Interview with Jordan Hubbard About DarwinPorts

Gentu writes "OSNews hosts an interview with Jordan Hubbard (of Apple, OpenDarwin, and FreeBSD fame) where they discuss DarwinPorts and how they compare to Fink. There is also a hint from Jordan that there might be some of the FreeBSD 5.x advancements to be found in Mac OS X 10.3 (Panther) that is coming out, reportedly, this autumn."

Bummer.

[grub]

The interviewer didn't ask for Hubbard's reasoning for leaving a dying free OS to join a dying company.

yes I'm joking

Re: You forgot this!

[borgdows]

Dying+dying = Living!! =)

Re: You forgot this!

[oolon]

I don't agree, hp and compaq tried that one and end up with, big company with problems + big company with problems = very big company with lots of problems.

James

Re:Bummer.

[Dub Kat]

Hubbard has said he joined Apple because they achieved the "holy grail", a easy-to-use UNIX-based desktop where he could hack and also play RtCW. He wanted to help so he went to Apple, while FreeBSD and Linux still aren't there yet.

This has been my own experience. After trying hard to use FreeBSD and Linux for a few years as my primary desktop, I just got frustrated. It wasn't worth my time, so I switched to OS X. And coincidentally enough, I also happen to work for Apple now.

Re:Bummer.

[Anonymous Coward]

I also happen to work for Apple now.

Finally, an unbiased opinion.

Re:Bummer.

[NicolaiBSD]

Hubbard has said he joined Apple because they achieved the "holy grail", a easy-to-use UNIX-based desktop where he could hack and also play RtCW. He wanted to help so he went to Apple, while FreeBSD and Linux still aren't there yet.

I can hack away all I like on my Linux boxen, play native RTCW when I'm done, and I'd say Jordan can manage to handle either Gnome or KDE.

What was your point again?

Re:Bummer.

[AutumnLeaf]

I spend all day on Linux at work as a sys-admin for an environment with about 5,000 linux boxes. I still look forward to going home to my Mac OS X machines. As impressive an accomplishment as Gnome and KDE are, they just don't meet my standards.

Re:Bummer.what a fucking fraud. tsakon smells crap

[SeanAhern]

Ah, Mohammad Saeed al-Sahhaf! We were wondering where you had got to...

Re:Bummer.

[c13v3rm0nk3y]

After trying hard to use FreeBSD and Linux for a few years as my primary desktop, I just got frustrated.

I hear you. This was my primary decision for springing for a new G4 last year, instead of building my usual "god box" to run some free *NIX on. I have no reason to run Windows at home, so there was no "switch" involved.

I'll admit I got a little tired of hacking and tweaking to get the CD burner to work, the 3D card to work, the sound card to work... Sure, I got things to work (mostly, or until the next kernel update) and I still consider it fun to tweak a Linux box. But it's less fun the older I get.

I wonder...

[levik]

... if they asked him when that pesky and confusing second mouse button code will be discarded? The pile of bloatware that it is...

Mac OSX vs Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

as someone who uses computers for both research and creative purposes and at the same time need compatability with the masses (i.e. M$office compatability) I have finally made the decision to switch from my current dual boot windoze/linux config to mac. I can now run all the professional level music production software I need for work, my free linux apps, research group unix software and M$office on one system without the need for reboots / emulators etc...
I had been trying linux/openoffice/wine for some t

Re:Mac OSX vs Linux

[byolinux]

I'm very much the same...

I started off on an Amstrad CPC, which finally gave up in 1997, when it got smashed by a stupid relative. I then moved to a PC and dual booted between RH5/6/7/8 and Win 95/98/NT/2000 before finally getting pissed off with things never quite working right... saved up, bought a Mac, and now I'm the most sorted computer user I know...

I can do everything I want, and not worry about people doing things their own way, cause I can finally handle it all.. well, apart from Office documents, as I refuse to buy it... but OpenOffice/Aqua will be my friend there.

Re:Mac OSX vs Linux

[bsharitt]

I then moved to a PC and dual booted between RH5/6/7/8 and Win 95/98/NT/2000

Wow that's a lot of operating systems on one computer.

Re:Mac OSX vs Linux

[.com b4 .storm]

> > I then moved to a PC and dual booted between RH5/6/7/8 and Win 95/98/NT/2000

> Wow that's a lot of operating systems on one computer.

That's also a lot of OSes to "dual" boot. :)

Oh no it's not

[sendai2ci]

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=3559

Re:Mac OSX vs Linux

[Chocolate Teapot]

kill command? You command line junkies are all the same. try Cmd-Option-Esc :)

Re:Mac OSX vs Linux

[sporty]

It's so not the same.

command-option-escape is kicking your annoying guest out the house.

"killall 'Internet Explorer.app'"

That's stabbing him in the eye first :)

Re:Mac OSX vs Linux

[kruczkowski]

Half the time that doen't work. I get a good lookup about once a week. And I do nothing special other than web and email.

Re:Mac OSX vs Linux

[Chocolate Teapot]

I'm not missing the point at all. It was tongue in cheek. Cmd-Option-Esc gives you a GUI front-end to kill -9.

Re:Mac OSX vs Linux

[jhunsake]

What's wrong with the Windows Task Manager? It has worked flawlessly every time I've had to kill IE (which is usually do to the Acrobat plugin).

Re:Mac OSX vs Linux

[jhunsake]

I am a Unix guru of sorts, as I administer Linux clusters, some Irix machines, a few Solaris machines, and whatever else comes my way at the University. I just don't see how it is satisfying using kill -9 as opposed to using a graphical interface. Either way, it's a signal that something went wrong, and what can be satisfying about that (masochists aside)?

(PS Yes, that's what happens after getting only a few hours a sleep this week.)

Re:Mac OSX vs Linux

[sporty]

Simple. Using the cli to issue the signal to the pid feels more powerful and closer to the system than using a graphical interface. Granted, it's not always true. But in OSX, it's easier to do

"rm *e*" to rm all files with e in it than use the finder to find all files in the current folder with e, then drag them to the trash, then delete them.

Re:Mac OSX vs Linux

[davesag]

while I agree, it's still not that hard to

1. type 'e' in the search box and hit return
2. cmd a to select all
3. cmd delete to trash them

this has the advantage too that you can see what you are about to trash, you cmd z to undo that move to the trash, or you can pick thru your trash and selectively put back any files you didn;t mean to trash. try doing that with rm -r *e*

nice you have both options tho..

Re:Mac OSX vs Linux

[sporty]

Point is, with the command line, you have the power to do what you want, regardless if you knew what you are doing :)

Re:Mac OSX vs Linux

[davesag]

of course. and my point is that with the gui you can undo it when you realise what a dumb thing it was that you did. :-)

Re:Mac OSX vs Linux

[sporty]

Nah, just having fun with the 'puter.

Re:Mac OSX vs Linux

[sporty]

Dude! You remember the doom interface for killing linux processes? Port THAT!

Re:Mac OSX vs Linux

[questionlp]

There is a kill executable available for Windows (at least NT/2000/XP) that allows me to kill IEXPLORE.EXE if it decides to hang on me. The other fun one is rkill from the Windows 2000 Resource Kit... it allows you to remotely kill processes (once you install the remote kill service on the target machine). It also provides a list of what applications are running and their PID.

It's still not a fun as doing 'kill -9 blah' or 'kill -1 syslogd' :)

i386 Ports of OS X

[Ballresin]

You guys obviously didn't hear about the seeded developer testing of a "White box" from Apple. The case was welded shut to avoid intrusion, and reportedly contained an Athalon chipset. OS X IS ported to i386 and IS working. I don't see why Apple holds back, but it sure is cool to know that they have an ace up their sleeve...

"...these observers report that Apple has been serious enough about its ace in the hole to seed a few lucky civilians with prototype boxes - delivered heavily swaddled in layers of cloak-and-dagger security, natch. Specifically, recent testers report taking delivery of Athlon-powered boxes that Apple had assiduously welded shut to prevent prying eyes from ogling whatever other gremlins might be lurking inside these nondescript beige chassis." -MacEdition

Re:i386 Ports of OS X

[Junior J. Junior III]

Now all they have to do is implement driver support for every piece of i386 hardware known to man, and it'll be ready to blow Windows out of the market.

Re:i386 Ports of OS X

[BrookHarty]

Now all they have to do is implement driver support for every piece of i386 hardware known to man, and it'll be ready to blow Windows out of the market.

Even microsoft doesnt support every piece of i386 hardware.

And if OSX was ported to x86 hardware, it wouldnt be a 386 chip.

Re:i386 Ports of OS X

[Ineffable 27]

Here's the link to the MacEdition report this guy's talking about:

http://www.macedition.com/nmr/nmr_20021112.php [macedition.com]

Re:i386 Ports of OS X

[bsharitt]

I think NASA used these x86 macs to do the video editing when they faked the moon landings.

Re:i386 Ports of OS X

[stefanb]

The parent is OT, and just sounds like a troll, but I'll bite:

As I stated in another thread [slashdot.org], it doesn't make sense for Apple to switch architectures, unless IBM was refusing to give them the 970. And another rumor site's reports [envestco2.com] make that seem somewhat unlikely.

I'm sure Apple has a version of Mac OS X plus some smaller apps going on i386, but forcing third-party vendors, many of which still are based on Carbon, to switch architectures, would massivly hurt the market, and that basically directly after th

Re:i386 Ports of OS X

[Matey-O]

If they try to dongle their own PC-based in some way, so that Mac OS X only runs on their own hardware, people will figure out how to get around this pretty quickly, so this is a non-starter as well.

All they need is that 007 game...there's a buffer overflow exploit, ya know.

Re:i386 Ports of OS X

[repetty]

"You guys obviously didn't hear about the seeded developer testing of a "White box" from Apple."

And you are obviously not aware that Apple engineers had the Mac OS running on Motorola 88K CPUs a long time ago (right before they settled on the PowerPC chipset for business reasons).

Big whoop. Apple does this sort of thing all the time.

"I don't see why Apple holds back, but it sure is cool to know that they have an ace up their sleeve..."

I don't understand the source of your confusing because the reason ha

Re: x86 Ports of OS X ... never to be released

[King_TJ]

Well, personally, I could see how Apple would port OS X to Intel architecture mainly to use it as leverage.

They may build and sell a lot of systems, but it's a mere drop in the bucket compared to the number of people using Intel or AMD processor in their machines.

Apple might have felt threatened that they couldn't push a chip-maker (like IBM) to give them a sucessor to the G4 quickly enough to prevent Apple computers from lagging too far behind PCs in the performance curve.

Therefore, they needed to make

A non-complaining comment..

[elemur]

I think Apple, and the Apple/OS X community, are doing a great job with the package and ports management. Fink is effective and fast, if you like the apt model of software management. The new darwin ports model also sounds like a good idea. Given that its new, I would imagine that down the road they could unify and support more features from both worlds, and possbily support a single package database. (Or atleast a virtual database that aggregates both package dbs..)

I saw complaints about speed, hardware, and so forth, but those aren't really applicable to the topic at hand. If you use an ancient box, it will be slow.. if you run a *reasonably* recent box and OS X, its a great experience. My Mac desktop is a 400Mhz G4, and its perfectly snappy. It beats my 600Mhz PIII notebook at most normal sorts of tasks.. if you are using the right software. (Remember a bit of overhead when running classic apps, etc..)

I think the main thing missing is an easy to use GUI for package and application management. Perhaps they can solve one problem that remains in linux management, which is that the user has to see and worry about individual libraries and supporting applications. Should a user who wants a new version of Mozilla need to worry about the fact it will install some libpng (or whatever) library? Not really.. If they can go down that route, where you install aggregate packages (and still have the ability to fine tune as necessary), they will strike a good balance between the low level details and the user friendly environment OS X provides.

On library versions

[lowmagnet]

This is why I really like OS X / NeXT frameworks. They are libraries just like libpng or any other, but they often contain legacy code in order to keep older applications working. You have a major, forward compatible revision, and a minor, backward compatible revision. Each major revision goes in its own framework tree, and each minor is stacked up inside that tree, so you either have libpng 1 or 2, and not multiple entries for 1.06-rc2 or whatever the developers happened to put out there.

Unfortunately, th

Love FreeBSD

[rice_burners_suck]

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times... The smartest decision ever made at Apple was to embrace FreeBSD as an important component of their operating system. I like their new OS very much as it performs reliably and efficiently. It is everything that a desktop UNIX operating system should be, especially now that X programs can run on the Mac OS desktop. Obviously, I am a lot happier about this because FreeBSD and the larger free software community benefits greatly from having a much larger user base and the support of a (relatively) successful company. (Even considering that Apple is doing all of this for their bottom line; but I'm glad that they're doing it in such a way that the side effects benefit the larger community.

If you think I'm kidding, you can rest assured that your Linux distro includes something, somewhere, that came into existance as a result of Apple's work, whether directly or indirectly. Yeah... you know fully well that things get ported from one free software project to another. That's the whole point. (Ever seen the BSD license on something in your Linux distro? Yeah. That's right!) And if it wasn't "copied" as code, it was "copied" in theory.)

I was an advocate of various Linux distros for a long time, until I finally tried FreeBSD. This was relatively recent: 3.3-RELEASE had just shown up in stores and I bought a boxed set that included the FreeBSD handbook. Not ten minutes passed after installation completed on one of my machines and I was hooked. Since that moment, I can't stand the SysV style that most Linux distros have adopted. SysV is just too complicated... all kinds of directory structures stretching on for infinity, and WHY?! FreeBSD puts everything at your fingertips. (No offense to Linux advocates and developers, as I continue to use Linux on many machines at home and at work. But I really do wish that BSD-style admin stuff would show up in more Linux distros... If I had the time to do it myself, I would have done it a long time ago. But as you know: 1, setting up a truly intuitive environment is difficult; and 2, I'm wasting all my time posting junk all over /. and don't have any time left to do useful stuff.)

Back to OSX... No, I have not switched to "the dark side" yet. I am waiting for Apple to natively support x86, which shouldn't be too complicated considering that the software they used to build the operating system is relatively portable. I would be all over an x86 Apple iBook. It is the hardware that currently prevents me from switching.

Oh yeah... and keep up the good work, Jordan.

Re:Love FreeBSD

[Textbook Error]

It is the hardware that currently prevents me from switching.

Guess what, it's that same hardware that currently keeps Apple in business... An x86 Mac is never going to happen.

Although they no doubt keep Mac OS X running on multiple platforms internally (it makes good sense from an engineering point of view), an x86 Mac is not in Apple's interests - 2 minutes after Apple released an x86 Mac + Mac OS X for x86, someone would have the OS running on some generic non-Apple hardware. Once that happens, nobody is ever going to buy an Apple machine when they could get their own box for less money.

And there just isn't a market in selling OS software on the x86 platform - the vast majority of people either get Windows free with their hardware, or rip a copy off from a friend. The number of people who pay for their copy of Linux/Be/etc is nothing like enough to keep a company the size of Apple in business, even assuming that every non-Windows person decided to buy Mac OS X instead.

A common suggestion is that Apple could build in some kind of dongle into the system to prevent the OS being modified to run on a generic box. The point this misses is that the only system like this which would ever work is the one they already use - their dongle is the Mac.

Re:Love FreeBSD

[bmetzler]

I would be all over an x86 Apple iBook. It is the hardware that currently prevents me from switching.

Please tell me why you are so interested in an x86 version of the iBook. Is it just the mhz myth that scares you?

-Brent

Re:Love FreeBSD

[rice_burners_suck]

MHz have nothing to do with anything. As a matter of fact, I am the guy who tells everyone to completely ignore MHz when buying a computer and to concentrate, instead, on the benefits provided by their potential new system.

In my case, I need the x86 architecture because of my customer base, existing product and support issues, and last but not least, development tools, which must run under virtualization in VMware, a technical requirement that prevents the use of another (admittedly superior) processor. Run

Re:Love FreeBSD

[bmetzler]

Powerpc processors are crippled compared to athlons or pIV's and yet apple charges a premium for them.

I guess I haven't noticed the premiums that Apple charges for notebooks. I'm looking to purchase a notebook, and am trying to decide if I shuld go iBook or not. Everyone tells me that Apple is more expensive, but for their notebooks I don't see that. Similarily configured notebooks from Apple, as far as I can tell are ~$300 LESS then notebooks from Dell or Compaq.

-Brent

Re:Love FreeBSD

[BitHive]

Here's my "Switch" story. I am the student body webmaster at my college, a thankless job which means I get to do everything from post PDFs of the newspaper online to streaming the radio station in MP3, to maintaining the FreeBSD webserver, to writing web applications to handle voting. So I asked the student senate to buy me an 800MHz iBook. Since getting it I have not even turned on my PC except to import my music into iTunes. The machine is small and light enough that I can slide it into my backpack at

Re:Love FreeBSD

[jo_ham]

You're right. You get a hell of a lot of bang for your buck (or quid if you're British) with an Apple notebook.

The iBook is insanely good value for money. If you haven't had a chance to see one for real and at your fingertips then I'd get yourself down to an Apple store or a retailer that sells them to get a feel for just how solid it is.

The first impression I get when looking at almost any PC-based laptop recently has been "this looks tacky, plasticy and shoddily built" and often it's true.

The iBook is

Re:Love FreeBSD

[bmetzler]

Not to start a flame-war, but please cite your sources for this claim.

The Apple iBook with the 14.1 inch screen is $1499. The Dell Inspiron similarily configured, except for the free memory upgrade, and a 2ghz Celeron instead of an 867mhz G3 is $1467. Notice that Dell has 3 rebates on now, including the free DVD/CDRW upgrade. I'm certain the last time I priced the Dell, they were not running those deals. That would add ~$250 to the current Dell quote, I believe.

So, the answer is, it *may* be time t

Re:Love FreeBSD

[good soldier svejk]

Apple has great educational discounts. Right now Harvard is selling the iBook 800Mhz (DVD/CD-RW) for $1,099. The 12.1" Powerbook is $1,559 including a free Airport Extreme card and extended warranty. The 15.2" TiBooks are $1,799 (867Mhz, DVD/CD-RW) and $2,479 (1Ghz, DVD-R/CD-RW), including an Airport card and extended warranty. They Queen Mother 17" book is $2,979, including the extended warranty (Airport Extreme and Bluetooth are built in). A Superdrive eMac is $1,059.

Re:Love FreeBSD

[shotfeel]

Not quite so true when it comes to portables. One of the "engineering" trade-offs and one of the things that holds the PPC back (IMO) is that it is designed, by Motorola, to be an embedded processor. That means power consumption, heat production and size are important considerations. The trade-off is raw speed.

So, getting back to portables, a top end PPC does quite well in a portable. Not so a top end AMD or Intel processor.

Just some food for thought.

Re:Love FreeBSD

[Sentry21]

Back to OSX... No, I have not switched to "the dark side" yet. I am waiting for Apple to natively support x86, which shouldn't be too complicated considering that the software they used to build the operating system is relatively portable. I would be all over an x86 Apple iBook. It is the hardware that currently prevents me from switching.

Then you'll be waiting a long long time. Why on earth would Apple ever switch to x86? The power use is astronomical, the architecture is ungainly, ALL mac software would have to be ported (and believe me, that's no easy task), and it would lose all the hardware advantages it has - altivec, fast FPU instructions, the RISC-ish architecture.

Apple has the PPC970 coming out from IBM, which will be (relatively) low power, fast, support vector instructions, and run at a 900 MHz DDR bus, to name a few. Why on earth would they throw away speed, compatibility, and reliability just to have a processor that's only better in name and for a few applications. Nonsense.

Accept it. x86 is not going to happen, nor should it happen. It would suck, period. The machines wouldn't become any cheaper, they wouldn't become any faster, and the battery life would be cut in half if not more. Bad bad ugly idea.

--Dan

Re:Love FreeBSD

[Creepy]

um, no. CISC has been proven to be slower than RISC, but RISC needs to run faster because it essentially extends its smaller amount of actions to do the same things as CISC.

Both AMD and Intel essentially use Hybrid processors that take longer CISC instructions and break them down in microcode to RISC instructions. RISC processors rely on several instructions to perform certain actions a CISC processor does in one (read/write, for example), but by doing this, pipeline stalls can be reduces, as well as man

Re:Love FreeBSD

[Paladeen]

I am waiting for Apple to natively support x86, which shouldn't be too complicated considering that the software they used to build the operating system is relatively portable.

Sure, OS X is portable. But the heritage programming APIs from Classic MacOS aren't. Carbon is heavily PPC reliant and it would be a near-impossible operation to port it over to x86. And with Carbon gone, so is a large chunk of Mac software, including killer apps such as Adobe Photoshop and M$ Office.

Re:Love FreeBSD

[rice_burners_suck]

I don't like using tools like the ones you mention because they take control away from me.

• I never know which files and directories they modify.
• I really hate wondering which changes were just made to my system.

I prefer to modify text files and permissions manually, knowing exactly what I have just done. Other benefits of control include being able to script various operations myself and furthermore, maintaining the history of the entire system configuration in CVS. My methods make it easy to maintain many

Re:Love FreeBSD

[BigBir3d]

No, that is a G3 versus G4 problem. G4 is faster, sure. But it also runs much hotter. All in the name of Alti-Vec...

G3 up to 1Ghz has been made by IBM for some time now, but Apple doesn't want to sell those for some reason. iBook 1GHz G3 with 1GB or RAM would be sweet. Much better than current 12" PowerBook. Which is why it's not for sale :(

Want to find out if Apple is porting to x86?

[boxless]

Find out where the DEC guys who wrote FX32 are working. If they are at apple, you have your answer.

FX32, for those that don't know, was an add-on to NT for Alpha, that ran x86 binaries natively. And it was awesome. Although this will be sort of the reverse of that, the mindset is the same.

Re:no thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

Why so bitter?

First of all, it may very well be a free upgrade.

Second, if you don't think it's worth it, nobody is going to force you to get the newer version.

I for one am glad that Apple is heavily updating the operating system. It's a new OS and it's by far my favorite, but it still needs a lot of work to be perfect.

Re:no thanks

[michaelggreer]

Unfortunately. since OS X is still a growing system, I have found that the OS updates become required very very quickly. Many applications updates thereafter will make use of the improvements and break backwards compatability. This is even true with small updates. I would love this update if it were free, but I don't like being forced to cough up cash to keep getting bug fixes to my favorite applications.

Re:no thanks

[milbybw]

Why yes, it probably will cost $130 for the upgrade to 10.3 (Panther). Of course, there is no requirement to upgrade. If the new features are worth the price, then do it. I know that I will be upgrading.

Re:no thanks

[Mitchell Mebane]

Apple has shown a history of giving out every other upgrade for free. 10.1 was free, 10.2 wasn't, 10.3 prly will be. IMEO, anyway.

Works for me

[siskbc]

...and presumably it will cost another $130 for the upgrade.

I agree, that is a bit steep for a 1-year upgrade, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt on pricing before we start vilifying them. As for cost, I thought Mac-heads were supposed to be used to paying 2-3 times typical cost for stuff. (NO, that's NOT flamebait!)

The question is also, can you keep using 10.2 when 10.3 comes out? I suspect so. In fact, I kind of like the way this works - they release a new upgrade every year, but probably the last 3-4 years of upgrades work perfectly. This way, though, there is a *new* version of Mac OS out whenever you upgrade. That's pretty cool. So the only people who really get gouged are people who feel like they have to have an updated OS every year, which you couldn't even get from M$ if you wanted it. (Yeah, service packs don't count ;))

I've been using Macs since 1984, but I've given up now. The only reason I'm keeping my Mac is to run legacy apps.

Interesting, I wouldn't even touch the damned things until 10.2 came out...

2-3 times *typical* cost

[lowmagnet]

I think it is important to point out that the 2-3 times the *typical* cost will also yield you 2-3 times the *typical* stability and usability of comparable machines. Maybe there is an Apple luxury tax [jerkcity.com], but Apple users are more likely to be satisified.

Benefits of Upgrading

[Spencerian]

What siskbc said.

Mac OS upgrades are typically more interesting than Linux or even Windows upgrades as Apple tends to make it a point to add a significant change in performance and luxury to the operating system. Since Mac OS X is still relatively young, the changes you may see in 10.3 will be striking--or, to some people, a "Duh!" move.

For one, the Finder is the butt of jokes, and needs multithreading and greater power.

Second, I think Samba needs more work.

This summer, Apple fans should expect to see some serious shit. Strong rumors of the PowerPC 970 chip will probably come true (amidst NDAs) from WWDC as super-Mac hardware may finally arrive with all the system bus, cache, and 64-bit power that's needed to return Macs to compare reasonably to Pentium systems. Next, Mac OS X matures, and goes 64-bit compatible (if it's not already there).

Things we need to see...like real SAMBA.

[siskbc]

For one, the Finder is the butt of jokes, and needs multithreading and greater power.

I think you could have abbreviated that to "The finder is BUTT" without losing any accuracy. Seriously, I think Windows Explorer is better, and that must have been difficult for Apple to accomplish.

Second, I think Samba needs more work.

Well YOU just won the understatement of the year award! Samba implementation on the mac has been pretty spotty. I've had some issues with disconnects between the "apple" username and t

Re:Things we need to see...like real SAMBA.

[BrookHarty]

Correct, there are some major problems with the GUI, Finder, and the file system and multithreading is quite poor for a BSD based OS. For a dual processor machine, the performance of the GUI is a large problem. Finder should not hang your GUI. SMB mounting a share should not reboot your PC, Switching between applications should be much quicker.

But after all the problems, the OS is solid. This OS does not need to be redesigned, just updated with fixes. Apple has the right product, if they can fix the probl

Re:Things we need to see...like real SAMBA.

[dalamcd]

Also, this might one of the reasons they have not released a x86 port.

Yes. It is reason #65,934,834,989.

Reason #1 is: It would be the stupidest thing ever done in this universe or any other.

dalamcd

Re:Things we need to see...like real SAMBA.

[BrookHarty]

And why wouldnt they release a x86 port on hardware? None.

In the USA we have the DMCA, which would put a stop to anyone reverse engineering any such Apple clone. Reverse engineering already failed in the courts.

You shouldn't be calling anyone a moron

[siskbc]

You can do that now, it's just not cost effective. Duh, Darwin is open source! Modify it if you need to, and run OS X on top of your modified Darwin. Same could be done with x86, and for much cheaper. And with over an order of magnitude more people using x86, you can be sure there would be hacks out the first day OSX/x86 comes out. Boom, Apple dead.

Right, because you can of course run OSX binaries compiled for Motorola chips on an x86. Dumbass.

Oh, and be sure to convince Apple that people don't really m

No, not symlinks

[SkimTony]

Actually, the way Apple and MacOS (Classic and X) do aliases is far superior to the way symlinks or shortcuts work. An alias in MacOS still tracks it's target until it's moved to a different filesystem. You won't gate a broken link until you delete the target. With Symlinks/Shortcuts, you move the file once, it's gone. I'll stick with my aliases, thanks. (Oh, yeah, and if you make an alias, the Terminal/shell treats it as a symlink.)

Re:Works for me

[buzzcutbuddha]

As for cost, I thought Mac-heads were supposed to be used to paying 2-3 times typical cost for stuff. (NO, that's NOT flamebait!)

Anyone that says "No, that's NOT flamebait!" already has his asbestos skivvies on, and is priming his flamethower.

It's like someone who starts every insult with the phrase "I mean this in the kindest way, but..."

Re:Works for me

[.com b4 .storm]

...and presumably it will cost another $130 for the upgrade.

For what it's worth, students (and "higher education" faculty) can get Mac OS X for $69 at the Apple Education Store [apple.com]. It'll probably be the same deal for Panther. It's still a lot of money, but not as steep as $130. :)

Not me

[repetty]

"As for cost, I thought Mac-heads were supposed to be used to paying 2-3 times typical cost for stuff."

You lack historical perspective.

What THIS Mac Head is used to is getting his OS for free. I didn't pay for OS 5, 6, or 7.

What happended to the good old days when you could just wander into the local mom & pop Apple retailer with a couple blank floppies and they would gleefully (and legally) dup it for you?

This Mac Head was quite accustomed to paying $0.00, thank you.

Re:Not me

[siskbc]

What happended to the good old days when you could just wander into the local mom & pop Apple retailer with a couple blank floppies and they would gleefully (and legally) dup it for you?

What happened, I believe, is that Apple hardware got comparatively so expensive that people are holding onto machines longer, meaning that Apple needs to leverage them for revenue.

Another thing that happened is that Apple started working a LOT harder on making a world-class operating system that can be appreciated on m

Re:Works for me

[siskbc]

Know anyone who still runs 10.0?

I don't know anyone who runs any software that has a minor version number of 0. ;)

Seriously, I'll give them a break with 10.0. They completely switched architectures. That was damned ambitious, and I'm inclined to give them some leeway on that.

Besides, while 10.0.0 kind of sucked, 10.0.4 was OK, and that was free.

Re:no thanks

[Surak]

If I want a Unix with spotty peripheral support and availability of applications, my choices are Linux and MacOS.

Spotty peripheral support? The only reason Windows has better peripheral support than either of those two is that hardware vendors supply drivers, and they supply drivers for the OS with a 90% installed base -- Windows.

But more and more peripherals are being supported under Linux and MacOS X. Some by reverse-engineering, but many hardware vendors are now stepping up to the plate and providing Linux and MacOS X drivers.

If you want to support Linux or MacOS X, then only buy hardware from those manufacturers that provide drivers. For instance, HP has open source (BSD license) drivers available for CUPS [slashdot.org], LinkSys provides drivers for Linux (at least) for some of its products [linksys.com], etc.

If you don't like that OSes other than Windows have inadequate or missing driver support -- use your OS of choice and VOTE WITH YOUR WALLET and buy peripherals from vendors that provide Linux or MacOS X drivers, rather than whine and complain that Linux and MacOS X have spotty peripheral support. Or, better yet, get down and dirty and start reverse engineering products and coding your own open source drivers.

Re:no thanks

[mfago]

Or, better yet, get down and dirty and start reverse engineering products and coding your own open source drivers.

Unless you live in the USA in which case reverse engineering could get you thrown in jail -- because congress is sure that by reverse engineering you must either be a terrorist or a thief.

Whew! I feel better.

--

Slashdot: Group session for Nerds.

Re:no thanks

[Surak]

I was gonna add that too but I forgot. :)

Re:Apple as a software company

[levik]

Not sure if they make a lot from the hardware business or not (though I imagine it's not too little), I know that they probably make much less from software, since it's not their business model to do.

Telling Apple to start selling software for the Intel platform is just like suggesting that Coca Cola "expand" into apparel manufacture. It may very well prove lucrative, but it's totally not what the company is all about.

Re:Apple as a software company

[DA-MAN]

Cola Cola already has jackets and shirts and even cocaclock radios! I'm sure they're makin a pretty penny off it.

Re:Apple as a software company

[Chocolate Teapot]

Apple have always been a hardware oriented company, and to the best of my knowledge have never claimed anything else. And why would they really care about 'screwing' Linux?

What I suspect you are really saying is that you would like to run OS X but don't want to to shell out the cash to buy the required hardware. What you fail to realise is that a soon as you take OS X and make it available on the huge variety of Intel-based platforms, it does not "Just Work!" anymore. Any amount of time spent trying to find the right drivers for Linux or Windows will tell you that. There is a lot to be said for having control of the OS and the hardware on which it runs.

If you want OS X, get a job and get a Mac like the rest of us had to.

Re:Apple as a software company

[Chocolate Teapot]

I got pissed when I found that my extensive VHS collection would not work in my DVD player. WTF? DVD is supposed to be better, right? Those bastards at Samsung are screwing me!

Re:Apple Marketing Droid Alert

[Chocolate Teapot]

That's what they told you to say?

Moron.

Does apple expect to sell macs because "the masses" will want to use OS X so badly that they'll buy Macs next?

Obviously. And they make some pretty sexy looking hardware too. Before you start shouting that the looks aren't important, take a look at the cars people drive. Take a look at the money they spend on curtains and carpets and non-essential items for purely aesthetic reasons.

The only excuse for not porting it is to make you buy apples

Your new to the business world, aren't you?

Re:Apple as a software company

[cyb97]

Because I doubt apple would do any better than Microsoft of keeping up with all the various hardware you can get for i386 compared to the rather sparse selection that is available for PPC... especially HW that is "apple-approved".

Re:Apple as a software company

[NivenHuH]

They do have Darwin ported.. (it's not really useful as it only supports very limited hardware..)

You also have to keep in mind.. if they're building an OS for their hardware, it's much easier to keep wraps on bug issues, etc.. If they were to move to intel, they'd have SOOO many device drivers to write, etc..

Re:Apple as a software company

[darien]

I hear this a lot, but to be honest I don't see it as a showstopper. There may be a billion and one hardware devices available for the PC, but that doesn't mean Apple has to write drivers for them all.

I really can't imagine it's beyond Apple to ship a version of OS X for i386 that supports maybe ten different motherboards, five graphics cards, five sound cards, ten printers and maybe a few things like scanners and firewire cards. If they were to do this, retailers could immediately start building systems f

Re:Apple as a software company

[alfredo]

OSX on an eMachine, disgusting. Apple has made its way by being different. Going to the Intel world would make it just another box.

Re:Apple as a software company

[bheerssen]

... on an eMachine, disgusting.

eMachines are disgusting. Some days I can't get near my workstation without gagging on the smell. I think it's built from the stuff you get from a five dollar whore. I wish I could chuck the thing out the window, or better yet, take a baseball bat to it.

hmm.. maybe that's a little harsh. But then again, maybe not. eMachines are pretty awful.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

THE ANSWER

[feldsteins]

Here, for your reading enjoyment, is the text of the last time I responded to this question. (And here is the link [slashdot.org].) Please distribute this text/link to every nerd on earth so that we can dispense with this question once and for all.

The lack of clones is the major problem with Apple? Sure, it keeps prices high and marketshare low. It's true. It is the worst thing about the platform.

And yet, it is also the one single thing that makes them unique in the market and gives them value. The vertical integration they have (hardware/os/iapps) allows them to a) innovate their product line faster and more radically than some other hardware/software makers and b) allows them to sell an entire end-to-end solution (like firewire-imovie-idvd-superdrive) with a user experience better than anyone elses. These things are at the core of what makes Apple Apple. Take them away - take away the vertical integration by doing clones - and what you get is cheaper boxes and much rejoicing...and a dead/dying platform within 2 years because it has lost that which made it valuable to begin with.

Bonus point: Why should anyone care? Certainly Mac users should care, but others should, too. Apple has an influence on the personal computer industry that is vastly disproportionate to its marketshare. They innovate. Others follow. Therefore, a healthy Apple is good for the industry. Mac clones = bad for Apple = bad for the pc industry.

Licensed clones

[iamacat]

Free-for-all is not the only way to go with clones. Apple could specify the standards and license fees to ship a clone and then put checks in MacOSX to only allow it to boot on approved hardware. Yes, someone will hack it, but the result will not be sold in CompUSA. Apple doesn't have much to loose, when they'll still get money from anyone who competes well with their own hardware.

Re:Licensed clones

[Graymalkin]

Apple did that with the first round of clones and it went a long way towards killing them off. Apple makes anywhere between 20-30% in margins on every bit of hardware they sell depending on the particular product. For more expensive products like the super high end PowerMacs that is a fat wad of cash. They tend to make even more on their low end systems because they use much more commodity parts. If all the Macs sold in a year averaged $1800 a piece even a 20% margin would be a $360m profit on a million Macs sold.

Now let's say they make some sort of margin off licensing clones out. Say the margin is 20% but the average price of the clone systems is $1100, that is only $220m for a million Macs sold over a year. That is a 39% drop in margins. If the average price of clones is $800 that is a 56% drop in margins to $160m for a million Macs over a year. You'd have to pull a pretty fancy marketing campaign to sell 39% or 56% more Macs to make up for the reduced margins on the clones. Cheaper Macs might sell a little better than expensive Macs but there is STILL going to be the stupid "Macs don't have any software and can't be upgraded" stigmas attached which heavily influences sales.

Selling clones also kicks Apple in the ass in the fact a cheapo version of a PowerMac is going to outsell an Apple PowerMac simply because it is cheaper. So not only does Apple NOT get a sale of their high margin PowerMac they get a crap licensing return from the clone maker.

PowerComputing and UMAX put a serious dent in Apple's bottom line because the licensing fees didn't make up for the loss in Apple branded sales. If the Gap licenses out their logo to someone who sells the same exact clothes WITH the Gap logo for half the price how long do you think they'd stay in business? Letting a company outsell you with your own product is a dumb business move.

GPL'ed birthday presents

[siskbc]

I'm gonna stop handing out gifts at birthday parties and what not, because I don't want them stealing the gift from me.

Next time I go to a birthday party I'm gonna tell the person I give a present to that it's GPL-licensed. That way, if they actually use the present, they have to go give it away.

Re:GPL'ed birthday presents

[good soldier svejk]

Next time I go to a birthday party I'm gonna tell the person I give a present to that it's GPL-licensed. That way, if they actually use the present, they have to go give it away.

No, they can use it and copy it as much as they like without restriction. But if they give it away or sell it, or a copy of it, they have to include the blueprints and possibly the raw materials.

Re:When...?

[mfifer]

When MacOS X for Intel/AMD architectures?

Next Tuesday.

Re:When...?

[clf8]

Good joke, wrong crowd. All Mac freaks know that Apple releases stuff on Tuesdays (typically). For at least 2 months now, and probbably more, both a new 15" Aluminum Powerbook and a new iPod have been coming.

Alas, not this Tuesday. Maybe NEXT Tuesday. Of course, nowadays the popular money is on Apr 28 (a Monday???), but who really knows.

Re:mac problem

[snuffdiddy23]

the 8600 is less than 100mhz, so that may have something to do with it, i have a powermac 9100 that has 12 dimm slots and takes up to 1.5gb memory. it smokes on os9.2.2
that is not a 300mhz machine, either. maybe 300watts, but that is upgradable to 400 :) seriously though, the 8600 is a dinosaur and 64 megs of ram is inadequate for anything above os 8.6, unless you are a wizard with extension, and that is probably not the case. that 8600 can be ugraded to a viable machine. my 9100 can get a processor upgrad

YHBT :)

[thunderbird46]

The 8600 is actually one of the faster pre-G3 machines; see this link [apple-history.com]. They go up to 300 MHz and take the same RAM DIMMs that your 8500 takes. The 8600's the next generation after the 8500 (they went from 8100 to 8500 to 8600 with the pre-G3 PPC midtowers, you see.) I have an 8100 and an 8500, nice little machines. The 8500's been a great Linux box with the RAM upgraded to 96 MB and a 9 GB Seagate SCSI-2 drive in it, running Debian of course :) And I've got it down to the point where I can pull the mot

Because its faster?

[mnmn]

When you said 20 minutes, the first thing that clicked in my mind is this guys having some problem. You definitely have something bad in your system and blaming it on Apple, if its really taken you 20 minutes.

Gather up more diverse experience in different macs and different wintels before making a judgement. Apple is known for its stability and speed over wintel in all quarters, not because a bunch of mac fans tried copying a file on a 486 running windows98 and 8 mb ram, with viruses etc, for 20 minute

Re:mac problem

[ruiner13]

Wow man, you really like to post this, don't you... http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=59343&thresho l d=0&commentsort=3&tid=179&mode=thread&cid=5644317 [slashdot.org]. If you have been waiting for that file copy for the weeks since you've last posted, may I suggest killing that process? In the mean time, come up with some new material to add to our discussion, Mr. Troll.

Re:Hubbard

[christurkel]

Jordan Hubbard is very much involved in FreeBSD. He is not the leeader but he is a core developer with CVS write access. His involvement with Mac OS X and FreeBSD helps both in ways that are invisible (most of the time) to the end user.

Re:Darwin Ports

[Spyffe]

That would be great... one could have a system by which there are "competing" packages for certain roles (vi vs emacs,etc.)

Then, whichever package gets chosen more stays. Of course, one would need somehow to fork it so that the forks could compete... but, given OSS politics, that shouldn't be too hard to do. (Lucid Emacs, anyone?)