idiots from IEEE
So I'm a member of a certain super-nerdy organization, and they recently published an opinion piece about why Sun, Red Hat, and Apple should merge.
I'll pause for the laughter.
OK...now that we've calmed down a bit, let's continue. First a URL for the article itself, but you have to be an IEEE member to see it: http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/spectru...nts/speak.html
Since I'm guessing not many people out there are IEEE members, I'll paste the part about apple here:
Apple's contributions would be diverse. It has the best user interface and a long history of coming up with great designs that make using technology not only simple but fun as well. Apple already has two key requirements for compatibility in large networks: a compatible display windowing system and a compatible file system. The company's standard X Window server software can display the big base of proprietary applications that have been developed for high-end workstations?like Sun's. And Apple uses the Network File System (NFS)?designed by Sun?which allows transparent file sharing among Unix computers.
And although Apple does not now offer Linux, its latest operating system is a pretty close second. Like Linux, OS X is based on a standard version of Unix. Casting its lot with Linux would give Apple an attractive alternative to developing yet another flavor of Unix on its own.
More than that, embracing Linux would give Apple a much-needed entrée into the open-software development braintrust and all of the applications, like clustering, that come with it. Who knows what new dazzling applications would emerge if the global Linux development community were set loose to create new applications for Apple computers.
In short, Sun, Apple, and Red Hat must merge. Opportunities to change the world don't come along very often. This is one that's too good to pass up.
First of all, this was already speculated in the mid 90s, and nobody thought it was a good idea. Sun would have merged with Apple and cut it off at the knees. And WTF does Red Hat bring to the table? Sun already has a fairly solid Unix distro, so why do they need Red Hat's crappy derivitive? Oh right, I forgot, it's open source. This just in...SO IS DARWIN. A raging Apple fanatic I am not, but the tone of this article really bothers me. Basically Apple would be let in to make the abysmal UI's of linux and unix more palatable. Nevermind what Apple has done for desktop computing. Sure they copied some stuff from XP, but XP copied some stuff from Apple. They are moving things forward. These super-nerds basically want their POS linux clusters with major corporate backing (Sun) and a pretty UI (Apple) and these 'struggling' companies should be happy to give it to them, because they're teetering on the brink of irrelevance anyway.
Join me in giving IEEE the middle finger.
I'll pause for the laughter.
OK...now that we've calmed down a bit, let's continue. First a URL for the article itself, but you have to be an IEEE member to see it: http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/spectru...nts/speak.html
Since I'm guessing not many people out there are IEEE members, I'll paste the part about apple here:
Apple's contributions would be diverse. It has the best user interface and a long history of coming up with great designs that make using technology not only simple but fun as well. Apple already has two key requirements for compatibility in large networks: a compatible display windowing system and a compatible file system. The company's standard X Window server software can display the big base of proprietary applications that have been developed for high-end workstations?like Sun's. And Apple uses the Network File System (NFS)?designed by Sun?which allows transparent file sharing among Unix computers.
And although Apple does not now offer Linux, its latest operating system is a pretty close second. Like Linux, OS X is based on a standard version of Unix. Casting its lot with Linux would give Apple an attractive alternative to developing yet another flavor of Unix on its own.
More than that, embracing Linux would give Apple a much-needed entrée into the open-software development braintrust and all of the applications, like clustering, that come with it. Who knows what new dazzling applications would emerge if the global Linux development community were set loose to create new applications for Apple computers.
In short, Sun, Apple, and Red Hat must merge. Opportunities to change the world don't come along very often. This is one that's too good to pass up.
First of all, this was already speculated in the mid 90s, and nobody thought it was a good idea. Sun would have merged with Apple and cut it off at the knees. And WTF does Red Hat bring to the table? Sun already has a fairly solid Unix distro, so why do they need Red Hat's crappy derivitive? Oh right, I forgot, it's open source. This just in...SO IS DARWIN. A raging Apple fanatic I am not, but the tone of this article really bothers me. Basically Apple would be let in to make the abysmal UI's of linux and unix more palatable. Nevermind what Apple has done for desktop computing. Sure they copied some stuff from XP, but XP copied some stuff from Apple. They are moving things forward. These super-nerds basically want their POS linux clusters with major corporate backing (Sun) and a pretty UI (Apple) and these 'struggling' companies should be happy to give it to them, because they're teetering on the brink of irrelevance anyway.
Join me in giving IEEE the middle finger.
Comments
And although Apple does not now offer Linux, its latest operating system is a pretty close second.
Close second? Compared to RedHat 9, OS X first. And not even a close one.
More than that, embracing Linux would give Apple a much-needed entrée into the open-software development braintrust and all of the applications
Surely a Mac OS X being a (partially open source and well documented) UNIX, an X11 display server and gcc are enough?
Join me in giving IEEE the middle finger.
They're crazy fools.
Originally posted by honkylips
So I'm a member of a certain super-nerdy organization, and they recently published an opinion piece about why Sun, Red Hat, and Apple should merge.
I'll pause for the laughter.
OK...now that we've calmed down a bit, let's continue. First a URL for the article itself, but you have to be an IEEE member to see it: http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/spectru...nts/speak.html
Since I'm guessing not many people out there are IEEE members, I'll paste the part about apple here:
Apple's contributions would be diverse. It has the best user interface and a long history of coming up with great designs that make using technology not only simple but fun as well. Apple already has two key requirements for compatibility in large networks: a compatible display windowing system and a compatible file system. The company's standard X Window server software can display the big base of proprietary applications that have been developed for high-end workstations?like Sun's. And Apple uses the Network File System (NFS)?designed by Sun?which allows transparent file sharing among Unix computers.
And although Apple does not now offer Linux, its latest operating system is a pretty close second. Like Linux, OS X is based on a standard version of Unix. Casting its lot with Linux would give Apple an attractive alternative to developing yet another flavor of Unix on its own.
More than that, embracing Linux would give Apple a much-needed entrée into the open-software development braintrust and all of the applications, like clustering, that come with it. Who knows what new dazzling applications would emerge if the global Linux development community were set loose to create new applications for Apple computers.
In short, Sun, Apple, and Red Hat must merge. Opportunities to change the world don't come along very often. This is one that's too good to pass up.
First of all, this was already speculated in the mid 90s, and nobody thought it was a good idea. Sun would have merged with Apple and cut it off at the knees. And WTF does Red Hat bring to the table? Sun already has a fairly solid Unix distro, so why do they need Red Hat's crappy derivitive? Oh right, I forgot, it's open source. This just in...SO IS DARWIN. A raging Apple fanatic I am not, but the tone of this article really bothers me. Basically Apple would be let in to make the abysmal UI's of linux and unix more palatable. Nevermind what Apple has done for desktop computing. Sure they copied some stuff from XP, but XP copied some stuff from Apple. They are moving things forward. These super-nerds basically want their POS linux clusters with major corporate backing (Sun) and a pretty UI (Apple) and these 'struggling' companies should be happy to give it to them, because they're teetering on the brink of irrelevance anyway.
Join me in giving IEEE the middle finger.
While the article does seem off-base, it would have never been written if we were still using Classic. I think it was good. A little off, but good.
Originally posted by Aquatic
What kind of professional article uses "WTF." To this I'd have to say...WTF?
heh heh...maybe I should have denoted my response at the end. Oops. I wrote the last paragraph and the last sentence. It seemed obvious to me at the time, but I guess not. If the article actually did use WTF, I'd demand my money back from IEEE.
L8
Originally posted by Dave K.
While the article does seem off-base, it would have never been written if we were still using Classic. I think it was good. A little off, but good.
The punchline is that Apple was adopting Linux when we were still using MacOS. Their distro is what made a lot of the current PPC Linuxes possible in the first place.
As to the rest, the author seems to be confused about what is necessary to get Linux apps running under OS X, and he also seems to be confused about "Linux apps" vs "open source apps for UNIX and UNIX-like OS'" (Apache springs to mind).
Ah well. No real harm done. Apple has finally delivered on Microsoft's decade-old promise of "a better UNIX," and at least people are taking note of the fact that they have...
Originally posted by honkylips
Sure they copied some stuff from XP, but XP copied some stuff from Apple. [/B]
I was under the impression that OS X was released before XP and XP is a poor rip off of Mac OS X.
Originally posted by MiMac
I was under the impression that OS X was released before XP and XP is a poor rip off of Mac OS X.
Indeed it was released first but that doesn't mean XP doesn't have some features that Apple have/will copy. Fast user switching in Panther is the obvious example.
WM
Fast user switching in Panther is the obvious example.
and the only one i could think of when i sat down and tried to figure out what else XP might offer.
anyone else?
Originally posted by alcimedes
and the only one i could think of when i sat down and tried to figure out what else XP might offer.
anyone else?
I'd like to nominate "fast user switching" as the most overrated OS feature in history.
Anyway, this IEEE thing is really, really dumb. Apple doesn't need Red Hat doesn't need Sun.
Originally posted by Gizzmonic
I'd like to nominate "fast user switching" as the most overrated OS feature in history.
And I'd like to nominate it as one of the best and more sorely missed features in OS X Jaguar. I am constantly having to log my wife out of her login session in order to do some things on our one (until the next revision, hopefully in a few days/weeks) PowerBook, causing her time and effort to get back to the same place. Not to mention not being able to do it if one of us is doing some long-lasting task (DVD encoding or somesuch).
When you are sharing one computer, Fast User Switching (a mislabled feature in my opinion) is a godsend.
John
Originally posted by MiMac
I was under the impression that OS X was released before XP and XP is a poor rip off of Mac OS X.
I am not going to turn this into a mac vs. windows thread, that is SO 1995. Other things apple has 'borrowed with no intent of returning' are EFS (a.k.a. file vault in panther) and the address book. Some examples from yesteryear include alt-tab application switching and of course contextual menus (yeah, I know MS ripped off contextual menus from OS/2, so don't bother pointing that out.) What has apple given MS...Oh gee...lets start with the start menu, aliases, the mouse....
Originally posted by alcimedes
and the only one i could think of when i sat down and tried to figure out what else XP might offer.
anyone else?
What about networking that doesn't lock up the whole machine when the server goes/shuts down? If I forget to unmount a share on my PC before turning it off file operations on my iMac (including trying to eject the share) result in the SBOD. The quickest fix is to turn the PC back on and then unmount it. This also happens with a share mounted from my iBook. Windows does not display any of this behavior, so that is certainly an improvement I would like to see. I have no idea if this is fixed or better in Panther since I haven't used it.
WM
Originally posted by John Whitney
And I'd like to nominate it as one of the best and more sorely missed features in OS X Jaguar. I am constantly having to log my wife out of her login session in order to do some things on our one (until the next revision, hopefully in a few days/weeks) PowerBook, causing her time and effort to get back to the same place. Not to mention not being able to do it if one of us is doing some long-lasting task (DVD encoding or somesuch).
When you are sharing one computer, Fast User Switching (a mislabled feature in my opinion) is a godsend.
John
Why not share a desktop if you're having to kick each other off constantly? So, you might not like her wallpaper...
This goes for any app's prefs.