Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses

MacOSRumors reports OS 10 Server goes gold 166

Posted by sengan from the more-competition-in-server-space dept.
Juan Fernando writes "Mac OS Rumors is reporting that Apple's long anticipated OS 10 Server (formerly known as OS X Server which is formerly known as Rhapsody) has reached Golden Master, and should be available mid-month thru the Apple Store."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MacOSRumors reports OS 10 Server goes gold More

MacOSRumors reports OS 10 Server goes gold

Comments Filter:

  • We should have had GNUStep along time ago. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I have no Idea why it has not been completed along time ago. if all of that effort that whent into GNOME/KDE (plus all of that wasted time programing Xlib and other stupid things that could have been done with GNUStep) has went into GNUStep We would have all been alot happier and SIGNIFICANLY more productive.

    PS: I dont hate KDE or GNOME I think GNUStep was the better path.

    Husain
    h_al_mohssen@yahoo.com
  • I need a three-button mouse.

    I need X.

    I need focus-follows-mouse.

    I need something that runs on better-price-performance (Read: Intel) hardware.

    I need something that lets me upgrade my software to fix bugs for free (Upgrade to OS8! It's more stable? Why should I have to pay for stability?)

    I don't like mach. It's slow. Forces too much stuff into the server world (you know, server==parts of the kernel not in the kernel, like filesystems and networking and stuff)

    Is that a good enough start?

  • Bah! (Score:1)

    by Erich ( 151 )
    Boy, do you let your mac-headedness show through.

    Yes, developers are going to code on MacOSX Server for Yellow box. What the hell else are they going to program on? That's like saying Win32 programmers are going to program on Windows or NT.

    Most people who want a vegetable-proof OS don't care if it's from Redmond or not.

    Universities (well, decent universities, and even most of the bad ones I've seen) don't use Macs for anything except clusters. The file servers for the Macs are suns. You can't trust MacOS for anything anywhere near mission critical. And i would fire anyone who says otherwise.

    Of course, for truly mission critical things (like phone switches) I'd say that neither NT, nor Linux, nor Solaris is stable enough.. but I digress.
    Apple has been yelling lots of things for a long time. Like that Rhapsody would be released for Intel. Like that Rhapsody would not be released for Intel. Like that OS X Server would be rhapsody. Like that OS X Server is going to be renamed OS 10 Server.

    Oh, and viscious lies like ``The Apple Macintosh is the only computer to have built-in support for the Year 2000'' ... VMS boxes have had this for a long time, and Unix boxes are pretty free from bugs, too.

    So, maybe in all the changes of things, maybe I didn't hear.

    NetBooting is an Apple invention? Ha!

    Here's an answer to you: Apple invested very little money and effort into MkLinux compared to (NextStep|Rhapsody|OSX|OS10). They hope, however, to get into the Unix market. Real unix people won't want OSX. It has the apple GUI and won't behave like their friendly UNIX box with their window-manager-of-choice. So they hope to get pointy-haired-people to get their Unix guys Macs, and hope that they will choose to install MkLinux/LinuxPPC instead of sticking to their aging Sparc10s.

    Just a guess.

  • OSX == OS10 GOD WHY CAN"T MORONS UNDERSTAND THIS!!!
    I understand this perfectly. It just doesn't make sense for apple to change the name umptee-ump times.

    Lastly why the HELL isn't apple products good for "anything close to mission critical" what is NT??
    Apple products aren't good for anything close to mission critical because
    • They (currently) have no preemptive multitasking or memory protection.
    • They have not proven themselves to be able to handle mission critical tasks
    • Their hardware is no where near the quality of hardware I would consider for near-mission-critical tasks (I'd take a Sun Enterprise x000 with entirely-hot-swappable parts and a dual-channel RAID solution for something near-mission-critical). The iMacand the G3 Powermac do NOT qualify as mission-critical-quality hardware.
    • Have you ever used NEXTSTEP? I would not consider that a mission-critical system -- it is not designed to be one. It's more stable than MacOS, but that's not saying much.
    I may be wrong, Apple may make OS (x|10) server a nice server platform -- but it's going to take a lot of proving before I would consider anything from Apple for a near-mission-critical situation. The same way it took most people a long time to consider Solaris stable -- not because it wasn't very stable, just because it was not SunOS4.X.

    Oh, and I don't consider NT stable enough to do my homework on. Much less stable enough to do anything near mission-critical work.

    Sure linux is growing, but it remains a hurdle for a huge number of even power users to use and doesn't have (at least yet) the advantages of backward compatible and comercial software products!!
    What sort of backwards-compatable SERVER software for MAC do you have? You say at the top of your post that OS X SERVER is for use as a SERVER. You don't run Photoshop on a SERVER. You run nfs, ftp, dns, httpd, samba, and maybe a mac network fileserver. Tell me, what out of that list you can't compile for whatever platform you want?

    Linux is really easy to learn for anyone with Unix adminstration knowledge. Those are the people (well, maybe VMS guys) that should be running your servers. Or you're dumber than I thought.

    People need to understand OSX server IS a threat to linux, faster processors, more user freindly, more powerful, all the features of *nix, a fully upgradable BSD core, yes a propritory kernal, but from what I have heard they are going to announce some AMAZING tech that has not yet been publicially talked about, yet.
    YOU need to understand that OS X server will NOT replace solaris as a server platform any time soon. Anyone in IT with any sort of a clue would not trust apple for anything now, and they are correct to wait for quite a while before switching to OS X. Although, I still don't think that it offers anything special -- no X, slower architecture (Linux runs on G3's, as well as UltraSparcs and Alphas -- both of which are much faster than your silly macs), less easy to use (you have to walk to the server to administrate it? Who wants that?) Many of the features of BSD (although not of solaris or linux), a fully upgradable BSD core when you buy OS (XI|11), a kernel that is propriatery and that won't get fixed in minutes if a security problem is found, and I'll bet that your ``AMAZING'' technology is not nearly so amazing as you say. I've yet to see anything really cool come out of Apple.

    So please stop spreading mis-information and trolling about a product you know nothing about, I expected more from a "news for nerds" web page and that can say I have been here from the begining and /. has gone down hill. We all have our own prefrences and no one should be bashing our choices!!

    So why don't YOU stop mis-informing people with your blatant lack of knowledge about how to run computers that need to stay up, and trolling about a product (linux, solaris, OS (10|X)) that you know nothing about. I expected more from a ``news for nerds'' web page. I can say that not only can I speak and write fluently in English, but I have also been here for many years. And I, too, have slashdot go downhill, where once people knew what they were talking about and could discuss the threadedness of linux 2.0x, 2.1x, and Solaris and how well they scaled. Where once people had intelligent discussions on processor architecture. Where once people realized that Macs shouldn't be used for anything mission critical (I'd use it in an elementary school, maybe) and didn't have to sit and respond to stupid Mac-User-Anonymous-Coward posts.

  • MacOS and WindowsNT are server OS's? Since when?


    Since when is OS X server WAY cheaper than my copy of Solaris? I paied $10 or so for it. I'd gamble it probably does less and crashes more. And if your company can afford a new mac and OS X server and downtime, why don't they hire a decent system administrator and get an Ultra 10 instead?



  • well, gee, nobody does want that (except for NT victims who don't know any
    better). but then again, is that actually true of Mac OSX, or what? you don't
    strike me as somebody who'd actually know that kind of thing about an OS that
    you hate and fear so much.



    Have you ever used a macintosh? You can't do things remotely on it. You can't telnet to it. It's not running X. You HAVE to go up to it to administrate it.


    Have you ever used a NEXTSTEP machine? You pretty much must HAVE to go up to it to adminstrate it because normal administrative things (passwd, etc) don't work on the crappy broken backwards NEXTSTEP way of doing things... they have an entire different library for doing user things that you have to use different commands on. And the network stuff doesn't work well either.


    As for your entire article, why don't you answer some of my valid points (IE Macintosh computers are not useful for mission-critical systems, only little we-don't-care-if-it-goes-down servers and workstations).


    Oh, now I see, you can't think of responses. I'm right. So you say ``flaming the [poor] mac users and macs is [really mean!]'' and think that's a retort. And then say that being a sysadmin for workstations and servers that MUST NOT GO DOWN is not a ``real job.'' Maybe you think it is a ficticious job (as people who think Macs are good server platforms usually don't qualify for them) but it is certainly not an EASY job. Like being on call 24/7 to go out and swap out processor boards (yes, processor boards SHOULD be warm swappable -- they are on Enterprise Servers). Like putting up a clone system so that if a machine ever has to be taken down for upgrades or parts replacement, you can do so with fractional-second downtime. Like making sure that the generators kick in within 5 minutes if the power ever goes off. No, not an easy job. But I consider it a good job. Much more than going around rebooting Macintoshes for some lame magazine company.

  • Tip: Learn LaTeX. Not much harder than HTML to get the same results, but far more powerful when you want to do more complex things. You also don't have to use a big, bloated graphical app just to get it printed (though some would say that TeX distributions are bloated).
  • BSD developed concurrently with Linux? You need to read up on you Unix history. BSD has been around since the late 70's. FreeBSD is younger than Linux, it started in 1993, but it is based on 4.4BSD-lite, which traces it's ancestry back to the BSD of the seventies, which in turn is a descendant of the original UNIX. So MacOS X Server is definitely based on things that, in one form or another, has been around longer than Linux. That doesn't mean it will necessarily be better at anything, though.
  • I need a three-button mouse.

    For what? If you really do need one, you can purchase one.

    I need X.

    Uhh, why? Unless you have a need for the networking capability of X (running graphical apps remotely), it has no advantages (and quite a few disadvantages, such as crappy font support).

    I need focus-follows-mouse.

    Even Windows95/98 has this as an option (see the PowerToys included on the Win98 CD or on www.microsoft.com), so it shouldn't be too hard to add as an option in MacOS.

    I need something that runs on better-price-performance (Read: Intel) hardware.

    You mean AMD :P Intel is overpriced.

    I need something that lets me upgrade my software to fix bugs for free (Upgrade to OS8! It's more stable? Why should I have to pay for stability?)

    you can get bugfixes for free from apple. This is not a bugfix, it's a new OS with many new features, and largely rewritten.

    I don't like mach. It's slow. Forces too much stuff into the server world (you know, server==parts of the kernel not in the kernel, like filesystems and networking and stuff)

    I suppose that's a matter of preference. The GNU project seems to like mach.
  • MacOS has quite a bit over 20 million users, not 15 million. Probably closer to 25-35 million, possibly more. Also note how you can buy lots of MacOS software at a local software store, but you cannot buy much in the way of Linux software.
  • I need a 3 button mouse so I can cut and paste, silly. And also because button 2 is open-link-in-new-window in netscape.

    Hmm, i suppose it could make life easier. I have a 3-button mouse, but I never use the middle button. I'm too used to using the keyboard for cut/paste I suppose.

    I need X. I use remote displaying on probably 4 to 10 machines a day. It really beats the crap out of going back to my room to run matlab or to a Sparc or HP to do data analysis or intensive processing. I even run my window manager remotely on some of the machines.

    Ok, I'll give you that much. That's pretty much the only justification I've seen for using X. There really isn't any other windowing system I know of that provides that type of networking functionality, but as a single-computer desktop windowing system, there are many better choices than X.

    I have yet to see a Mac with focus-follows mouse or come with a more-than-one-button-mouse.

    Hmm, I can't seem to find a focus-follows mouse for MacOS either in my brief search. Odd, considering that Windows 95 has it. If Win95 can do it with a tiny utility, i don't see why MacOS can't, but then again I don't know the internals of either OS too well.

    Can I really get a bugfix release from 7.X to 8.X? Apple claims that 8.X is more stable -- that means it fixes bugs in 7.X. So how is it going to be any different if they change the BSD4.4 core in OS X to a BSDX core (x > 4.4)? Or what if they change to svr4? The GNU project seems to like mach.

    You can get fixes for bugs in the form of patches from Apple for free. You can't get a major version number upgrade for free. Sure, it is more stable, but that's more due to much of the core OS being completely rewritten than to any specific bugs in the previous version.

    Yes, HURD is built on Mach. I still don't like it. Too slow, and I'm not sure that there are really any benefits.

    Yeah, it seems a bit disappointing at the moment. However, as machines progress in speed, the speed disadvantage of Mach vs. a monolithic kernel will become less and less significant, and the advantages of the microkernel technology will be able to be more fully utilized. Mach should do fairly well on a 2 Ghz CPU :P
  • Posted by The Treuf:

    About the comparission ...

    First forget NuBus, it's no more used ...
    Err , then lets see about parallel port vs firewire ...
    You can use parrallel port for everything you want ! Just plug in your printer, digital camera, hard drive, and so on ... i don't see any difference with parrallel port, and on that way the Mac beats the PC ... We just need more peripherials, but many are anounced (for example hard drives ... just hotplug it, the firewire cable supply power and transmit data, and on a mac the disk self mount on the desktop)
    Then SCSI versus IDE ... When you say many PC have SCSI that's false, we are talking about STANDART machines as they are when you buy them ... if you want add a gygabit ethernet card in the mac and say it's faster than a PC for networking ... (aniway the PC can't handle gygabit yet, busses are too slow compared to 66 Mhz PCI , they got 33 Mhz PCI)
    Nubus versus ISA ? forget this, only PCs have old technologies like ISA ... NuBus is no more on Mac.
    ISA on PC is used because they have nothing integrated (audio card, ethernet and so on)
    ADB VS Ps2 ... Who cares ... just plug your keybord and mouse and thatz all ... err, ADB is better as u can daysi chain mouse keybors dongles and joypad ...
    Then i'll add some other stuffs ...
    The mac has a 33Mhz 64 bit PCI bus for the video card (ATI 128) , and this card is as fast as the AGP version on PC (AGP 4x)
    AGP was created by intel because of the price of the memory, it allows the card to use the main memory and so need lots more bandwidth, but many tests (i don't rememberr the pages) showed not much advantages of AGP over PCI ... and here i mean normal PCI not 66 Mhz or 64 bit PCI like in macs.

    I think that's all folk ...

    The Treuf
    (no mail cuz i don't want flames)
  • Posted by jonrx:

    How long has it been? 2 years?
    tsk tsk...

    J.
  • Posted by mnowak65:

    To say that a GUI provides no increase in productivity is flat out wrong. Using human factors measures, you can demonstrate that for many operations, a GUI is faster: copying files, editing text, deleting a directory, etc. Now for some tasks, a command line is quicker: deleting all files that match a certain name for example.

    If you want more details, I can show you. It just depends on the task and the UI. But to say that the GUI is only aesthetic is just wrong.
  • Hear here! I know someone who was using their internet setup for 2 weeks before he realized the thing that was making his computer slugish all the time was he was acting as his own DNS server.



    He then maintained that he kept it this way because he like the responsive DNS lookups, but I think he just couldn't figure out how to stop it. :)



    Ahh, Linux, everything's a little brain teaser.. :)

  • Umm.. (Score:1)

    by Pinky ( 738 )
    Shut up... just.. shut.. up.....
  • OR "...and this is bad because?"

    I agree that Linux isn't ready for Joe User's home desktop. It's also undeniably manifest that Linux meets a lot of needs out there; the advantages Open Source gives it means it will continue to do so. And as a rabid Linux partisan, I'm glad that MacOS is meeting needs Linux doesn't and I wish it all the best, because from where I'm sitting every sale of a non-Microsoft operating system is a vote for diversity, which is a vote for portability, thus a vote for standards-based computing.

    And perhaps that's ultimately a vote for Unix, and thus for Linux's world domination. We don't have to take the desktop today, or tomorrow. We don't need to win the game; we need only make sure it's still possible for people other than Microsoft to play.

    I wouldn't go waiting for MacOS X to eat Linux's lunch any time soon, though. People who need a proven stable standard Unix platform won't be looking to MacOS for a while.
    --
  • MacOS has, what, fifteen million users worldwide? Linux passed that a while ago.
    --
  • I bet LinuxPPC would really fly on that box...

    :-D

  • When you say many PC have SCSI that's false, we are talking about STANDART
    machines as they are when you buy them


    IDE is STANDARD on the iMac and on the new G3s. SCSI is not.


  • Cost of Linux: $0.
    Cost of OS X: hundreds of dollars


    The other thing to consider is that as a result of
    Jobs' "vision," OS X is only going to be available
    for non-commodity, somewhat-expensive, Macintosh
    hardware.


    That fact alone will severly limit its market share.


  • When people see my KDE desktop, they often think it's a Mac, or Windows. Linux with KDE is not as frightening to the newbie as you might think: Point and click, drag and drop, and all that good stuff, y'know? Sure, it's got a ways to go before it has the kind of drag-into-any-app compatibility that is often the case in MacOS. However, most newbies I observe, tend to use the start a program and work with it approach anyhow, which KDE makes *very* easy.
  • All of the "points" you raise have been long ago refuted. I think you need to go to "http://www.fsf.org/">FSF and do some reading.

    Open Source does *not* have to mean you don't make money. RedHat is growing, and they are selling Free Software. And people are buying it. Lots of it. Won't be long (probably a couple of years) before there are more Linux users than Mac users.

  • Hotline FOREVER!!!
  • Mach4 has fixed most of the performance problems with Mach 2, 2.5, and 3. The new derivative of Mach, L4, is actually faster than macrokernels in many operations, and is just as fast in most other operations.

    Having used NeXTstep on a 68040, the performance of the kernel really isn't going to be that important. If a rich GUI and apps can all run on a 68040, without lag, and realatively crisp response, performance on a G3 350 will not be a problem.

    Kick-ass server performance probably won't scale as high as well as Linux, performance will still be good enough (and a lot better than NT).
  • Why are you throwing away all that money on "buggy, bloated apps"? Are you a moron?

    You are a criminal and should be put behind bars.

    /mill
  • Yeah, a Blue Screen of Death kernel...
  • Yeah... but it does kind of "taste" like VMS. To this day, I do not understand why MS didn't go with a UNIX kernel.

    Of course, it seems to me that most of NT's problems are tied up in Win32 -- NOT the kernel (as is often erroneously assumed). The only problem with the NT kernel is that it simply does not tolerate ony hardware faults.

    Imagine what linux would be like if X were grossly unstable (depending on the video card, it can be) and it were the only environment that users were allowed to see.
  • The point is, you shouldn't even have had to do that. Three months? A computer that takes three months to learn is unnecessarily hard to learn and use. Computers are meant to be tools, something you can pick up in a matter of days, if not hours. "Open computing for everyone," you know?
  • The Mach "microkernel" is SLOW. Get that through your head.

    Yes, I have no doubt that the unoptimized, pre-prerelease of Mach that you used, if you've even ever used any Mach-based operating systems at all, is slow. Why not actually try using this one and see what its speed is now? If what I've heard is true Apple's done so much to the Mach code that you can hardly even call it Mach anymore.

    Sure every OS has it's purpose and OS X will be easier to configure than Linux but it won't be faster, different needs, different OS's.

    Please, try using an OS before you bash it, at least.
  • I think he meant the software I/O, as in that of the Mac OS. Here, unfortunately, he's right. But he doesn't have any right to compare benchmarks on a prelease of OSX and a shipping Linux kernel, especially when he's never even used OSX at all. We'll have to wait and see how OSX is.
  • AGP, berret than PCI? Don't make me laugh. Cheaper, yes. But so slow you've got to go to outrageous bus speeds like 266 MHz just to match the speed of a 66-MHz PCI card. Look at the benchmarks if you don't believe me.

    Why is this the case? Simply put, AGP's a kludge. A big one. Go take a look at how it works, perhaps its use of main memory for video, for starters. Quite simply put, it's Cap'n Cheapo's Discount Video Bus, and you really do get what you pay for. I myself am rather sickened that Macs would adopt something so awful (it's due on Sawtooth, the next-generation desktop machine), but such is Apple.
  • And what about Prince (wait... what's he called now? The Artist?) instead of John and we'd have a read poll going. :)
    --Michael Esveldt
    "Here I stand with all my lore -

    poor fool, no wiser than before"

  • Of course, but that's not the issue we're talking about here. What we're talking about is "computers for everyone". Everyone isn't a system administrator.

    Computers need to be easy to use for the majority of the population. Right now, that isn't Linux. If you look what the most informed developers are saying you'll see that Linux is NOT the desktop environment that MacOS and (I hate to say it) Windows is. Hell, don't even bother listening to other people. Show a brand new mac to someone who isn't planning on being a geek and show them a PC (or Mac) running Linux and you'll see what I mean.

    As far as desktop readiness for everyone. It ain't linux.


    --Michael Esveldt
    "Here I stand with all my lore -

    poor fool, no wiser than before"
  • It is high, high enough that I've scrapped plans on buying it and ordered a copy of LinuxPPC instead. The price is less per seat if you're running a large network since it allows an unlimited number of MacOS boxes to boot up from it. I don't know if any legacy machines can be made to net boot or if only Imacs and Blue&White G3's can do it. Either way that isn't the case for me so I can't justify buying it. I only hope that the CD I get from LinuxPPC is worth more than the coaster they sent me last time.
  • This one really gets to me. Why not just hit command+y (unmount) to eject the disk?

  • Well, I gotta believe that since Apple bought NeXT, they haven't done a single thing to improve the old operating system. Nope, it must be exactly the same, except for the interface, therefore I assume it must be slower. And since it's from Apple, it must suck (obviously).

    Of course, Macs have 3rd rate I/O, remember, none of that is built into the OS, (remember, they aren't updating that at all), so therefore they're going to be slow as molasses. God, I'm glad I'm not getting OS 10, it's exactly the same as NeXT.


    Anyone who actually believes that is really stupid, and the only reason I say that, is because I noticed a post, where someone is moron enough to make that assumption. NeXT != OS 10 !!!!!!!

    HELLLOOOO!!! They're not the same products!!!! Unbelievable as it may seem, it is possible to rewrite programs!!! Geez, what a fucking dumbass.
  • Sure, this is supposed to replace Copland which was due out in 1996, BUT, that was the replacement for Pink. Anyone remember that? It was supposed to be the MacOS replacement back in 1992-3! It and Taligent was a IBM/Aple project meant to break the M$ monopoly back then. Short memories!

  • The Gnome Project is at http://www.gnome.org/ [gnome.org]. It relies only on LGPL and GPL code, and not on proprietary libraries like QT.

    Arrival? 1.0 should ship with RedHat 6, which will probably be out midyear. Can't say for certain, though, since I run Debian and don't keep up much on RedHat development.


    --
    Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
  • You admit yourself: Qt is currently proprietary. No version of Qt has ever been released under a Free license.

    Like I said to one of my fellow developers last night, I will embrace my KDE/Qt colleagues as brothers once Qt becomes Free. Until then, no dice.
    --
    Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
  • Dude - BeOS isn't built on Unix. It was written from the ground up.

    - Darchmare
    - Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net

  • hey, ya'll, it's mach, it's 4.4BSD, it gots apache, and it runs on G3... what more do you need?

    so have the plans for x86 ports been scrapped or what? prolly not jobs' style, but personally if it ran on x86 i'd jump on it.

    it's NeXT-lite (tm) ! with macOS windowdressing, of course... needs a dock. 8)

  • Linux is not command line driven turd. Linux is just the kernel. The command line is a unix utility called bash, csh, tcsh, ash, etc. If someone wanted to they could write a program that made the kernel drive a total gui environment. Actually it's already possible. Instead of dropping to bash you can have linux go directly to X windows. Circumventing the cli altogether. It just happens that most linux users like the command line as a power tool, so no one has bothered making a totally encumbering GUI. In other words, Linux is what you make it. Nothing is set in stone, and it WILL live forever (or at least a reasonably long amount of time. Think SCO!) :)
  • [0] I used to just type it up in vi with html flags and print it through Mozilla

    So how do you do that? I've been trying to get Netscape to convert HTML->PostScript... I'm sure it's possible.

  • I know $1000 may not be much to all you big iron folks with real servers, but it's way too high for the perenial consumer and educational machine. You're going to find precious few dorm room servers running this puppy. Legally, at least. And Apple is hardly the company that comes to mind when Real Servers are needed. They've got an uphill battle here.

    Hell, maybe Apple priced it so high just to be able to avoid supporting thousands of lusers trying to run it on small networks...

  • OS X (Score:1)

    by brindle ( 8241 )
    Think different... If you can afford to.
  • Perhaps an appropriate poll would be something like this:
    Which has undergone more name changes?
    John Cougar Mellencamp []
    Rhapsody []

    As usual, there'd probably be some bitching about lack of choices, but we're used to that around here from all the whiners.
  • The point I was trying to make in my original post was that it's kind of pointless to "codename" an OS or other project in development. If it's going to be Mac OS 10, then call it that from the get-go. Just like codenaming Chicago or Memphis. If you're writing something, and you know what it will ultimately be, then call it what it is: WhateverOS v. #X, alpha version, beta version, pre-final version, or what ever is appropriate. To borrow from the wisdom of Eddie Murphy, "His momma call him Cassius Clay, I'll call him Cassius Clay." Obviously noone caught the intended humor, so it must not have been funny to anyone but me.
  • close, but not quite. NT pulls some of its basic design from VMS, which was running mainframes while unix was invading them.

    i make no statement about which was better.. long and vicious flamewars were crackling on that subject years before i got near either one.. i will mention, however, that VMS was much larger, and stuffed almost to bursting with features.
  • Let's imagine NT costs what, 500 bucks per client license? This is chump change to a corporation when you consider how much it costs to pay the HR rep for orientations of each batch of new hires, the cost of filing all their paperwork, ordering their equipment, and sending them to training. That last item is a whopper.

    You gotta do all that for every single employee who walks in that door. You get to keep the license when that employee walks out the door.

    Yeah it's exhorbitant for SOHO folks and startups. But established companies take reusable licenses as petty change.

    Now the cost of downtime and data loss of the Exchange server is another thing, but an altogether different and unheard story. Not connected to the license fees anyhow.
  • To say that a GUI makes you more productive is flat out wrong! To be honest, the only things that I see GUIs for is either image processing or setting something up to print[0]. In fact, the net effect of a GUI will probably end up just being that you work slower, develop carpal tunnel syndrome, and have high eye strain.

    But lets not say that GUIs aren't needed (just not in the way that you suggest). If a person has no intention of learning how to run an OS but is still required to do so, an intuitive interface[1] is required. We need this to pull over the people traditionally in the Windows camp in both the Desktop and Server area. MacOS X will do this idea beautifully.... a child could probably set up a network[2].

    But to say that only one interface is correct is a Bad Thing[3]. The fact that we have KDE and GNOME only gives us more choices to do things, experiment with what sucks and throw it out in a way that doesn't make the entire Linux community look stupid, unlike other companies[4].

    One thing that particularly worries me is that KDE or GNOME could just become another Windows or MacOS. What I mean here is that users never actually know that they are running Linux[5]. Once they are trapped in the Window System I wonder if there is any way to get out. I think a fair comparison would be to compare the programming equivalent: "Once a programmer learns BASIC, they are scarred beyond any means of recovery. He will never become a good programmer."[6]. Something to watch out for, and steer clear of ahead of time.

    =============================================
    [0] I used to just type it up in vi with html flags and print it through Mozilla[0.1]. Now I can just type it through vi and put it through Wordperfect without having to play with flags... much easier.... is this a bad thing?
    [0.1] Its what the programmers call it, why shouldn't I? And who actually likes the damn boat wheely thing compared to the lizard?
    [1] Windows does this fairly well... point and click and no-fdisk. I've never had the problem of accidentally nuking my computer in Windows though it probably is possible[1.1].
    [1.1] It just doesn't tell you that thats what its been doing since you installed :)
    [2] Whether or not it fits the magic word ('productive') is speculation. SIGNIFICANTLY more productive (your words): no, I don't think so.
    [3] Windows everywhere. Does this only bother me?
    [4] Anyone remember Microsoft Bob?
    [5] I've already heard the complaints roll in. "In Linux I go to the control panel, but my printer isn't listed. So Linux doesn't support my printer?"
    [6] I forget who quoted this... its probably not exactly right either...
  • >1. NeXTStep interface was by far the most atractive GUI (prof? just take a look at Windows, BeOS, or KDE they look alot like NeXTStep).

    I don't think NeXTStep is the most attractive[0] but I will say that it is very functional[1]. Its alot easier getting work done in that environ than other products[2].

    > 2. The significant improvement in productivity I ment was not for the normal nonteck users

    On this I have to completely disagree with you. I think that the greatest improvement would be with nontechnical users. I could take anyone off the street and put him on a NeXTStep interface and he would be able to get some work done[3]. I can't do the same to him putting him directly into bash[4].

    >the significant improvement is for the programars and the power users

    Again I disagree. From my experience, programming in a GUI-format with and IDE[5] will only hurt the program. Sure, it might be nice to have it up if you are trying to make something that will run in X, so that you don't have to switch between emacs or vi in text mode. But once the IDE comes up, the program loses all form of redemption that it might have had. Instead of C it becomes Visual Basic or instead of C++ it becomes Java[6]. This is not a good way to program.

    > For heven's sake all of those files in /etc are very confusing -and STUPID in my HO- and u r only using vi.

    Umm... I think that the way /etc is set up is very good. To me, it is nice and logical[7]. I can honestly say, that having some config files in /etc is much better than playing with a registry and is alot less confusing.

    Just so you don't misunderstand me, I think NeXTStep is a terrific GUI[8]. But I find that any window manager is more distracting that helpful, so I always start up X bare and load programs that I need[9]. If I need to do alot of work in a GUI[10] I will usually just load up AfterStep or KDE. I'd do GNUStep, but isn't that still alpha?

    ===============================================

    [0] For being just attractive, I'd say Enlightenment, but I'd like to see anyone get work done in that type of environment.
    [1] In fact, I put up a pseudo-NeXTStep environment when I had to do some computer modelling on 02's.
    [2] I have not yet been able to do anything real in Windows NT[2.1].
    [2.1] Its the damn minesweeper and pinball games. If they didn't have those, I'd actually get something done. Not to say that playing snake race in KDE is much different. I could probably go for 10 hrs on that!
    [3] Not to say that NeXTStep is simple or dumbed down, its just more intuitive. Semi-point an click.
    [4] Bourne Again SHell. Mac users would have me crucified if I forced someone to use that! I love it though!
    [5] Integrated Development Environment. If you've seen the Microsoft Developer's Environ thingy, you'll understand how vile it is. Visual J++, mixed with Visual C++, Foxpro, ect.... noone actually does anything in it, they just play with menu's.
    [6] I don't mean to directly put down Java, but on the order of doing anything productive, C++ beats it hands down. But Java is still a good thing, perhaps in 5 years might approach C++[6.1].
    [6.1] If perhaps they take out the sleep(20) instruction that creeped in there that runs after every instruction! (blatant sarcasm)
    [7] Its non-intuitive, but it works very, very well. If I had to redesign it, I would do the exact same thing.
    [8] I know that its not technically all of the GUI, in fact it only holds the UI while X handles part of the G and so forth.... It just sounds awkward calling it the User Interface to an arbitrary X server.
    [9] X :0&nxterm -display :0 -bg blue4 -fg white... or something of that order
    [10] Like web surfing.... or entering forms[10.1] in web pages.
    [10.1] Lynx is sort of ugly in this fashion... doesn't handle CRLF's very well.
  • I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think so. So much for the best UNIX variant, eh?
  • I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think so. So much for the biggest UNIX variant, eh (obviously not the best)?
  • >I am not talking about and IDE eather, I am talking about haveing a properly designed OO framework Something clean and simple (and actually very inovative and elegant). If u feel like programing it from vi or emacs (the damn beast) more power 2 u (and infact it may sometimes be a good idea especially if u aren't programing somthing that uses the GUI). But having that standard framework does help make things simpler and faster.

    I don't completely follow you here. Why don't you put the classes and structs in .h files. Wouldn't any graphical form just mimic this in a way that overall slows you down[0]?

    >God forbid we ever move to something so moronic as a registry like Win. Having said that, a cleaning up of /etc would make things alot nicer (for exampple add /etc/opt for programs /etc/sys for sutff related to kernel /etc/sbin for important binaries. It makes the system easier to understand.

    ahh... I understand now. Its a good idea to work to, but if we did it right off, then we'd cause numerous inconsistencies with UNIX variants and other Linux variants.

    ===============================================
    [0] The image that comes to my mind is sort of a pseudo-IDE with a seperate window that has boxes with the titles of your classes. Click to open and see what they contain or whatnot. But it seems to me that this is approaching Visual Basic's ideas. Perhaps I am just not visualizing it correctly.
  • Ummm.... It's always been OS "ten" or "10" or "X" as in ten!!! :) Just some very confused people that can't figure that X is ten screwing it all up.

    BTW: Whooo hoo!!!
  • After taking a look at the way the /etc and subdirs (read: rc.d -- ecch....) are set up on Redhat, I can certainly see why some people might be thrown off by it -- what a mess. As far as Redhat's distro being 'newbie-friendly', I think thats a big oops on their part.

    I started out on Slackware and am still happily running it today -- to me it seems like a cleaner way to do things (as far as /etc is concerned, so no, this is not bait for a distro argument so dont blame me if one erupts ;oP)
  • You forgot about TCO. A Unix administrator usually cost more than a NT admin.
  • Well, at least you satisfied the easily predictable trend of whining about flames that haven't arrived yet! Good Job. Keep up the good work and keep looking hard for that flame war you are dying to get into with someone.

    "It's Brazilian"
  • to me it sounds like you are just coming to the realization that you spent 5000 dollars (and will soon spend 1000 more just to have your blessed operating system) all in vain.
    it is ok, take your steam out on us.

    we understand.
  • Or is that misstyped?
    Anyway, yeah, I meant freeBSD. If we are gonna compare family trees, we gotta get minix and all the GNU tools into it as well, and run it all back to the early 70's.
    I think it's fair to say that the free variants (or open if you like, I'm not religious on the semantics) developed more or less concurrently. Sorta. Not exactly or anything.
    My main point was to question the first posters statement that OS X was based on stuff a lot older than anything linux or NT has in it.
  • You know, sometimes Linux just does not cut it. It really gripes me when you Linux gurus just say "Linux is the only Operating System in the world, and everything else is just a toy or plain crap"

    If you ask me, people like that are just as bad, if not worse than Microsoft.

    Take off your blinkers Linux People! I have invested about 5 grand in a top-of-the-range PowerMac G3 with the intent of running OS X Server, and the one way to really piss me off and make me publically dispise "Insert You favourite OS here" Is to say that what I just bought is crap and I should have bought something else.

    Every OS has a purpose. And I dont want to have to pay some 19 year old Linux geek to run my systems just because "Linux is better". Sometimes I think that the people coding Linux keep it hard to use so that all those "geeks" out there have a job!.

    Just remember, every time you flame another OS, you piss someone off.

  • MacOS X Server (aka Rhapsody) is not targetted at the consumer -- it's an
    enterprise server (the only real market NeXT had left). It has AppleShare,
    Web, File, Mail servers, as well as WebObjects (a very powerful Web
    data interface). For $1000, Rhapsody's WebObjects is limited to 50 concurrent
    users, whereas the full license runs $4000 (which it has for years).

    You can make a Linux box for much less and I would recommend that you do so,
    because this is alot of money for services you probably won't use. That said,
    this will be the last version for most of the old NeXT customers before the
    final migration to MacOS X itself.

    Apple is organizing their hardware and operating systems in tiers, just like
    most other vendors. Don't get upset by the price if it's not targetted at you.
  • Please point me to the list of schools that are buying this, or use it.

    Well, I can't speak for certain, but it looks very likely that we'll being using it in some form down here at San Diego State University. (Well, as soon as we finally get some G3's in here..)

  • Remember that the Trash-can trick is just that... a trick! The "real" interface to ejecting volumes is by selecting the object and choosing "Eject Disk" from the Special Menu. Dragging a disk icon to the trash is a shortcut (not to be confused with Windows' shortcuts) for the action of removing something from the desktop.

    When I'm training new users on how to use the Mac interface, I don't even tell them about dragging to the trash until the second week. Don't tell them shortcuts until they know what they're doing already. If they're not comfortable with dragging to the trash, tell them to use the menu. (Or keyboard if they're like that... or "Put Away" if they like that... or "Cmd-Shift-1", or "Cmd-Y"... don't you love the Mac's options?)
  • I've been promising it for years. This will really blow your socks off folks, it is the brand new wheel!! It's based on BSD 4.4 wheels! Basically it is a poor implimantation of BSD, with a Mediocre GUI Mac Hubcap. It won't really work like the old wheel because it wont fit any of the old axels. It will cost several thousands of dollars to own and operate. It won't really do anything new, since its basically the same old wheel. Now, here is the really good part. It is made by the people who know what proprietary is all about. In order to use this wheel, you will have to buy our Mediocre carriages. These carriages are expensive, and somewhat slower than the lower cost, more flexible models. These carriages use the great G3 system, but we have limited its performance by adding all this shit on to it, and limitting its performance. You should really buy our Wheels and carriages, why, well THINK DIFFERENT , don't ask intelegent questions like why!
  • I am on the GNU/Linux side. You want to know why, one reason and one reason only. OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE. If you think MS is ruthless and brutal, stop and look at how Apple behaves. Apple is the most proprietary Computer/Software company in the world. If they were in a position to control the market, we would be in even deeper shit than we are in now. I don't care what their desktop looks like, or what their kernel is based on. They are playing the same game that MS is playing, their just smaller and weaker, so they don't pack as much punch.
    Also, OSS delivers what it promises, and nothing less. OSS doesn't promise more than it can deliver. If you think OS X is going to deliver as promised, just have a look at all of Apples other projects. Like any large company, they never deliver what they promise. Don't buy the into the marketing.
  • Hmmm, and would that machine be on the internet by chance? How about an IP address. You know, I feel like stealing another Unix box this evening. >:-) I amazes me that almost everyone overlooks the obvious flaws of most unix systems when operating in the hands of an inexperienced sysAdmin. Security!!! Any Unix system is a nontrivial, complex system of parts that most don't realize even exist. Open source means bugs and security holes are fixed quickly, however unless the system is updated it remains vulnerable. Open source also means if there is a bug in the code, it is easy to understand and discover, as opposed to closed software which is much more difficult to analyze. All of this added to the fact that most servers are used over TCP nowadays and script kiddies are running rampant makes me cringe.
  • I have just one thing to say.

    AGP sucks!

    Oh, and any other proprietary expansion slot sucks too.
  • "PowerMacs have 3rd rate I/O compared to PC's"

    What are you jealous? Lets see,

    FireWire vs. Parallel port
    SCSI vs. IDE
    NuBus vs. ISA
    ADB vs. PS/2
    PCI (64bit) vs. PCI (32bit)
    USB vs. USB

    See a trend there?

    Macs have had better I/O since they decided to go with SCSI... which was, oh, 1985.

    Course, the processor is twice as fast, the I/O architecture (local bus to you) is twice as fast, etc. etc.

    Not surprising that you're an Anonymous Coward.
  • "To say that a GUI makes you more productive is flat out wrong!"

    This is a demonstrateable falsehood.

    Users can generally accomplish the same task much faster using a GUI based operating system than in a text based operating system. And, furthermore, the MacOS is the most efficient/productive of the bunch. Apple did serious significant research in developing the MacOS and it has paid off.

    This is not an opinion, but is demonstrable fact. If you are interested in Human Computer Interaction, you should join the ACM-CHI. Or, read one of a dozen books on the subject such as "Tog on Interface".

    Billions of dollars have been wasted in the US alone since 1990 paying employees to spend that extra 5 seconds to find thet menu on the window, rather than where the menu belongs- at the top of the screen. Further billions have been wasted, in people using the second (or heaven's forbid!) third mouse button when they meant to use the first. It slows people down.

    Check out any substantial work on this subject and you will find this is true.
  • Did my last reply get posted?

    That _is_ the reason why it's not called OS9, but who cares? OS10 sounds better anyways, although OSX (as in X Files) would be cooler still

  • Sorry charlie, not all of us consider the MacOS/
    NeXTStep interface as the pinnacle of function, design and user friendliness.


    Really?, so why does Windows, KDE, and all the others look just like it ? And besides the widgets are not the point (if you have the src u can change it all) the point is that you have a consistant framework that allows you to easily write apps. (and port them beetween OSes)

    KDE and GNOME are not a waste. GNUStep is the wasted effort, IMHO.


    Even if GNUStep did not exist KDE and GNOME are wasteful since we only need one of them to make a GUI for Linux and our other Open Source OSes and projects. (oh, and please don't give me "they were designed for different perposes" argument, it doesn't hold too much water).


    If you wanted NeXTStep, you should have bought it, rather than try to recreate it.

    Think about this last sentence. It doesn't make too much sence does it ?


    Have a nice day (I mean it :)

    Hust remember I have nothing against both KDE or GNOME I just don't understand why do we have so much duplication in the Linux/*BSD* world
  • I see it like this...

    MacOS X Server may not be as fast as LinuxPPC. I would be surprised if it was because Linux is built from the ground up to be small and fast. That is it's purpose. However, the Mach kernel is *so* refined in MXS that you can hardly give it a name... I'm willing to bet that the only reason they aren't naming it something else is because it's creator, Avadis Tevanian (who is VP at Apple) wants to keep the name. They have said from day one that they will work to make MXS the on of the fastest server OS availble... I believe they can do it.

    In the end though, MXS will be desirable not because of it's speed but because you wil have the power of a full BSD command line, POSIX compliance (or real close), native WebObjects and Yellow Box development all in a MacOS interface (if you chose to use it).

    *NO* other server OS IMHO can compete with that.

    oh ya, and the mac compatibility area (BlueBox)doesn't affect anything. It is an application. It does not have to be run. It is MacOS running on a PowerPC. No emulation.

    phew... what a braindump
  • And is that really all that long?... wasn't windows 95 actually supposed to be windows 92/93.

    oh yeah... and this whole Windows NT 5 thing that we were supposed to see last year (or was that the year before) but now won't see until 2000.

    Originally, the final version of "Rhapsody" was due in September 1998. I think a 6 month delay is pretty reasonable considering the work they'be had to do to get it to where it is now.
  • Oh, c'mon. The most conservative estimate I have seen is 20-22 million machines. And many independent studies show that on average there are 2-3 users for every Mac.
  • Of course, these are features that may be available elsewhere, but I've never heard of them before:

    1) Net-boot. iMacs and B&W G3s can be net-booted off Mac OS X Server. No hard drive required. Designed for easy lab maintenence.

    2) Sweet microkernel. Eventually, mklinux and BlueBox might run simultaneously on top of their Mach derivative. Fast. If Apple decides to help.

    3) Bundled WebObjects.

    4) NeXT style APIs. Some of us liked coding for NeXT about as much as y'all seem to enjoy coding for Linux.

    Feel free to flame me for my ignorance...
    --
  • I think Apple needs support... they are trying very hard to meet the demands of "the people".. I will definitly be purchacing my copy.
  • http://developer.apple.com/macosx/server/

Slashdot Top Deals

"One lawyer can steal more than a hundred men with guns." -- The Godfather

Close