC in a weekend, and RealBasic is the only option on MacOS X for programmers who find Objective-C and Java too daunting and complex. Even though I'm busy wrapping my head around Cocoa I can easily imagine a lot of cases where I'd rather just hack it out in RealBasic. The same spirit that once fired up the L33t of Linux is now available to anyone with a nifty idea and a couple C-notes to drop on RealBasic. Watch out!
 
I wouldn't call Linux easy to maintain |-p

Of all the unices it's probably the most difficult to maintain, including SCO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top