But try to add a driver and it is very fragile. You have to recompile.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You can build a pretty generic kernel and then load modules as needed. That's what most current Linux distributions do, as far as I know.
[quote]<strong>Those recompiles also create potential software vulnerabilities, hence anything that requires frequent recompiles has a much higher potential security vulnerability.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Could you clarify as to how compiling a piece of code several times increases its vulnerability?
Or are you afraid someone secretly might modify the sources in between? If so, that's just about as likely as someone modifying / replacing the compiled binaries.
If Apple can pull it off, it has one thing that Linux doesn't have that is necessary to be considered a serious solution for many businesses - standardized support.
Whether or not OS X is technically substandard to Linux in any respect won't matter to big businesses if Apple can follow through on the promises made by its new service and support options.
Just to be clear though: Linux and its users rock, and will be helping Apple and likewise in the future. Most Linux people I know I really like, and they like Apple too. They usually just have to use x86, or run servers. It's all about the "right tool for the job", and Linux has its uses, being free and open source. However, I don't think it will ever be a Desktop OS, with a good GUI. I think this is just inherent in the open source model, since an OS needs a firm direction and way of doing things. But why would Linux folks worry? Just buy a Mac, and dual boot! OS X and Yellow Dog Linux, for instance! Peace :cool:
Hey guys! I finally figured it out! Linux Journal is slagging OSX because <a href="http://linuxmagazine.com/"; target="_blank">Linux Magazine</a> is praising OSX/Powerbook G4s in it's latest issue (which is not available online). The editor's foreword is pure praise for Apple and their Open Source involvement. Then like 3 pages in, there is a glowing review of the TiBook 550 mhz and OSX. Not a single bad word in either of them.
So being somewhat reactionary, the competing Linux Journal decided to sway opinion away from OSX w/ mach performance FUD.
Very Funny! I thought the same thing. Who really cares what LinuxJournal thinks anyway.! I like OS X, I like Cocoa, I like Apple and I like Apple's ISVs. I like their design, all elements and i like the cool multimedia apps they make. So, do I care what they say? No.
....or, don't even worry about dual booting because you can now run GNOME/KDE right alongside your regular apps.
OS X is rapidly moving ahead in the *N?X game. Now that Fink has KDE running on OS X, with KOffice, GNOME, and OpenOffice coming along nicely, I am beginning to question why there is even a need to dual boot anymore.
Now, all we need is MOL ported to Darwin so we can run OS9 as a full OS under OS X, instead of the FUBARed Classic way and OS X will rock.
I am thrilled to see KDE finally running on OS X. I hope Apple appreciates how important the guys at Fink are to the success of OS X. Maybe they need to hire a few of them and put them under Hubbard and start a engineering department that works on nothing but getting Darwin/ OS X opensource stuff ported and polished.
I read the article to see what he had to say. It's an old argument and he has not been following what Apple has been doing to OS X. I'm sure an a few months someone at LinuxJournal will write that Apple is not giving back to the community and is taking advantage of open source developers.
The only reason this article even seems relevant is because of OS X's slower GUI, which is not caused by the micro-kernal but by lack of hardware accel for Quartz, a slow, poorly threaded finder, and other things I don't understand very well.
Once Jaguar is here and OS X is exceedingly responsive and has a fast GUI, then nobody will give a squat about the performance disads of a micro-kernal. The important comparison is the performance between OS X and OS 9, and OS X and Windows. Linux doesn't compete with OS X because it is not even remotely user friendly...it simply doesn't matter if it's kernel is slightly better than OS X's.
The guy is splitting hairs over an issue that really isn't very important to end users, so to conclude that OS X is doomed because of it is silly.
<strong>Linux zealots are just envious of Apple from the moment they shipped OS X bundled on their systems became the largest seller of UNIX systems on the planet.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I realy love übergeeks that thinks that an os can be doomd for insignificant tecnical reasons. I bet Linux Journal wrote an article back in the old Windows 3.1 days saying "Windows is the best os ever. It´s going to conquer the worl..." ;-)
Comments
<strong>
But try to add a driver and it is very fragile. You have to recompile.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You can build a pretty generic kernel and then load modules as needed. That's what most current Linux distributions do, as far as I know.
[quote]<strong>Those recompiles also create potential software vulnerabilities, hence anything that requires frequent recompiles has a much higher potential security vulnerability.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Could you clarify as to how compiling a piece of code several times increases its vulnerability?
Or are you afraid someone secretly might modify the sources in between? If so, that's just about as likely as someone modifying / replacing the compiled binaries.
Bye,
RazzFazz
Whether or not OS X is technically substandard to Linux in any respect won't matter to big businesses if Apple can follow through on the promises made by its new service and support options.
[ 05-30-2002: Message edited by: Belle ]</p>
Master retort.
Linux and 'X' face a common foe.
Linux wants to be where 'X' is going.
'X' is the one to watch.
See 'Jaguar' and Apple aint even got started.
Heh. Just wait and see what happens when the hardware does catch up...
Lemon Bon Bon
"OS X: LinuxJournal is doomed"
Just to be clear though: Linux and its users rock, and will be helping Apple and likewise in the future. Most Linux people I know I really like, and they like Apple too. They usually just have to use x86, or run servers. It's all about the "right tool for the job", and Linux has its uses, being free and open source. However, I don't think it will ever be a Desktop OS, with a good GUI. I think this is just inherent in the open source model, since an OS needs a firm direction and way of doing things. But why would Linux folks worry? Just buy a Mac, and dual boot! OS X and Yellow Dog Linux, for instance! Peace :cool:
So being somewhat reactionary, the competing Linux Journal decided to sway opinion away from OSX w/ mach performance FUD.
So there you have it.
<strong>I think the article should have read:
"OS X: LinuxJournal is doomed"
J </strong><hr></blockquote>
Very Funny! I thought the same thing. Who really cares what LinuxJournal thinks anyway.! I like OS X, I like Cocoa, I like Apple and I like Apple's ISVs. I like their design, all elements and i like the cool multimedia apps they make. So, do I care what they say? No.
Its so petty and small.
OS X is rapidly moving ahead in the *N?X game. Now that Fink has KDE running on OS X, with KOffice, GNOME, and OpenOffice coming along nicely, I am beginning to question why there is even a need to dual boot anymore.
Now, all we need is MOL ported to Darwin so we can run OS9 as a full OS under OS X, instead of the FUBARed Classic way and OS X will rock.
I am thrilled to see KDE finally running on OS X. I hope Apple appreciates how important the guys at Fink are to the success of OS X. Maybe they need to hire a few of them and put them under Hubbard and start a engineering department that works on nothing but getting Darwin/ OS X opensource stuff ported and polished.
Big thanks to the guys at Fink. VERY WELL DONE!!!
Formula: Flame the Mac == get a bunch of hits.
I read the article to see what he had to say. It's an old argument and he has not been following what Apple has been doing to OS X. I'm sure an a few months someone at LinuxJournal will write that Apple is not giving back to the community and is taking advantage of open source developers.
Once Jaguar is here and OS X is exceedingly responsive and has a fast GUI, then nobody will give a squat about the performance disads of a micro-kernal. The important comparison is the performance between OS X and OS 9, and OS X and Windows. Linux doesn't compete with OS X because it is not even remotely user friendly...it simply doesn't matter if it's kernel is slightly better than OS X's.
The guy is splitting hairs over an issue that really isn't very important to end users, so to conclude that OS X is doomed because of it is silly.
<strong>Linux zealots are just envious of Apple from the moment they shipped OS X bundled on their systems became the largest seller of UNIX systems on the planet.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're right; they're jealous!
Geeks are jealous of us, cool! :cool:
BTW, Hurd Rocks!!