Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Jordan Hubbard (of FreeBSD Fame) Hired by Apple

Roblimo posted more than 12 years ago | from the sometimes-a-paycheck-is-nice-to-have dept.

BSD 215

Anonymous Coward and many others wrote in to tell us that Jordan Hubbard is going to work for Apple. Here's his post to the FreeBSD-announce mail list.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Re:What about i386? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#128072)

MS does NOT own a considerable chunk of Apple. The media spin on it was that MS was investing to save Apple's ass. Time spun a cover story on this, even the Pirates of Silicon Valley starts and ends with this premise.

It's bunk. The details of the agreement in light of the legal issues MS was facing, the patent disputes between the MS and Apple, and the favors between the two make it darn clear it was a mutually accepted and beneficial deal to them. Know what? It was and worked damn well. Apple got an influx of cash and a boost to its stock, got what ended up being the main browser ported to its platform, the dominant office suite, and avoided a potential drain from patent disputes with MS. MS got PR, money from the sales of software, attempted (but failed badly) avoid monopoly issues, and a financial hit from potentially losing to Apple on certain patents.

The investment is clearly non-voting stock. MS cannot and does not influence Apple with it. Stating as such is absolutely ludicrous and incredibly naive. In the computer industry, EVERYONE has money. No one gives a rat's ass what Ellison thinks because of his cash. His influence, like MSs over Apple, lies in what platform the software runs. If MS is pulling Apple's strings, it's not money. Apple has a $4 billion cash reserve. It would have been threatening to stop developing Office or Explorer on the Mac platform.

As your Mac coworkers know, and you clearly don't, MacOS X does not run on x86. Darwin does, OpenStep does, MacOS X probably could, but right now, it does not.

And the reason it does not and WILL not has nothing to do with MS. MS's currently plans are to infiltrate ALL platforms by providing services that are OS independent. .NET. If the Mac base uses their software more, MS wins.

The reason Apple will not do it is because they are a hardware company. Their claim to fame is their OS and GUI, but they make their money moving hardware. If they didn't, they'd be another Be. Now, why would Apple port MacOS X? That takes time, resources. Then you have to support all the crappy x86 hardware out there, and you know what I mean even if you are an x86 proponent--I wouldn't have bought an EpOX-branded board 4 years ago for a workstation machine or an ECS board today. Then there's the tech support.

Just to sell software at $120 a box? And then run in with the price wars between Compaq, Dell, and Gateway in the workstation and server market, reducing hardware profits to close to nil? That would reduce their cash flow, reduce R&D, and with the reduction in R&D related to hardware, a reduction in the design of signature Mac hardware--iow, company branding and trademark dress would take a huge hit.

Forget it. The x86 port won't happen for the masses. The ONLY way is they struck a deal with AMD and Tyan to make SMP Athlon 4s using 760MP and tried to go into the server market. And that's a slim chance given that they'd have an easier time just porting MacOS X server code to IBM's PPC-based mainframes, like the Power4.

*Not* *going* *to* *happen*.

Oh, btw, I use a Mac. And while we're whipping them out, I'd pit my Mac coworkers against your PC coworkers in a coding fest and bet some serious cash on my boys and girls.

Re:Yes, but bear in mind... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#128073)

Don't you know??? This troll that keeps popoing up is a ploy of the *BSD word. You see, since nobody is (apparently [due to the flawed statistics]) it seems really 1337 to all of the Mandrake(TM), RedHat(TM), etc. etc. Linux using newbies out there. They decide to try it, and possibly may get hooked on it, do something with it, or use it just to appear to be 1337. I'm not dissing in any linux or FreeBSD, *BSD, or whatever, becase I use them, and they do what I want. I'm just presenting my paranoid thoery.

What is and what's going to be (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#128074)

Apple is already giving back to the community. Although you might not like it, Darwin is a port of FreesBSD etc to the PowerPC architecture, which didn't exist before Apple got into Darwin. They are just playing a win-win strategy on this: W Sanchez contributed back things on several projects (BSD or GPL ones) both as a developer and as an Apple employee.

Jordan Hubbard will not work on MacOS X. Read the lines: he'll be manager of BSD technologies. So he won't work on a port of MacOS X to x86 (silly idea), he won't work on bringing aqua to Sun Solaris, he won't work on anything that's not BSD related, or shouldn't.

Apple had a good experience when they hired W Sanchez. His departure to the nice world of start ups and VC has left a big hole in the relationship between Apple and Open Source. See the comments from mac users and creators at latest machack regarding Apple's opportunity to leverage the open source movement. Their in-house comment is 'Apple's going to have difficulties to make things work'. They need someone with some strong ties to the community to evolve and keep sound relations.

Talking again about W Sanchez, see his comments regarding his time at Apple on his advocado page. He's been happy there because he's both worked on a great in-house project and continued working on Apache etc.

Among the stupidest things I've read here: Apple will not port OS X to x86, first things first and the first for them is to have a nice OS on their computers. Apple did not port Darwin to x86, others did, Apple merely said: 'that's nice, let's add a link for that somewhere'. Jordan is selling his soul -> hey no he's a developer working on BSD, it's just another company. Athlons are better than G4 -> well the Rolls Royce engine is better than the porsche engine.

One sure thing: all the relations Apple is trying to have with the Open Source community is an issue they have to take with care, otherwise another FUD war is going to spread against Apple, you know something like 'Open Source is endangering Apple' or 'Apple is stealing efforts from the Open Source community'. Both of which are so silly I wouldn't care to comment.

Overall Good News (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#128075)

I was as skeptical as anyone in the beginning regarding OS X... however, having started in computing with the Apple II line and only grudgingly moved over to the PC platform, I'd always hoped Apple would rise again to take over the world :-)

And I think they have a chance with OS X...

First off, the new iBook (the one released this year, not the George Foreman grill of generations past) is a slick piece of equipment. Actual ethernet jack, no dongles (aside from video outputs), built-in 802.11, and a battery life that actually surpasses 4 hours getting work done and listening to mp3's in OS X. Best part? IT'S COMPETITIVELY PRICED! I never thought I'd ever accuse Apple of pricing hardware competitively, but they did it. Base price is $1299.

Secondly, OS X is quite slick... it's unstable in parts (there's a couple rough edges here and there, and the stock e-mail client... well, I don't think it's designed for how much mail I get), but the core OS has only needed rebooting once (due to an NFS problem -- if an NFS issue bringing a system to its knees isn't a sign of a true unix, I don't know what is). This is on a laptop. Sleep mode works flawlessly, and the system wakes up within about 3 seconds. Moving between home and work (both with DHCP) involves no thought oncesoever... just plug the cable in, and everything's happy. New hardware? Plug it in. It'll probably work without any input oncesoever.

OS 9 emulation works fairly well... the Classic environment (where OS 9 apps run) takes awhile to load, but once it's running, it's just there and mostly swaps out. This is necessary for viewing PDF's, using SimpleText, and a couple other things still, but new OS X stuff is coming out frequently.

And, if that's not enough, I actually had a chick say "that's a beautiful thing" while I had it open and operational... I AM NOT JOKING! A CHICK ACTUALLY COMPLEMENTED MY NEW UNIX BOX!

Truly, this is a wonderful thing. All these years, THIS is what I've wanted Linux to be... and here Apple goes and does it. Check it out.

DISCLAIMER: I'm an Anonymous Coward 'cuz I'm too lazy to create an account, not because I work for Apple or something like that. I work for an ISP. I do network stuff. Chicks usually don't talk to me. Probably because I'm too lazy to create an account.

Re:a Good Thing (1)

rodgerd (402) | more than 13 years ago | (#128077)

Largest Unix vendor?

AAPL market cap: 8.373B

SUNW market cap: 48.982B

IBM market cap: 195.7B

Re:Mac OS on x86 (2)

Jordy (440) | more than 13 years ago | (#128079)

Look folks, Apple is a hardware company. That's were they really make their money. People buy their boxes in order to get the Mac OS. If they could run the Mac OS on cheaper x86 boxes many of them would choose to do so. Of course many people would still buy Titanium PowerBooks and iBooks for other reasons, but fewer.
I have always wondered about this one. If Apple is a hardware company, why do they sell software, including their own OS instead of just giving it away for free to drive up sales of their hardware?

It would seem to me that if you bloated Mac OS and added lots of fancy applications that load all sorts of extensions and gave it away for free, you could sell a lot more hardware after poor unsuspecting users "upgrade" and realize after a time that their computers seem sort of slow.

Of course, that's just the sneaky evil person inside me talking.

Re:a Good Thing (1)

J. J. Ramsey (658) | more than 13 years ago | (#128080)

As far as I can tell from Mr. Hubbard's post, he is not stopping his work on FreeBSD, so his presence on the FreeBSD team *won't* be missed.

Re:Microsoft replies: (1)

drsoran (979) | more than 12 years ago | (#128081)

Transmeta didn't! Their stock price has plunged since they realized they had to distribute a copy of the design plans for the CPU's along with every one sold. The clone makers in Taiwan have been having a field day. ;-)

Re:What about i386? (1)

xpurple (1227) | more than 13 years ago | (#128084)

This would be more trouble than you can imagine. You would have to have a second verison of OS X just to run on the x86. Then you would need two diffrent versions of all the software. Unless of course they build some emulation in, but that would suck.

In the end you would have nothing but a bunch of confused users who would have to look *really* close when buying software.

Re:16 tons, whaddya get? (1)

mlinksva (1755) | more than 13 years ago | (#128086)

Wind River isns't a small company: 1.4billion market cap, 2000 employees. I bet they compensate well, including insurance.

Slashdot Decline (2)

Jason Earl (1894) | more than 13 years ago | (#128087)

I remember a time when Jordan Hubbard didn't need an introduction here on slashdot. Oh well.

Re:Dawrin/FreeBSD Showdown? (2)

softweyr (2380) | more than 13 years ago | (#128089)

It's nice to for Jonathan to say he will continue to assist with the project, but what happens when his time becomes consumed at Apple, and he *has no* time for the FreeBSD project, how will FreeBSD stand up.

That's Jordan, not Jonathan, and the project will survive just fine. Jordan is one of approximately 250 committers on the FreeBSD project, programmers who are allowed to directly check in changes to the source code. He is also one of the 9 members of the Core Team, the group assigned to be roughly the supreme court of the FreeBSD project. Both bodies are large enough to run adequately with one member down, even one as active as Jordan.

If Jordan finds himself too busy to fully contribute to the Core Team, I would expect him to say so and step aside; he is certainly one of the most honest men I've ever met. In the first election for the FreeBSD Core Team held last fall, Jordan was one of the few members of the original Core Team members maintained by the voters, so his popularity among the FreeBSD project is not in doubt.

Rest assured that the FreeBSD project has not allowed itself to suffer from the "what happens if Linus gets hit by a bus" problem, unlike our friends in the Linux community. Our transition of power is assured, unless all of the committers scattered around the globe and all existing copies of the CVS archives -- several million by now -- were to be destroyed simultaneously.

Re:What about i386? (2)

RelliK (4466) | more than 13 years ago | (#128095)

I heard rumors that Apple had some sort of agreement with MS that it wouldn't invade i386 territory.

Yes, it went something like this: you don't release Mac OS for x86 and nobody gets hurt.
___

Re:What about i386? (1)

Tack (4642) | more than 13 years ago | (#128096)

Well, specifically x86 -- as in, Intel architecture. It's pretty much taken for granted that i386 == x86 == Intel architecture.

Jason.

What about i386? (3)

Tack (4642) | more than 13 years ago | (#128097)

Will Mac OS X ever be released for i386? I heard rumors that Apple had some sort of agreement with MS that it wouldn't invade i386 territory. Is there any truth to this? I can see Apple wanting to keep Mac OS X as an incentive to buy Mac hardware. But I think offering OS X for i386 will help OS X approach ubiquity and can only help the sale of Mac hardware indirectly.

So what's the bottom line? Anyone know the inside scoop?

Jason.

List of thoughts on hubbard@apple.com (5)

maggard (5579) | more than 13 years ago | (#128099)

First off kudos to Apple for hiring a great coder. While they've already got some strong talent in-house more can't hurt. Besides which Hubbard's FreeBSD skills should come in great use keeping MacOS X compatible with the BSD's.

For those already posting wild-assed assumptions (like it would kill these folks to look up their own answers - this is the web!) here's a couple of responses bundled up:

  • FreeBSD is *not* the basis of MacOS X. The kernel is different and the utilities are a hodgepodge from a number of BSD distribs.
  • Darwin is the MacOS X core and it's freely available. Indeed Apple has ported it to x86 (a platform they don't sell) and provides it the same support they do their PPC implementation. It's Open Source, go grab a copy for yourself.
  • Darwin is the core of MacOS X - it's NOT all of it. The Classic, Carbon, Quartz, QuickTime, etc. parts remain in house & aren't likely to be released. Some folks whinge on about Apple taking advantage of Open Source - well yeah, that's why folks used the licenses they did. On the other hand Apple's also been contributing back a lot too (unlike MS) and while they may not have released your favorite bits they've been playing fairly.
  • Yes Apple has rabid lawyers when it gets to things that involve their name & IP, especially their "look". Sure imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, on the other hand they spenty a lot developing their look & it's their trade dress.
  • There is no "secret agreement" between Apple & MS regarding using x86 (at least that anyone seriously believes.) MS makes good money off of their MacOS products and wouldn't likely be strongly impacted by Apple using x86. On the other hand Apple is very unlikely to do so for a long list of reasons. Finally any such agreement would get MS in to too much hot water.
  • Porting BSD tools to MacOS X varies in difficulty. For simple command-line stuff it's pretty straightforward, indeed lots of stuff makes just fine already. On the other hand taking advantage of MacOS X's Cocoa OO environment with it's "services", "frameworks", "packages" and other nifty stuff takes a bit more work.
  • For ports that do GUI there's some work involved in going from X to Quartz but it's entirely doable. X-under-Aqua is available but it's kinda missing the point of running MacOS in the first place. Java-stuff of course runs natively, uses the Aqua GUI via Swing.
What's Hubbard likely to do? There's a spot open for managing the Darwin porting. There's lots of BSD-harmonizing to do. Many parts of MacOS X are still being tuned so any help there is likely to be appreciated. There's also been a push to make MacOS X Server shine so that's also a likely source of work. Finally there's just basic evangelizing and developer relations.

Largest Unix vendor? (3)

larien (5608) | more than 12 years ago | (#128101)

With the release of OS X, Apple will literally be the largest Unix vendor on the planet.
Is that for real? Ok, they will be one of the largest, but I would have thought that Sun would have been largest, if not SCO (from what I've heard, a lot of people still use SCO Unix, even if new shipments are low). Anyone got any figures on this?
--

Re:What about i386? (1)

Art Tatum (6890) | more than 13 years ago | (#128102)

Then you would need two diffrent versions of all the software.

Mac OS X isn't really Mac OS--it's OPENSTEP 5.0/Mach. The OPENSTEP environment ran on four processor families and employed what was termed "fat binaries." A fat binary contained the platform specific code for all platforms (HPPA, Sparc, Intel, m68k). This was completely transparent. A nice additional feature is that you could run an application server with the fat binary on it and clients with different architectures could connect and run the application seamlessly.

Re:Mac OS on x86 (2)

jimhill (7277) | more than 13 years ago | (#128103)

You do understand that Emacs is no more a part of Darwin than Internet Explorer, right? You are capable of distinguishing between the operating system and applications that can run on it, right?

Running Apple software doesn't automatically grant you wisdom, knowledge, and insight any more than not running it denies you such things.

Grits? (1)

Graymalkin (13732) | more than 12 years ago | (#128116)

Congrats to Jordan for snagging a pretty sweel job over at Apple. I heard about this earlier today and found it pretty interesting. I think more experience with *BSD will help Apple out alot as they migrate from the old OS7 codebase to their MachBSD scheme. I don't see this though as Apple trying to grab an x86 developer and making him port shit to Intel processors. There's no need at all for Apple to switch ISAs. They are a hardware company and thus make their cash by selling hardware. Selling OSX for Intel machines would be ludicrous because no one would fucking buy it. Most PC users are anal enough about their "IBM Compatibles" without naysaying Apple for releasing a MacOS on Intel machines. A hundred million Windows/Intel users are not going to suddenly see the error of their ways and switch to MacOS or Linux for fuck sake. Jordan isn't being hired to port the Carbon library to x86. He's got useful experience with the type of development Apple has adopted for OSX. He's got the sort of experience to know when is a good time to release a kernel revision or how to manage a group responsible for a system component that no one will probably ever give a fuck about until it crashes.

Re:Don't start that BSD vs. GPL shit (1)

DES (13846) | more than 12 years ago | (#128117)

If I wanted my software to be TRULY and ALWAYS free that means I need a license that will prevent a corporation from taking my code and making a few alterations on it so they can pass it off as their own. The GPL protects your code from that. The BSD does not.

Noone can pass off a version of your software as their own unless you explicitly allow them to, and the BSD license explicitly forbids it just as much as the GPL does. And even if they did appropriate your software (or put a gun to your head and make you sign an exclusive license or a copyright assignment), that would not grant them control over previous versions released under the BSD license or the GPL. You can't revoke licenses you've already granted. All you can do is release new versions of your own (not anyone else's) software under a different license.


DES
--

Re:*this* is how you make money (1)

Zico (14255) | more than 13 years ago | (#128119)

Every now and then there's posters on /. who wonder how one makes money with Open Source. Well, read this press release, this is how you do it...

Heh, you mean having to take on a second full-time job? I think a lot of us already have enough trouble maintaining a social life as it is. :)


Cheers,

Re:What about i386? (3)

Zico (14255) | more than 13 years ago | (#128121)

Well, the only reason why Microsoft would want Apple to stay away from x86 is because they don't want to see Apple go out of business. It's to Microsoft's benefit to have Apple still be around.

See, the real reason why all MacOS-on-x86 plans have been canned is because Apple always realizes that it would be the quickest way to kill off Apple. Remember when those relatively small companies were putting a hurting on Apple by selling Mac clones? Now imagine Apple having to compete with Dell. Or competing with the entire x86 sector, which is about 15 times the size of Apple, telling everyone how much better and cheaper it is to run MacOS on an x86 instead of Apple hardware. Apple can get away overcharging for its hardware as long as they control the platform. When that goes away, so does Apple.

And even if you did get the same bang for the buck, Apple would have to fight the very strong argument of, "If you get an x86-based computer, you'll be able to run MacOS just like the PPC guys, but when you want or need to run one of those Windows-only based apps or games, just reboot and switch OSes — no more need for those slow emulators when you can just use the real thing". And if Apple ever really did do this, that argument would in a few quarters change to, "Well, Apple seems to be having troubles lately, maybe we should get our MacOS computer on an x86 instead of Apple hardware. I like Apple hardware better, but I want to be able to switch to Windows if Apple goes out of business."

Not gonna happen as long as Apple relies on its hardware sales to stay in business.


Cheers,

From Apple's publicsource-announce mailing list: (3)

Captain Nitpick (16515) | more than 13 years ago | (#128122)

(The original can be found at Apple's mailing list archive [apple.com] . If it asks for a username/password, use archives/archives.)
Subject: Jordan Hubbard joins Apple Computer
To: darwin-development@lists.apple.com, publicsource-announce@lists.apple.com
From: "Brett R. Halle"
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 16:06:21 -0700

I am pleased to announce that Jordan Hubbard has accepted a position within Apple's Core OS Engineering Department as the new manager of BSD Technologies, Apple Computer. Jordan is well known in the Open Source community and as a co-founder of the FreeBSD Project. Jordan comes to us from WindRiver Systems, where he was responsible for their FreeBSD CD-ROM product line. In his spare time, he is and continues to be an active member of the FreeBSD Core Team. For his "day job" at Apple, he will be responsible for leveraging BSD technology as part of Mac OS X as well as managing Darwin releases and Apple's partnership with the Open Source community.

Please join us in welcoming Jordan into his new role at Apple. We believe having someone at Apple with his unique combination of history, skills, and relationships will greatly enhance both Darwin and the larger BSD community.

Sincerely,
Brett Halle
Director, Core OS Engineering
Apple Computer


--

APL less free than BSD (1)

leandrod (17766) | more than 12 years ago | (#128129)

The interesting thing here is that APL, under which Darwin is released, is actually less free than BSD, and even than GPL... yet a leading BSD proponent will work with Apple. That should give food for thought for those who have made the point that they despise GPL for being less free than BSD.
--
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra
DBA, SysAdmin

Re:Mac OS X - FreeBSD overlap? (2)

Arandir (19206) | more than 13 years ago | (#128136)

Darwin *IS* substantially based on FreeBSD 3.2! There is not generic BSD to base it on!

So they had a choice of dragging out their ancient copy of 44BSD-Lite, or choosing amongst modern Free, Open or Net. The choice FreeBSD. All of the *BSDs have code from the others, so this is no slight against any of them.

How much of Darwin is based on parts of FreeBSD that are not part of BSD?

A nonsense question, really. FreeBSD *is* BSD. So are OpenBSD and NetBSD.

Re:First & last Mac Unix-like version? (2)

Arandir (19206) | more than 13 years ago | (#128137)

I've got Mac friends who are excited by OSX. But they don't plan to switch until all of the wrinkles get ironed out.

Dot-oh releases always suck. If the guys at your office didn't want to experiment they shouldn't have switched. That's no fault against OSX.

If Mac people don't want to have anything to do with Unix, they don't have to! It's like two operating systems in one, and you have the choice of using one, the other, or both. Let's see the Window guys do that...

Re:What about i386? (1)

otomo_1001 (22925) | more than 13 years ago | (#128143)

I know not to feed the trolls but I can't resist.

The reason Apple will not do it is because they are a hardware company. Their claim to fame is their OS and GUI, but they make their money moving hardware. If they didn't, they'd be another Be. Now, why would Apple port MacOS X? That takes time, resources. Then you have to support all the crappy x86 hardware out there, and you know what I mean even if you are an x86 proponent--I wouldn't have bought an EpOX-branded board 4 years ago for a workstation machine or an ECS board today. Then there's the tech support.

EpOX and ECS aside, who ever said that Apple supports ALL x86 hardware?

If (and I doubt this) they do, it would be wise for them to build a mac with specific x86 hardware components and support these only and rely on custom motherboard/bios designs to make sure that only their x86 harware is used. (forgive the run-on my english teacher) Then they can partner with nVidia and release a custom motherboard video card combo that beats normal x86 hardware, and is incompatible with other motherboards.

Does this sound crazy to anyone? I just ate alot of nachos so watch out. :)

Oh, btw, I use a Mac. And while we're whipping them out, I'd pit my Mac coworkers against your PC coworkers in a coding fest and bet some serious cash on my boys and girls.

Real professional of you, your post was moderation worthy up to here.

Re:Good for Him (1)

Lazaru5 (28995) | more than 13 years ago | (#128148)

Who said he wasn't staying with FreeBSD? He was part of the patchkit team that birthed FreeBSD and he was the first full time employee of WC CDROM to work on FreeBSD. He ate then and he ate when he worked at BSDi and Wind River. He's just eating better maybe at Apple ;), but he still plays the same role in the FreeBSD project that he always has.

Did you even read the message? For that matter, do you ever read any stories? "as I understand it"..where the hell have you been for the last 2 years?

--

Re:Probably Not a Problem (2)

Lazaru5 (28995) | more than 13 years ago | (#128149)

The only thing he's leaving is Wind River. Linux works for Transmeta, but he's still at the top of the Linux pyramid.

JKH is still the chief PR spokesman for FreeBSD and it's release engineer and Core team member.

THAT HAS NOT CHANGED.

--

Apple NEEDS to get out of the hardware business (1)

leereyno (32197) | more than 13 years ago | (#128150)

All of the arguments you make only work if Apple were to continue creating and selling proprietary hardware. The truth is that if they want any market share they need to ditch the hardware so they can actually compete. There are a few people out there willing to go buy a new mac, usually because they are either already mac users or quite frankly don't know any better. Anyone who is currently a PC user isn't about to go buy a mac. So where does that leave Apple? Going after the ever shrinking market for first time computer buyers.

But if they ditch the hardware they won't have to beat both Microsoft and the myriad of PC hardware vendors, they'll be able to leverage the PC just like Microsoft has. This is is why Linux is such a success, it isn't because its free and it isn't necessarily because it is such a great OS. Linux is popular because you can run it on the computer you already own without giving up the OS and software you're already using.

I can assure you that Apple is well aware of this fact and that the Linux phenomena has not been overlooked by them. If they are smart they will choose to compete and stop fooling themselves into thinking that they are somehow special and that the law of the jungle does not apply to them. If they are not smart the law of the jungle will ensure that they die, regardless of what Microsoft does to keep them alive as token competition.

Lee

Graphic artists are a niche market (3)

leereyno (32197) | more than 13 years ago | (#128151)

If Apple wants to survive they have to cater to more than what a niche market likes or prefers. Apple has to go for the mainstream because that is the only way they are going to stay alive. Mainstream users are used to the fluid multitasking and efficient behavior of Windows. Sticking with an antiquated OS architecture that just can't keep up is a sure way to make themselves even more marginalized than they are already.

So far OS-X hasn't really delivered. It does multitask better, but it is very sluggish and its user interface behavior leaves something to be desired.

Hopefully they'll do what needs to be done to get the efficiency up and then port it to the PC. If they don't they can kiss their ass goodbye because no one is going to buy slower hardware to run a slower OS just because they want to "think different."

Lee

Re:a Good Thing (1)

rabidMacBigot() (33310) | more than 13 years ago | (#128152)

I think the metric in this case is units shipped, rather than overall size of the vendor. I don't know the specific numbers and I'm too lazy to check, but I'm pretty sure that Apple ships more machines than any other Unix vendor. If someone would like to back this up or shoot it down with real numbers...

--

Re:Overall Good News (1)

TheInternet (35082) | more than 12 years ago | (#128155)

the Classic environment (where OS 9 apps run) takes awhile to load, but once it's running, it's just there and mostly swaps out. This is necessary for viewing PDF's, using SimpleText, and a couple other things still, but new OS X stuff is coming out frequently

There's an OSX native version of Acrobat available for download, and Apple's built-in Preview app gives you no-frills PDF viewing as well. And why are you using SimpleText? TextEdit is a much better RTF editor, and you can use BBEdit or a million other plain text editors.

- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu [wildtofu.com]

Re:What I don't like about OS X... (1)

TheInternet (35082) | more than 12 years ago | (#128156)

That and also the fact you need at least a 600 G3 so that desktop navigation doesn't take all day.

RAM is more important than CPU power, and the biggest consumer of memory is Classic, the Mac OS 9 compatibility environment. As more apps become native, the need for Classic should deminish.

- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu [wildtofu.com]

Re:Largest Unix vendor? (3)

TheInternet (35082) | more than 12 years ago | (#128157)

Is that for real? Ok, they will be one of the largest, but I would have thought that Sun would have been largest, if not SCO (from what I've heard, a lot of people still use SCO Unix, even if new shipments are low). Anyone got any figures on this?

Apple tends to sell roughly 4-5 million machines a year on average. Although that was a bit lower in the last couple of quarters due to the downturn in the economy, their new Ti PowerBooks and iBooks appear to be big hits (having trouble finding one for my sister at the moment). It looks like they sold at least 150,000 copies of Mac OS X to users the first weekend it was out back in March.

I don't know how this compares to Sun, HP, etc in terms of unit sales.

- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu [wildtofu.com]

Re:Mac OS on x86 (3)

TheInternet (35082) | more than 12 years ago | (#128158)

Look folks, Apple is a hardware company. That's were they really make their money. People buy their boxes in order to get the Mac OS. If they could run the Mac OS on cheaper x86 boxes many of them would choose to do so. Of course many people would still buy Titanium PowerBooks and iBooks for other reasons, but fewer.

That's sort of the picture the mass technology media has painted, but I think the reality is considerably more complex than that. There's not really enough room to explain the whole thing here but the essence of the issue is that Apple creates complete products. They are not merely an OS vendor, nor are they a hardware assembly service.

As far as I can tell, Apple and Sony are the only desktop hardware companies left actually developing products -- which is why their machines cost more. There are hardware companies that mainly buy components, put them all together, and try to charge slightly more than what it cost them to build the machine. We have plenty of these types of companies.

Mac OS X for x86 would give some people people immediate, short-term gratification, but I think it would really kill one of the industry's key sources of innovation in the long term. Bottom line: there's little reason to create Mac OS X applications when the same people have Windows-capable (or Linux-capable) hardware. The result: lack of differentiation, and lack of progress. 50% of the population thinks Apple's software sells the hardware, the other 50% thinks that the hardware sells the software. It's neither. It's a symbiotic relationship -- they rely on and complement each other. But this isn't immediately obvious to the user. They take these things for granted, and just see it as part of "the computer."

For example, the PowerPC runs at lower temperatures and uses less energy than its x86 counterparts. This is why several of Apple's machines are fanless, and substantially quieter as a result. And it does this so while providing more performance per clock cycle.

Few actually seem to notice, but Apple is in the process of creating substantial long-term value in the company. Revamping the OS, reinventing the hardware, fixing the advertising, opening retail stores, creating (free) industry-leading developer tools, and releasing open source software. These are all elements of building infrastructure. One by one, they're removing the barriers in front of them. They're in this for the long haul. Relegating them to an x86 OS vendor would dash any hope of true variety in commercial computing options.

(Voline, I realize your comment was not meant to be anti-Apple)

- Scott

--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu [wildtofu.com]

Re:Kick in the pants (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 13 years ago | (#128159)

Silicone Valley is a few miles south of here. Also known as LA.

Re:Smart move (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 13 years ago | (#128160)

This was unquestionably Jobs' idea.

Congrats to Jordan and Apple both. (2)

jcr (53032) | more than 13 years ago | (#128161)

This is terrific news. As Jordan mentioned, Apple will shortly be the UNIX volume leader, and I'm glad to see one of the leading lights of the BSD world joining them.

Now, all we need is an open-source re-implementation of Quartz. Once we take X windows out behind the barn and shoot it through the head, then UNIX will reach its full potential on *all* platforms.

-jcr

Re:Mac OS X - FreeBSD overlap? (1)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 13 years ago | (#128162)

Actually, more of the code is from OpenBSD and NetBSD than FreeBSD, according to an Apple Engineer.

Apple giving back (1)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 13 years ago | (#128163)

Finally, I think Jordan is right when he says that Apple will give back to the Open source community. Apple's been flamed on /. many times over their "all take, no give back" policy toward open source. Well, looks like they're improving. It'll be interesting to see what Apple does give back in the next year.

Re:OS X on Intel/AMD hardware just got a step clos (1)

bnenning (58349) | more than 13 years ago | (#128165)

There are a huge amount of PowerPC Macs out there, and they are going to be "obsolete". That means a lot of people are going to be pissed, most likely.

True, however a large number of Mac fans are already pissed at Apple and Motorola for the extremely poor rate of PowerPC improvements.

I dunno if the Carbonated apps can simply be recompiled for something for x86. Probably not.

Carbon is essentially a complete rewrite of the classic Mac OS API to run on BSD and Mach. Considering they've gone to some trouble to make Darwin x86-compatible, I would think they also had portability in mind when writing Carbon and Quartz. There may not be x86 machines running Mac OS X in secret Apple labs today, but I suspect they could do it in not very much time if they had to.

Yes, but it will be Apple+Intel hardware (1)

Slur (61510) | more than 12 years ago | (#128167)

Psst...

All Apple really needs to do is decide to only support certain components - "Apple Certified" and write the drivers for those and those alone, then as long as you had a CHRP box you could use any of the supported components.

Of course that's just their opening act. After that there's an onslaught of component-makers suddenly porting over their device drivers to Darwin, and the whole cycle that Windows once spawned will begin again - only this time you won't have to buy a special pass from BillG to get a peek at the API calls for the OS. But you will have to give Apple $130 if you want to use their GUI, the Cocoa APIs, and the intense graphics services of Quartz, OpenGL, and QuickTime.

What's going to happen in the long run is kind of weird for Apple. Already there are a dozen or more GUIs that build on X-Windows and provide all the WIMP we need. Nothing precludes this from happening on MacOS X and in fact it's already underway. What's going to matter for Apple in the long run is that they protect their sources of revenue - currently that's a lot of precious holy hardware with an appliance-like styling and intent. There are good reasons to tie the OS to the hardware when you consider what would happen to that whole side of Apple's business and their emotional investment in the promise of the PowerPC.

What I forsee is not MacOS on your average PC. The only option for Apple is to make their own Intel or AMD boxen with very specific hardware support for the standard ports we find in all Macs - Firewire, USB, Ethernet, ATA.... Yep, that's got to be it.

--------
Yeah, I'm a Mac programmer. You got a problem with that?

Re:OS X on Intel/AMD hardware just got a step clos (1)

uweber (61619) | more than 12 years ago | (#128168)

If Apple really feels that they can not compete using Motorolas PowerPC, it is a lot more likely that they will move to the 'Power'(no PC there) line from IBM which is compatible with the PowerPC and 64Bit (Power is to PowerPC like UltraSparc is to Sparc).

And with IBM getting to ship more of them they should get into the pricerange of x86 procs,too.
--Ulrich

Dawrin/FreeBSD Showdown? (3)

joq (63625) | more than 13 years ago | (#128170)


I will also continue to support WindRiver's efforts in any way I can to ensure that the FreeBSD product line there continues and that FreeBSD can continue to be a solution which is broadly applicable to a wide array of markets.

The FreeBSD product line has reached the stage where I feel comfortable taking a job which allows me to focus more on Darwin. While I have enjoyed my time working with the people and projects at BSDi and WindRiver, I simply couldn't resist the
opportunity of working at Apple.


Nice move on his behalf as everyone needs to make a living, however I wonder a few things. How will this impact FreeBSD in the future. It's nice to for Jonathan to say he will continue to assist with the project, but what happens when his time becomes consumed at Apple, and he *has no* time for the FreeBSD project, how will FreeBSD stand up.

Another curiousity is, whether or not Apple has plans to move into another arch. Surely Jonathan could provide them with a variety of snippets on how to get it going, and if this does happen, how would FreeBSD compete with a company like Apple.

Now for the record *BSD is dying posts* will be ignored so don't bother trolling, I would like to hear perhaps from a developer what actions (if any) could, and would FreeBSD take, should Apple decide to switch into the i386 arena with Darwin.

Also I wonder how this will affect others who may be looking to focus more on themselves, as time becomes more valuable, and others decide to follow suit focusing more on a company and themselves, rather than the OS (FreeBSD). Are there backup developers, or does the team distribute the work left behind by a developer who jumped ship.

P.S. I hope the developers still aren't pissed at me these (1 [freebsd.org] 2 [freebsd.org] )

Re:Dawrin/FreeBSD Showdown? (2)

bugg (65930) | more than 13 years ago | (#128171)

His name is Jordan.

Re:a Good Thing (2)

bugg (65930) | more than 13 years ago | (#128172)

When did he say he was leaving FreeBSD?

Maybe he can get them to open the Sorenson codec (2)

Scurrilous Knave (66691) | more than 12 years ago | (#128174)

Sure would be nice to be able to play Sorenson-encoded Quicktime movies on my Linux box. Heck, I'd even install *BSD if that's what it took.

Re:Dawrin/FreeBSD Showdown? (1)

john82 (68332) | more than 13 years ago | (#128175)

Now for the record *BSD is dying posts* will be ignored so don't bother trolling, I would like to hear perhaps from a developer what actions (if any) could, and would FreeBSD take, should Apple decide to switch into the i386 arena with Darwin.

One more time for those who haven't been following this same question in the Mac forums since Apple bought Next.

As long as the Steve is running Apple, there won't be OSX on 386. Period. This one's been what-if'ed into the ground. Just isn't going to happen and the reason is simple. Apple makes money from hardware. PC clones are cheap. Apple would have to adopt an entirely different business model and the Steve continues to say "No way".

Would I be the first in line to PAY for OSX if they did? Damn straight. But I've gotten tired of wishing. This isn't a technical issue. It's a business issue.

*this* is how you make money (2)

DreamerFi (78710) | more than 13 years ago | (#128177)

Every now and then there's posters on /. who wonder how one makes money with Open Source.

Well, read this press release, this is how you do it...

-John

Re:What about i386? (1)

barneyfoo (80862) | more than 12 years ago | (#128179)

Just because apple produces their OS for x86 systems doesn't mean taht dell now gets a license to put Macos on their X86 boxes.

So if apple did make an X86 Macos they wouldn't end up competing with Dell anymore than they do now.

Your point about dual booting your Mac x86 box is fallacious. Apple would prevent windows booting on their x86 boxes. Furthermore, being on x86, apple's emulator for windows would run VERY fast and have a potential for native windows speed.

Apple only goes to x86 because it reduces costs, gets them out the poorly performing ppc market (Motorolla's cpus are really shitty compared to intels, frequency being a big part). I think you totally misread the apple on x86 hypothetical. You assumed all the wrong things.

Re:Mac OS on x86 (1)

Cybertect (85900) | more than 12 years ago | (#128180)

Actually, this used to be the case back in pre-System-7 Days. You could walk into any AppleCentre with a bunch of floppy disks (about 4 usually) and ask for a copy of the Operating System - they would often charge you for their time copying the disks, I think it was about £10, but the OS itself was free of charge. I did it myself when upgrading my MacPlus (1MB RAM with a 10MB Rodime hard disk and I managed to 3D model a conference centre in Paris for final year Architecture project on it... those were the days :-)

You can still download older versions of the Mac OS up to 7.5.5 for free at Apple's FTP sites. Granted, however, that they won't work on anything built after 1997.

If you want to understand those mac users (2)

Ukab the Great (87152) | more than 13 years ago | (#128181)

http://homepages.tesco.net/~David.Lockwood/Macinto sh_RIP.html

Screw less free (2)

Ukab the Great (87152) | more than 12 years ago | (#128182)

It's those hieroglyphs that really suck.

Re:Slashdot Decline (3)

acoopersmith (87160) | more than 13 years ago | (#128184)

Of course not - everyone should remember when he rwall'ed the entire ARPAnet [ncl.ac.uk] and in doing so single-handedly forced the invention of the firewall...

I'll take the bait (4)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 13 years ago | (#128195)

Oh, please.

"the next version wil be a lot less *nix-y". Uh. Not likely, they've pinned their future on OS X and its BSD foundation.

The graphic artists in your office who downgraded, its probably because Adobe has been slow off the mark in Carbonizing their apps. If they're like most graphic artists, they are dead in the water without Illustrator and Photoshop. "Low level access" to their computers has nothing to do with it. OS X protects users from having to do anything at the command-line. It's a different user experience than OS 9, but it's certainly not giving them anything like the complexity associated with the average Linux installation.

Apple would not have done better by continuing with OS 9. They've squeezed as much as they can out of a very old OS with no protected memory, no preemptive multitasking, and limited networking power. Not to embrace *NIX would have been suicide.

As for wanting "low-level access", a lot of Mac users do want it, but those that don't want it don't have to bother with it. Gee, what a concept!

Re:Slashdot Decline (2)

cperciva (102828) | more than 12 years ago | (#128196)

Right. And everyone should remember when a worm infected over a hundred thousand RedHat systems [cnet.com] and in so doing single-handedly (do worms have hands?) demonstrated that applying security patches is very, very important.

Unfortunately, many people seem to have forgotten that lesson as well.

Re:Mac OS on x86 (1)

Skrap (105397) | more than 13 years ago | (#128197)

You said:
Apple will not be porting the Mac OS to x86 for the same reason that Steve Jobs won't allow the smallest bit of GPLed code into Darwin. It would put Apple out of business.

Ready?
1) Emacs is GPL'd
2) Emacs is included into the OS X install.
Thus, I show you to be wrong.


Here's an idea: let's require those who are commenting on apple's software to include a disclaimer in the same vein as IANAL. We could call it IDRAS (I Don't Run Apple Software).

Well, in any case, IRAS. I'd guess this guy didn't.

*BSD Trolls Are Dying (3)

zulux (112259) | more than 13 years ago | (#128199)

Here goes my Karma.....snif...

CmdrTaco confirmed this week that *BSD trolls account for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all Slashdot posting. This news serves to reinforce what we've known all along; *BSD trolls are collapsing in complete disarray.

You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict a *BSD Troll's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD Trolls face a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD Trolls because sooner or later, their Windows95 boxes will hang. As many of us are already aware, *BSD Trolls continues to be moderated down to -1. Red ink flows like a river of blood. Anonymous Coward is the most endangered of them all.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers. Amiga Troll leader Anonymous Coward states that there are 7,000 Amiga Trolls on Slashdot . How many *BSD Trolls are there? Let's see. The number of Amiga versus Emacs Trolls roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7,000/5 = 1,400 Emacs Trolls. Hot-Grits Trolls on Slashdot are about half of the volume of Emacs Trolls. Therefore there are about 700 Hot-Grits Trolls. A recent article put *BSD Trolls at about 10 percent of the Hit-Grits Trolls. Therefore there are 700*.10 = 70 *BSD Trolls. This is consistent with the number of *BSD Troll postings.

Due to the troubles of *BSD Trolls karma and so on, Anonymous Coward went down this weekend, and was taken over by by a small shell script. That shell script was running on a leased Dell, and was taken back by the Dell Leasing for failure to pay. The computer was re-leased to a charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD Trolls have steadily declined in market share. *BSD Trolls are very sick, and look vaguly like the goatse.cx guy. Their prospects are very dim. If *BSD Trolls are to survive at all it will be among Microsfot-OS dabblers.. Nothing short of a miracle could save them at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD Trolls are dead.

Re:What about i386? (3)

Smitty825 (114634) | more than 13 years ago | (#128200)

I agree it would be cool to see OS-X on Intel/Alpha/Sparc hardware. I realize that it could cannibalize Apple's hardware sales, but if they only brought OS-X server to i586, then they might not hurt their sales. Apple doesn't sell *true* server hardware. Also, businesses may feel more comfortable buying into a Samba server replacement for WinNT from Apple as opposed to (insert your favorite linux vendor here). OS X Server is much more expensive than the client, so they will be making back their money that they "lost" from software sales.

but before Apple does that, they need to optimize their OS greatly. It feels really slow (people say its because of a poorly written finder, but that still needs improvement) and it's a memory hog (an 800x600 window uses just under 2MB of memory...imagine what having lots of windows open does to system performance)

Re:What about i386? (3)

Smitty825 (114634) | more than 13 years ago | (#128201)

That's one of the things that is so cool with Apple (well, Next's old) development tools. When you are writing the program you select which processor(s) you wish to compile for. It compiles the binaries and sticks all apps into one folder. When the user double clicks that folder, it launches the correct binary for the processor!

Re:What about i386? (4)

ctembreull (120894) | more than 13 years ago | (#128202)

> speculation: What if apple made x86 hardware, and ported OS X ?

Good idea, and one that I've heard before, with varying degrees of enthusiasm. Unfortunately, the old adage that just because you can do a thing doesn't necessarily mean that you should do that thing.

Follow my logic here, if you will.

Apple has long-standing hardware relationships with IBM/Motorola. Transitioning to x86 or even IA-64 would mean abandoning those relationships. Apple also has a very good processor in the PPC, and a large amount of time, money and code invested in AltiVec (the vector-processing capabilities of the G4 processor). I don't see Apple willing or even able to discard those relationships with any degree of ease.

"But what about selling both?" you may ask. And it's a good question. The answer is that Steve Jobs would have kittens - he worked very hard when he first became iCEO to get rid of excessive fragmentation of Apple's hardware products. Apple has revived itself on the strength of its four main offerings ("Consumer" and "Pro" desktops and portables - iBook, PowerBook G4, iMac, and Power Macintosh G4, for the uninitiated). To all of a sudden add completely different hardware into that mix - hardware that is fundamentally incompatible with everything Apple has ever produced - would break that successful, efficient model on a number of very basic levels.

Lastly, there's the Microsoft factor. Microsoft has virtually complete ownership of the OS market (Linux, *BSD, and micro-niche players excluded, natch) on X86. They are quite obviously aiming to continue that tradition on IA-64. The notion of Apple invading that space would lead to a number of typically Microsoftian reactions that would more than likely do severe damage to Apple's bottom line. It's an easy progression to imagine: first stage, Microsoft kills development of IE for Mac. Second stage, they kill development of Office:mac. Third stage, they "compete aggressively" (also pronounced "lie, cheat, and steal") to reduce QuickTime to irrelevance. Lastly, they use the momentum generated from those three maneuvers to point out that the Mac OS in any form (FUD, FUD, FUD) is now useless, as it now lacks an office suite, no longer possesses a leading web browser, and comes bundled with an irrelevant media creation/playback suite. Furthermore, (FUD, FUD, FUD) it uses (*gasp*) Open Source Software!

Any one of these things would be mitigatable. All of them would represent the complete and utter destruction of Apple. Maybe some folks around here consider that to be no great loss. But it will be - where would desktop computing be without Apple around to stea^H^H^H^H get ideas from? Face it, I think most folks actually enjoy seeing what sort of crazy, cool new or old-but-facelifted technologies come out of Cupertino.

I myself would genuinely love to see OS X on x86 hardware. I'd *love* to be able to use it instead of Windoze on the cheap-yet-powerful commodity hardware that is coming around on the x86 side of the market. But I know in my heart of hearts that Apple will never, ever, ever do anything that would give Microsoft an opportunity to force them out of business.

Sad, isn't it?

Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.

Microsoft replies: (4)

AMuse (121806) | more than 13 years ago | (#128204)

He can't work there - that means they'll have to give every copy of OSX away for free! Can't they see the error of their ways?
------------------------------------------- -------

Kick in the pants (1)

stox (131684) | more than 13 years ago | (#128206)

Will Apple make Open Source mainstream?

Will Jordan find happiness in Cupertino?

Will FreeBSD end up conquering the world?

The answer to these, and other questions, in the next episode of, "Silicone Valley".

Re:Yes, but bear in mind... (1)

Ziest (143204) | more than 13 years ago | (#128208)

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

This clown is completely full of shit. He has posted the SAME post 23 time in this thread. Is this a loser or what? I run the BSD counter page [bsdcounter.org] . It is still a work in progress and has not been advertised much but at the moment I have 43,013 verified FreeBSD users in my database. This loser, in demonstrating that he failed statistics, says there are no more than 36,400 FreeBSD users. My count also does not include the BSDi, OpenBSD, NetBSD, or OsX users. And given that *BSD is more a server OS than Linux the count of machines running *BSD is going to be much higher than Linux.

For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Dead, my kosher ass! Run along, little boy, and annoy someone else.

You'd better set JKH straight (1)

partingshot (156813) | more than 12 years ago | (#128214)

From his letter:
"Darwin is substantially based on FreeBSD 3.2"

I don't know if that qualifies as a 'basis'
or not in you definition, but I would certainly
say the kernel isn't _THAT_ different.

Re:Mac OS on x86 (1)

TotallyUseless (157895) | more than 12 years ago | (#128215)

The OS sells the boxes, the boxes keep Apple in business. Simple.

Re:What about i386? (1)

tepisch (180481) | more than 13 years ago | (#128226)

What about OS X to be released on Itanium? It may sound crazy, but they could choose -not- to support i386 compatability, which is supposed to be slow anyway, and have a 'real' operating system in place well before Microsoft's 3rd or 4th OS release for this platform. (Meaning that NT didn't get exciting until Win2K, Windows until 95 OSR 2 or 98, depending on who you ask). Am I crazy? If so, tell me why...

Re:Improvements to MacOS X (1)

Senjaz (188917) | more than 12 years ago | (#128227)

The Quartz compositor in Mac OS X is fast. Although more optimisations can be done it is not the source of the apparently sluggish GUI.

Two things give the user the impression that the Mac OS X GUI is slow:

1. The new Finder is badly written. It uses Metrowerks PowerPlant framework and it is slow. Since this it what most people think of as the GUI they mistakenly conclude that it is the Quartz core graphics system when that is not the case. Not all apps exibit this lack of speed

2. Live window resizing. Nice eye candy but unusable on anything but the fastest of Macs. I don't know why it is this way.

Speed optimisations are the next thing that Apple is working on for Mac OS X. You have to appreciate how big a deal it was for them to get a new OS out the door.

Re:Largest Unix vendor? (2)

Senjaz (188917) | more than 12 years ago | (#128228)

Yes, Apple will be the largest UNIX vendor. Largest in terms of number of users.

I'll probably get slated here for pointing out the obvious...

The Mac installed base is far bigger than any UNIX even Linux. Even if you just count the number of iMacs Apple sold since its introduction.

The reason, there are far more consumers in the world who just want to buy a computer that works out of the box than people who want to tinker with every aspect of their OS.

Those people won't know that they are using a UNIX based OS nor will they care.

Linux may be strong and increasing in strength in the server market but it does not make an addiquate desktop OS. How many /.ers have only a single boot system into Linux?

Anyone who has a dual boot system with Windows is effectively saying you can't live without it.

Anyone can easily and fairly accurately work out how many Mac users there are - just count Apple's hardware sales for the past few years.

Now compare with the hardware sales of Sun, HP, et al.

You can't do the same with Linux, do you count anyone who has even seen Linux? only the purists who do with out Windows totally? or count people with dual boot systems as part of the base? But how do you count these people? So the best anyone can do is guess. Even when you have the figures do you add up the total of all the distros or keep them separate?

News for nerds... (1)

sasha328 (203458) | more than 13 years ago | (#128233)

Gee, nerds need to get a life if it is considered news when someone changes jobs!

Probably Not a Problem (2)

Voline (207517) | more than 13 years ago | (#128234)

Given that the BSD license does not require that all derivative works be made freely available as source, Hubbard bringing his tricks to work on OS X won't be a problem for Apple.

Will this be a problem for FreeBSD? The guy has to work somewhere. Torvalds works for Transmeta, why not Hubbard at Apple? I admit that there may be some problem for FreeBSD (besides loss of a talented developer) that I'm overlooking.

Hopefully this will get Apple ready for those hordes of users that .NET and Smart Tags are going to drive to their platform.

Mac OS on x86 (2)

Voline (207517) | more than 13 years ago | (#128235)

Apple will not be porting the Mac OS to x86 for the same reason that Steve Jobs won't allow the smallest bit of GPLed code into Darwin. It would put Apple out of business.

Look folks, Apple is a hardware company. That's were they really make their money. People buy their boxes in order to get the Mac OS. If they could run the Mac OS on cheaper x86 boxes many of them would choose to do so. Of course many people would still buy Titanium PowerBooks and iBooks for other reasons, but fewer.

So don't hold your breath waiting for the chance to run OS X on an Athlon box, it isn't going to happen. If it's speed you crave, just wait for IBM to put their silicon on insulator and .09 micron technologies to work on the PowerPC chip. It'll catch up then.

Re:a Good Thing (1)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 13 years ago | (#128239)


no, but he states how he believes that leaving BSDi/Windriver is ok at this time because FreeBSD has reached a certain point. I took this to mean his time available for FreeBSD would be lessened.

Scott

a Good Thing (2)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 13 years ago | (#128240)

I think this is a good thing overall, though his presence on the FreeBSD team will surely be missed.

Like he states--Apple will literally soon be the largest UNIX vendor on the planet. This means more exposure, more people skilled in UNIX, and more jobs for the programmer types.

Definitely a good thing. While Open Source is good, I put my faith more in the forces of Capitalism to make something succesful :) (not that the two are mutually exclusive)

Scott

Re:What about i386? (1)

Eharley (214725) | more than 13 years ago | (#128241)

The rumors about Mac OS X and i386 are quelled here at www.opensource.apple.com

The FAQ [apple.com] online reads:

Q. What is Darwin?

A. Darwin is a version of the BSD UNIX operating system that offers advanced networking, services such as the Apache web server, and support for both Macintosh and UNIX file systems. It was originally released in March 1999. Darwin currently runs on PowerPC-based Macintosh computers, and is being ported to Intel processor-based computers and compatible systems by the Darwin community.

Q. Is the available Darwin source code up to date?

A. Most of the projects in the Darwin repository are the same live source trees used by Apple engineers for the Mac OS X product build. This means that as we work on Mac OS X internally, the changes we make are immediately visible on the Darwin source code repository. (Visit www.opensource.apple.com/tools/cvs/ for information on how to access the CVS server.) Similarly, changes made by the community that are integrated into the Darwin source base will eventually be included in Mac OS X. This mechanism gives the developer community an unprecedented ability to work with Apple to resolve operating system-level issues and extend the feature set of the Mac OS.

Q. I heard that Darwin runs on Intel processor-based PCs. Is that true?

A. Yes, and we're partnering with the Darwin developer community to enhance support for this platform

As I recall, Apple demod a PC box running Darwin at the WWDC in March of 2000. And I think there is an installer for the x86 platform. Exciting times these are.

Smart move (4)

wrinkledshirt (228541) | more than 13 years ago | (#128243)

Definitely better than their original idea -- bringing in Theo De Raadt to lead their PR department.

Re:Mac OS on x86 (1)

sumengen (230420) | more than 12 years ago | (#128244)

I wander:
Apple is a hardware company. That is fine. But why can't they sell OSX on x86? Isn't that hardware too???
I mean they can sell x86 based OSX and make money similar to their business with ppc? They have the right to say that no other computer manufacture can sell OS-X on x86. So? What am I missing.

x86 is cheaper faster, and easier to manage for apple and the customers. That means more profits for apple.

Tweak, Tweak! (3)

BoarderPhreak (234086) | more than 13 years ago | (#128248)

MacOS X does need some tweaking, especially in the speed department... Go, dude, go!

Improvements to MacOS X (2)

SirFlakey (237855) | more than 13 years ago | (#128249)

Ok here's my thoughts on teh possible improvements he might bring:
  • Darwin - x86 (no doubt there)
  • Darwin - Any other Platform
  • MacOS X- Darwin integration (specifically Finder->Filesystem)
  • Kernel drivers (DVD,CD-R/W,DVD-R)

I hope he can also give those guys pointers regarding the Aqua/Quartz speed =\ it needs a little work in that area. I kind of hope he can suggest some improvemnets to the Gui speed because quite frankly it needs some work there.
--

Re:FreeBSD seems shaky now (1)

Spifmeister (245802) | more than 13 years ago | (#128251)

i do not use or ever have, but because there market share is droping does not mean they are dieing, it just means that they are not growing as fast as other operating systems like windows and linux

Re:What about i386? (1)

owenc (255848) | more than 13 years ago | (#128253)

Performance is a little shakey on most g3 macs and on some g4s. I would think that quartz performance would take quite a blow when run on a 386.

Re:Don't start that BSD vs. GPL shit (1)

NDPTAL85 (260093) | more than 13 years ago | (#128255)

Yeah if MS had chosen to use more open source code they WOULD have a better OS but thats not the point. We already known open source code is better for things like operating systems. The point is what is the goal? What do you want to happen to your code? For an open source developer they have the choice of a GPL or BSD like license. If I wanted my software to be TRULY and ALWAYS free that means I need a license that will prevent a corporation from taking my code and making a few alterations on it so they can pass it off as their own. The GPL protects your code from that. The BSD does not. So basically if we want any of this to survive, all this great software that the open source community has created there really isn't much of a choice. It has to be GPL or else the code may be "open" but it will also be in danger of being taken back into the world of proprietary use. Of course if you are a developer who doesn't give a fuck either way then sure go ahead the BSD license is right up your alley. :)

You are shortsighted (2)

NDPTAL85 (260093) | more than 13 years ago | (#128257)

"Of the three graphic artists (their main user-base) at my office who've used Mac OSX two have downgraded back to OS9 and the other spends all her time in the emulation mode. Macintosh users are not accustomed to low-level access to their computers and nor do they want it." Duh. Their programs don't run natively on OS X yet so they HAVE to use the Classic layer until they do. That means nothing for adoption of OS X. When there are native versions of their most needed programs they won't have any trouble using it. As for just keeping the old OS and updating it with a few new features yeah that would have been exciting. All the developers who are drooling over OS X never gave OS 9 or below a second thought. Not to mention OS 9 wasn't the most stable of OS's nor did it have protected memory or pre-emptive multitasking...etc I could go on but I hope you get the point by now.

Re:What about i386? (2)

kilgore_47 (262118) | more than 13 years ago | (#128258)

Apple makes, and has made for a long time, a great OS. Its tragic that it only runs on their hardware, because the pricetag keeps a lot of people from using it. Lately, however, apple's hardware has gotten a lot cooler. (note the ibook, g4 titanium, mac cube, g4 towers; ignore flower patterened imacs obviously concieved during one of jobs' acid trips)

speculation: What if apple made x86 hardware, and ported OS X ?

Before everyone calls me (crazy|stupid|troll|etc) think about it for a moment. OS X could reach a wider audience (read: just about everyone) and the hardware branch of apple would be just another pc-maker who happens to make the coolest laptops out there. Sure, the g4 is a great processor, but imagine how well apple-quality hardware would sell if you could install any OS (including windows, and OS X for x86). And imagine how many desktops would be running OS X.

Maybe I'm just crazy sleep deprived, but it sounds like good bussiness to me.
____
Blood, guts, guns, cuts;
Knives, lives, wives, nuns, sluts.

Re:What about i386? (1)

flynn_nrg (266463) | more than 12 years ago | (#128259)

The i686 was released a long time ago, it's called the Pentium Pro, on which core both Pentium II and III are based.
i386 usually refers to the platform, go download some debian iso and look at the name, contain's "i386" for the intel version doesn't it?

Mac OS X - FreeBSD overlap? (2)

regexp (302904) | more than 13 years ago | (#128261)

Hubbard says "Darwin is substantially based on FreeBSD 3.2." But I had thought Darwin was based on the generic BSD code. Every time someone said Darwin is based on FreeBSD, I cursed them under my breath, saying, "Don't you understand? FreeBSD and BSD are not the same thing?"

So it seems I was wrong all this time. What's the real story? How much of Darwin is based on parts of FreeBSD that are not part of BSD?

Re:OS X on Intel/AMD hardware just got a step clos (1)

XBL (305578) | more than 13 years ago | (#128262)

I think it is too late to move to x86. There are a huge amount of PowerPC Macs out there, and they are going to be "obsolete". That means a lot of people are going to be pissed, most likely.

Apple would also have to dump the "Classic" compatibility layer of OS X (which will be a problem for a lot of people). I dunno if the Carbonated apps can simply be recompiled for something for x86. Probably not.

You may be right though, as Motorola is really fucking up the PowerPC. If they do go x86, they would definitely use nVidia's new platform (and AMD Athlon), because they already have close ties with them, and the hardware specs fits Apple's need perfectly (except for dual-processor).

It might just make sense for Apple to make a gradual transition to x86. Initially just have an x86 Power Mac model, and go from there.

OS X on Intel/AMD hardware just got a step closer (2)

Durindana (442090) | more than 13 years ago | (#128270)


Apple calls BSD Darwin's "wrapper." As a lot of work has already gone into porting Darwin over, Hubbard's expertise with BSD on x86 hardware will only make that easier. Sure, he can help with the open-source community, but of all the names people call Steve Jobs, stupid usually isn't among them.

And Motorola's PowerPC, despite the embedded market, simply hasn't allowed Mac OS to compete on a horsepower (or economy-of-scale) basis. If Apple's working internally on the x86 alternative -- and I'd bet my cat they have been for some time - this could be very, very significant news.

Can you imagine? Mac OS X (and onward) on decent hardware? Screw Altivec, give me SMP Athlons. Overnight, the desktop landscape would change for consumers and professionals.

That's if, of course, Apple can stomach firing their hardware design people and start writing device drivers to go with that kernel. But frankly, I'm kind of stoked.

Re:What about i386? (1)

dinivin (444905) | more than 12 years ago | (#128271)


Just because Debian does that doesn't mean that it's taken for granted that i386==x86==intel. Not by a long shot. In my experience x86 usually refers to the platform and 386 usually refers to the specific generation (just take a look at all the 386, 486, 586, and 686 rpm builds out there).

Dinivin

Re:Mac OS on x86 (1)

damien champagne (447284) | more than 13 years ago | (#128273)

Again, as stated in other posts, even though you can't run the full OSX on x86, you can already run the Darwin core on x86. It's open-source, officially supported and freely available. If you have an extra box around, go get it.

Re:What about i386? (1)

buglord (455997) | more than 12 years ago | (#128275)

Why does everybody think that Apple hardware based on the x86 architecture will automatically be compatible to pcs?

Already Macs have a lot of technology from the PC world: AGP, PCI, USB, IDE. Heck, they use the same drives, the same graphic chips and even the same memory modules!

So, will it really make a big difference if they also use a PC Processor? Would it really sink the price tag?

Re:What about i386? (1)

klui (457783) | more than 13 years ago | (#128276)

No inside scoop, but if you do a strings on many utilities such as update_prebinding, you'll see that there are indications of portable code with architectures ranging from the 68k through PPC7400, with some PA-RISC and SPARC sprinkled in.

Most likely a lot of it is from the codebase's NeXTSTEP lineage.

Good for Him (1)

Eric Dizkord (458194) | more than 13 years ago | (#128277)

Granted, I'd prefer that talented programmers stay with free software causes. Yay open-source and all that. But I can already smell the "Traitor!" remarks, so I guess I'm gonna play devil's advocate.

How long can you go on being noble before you realize you have to eat too? And hell, as I understand it MacOS X has a unix base. Mayhaps this will end up being a good thing, revival of Apple and all that snazzy stuff. I for one would love to see some really slick running Unices that can make full use of that wonderful apple hardware.
Oh well. Flame on.

-Eric Dizkord

First & last Mac Unix-like version? (1)

Hagabard (461385) | more than 13 years ago | (#128278)

If this is not the last version of a BSD-based Macintosh I guarentee that the next version will be alot less *nix-y.

Of the three graphic artists (their main user-base) at my office who've used Mac OSX two have downgraded back to OS9 and the other spends all her time in the emulation mode. Macintosh users are not accustomed to low-level access to their computers and nor do they want it.

Apple would've done a hell of alot better to build a WM for *nix and continued making the Mac Evangelistas happy by giving them the same ol' product with an OS upgrade with some cheesy feature which they would've lapped up (like Sherlock??).

AC

16 tons, whaddya get? (2)

Spamhead (462189) | more than 13 years ago | (#128280)

Working for Walnut Creek, BSDi, WindRiver = $ Working for Apple = $$$$ (plus heath & dental!) Can you blame [geocities.com] him?

OS X (2)

DeXtroMe (462440) | more than 12 years ago | (#128281)

I think that Apple needs to get everyone it can under one roof, cause X needs some help. I've used it off and on since it came out and its incredibly slow even on the fastest G4. Not only that, but Apple is going to to have to target a completely different market, because after using it I've decided that its going to piss off a lot of hardcore mac fans. Right now OS X has more in common with Windoze than previous Mac OS's. Don't get me wrong, I hope Apple can pull it off, but I think they need someone to give them a bit of direction.

Re:OS X on Intel/AMD hardware just got a step clos (1)

KraRe (462620) | more than 12 years ago | (#128282)

Ad 1) Decent machines. It's actually funny to see x86ers to go crazy about machines like AMD's just because they're slightly less crappy than the current Intel junk. No, the PPC IS decent hardware. Just take a look around and you'llsee that the PPC platform is very much alive and kicking. However, there's something there: Motorola seems to be letting Apple down. They don't really seem to be working on their G5 64bit chip. So what ? Firstly, there's IBM and then... (Can't give away too much, but be sure to see some more drastic step taken by Apple soon). Ad 2) There may not be x86 machines running Mac OS X in secret Apple labs today, but I suspect they could do it in not very much time if they had to As for x86, well... A lot of the development has taken place on Compaq Alpha processors though (quite a lot actually). Go figure...

Re:Apple NEEDS to get out of the hardware business (1)

KraRe (462620) | more than 12 years ago | (#128283)

The truth is that if they want any market share they need to ditch the hardware so they can actually compete The truth is if they ditched their hardware thing they wdn't have ANY market share right then. See that ? Secondly, people are migrating from the PC to the Mac (market analysis shows it and I happen to know quite a number of people who did). Personally, what made me feel so comfortable buying a Mac was the very fact I used a PC before as a comparison. Apple will try to expand their hardware base. What is attractive about the Mac platform ? Well, great hardware + (now) great software. Apple software feeds on hardware no other animal can feed on. It's a niche. That's why they're still around.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?