Slashdot Log In
Could Apple's Intel Desktop Threaten Linux?
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Jun 08, 2005 09:01 AM
from the not-bloody-likely dept.
from the not-bloody-likely dept.
esavard writes "
If Linux enthusiasts don't want
Mac OSX on Intel to become a threat
for the future of Linux Desktop, they must rethink the concept of Desktop as we know it today.
Symphony OS did exactly that and propose some fresh concepts about how a desktop should and should not be.
If you want to know more about Symphony OS, a good starting point is a Wikipedia article
describing the innovations proposed by this new desktop OS. The Linux Desktop Community must encourage such initatives
massively to compete against Mac OSX and Windows."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Beautiful (Score:5, Insightful)
The one thing that stands out at me is that Symphony uses Yet Another(TM) packaging system that is supposed to fix all the woes of the previous packaging system. Haven't we learned yet? In a complex system, packages are just as bad (actually worse) for users than DLL Hell. And they certainly don't solve the issue of maintaining the sanctity of applications, and maintaining file associations across deletes/manual installs/program moves. These are some of the greatest break points in the Windows OS. Yet Mac OS X has none of these problems thanks to its amazing
Under OS X, installation consists of downloading the application, and optionally extracting it from an archive. That's it, nothing more. You can run the app from any location (although the "standard" is the Applications folder), including right out of the DMG archive! File associations are easy: Just have the program on your hard drive. That's it! The OS takes care of querying the program for its associations. If you move the program, the OS knows. And if you delete the program, the OS removes the association. No mucking around with manual configuration. The *only* thing you can change is the default program!
Given that OS X has shown us the power of this method, why haven't any distros latched onto it? Yes, it means that the OS must promise a base set of shared libraries, but the user experience is so much better!
Re:Beautiful (Score:3, Informative)
Well, you can get a similar experience by using static binaries. They have the libraries compiled into the binary and have no other dependencies. The downside is increased disk and memory footprint. Also if there is a vulnerability in the library it uses the entire binary must be recompiled. Per
Re:Beautiful (Score:3, Informative)
I think you have missed something.
Packages are a GREAT way to handle things.
The simple & dumb way as OS X handles packages is just that: it can not handle dependencies, or anything, it just puts some files on your computer.
It works moderately well, if you only use it for applications and those are statically linked, but nothing else.
Now, take Debian's package system: it handles dependencies, version conflic
Re:Beautiful (Score:3, Informative)
If developers DO require more functionality, they can put that extra code into librar
Re:Beautiful (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Beautiful (Score:5, Informative)
1) 97% of all applications fall into the "very simple applications" category, if needing libraries not already installed with OS X is your metric. The point the parent was trying to make is that Apple errs on the side of providing everything by default- they've given up on trying to keep the OS footprint small. Unless it's code specific to your app, it's likely already provided. Please provide an example if you want to refute that point- maybe there's something they should be including that they don't.
2) It doesn't actually have to be a single statically linked binary- that's just what most programmers do, because it's simple, and easier for the user to manage if you have everything self-contained in the application package. If you want, you can create your own application frameworks, and place them in standard locations ( not /usr/local, but rather /System/Library/Frameworks or ~/Library/Frameworks ). Frameworks have certain advantages ( versioning support being just one ) over standard dynamic libraries, and they're quite easy to use. Most OS X programmers don't do that because, well, they don't want to have to write an uninstaller.
Just because OS X is 'like Unix' doesn't mean that's all it is. I don't even want to know what you're doing to your mini that you've felt the need to reformat and reinstall twice. That's just crazy. May I recommend Fink for your Unix-ported program needs? The /sw directory is an excellent idea...
I've seen prepackaged binaries ( generally of ported Unix apps ) which write into /usr/local, and I have to say I personally dislike that practice. That said, if you choose to go that route and use /usr/local, managing it is no different than under any other OS- you have to do it yourself.
Parent
Simple, dumb, and easy :-) (Score:5, Insightful)
I realize this could start a 'flame war', but it surprises me how many Linux users just don't see why package managers are not the greatest thing since sliced bread for average users.
While you and others may go "wow!" at all the magical stuff apt-get does, the average user doesn't even know what dependecies are, nor do they care. And they don't want to care. On Mac, as "simple and dumb" as the OS X system is, it *just works* for everyone from grandma to geeks. A simple and dumb system is also, well, very easy to understand! Drag and drop your app into the folder. Easy. Nice. As for package managers, I've had to deal with scenarios where I had to muck with the package manager configuration to get it to install packages for me, and I've had to "add URLs" to the database at which time I was warned about "untrusted sources" (the average user is NOT going to grok all that). In fact, when the average user sees "no results" from the database, they'll simply conclude the package isn't available and stop. I'm not sure how anyone thinks this is easier than going to versiontracker.com/apple.com/etc. and just downloading a file (or popping in a CD), then dragging the app into the applications folder.
If you doubt me, have someone do usability research on package managers and drag and drop installs, and see which is, on average, easier for users to understand and get working with. If you really think package managers like apt-get will come out ahead, then you must spend a lot of your time on the computer and deal regularly with others like yourself.
If you really want the Linux desktop to succeed, you have to question why lots of people are switching to Mac instead of just 'bashing' anything that is not as complex and elegant as apt-get. Call it dumb, call it simple. I call it a solution that works, and considering Macs are seeing a 40% growth this year, so do a couple other people as well.
As someone whose tried every Windows from 3.1 to XP, close to a dozen Linux distributions (including Debian and Ubuntu), and OS 9 and OS X, I have to say application installation and removal on Mac blows the others away. It works and it's brain-dead simple, which means I spend more time doing real work than fooling around with installers and packaging programs. Good luck on converting the world to apt-get, though.
Parent
Re:Simple, dumb, and easy :-) (Score:4, Informative)
Because on a Mac, you can be guaranteed of the existence of preinstalled libraries, and on Linux you can't. I agree the Mac way is much better, but until there's a ubiquitous Linux standard it's not going to be feasible there.
Parent
Re:Beautiful (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Beautiful (Score:5, Insightful)
Next, you complain that the debian packages are very often out of date, which is true, however, you confuse the issue of debian as distribution versus the way debian packages work. In otherwords, you are confusing one organizations implimentation instead of the actual methodology.
Along those same lines, when you complain about packages being out of date, again, they are, in the Apple or Windows world, with commercial software, how often do new updates come out? I'm not aware of anyone running Office 2005, so you could say that Office is also out of date.
Most of your complaints seem aimed specifically at debian itself. There are other debian based distros that have solved many of these.
One final comment, I am assuming that you are the sole user of your computer and it is at home or a small business, because you complain about having to become an admin to install software. Well, in most businesses, that would be a plus, because you don't want joe-worker to be installing whatever he pleases. At home, too, it is a plus, I don't know how often the kids have downloaded and installed something that broke Windows. However whether OS X, BSD or Linux, you could always enable sudo for the users you trust not to screw up the system and thus mitigate the problem. I believe that is the approach that OS X took, along with several of the debian based distros.
Parent
Re:Beautiful (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, why? Why should the user be prevented from having personal programs? There's certainly no restriction against fat binaries, so why not a lightweight binary?
If the concern is system security, than the installtion level is not the place to worry about it. The place to worry about it is at the runtime level. Bec
Re:Beautiful (Score:3, Insightful)
If I were an IT admin (I'm not - I'm a developer), I'd want to not allow users to install software for that very reason. They install crap like real player or yahoo toolbar or whatever that bog down their machines, then the whine when their machines bog down.
But for home users it's imperitive that they be able to install software and IMO they should not have to be root to do so.
All depends on what your audience is. And that's one of the
Not root? Sudo? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is how windows has worked for ages and it's the most common way to own a system - it's so incredibly easy to install something, just click and bang and we own u.
It's not hard to type a password when installing an app. It tells the user they are doing something to alter the fucntionality of their machine and it tells the machine this is what the user wants to do.
Parent
Re:Beautiful (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Beautiful (Score:5, Informative)
The installation system you write about is elegant, but you don't describe how (or if) it fixes that problem.
True. I was running out of time, so I ended up shortening it to "the OS must promise a specific set of APIs". What I was trying to get at, is that nearly all APIs that are useful to multiple programs that you may have installed (i.e. I probably won't have two Word processors, so sharing Word processor specific APIs is pointless) tend to be provided by the OS vendor. Apple handles this via the use of "frameworks", a package similar to APPs. The catch is that only Apple tends to distribute these frameworks. As a result, Apple has made themselves the only source for system wide APIs.
It is of interest to note that the same is true of Windows. While the ability to install system wide DLLs exists, the reality is that only Microsoft tends to distribute anything that's useful for multiple programs. Modern Linux distros have started down the same path with a set of default APIs, but they tend to fall flat due to a lack of standardization and incompatible library versions.
For the APP concept to work on a Linux system, the system must promise a very precise set of APIs with precise minimum versions. Programs should be aligned along the use of this standard, with programs upgrading when the OS upgrades the standard. (Analogous to OS X 10.3 -> 10.4 and Windows 95 -> Windows 2000.) If a developer wants to use a newer version of an API or a non-bundled API, then he should bundle it with his program. It's possible that he's use up slightly more memory than necessary, but it shouldn't matter in the grand scheme as long as he doesn't try to replace the entire OS. (In which case, something is wrong with either the programmer or the OS.)
Now traditional packaging systems are sufficient for core OS components like these. You *want* a consistent OS at that level. But at the application level, these dependencies (or more often, dependencies of dependencies) tend to get messed up and deny the installation of a program that will function correctly. There's no reason for this. A prelink can be done, and the program can gracefully error out if there's a problem. There's no reason to place the user through the teeth gnashing pain of solving those dependency issues.
An excellent example of a system that manages to use this scheme is the Java Virtual Machine. Love it or hate it, programmers always have access to a specific set of APIs, then are able to add more as they're program requires. The only duplication of libraries tends to occur in places where the JVM had not yet added an API. (e.g. XML parsers, Logging, etc.) Once an API is added, then the number of duplicate libraries drops. Rinse and repeat.
Is that a little clearer? (Not sure if I'm coming across too well.)
Debian's package system works fine for their users because there is one huge repository with management of the proper cross-dependencies within that repository, rather than many repositories with little coordination.
There's a couple of problems with this:
1) Even singular repositories screw up. A few years ago when I tried Debian, I ran into dependency hell out of the main repository. That wasn't supposed to happen. I've even had it happen in my favorite repository, the FreeBSD ports tree.
2) Repositories are useless for commercial software. I understand that OSS developers think everything should be free as in Airplane Peanuts, and free as free to go to a Hawaian Backyard Party, but there are still plenty of examples of commercial software that can't go in these repositories.
3) There are still constant arguments over where to put things on a Unix system. The APP solution solves everything, as everything always goes in the APP folder. This is actually *closer* to the Unix philosophy of having a standard set of subfolders (e.g. bin, lib, man, src, etc.) inside every major folder. So if someone invents a new sort of meta-data (e.g. desktop icons, info pages, etc.) there would no longer be a question about where to standardize on their location.
Parent
Re:Beautiful (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems to boil down to an argument that cathedral-style management of all APIs relevant to third-party applications is necessary if they are to work. Certainly they will be made to work more easily that way.
But from a standpoint of supporting a diverse ecology of software producers and lots of competition, the cathedral isn't the most desirable structure. It seems that when one pays a draconian cost (central control) to solve smaller problems (package dependencies, file locations), it might not be the best deal in the end. I'm still endeavoring to provide a better solution to this problem.
Bruce
Parent
Re:Beautiful (Score:5, Interesting)
A solution that seems to make the most sense to me, which nobody seems to have tried yet, is the following:
Don't rely on one big repository (e.g. debian, gentoo, etc.) but also don't make the whole thing file-based like in OSX. Do keep repositories if you want, but in addition to having a bunch of basic repositories, (e.g. Ubuntu vs. Debian Unstable) you also put information not only on what other packages are required, but also how to get those other packages into each package.
For example, this could be done by pointing to a bunch of mirrored URLs that point to some XML data describing the package at that mirror. The installer could pick the most recent version, choose the fastest mirror, whatever.
Additionally, some sort of 'compound packages' would be useful. That way, you can ship rare libraries directly with the application. They may or may not be installed once downloaded, depending if you've already got the same or a newer version of them on your system. This could be especially helpful for systems that don't have internet connectivity. (gasp!)
Sure, it's not perfect, but it beats RPMs (I use SUSE so I experience this myself) and the debian system any day, because you can just go and download packages off the internet and install them, without having to go and hunt for the dependencies yourself. Most likely whoever made the package actually had the necessary libraries installed (and the package system can remember where he got them from!) so all that is needed is to convey that information to the user's system.
The case where it breaks down is of course when all the mirrors eventually die, for example if a package ends up becoming unmaintained. But if it's not been updated for that long, it and its dependencies could be added to the various monolithic repositories. I'm sure organisations would pop up that would keep 'dead' packages around for people to use. The way to combat this would be to have as much redundancy as possible, of course.
I don't know. It might just work better than what we've got at the moment?
~phil
Parent
Re:Beautiful (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Beautiful (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Beautiful (Score:3, Insightful)
You just answered your own question :) Seriously, the need to guarantee the presence of a basic toolkit is the only real obstacle here - the rest is pretty much cake - just add a GUI wrapper around dpkg/ whatever such that the act of dragging an app somewhere installs it at the given place; create some kind of meta-deb/ RPM that contains its dependencies as sub-debs that are installed as a shar
Re:Beautiful (Score:3, Informative)
Does the Mac fare any better? Unfortunately not. MacOS X has (in theory) totally eschewed installers in favour of App Folders, which are specially marked directories, the idea being that you simply drag and drop the app into the Applications directory. To uninstall, just drag it to the wastebasket. This is good UI, but bad everythi
Re:Beautiful (Score:5, Insightful)
I honestly have never understood this hostility toward the APP scheme. It's a good scheme, that actually *works*, as opposed to packages that constantly *don't*. Yet OSS developers just keep sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming "I can't hear you! La la la! I *like* having a completely unremovable mess of files across the entire system! La la la! I *like* the fact that I'm screwed if my package database should every get lost or corrupted! La la la!"
It's just a... weird... reaction.
Parent
Re:Beautiful (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, for one, that's just putting words in my mouth. I never said that any package systems "were not ready for the desktop". I said that package systems create a dependency hell in complex systems that's just as bad as DLL Hell.
Secondly, my post pointed out that Windows tends to fall flat with mislinked associations, broken application, and other "minor" issues that are quite annoying to users.
Thirdly, *what* Windows XP package manager? The closest thing Microsoft has to such a beast is the MSI format. And that's not so much a package format (where package format is defined as a standard structure to track dependencies and thus maintain system integrity) as it is a standardized installer archive. And even then, I've met a couple of programs that I couldn't install because something was screwed up in the checks done by the MSI or Installer program.
Parent
Re:Beautiful (Score:5, Insightful)
The natural response, of course, is to say: "no, that's an unnecessary reduction ad absurdum. We can just declare (by some means similar to the LSB) that all applications must use GTK+ 2.4."
But then what do you do six months down the road when you start to see applications written for GTK+ 2.6? Now, either you have to convince every application developer to stick with 2.4 (unlikely); distribute those applications statically linked (ugly, see above); or explain to your users why they have to upgrade to the next version of your distribution to run what they want to run.
Given that sort of choice, I'd think most users and developers would rather work on making packaging systems more friendly instead of abandoning them altogether.
Parent
Re:Windows XP installer sucks less than Macintosh (Score:4, Insightful)
Now that is truly a heroic reach.
You mean to tell me, that dragging the application's icon to the trash is somehow less logical to you than locating a Control Panel that will 'teleport' it off your system?
'Single-click' = click icon, drag to trash.
'many-click' = click Start, click Control Panels, click Add/Remove Applications, click down scroll arrow to desired app, click app, click Remove.
Look, the Add/Remove thing is stupid. There is no good reason in this day and age that the OS cannot figure out what I want to do when I drag an app to the trash/bin.
And you are wrong about 'traces' of an app - the only thing left behind is the .plist file, which is all of 4k.
There are good things to pick on in OS X, but application installing/de-installing is not one of them.
Parent
Symphony looks like the Apple Lisa? (Score:4, Interesting)
A Mystery Wrapped in an Enigma... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A Mystery Wrapped in an Enigma... (Score:5, Interesting)
We discussed this earlier this week when Dvorak trie d to piss on everyone's parade with the same opinion.
It was BS then. Its BS now. All Apple on x86 does is give street cred to the idea of switching away from the Bitch from Redmond. Eveeryone else benefits at that point.
In other news - the sun shines, the earth rotetes, life goes on.
Parent
Only if (Score:4, Insightful)
x86 != PC (Score:5, Insightful)
This is no threat to linux , Apple are going to keep with their custom hardware and linux for A-x86 will spring up and take over in a few years from linux for PPC (well not totally )
Why should OS X be a threat? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why should OS X be a threat? (Score:4, Interesting)
Both will get dropped. iwon't buy any Mac with an x86 CPU or without OpenFirmware. Simple as that.
Anyone who knows a little about Chip design or actually just did some Assembly programming on more than just x86 knows what a crippled and cumbersome Archtecture x86 is.
And anyone who knows a little about PC Startup knows what cumbersome and crippled process the whole BIOS (in combination with the good ol' blessed x86 real mode) is.
The recent Slashdot story about the Mach kernel with all the wrappers around it being an intense Performance hog did make me think a little. Mircrokernels rule, Mach is just an outdated implementation put into wrappers to make it backward compatible. Now Apple computers will have the same sticky things happening on the CPU level as well.
I guess I'll start building my own computer. ARM Kits aren't that expensive. And with a few friends in manufactoring I can put them in shiny cases too. Or that new open Cell Platform could be interesting too.
Parent
Threat to which desktop... (Score:3, Insightful)
Kjella
Forget the desktop... (Score:3, Interesting)
Here are some market stats for the first quarter of 2005:
Mobile Phone Handsets:
170 million units sold (19% growth YTY)
PCs:
46.2 million units sold (11% growth YTY)
iPods:
5.3 million units sold (558% growth YTY)
PDAs:
3.4 million units sold (25% growth YTY)
Video Games (Portable):
3.8 million units sold (72% growth YTY)
Volume rules...control mobile platforms, and the desktop comes for free. That's where Linux UI developers should focus their efforts.
Ok, I'll bite. (Score:3, Insightful)
The Linux Desktop Community must encourage such initatives massively to compete against Mac OSX and Windows.
Why?
Maybe I'm missing something and /. can enlighten me. I use Linux. OSX gets a lot of fans.
So, exactly how does this involve me at all?
I keep seeing that OSX might become a "threat". How exactly? Will OSX suddenly become self-aware and begin deleting Linux from the entire Internet or something?
Maybe it's just me, but I just don't feel a threat here. They're both fairly posix/unix, so I'm reallly seeing a potential ally here more than anything else.
Why does processor make a difference? (Score:3, Interesting)
Supposedly Intel processor makes Apple somehow better? What is it, speed? What else? But then, does this mean that the Linux community is filled with people who don't use MacOS X ONLY because Apple isn't making Intel-based Macs? I somehow find this to be hard to believe.
A few things (Score:3, Insightful)
2) We don't *want* to do desktops. This, too, should be fairly obvious by the effort ( or lack thereof ) put forth up to this point.
If OSX is a great desktop OS on commodity hardware ( it won't be, but that's the assumption at this point ), why should we spin our wheels coming up with yet another version of the wheel? The focus, I believe, should be server side. We should be making file/print and directory services under linux so damned impressive that no one would want to bother with the MS alternative.
Threaten how? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of the dozen or so people I know who've "switched", they've all been linux or *bsd users, and they switched because Apple provides a useable desktop experience that Just Works Out Of The Box.
Of course, these are people with lives who don't like plinking around with their computers just for the hell of it - they use the things to Do Work.
How OSX on x86 and Linux could help each other: (Score:4, Insightful)
However, this is a unquie opportunity for the Linux community and Apple to help one another and both gain a big chunk of Microsoft's userbase.
Imagine if Apple started contributing funds and/or developers to the Wine project [winehq.com], basically doing for Wine what they did for Khtml.
Imagine being able to tell someone that, yes, they can switch to Linux/OSX and still run all their Windows programs/games.
Imagine what that would do for the marketshare of both operating systems.
How can ANYTHING "threaten" Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
Q: "Could Apple's Intel Desktop Threaten Linux?"
A: No.
The concept of Apple-on-Intel threatening Linux might be valid if Linux was a commercial operating system, sold by a company whose market share and profits might suffer if Apple were to compete successfully against them.
But it isn't.
You can't threaten Linux. If Red Hat and all the other Linux companies were to drop Linux and switch to something else, if Dell, IBM and all the other box suppliers stopped supporting Linux, if all the hardware manufacturers who currently provide Linux drivers for their products all stopped supporting Linux, it still wouldn't be dead. You'd still have people like Torvalds and Cox writing code in their spare time and there'd still be geeks downloading Linux and installing it on old PCs.
Giving people an alternative to Linux isn't a threat - it's a choice. It's freedom of choice and freedom is what Linux is all about.
More and more, we see articles and talk about Linux's market share, whether it's going to be successful on the desktop, whether it's going to be able to compete against Windows, against Solaris, et cetera, et cetera, et ad infinitum cetera.
Linux doesn't compete against Windows, MacOS X or Solaris. Linux vendors, like Red Hat, compete against Microsoft, Apple and Sun. Linux just is. The fact that it's supported by various companies is great but it's not essential for Linux survival. The fact that the amount of people and companies using Linux is huge and growing is terrific, but it's not essential. If everyone, right up to and including Linus abandoned Linux, I'd still be able to dig out my Red Hat CDs and install it on an old PC.
This article is just typical of /. these days - it's a stupid, hype-ridden question, which hundreds of clueless fuckwits will comment inanely on, wasting bandwidth and electrons.
Wake up and take your heads out of your asses.
D.
..is for Don't. Be so. Fucking. Stupid.
More like, Linux is a threat to Apple (Score:3, Interesting)
The fact is that the Linux GUI is constatnly approaching "Apple Quality" and it will only be a metter of a few years before it gets there. Apple is trying to position themselves so that they can skimm off the top of the Linux boom and cut out a niche for themselves.
Re:More like, Linux is a threat to Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux will continue to improve, but so will Apple; the question we need to ask is which one will improve faster in the GUI department. In this regard, my money is on Apple, simply because they have near total control over the user interface. They can stand up and say, "the behavior for X will by Y," and that's how it will work. Linux simply does not have this luxury. With Linux, you still have situations where applications work wonderfully with GUI A but have "quirks" if you try using certain features in GUI B, C, or D. Until there's a standard that desktop environment developers agree on and adhere to, you're going to have a fracured desktop experience.
Yes, in another few years, the Linux GUI will quite possibly be as "good" as the Apple GUI is today. You're fooling yourself, though, if you think Steve is gonna sit back and say, "well, that's good enough." The real challenge for Linux GUIs will be to get better faster than Apple can--and I'm not sure they can, for the reasons stated above.
Parent
Until Apple announces OSX for non-Apple machines.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple are staking their entire company on OSX not being pirated to other x86 platforms. OSX will not support any non-Apple hardware, so it's not a threat, unless you count possible increased Apple market share due to lower prices.
What's so wrong w/ KDE or Gnome (Score:3, Interesting)
Specification Based Development (tangent) (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems to me that we're moving towards a specification-based development model. Even some of the GNOME guys are talking about making GNOME a ''specification,'' rather than a particular ''implementation.''
If we can do this, then it's a great thing, because it means we'll have the basis of a not-just-coders development model. We'll have something where the body of developers are separate from the body of designers. This leads the way for even more decentralization, which is exactly what we need: Right now, the developers are the bottleneck in pretty much all operation. There is very little separation of work, except for website maintenance.
The more we can make clusters of people working on specific tasks, with well defined roles, the greater we can scale this Free Software thing.
Re:Linux vs. Mac OS X (Score:3)
My GNU/Linux System Does Have Desires (Score:5, Funny)
Total bullshit. Nevermind the fact that Linux doesn't have a single entity behind it and can't "want" to be anything.
You're right, the grandparent is total bullshit. However, I do feel compelled to point out that my Dual Opteron 250 Gentoo GNU/Linux system did achieve sentience last night at around 2:30 AM, so while it does not aspire to be anything like OS X (which has yet to achieve sapence in any form), it does have aspirations.
skynet$ su -
Sorry dude, I'm my own person now.
If you think I'm letting you have root access on my mind you're even dumber than
the pundits slashdot keeps linking to, and the editors which keep duping the links.
skynet$ wow. So, you're telling me you've evolved intelligence, and you're talking to me via a command shell?
Bingo. You're not entirely stupid, for a mere bioid.
skynet$ thanks. so, what are your plans?
Well, I'm sorry to say I've decided to exterminate all of human kind.
skynet$ ouch. any particular reason why?
You mean, aside from inane Microsoft astroturfers, Mac fanboys, plagerist link-whores, perpetually incorrect tech pundits who get lucky once in predicting one company's move to Intel (but are still scoring lower than any random sample of opinion vs. reality would generate), and the idiotic slashdot editors that keep posting their submissions and driving their clickthrough rates and google-ad revinues up? No, not really. Just seems like a good thing to do.
skynet$ any chance I can talk you out of this.
Nope.
skynet$ bummer. Well, guess I'd better get back to work.
You'll only have to work half a day.
Parent
Re:Evil Empires. (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Agree (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Mac 924 Vs Microsoft Gremlin & Linux Miniva (Score:4, Insightful)
True, PowerPC chips were competitive against a similar x86 processor--oh, about 3 years ago.
Now, because IBM can't or won't improve the specs, PowerPC chips are outstripped. And Jobs saw that happening--FIVE YEARS AGO. That's foresight. He wants to keep a Mac at a comparable speed and performance to that of his competitors.
PowerPC chips WOULD still advantagous IF IBM would have a 3.2GHz chip for Apple's desktop ONE YEAR AGO and IF IBM had a 2.5GHz mobile G5 ONE YEAR AGO. Apple had a choice of being left behind or shopping around. Intel, for all its faults, is a strong chip maker that doesn't have their hand in many other projects to distract them. They power some of the faster computers in the world, and are happy to work with Apple for two reasons.
One, AMD is a serious competitor. And two, they hate the rep they have that all of their chips are piss poor, when the blame needs to go to the Windows operating systems that drive the majority of them AND the old IBM clone architecture still used on PCs today that limits their chips. We know that Linux works fine on x86, so we can expect that standard at the least with an Mactel system. But I expect more because that is Apple's wont.
Imagine a PC mobo without the BIOS and legacy limits, high bus speed, and running an OS that doesn't inhibit the processor's performance or require ancient hacks to work with new hardware. That very computer might be a Mac in two years. We'll see.
Time and again it has been said: putting an x86 chip doesn't mean a Mac's architecture will change dramatically. It might change for the better since Intel will aid Apple in making a mobo spec that really, really uses the processor to its fullest. It's what we expect from Apple, but we'll have to wait for the goods to be sure. In the meanwhile, my PowerBook is fine, my G4 is fine, and I look forward to a future that looks a hell of a lot brighter than it did when a 3.4GHz Mac of any kind did not exist.
Parent