LONGHORN vs. JAGUAR ?

[citizensane]

It's well known that Microsoft, Inc.--Paul Allen's 50,000+ employed corporation, originator of Macintosh OS nemesis WINDOWS--has an ultra-secret project in the Think Tanks known only as LONGHORN. Leave it to the world's leading supplier of bleak, imagination-less gray Soviet-bloc OSes to give their foremost innovation a milspec ALL STENCIL name like "LONGHORN." And it's rumored SUCCESSOR, "BLACKCOMB," isn't much better. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23852.html)

As many suppose, LH is supposed to be a "super-Windows," available by summer, 2005 (according to a print article in FORTUNE magazine). A huge OS with tons of inbuilt automation--such as "recognizing," a feature more than a little reminiscent of the recently-announced Mac-only RENDEZVOUS.

By 2005, what can we expect from Apple? One of my posts suggests (quite homorously) the existence of iRobots by 2007. (Apple marketers would no doubt tie this in with Isaac Asimov's popular series). But, of software, particulary OSes, what is there? Will Apple ever graduate from the "Unix-based" methodology? Has our LONGHORN (OS X) and our BLACKCOMB (10.2) already come?

Maybe an entirely new OS will be created exclusivey for the G6. Who knows? But: would it be necessary ?

Fondly,

[whfsdude]

hmm, way to go M$. So how many grandparents you got working on this?

Bill, you going to hire Author Anderson soon?

[Beej]

'Graduate' from UNIX? I think Apple has proved that graduating to UNIX has been a wonderful thing. UNIX has been around for ever, and it's still being improved by many major corporations and developers around the world. It's just going to keep getting better.

As for longhorn... well... yeah. By 2005 OS X will be very different to what it is now, and longhorn will be introducing many 'new; features Jaguar will bring us.

MS should give up trying to innovate. They should just let it work like it has always worked.

Apple innovates.
Microsoft copies.

[citizensane]

Thank you very much for the relevant feedback.

The analogy between cars and operating systems is not half bad, and so let me run with it for a moment, as a way of giving an executive summary of our situation today.

Imagine a crossroads where four competing auto dealerships are situated. One of them (Microsoft) is much, much bigger than the others. It started out years ago selling three-speed bicycles (MS-DOS); these were not perfect, but they worked, and when they broke you could easily fix them.

There was a competing bicycle dealership next door (Apple) that one day began selling motorized vehicles--expensive but attractively styled cars with their innards hermetically sealed, so that how they worked was something of a mystery.

The big dealership responded by rushing a moped upgrade kit (the original Windows) onto the market. This was a Rube Goldberg contraption that, when bolted onto a three-speed bicycle, enabled it to keep up, just barely, with Apple-cars. The users had to wear goggles and were always picking bugs out of their teeth while Apple owners sped along in hermetically sealed comfort, sneering out the windows. But the Micro-mopeds were cheap, and easy to fix compared with the Apple-cars, and their market share waxed.

Eventually the big dealership came out with a full-fledged car: a colossal station wagon (Windows 95). It had all the aesthetic appeal of a Soviet worker housing block, it leaked oil and blew gaskets, and it was an enormous success. A little later, they also came out with a hulking off-road vehicle intended for industrial users (Windows NT) which was no more beautiful than the station wagon, and only a little more reliable.

Since then there has been a lot of noise and shouting, but little has changed. The smaller dealership continues to sell sleek Euro-styled sedans and to spend a lot of money on advertising campaigns. They have had GOING OUT OF BUSINESS! signs taped up in their windows for so long that they have gotten all yellow and curly. The big one keeps making bigger and bigger station wagons and ORVs.

On the other side of the road are two competitors that have come along more recently.

One of them (Be, Inc.) is (read: WAS) selling fully operational Batmobiles (the BeOS). They are more beautiful and stylish even than the Euro-sedans, better designed, more technologically advanced, and at least as reliable as anything else on the market--and yet cheaper than the others.

With one exception, that is: Linux, which is right next door, and which is not a business at all. It's a bunch of RVs, yurts, tepees, and geodesic domes set up in a field and organized by consensus. The people who live there are making tanks. These are not old-fashioned, cast-iron Soviet tanks; these are more like the M1 tanks of the U.S. Army, made of space-age materials and jammed with sophisticated technology from one end to the other. But they are better than Army tanks. They've been modified in such a way that they never, ever break down, are light and maneuverable enough to use on ordinary streets, and use no more fuel than a subcompact car. These tanks are being cranked out, on the spot, at a terrific pace, and a vast number of them are lined up along the edge of the road with keys in the ignition. Anyone who wants can simply climb into one and drive it away for free.

Customers come to this crossroads in throngs, day and night. Ninety percent of them go straight to the biggest dealership and buy station wagons or off-road vehicles. They do not even look at the other dealerships.

Of the remaining ten percent, most go and buy a sleek Euro-sedan, pausing only to turn up their noses at the philistines going to buy the station wagons and ORVs. If they even notice the people on the opposite side of the road, selling the cheaper, technically superior vehicles, these customers deride them cranks and half-wits.

The Batmobile outlet sells a few vehicles to the occasional car nut who wants a second vehicle to go with his station wagon, but seems to accept, at least for now, that it's a fringe player.

The group giving away the free tanks only stays alive because it is staffed by volunteers, who are lined up at the edge of the street with bullhorns, trying to draw customers' attention to this incredible situation. A typical conversation goes something like this:

Hacker with bullhorn: "Save your money! Accept one of our free tanks! It is invulnerable, and can drive across rocks and swamps at ninety miles an hour while getting a hundred miles to the gallon!"

Prospective station wagon buyer: "I know what you say is true...but...er...I don't know how to maintain a tank!"

Bullhorn: "You don't know how to maintain a station wagon either!"

Buyer: "But this dealership has mechanics on staff. If something goes wrong with my station wagon, I can take a day off work, bring it here, and pay them to work on it while I sit in the waiting room for hours, listening to elevator music."

Bullhorn: "But if you accept one of our free tanks we will send volunteers to your house to fix it for free while you sleep!"

Buyer: "Stay away from my house, you freak!"

Bullhorn: "But..."

Buyer: "Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?"

---

Now: Apple is among the teepees and geodesic domes: a hub of glass and concrete, cornermarked CUPERTINO, CA. OS X is built on a fancy M1 tank, but it's been labored over and upgraded by a well-distilled creative body of electrical engineers and "Mackers." It forces all of those free-for-the-taking M1s into the condition of being approximately as aesthetically pleasing as dog feces. Even novices can climb into OS X and drive it, well, whereas the others require at least SOME previous experience to work their complex stuff.

The Big Brother watches this, a thinly veiled expression of resentment plain on its panchromatic countenance. It, too, has plans . . . the type you would expect to find at the bottom of Hitler's footlocker: patiently waiting, while the Enemy grows stronger, behaving somewhat neutrally . . . until! Emerging, fresh, new, a result of purchased talent (i.e., Gary Starkweather, known best for inventing a little-known technological artifact called "the laser printer") and corporate espionage--LONGHORN! A firey dragon-beast built to inaugurate the End of Macintosh history!

Meanwhile, OS X has been brewing . . . contibutions from the developers circles, corporate software architects . . . it has already been through several incarnations: Jaguar, Melinda, Cobalt, until its after-decimal is now 10.7 . . .
And at the moment of the Beast's emergence, it rears its clear-and-white plastic bulk. Green-neon eyes, shape of bitten apples, glare at the menace.



WHO WILL SURVIVE?

[Beej]

Wow... OK... I'm easily distracted, especailly on the Internet... I must admit I didn't read more than the first two paragraphs of your post.

Ever heard the thing about having to get people on the Internet what they want within 7 seconds or they lose interest and go elsewhere? I'm one of them :)

[citizensane]

True, it's a rather long and tedius Post. Thank you for reading what you did. Some will read the rest.

Fondly,

[citizensane]

Which will survive? Whose strength will not be eroded into the land of oblivion?



LONGHORN . . . or JAGUAR?




(read earlier thread for a more thorough analysis)

[G4scott]

Apple has proposed rendezvous as an open standard, meaning that they are looking for more companies to adopt it. With 1 standard, your Macs and pee-cees will be able to connect together, and to different devices that support it.

Unfortunately, if microsoft releases something similar to rendezvous, then you can kiss rendezvous support from other companies goodbye... The only problem that I can see right now with rendezvous is security, and control of who sees/does what. If Apple would fix that, or if rendezvous becomes an open standard, then it just might become widely accepted. You never know... FireWire took off as a standard...

The only thing that I find odd, is that m$ used to have something where computers on the network would 'see' each other so you could easily connect, but the problem was that each time a computer was brought on to a network, it would broadcast its signal and slow down the network, so that by the time 1 computer has seen everyone on the network, someone else would've gotten off the network, so all of your network bandwidth was being used just to see who was on the network... With a server system, it reduces the traffic used, since just one computer keeps track of who's on and who's not. It'd be interesting to see how Rendezvous works on a large network. I'm sure, though, that you could turn it off if you want to.

Unfortunately for m$, we'll be on Mac OS X.III by the time longhorn is introduced... Longhorn will be X.I with hints of X.II, and some other windoze crap that the users really don't want/need...

[citizensane]

Alright, that's one vote for OSX surviving the onslaught. How many more will come forward . . . and with what verdict?


Analyze, scrutinize, criticize . . . let's have some DISCUSSION, people!

[Beej]

Originally posted by G4scott
Apple has proposed rendezvous as an open standard, meaning that they are looking for more companies to adopt it. With 1 standard, your Macs and pee-cees will be able to connect together, and to different devices that support it.

Unfortunately, if microsoft releases something similar to rendezvous, then you can kiss rendezvous support from other companies goodbye...That's true to an extent. I think you're missing something vital, though. By the time shorthorn (or whatever) is released in 2005, Rendevouz will have been in the market for 2.5 - 3 years. In three years time, everyone will be using rendevouz. No one will drop the tech just because M$ has released their own version, unless of course there are many benifits (which there never are to using M$ techs and products, right? Of course :D)

[citizensane]

Will Rendezvous refinements be the make-break point between victory and defeat against the Next Big Thing up Microsoft's sleeve?

Or will the sheer power of a by-then much improved/compatible OSX reign supreme?

Is this the beginning of a good trend for Apple, or a bad one?

[Stike]

Rendezvous is AFAIK a method to configure the network protocol that each device can identify another. But other posts here suggest that it is a completely new protocol such as TCP/IP or UDP. Doesn´t Rendezvous "sit" on top of them rather than being a whole new thing? Have I misunderstood something?

BTW citizen sane would make a great dramatic moderator for onslaughts like the battles in "Braveheart".... agree? :p :D

And to vote for the OS Battle: OS X wins hands down!

[G4scott]

I think Rendezvous sits on top of a TCP/IP network.

The only thing that I'm skeptical about, beej, is Apple's ability to get Rendezvous to catch on. Sure, a couple of printer companies have pledged support, but Apple's going to need a lot more support from not only device manufacturers but also other computer companies. If Apple by itself supports it, it won't go very far, since not many companies are willing to make a product for less than 5% of the computer market share (I know apple might have more than 5%, but how much of them have jaguar?) If microsoft catches on, and they support it correctly, or if other major companies support it, then it will work, but if it stays Mac only, it's just going to be just another cool feature that works just with Macs

So the major question is: Will everyone adopt Rendezvous as a standard?

We must remember that m$ has been known to try to kill standards by creating their own proprietary crap to compete with standards, such as java, mp3's, and a few others... Unfortunately, microsoft uses their market share to force their proprietary crap as standards (can you say media player?), so not even the largest of standards organizations could do much if microsoft decided to make their own rendezvous type technology.

We can only hope for the best...

[Stike]

Rendezvous is an open standard. Jobs said "no one will EVER own Rendezvous!". And open source means, it won´t cost a dime to bring Rendezvous/ZeroConf to other platforms. Someone has just to do it. So, Apple wins with this one, earlier or later. If it works that good as announced, no one will ever have to hassle with network configs again. Thanks to Jobs who started bringing zeroconf to the "masses".
At least its popularity will dramatically increase.

This is no "money-thing". Apple won´t make money from it (ok, Jaguar will bring them the money). This is an idealistic move by Steve, as we all know him - the crazy one who wants to change the world.

Point for Apple!:D
Citizen, please register that! How´s the score?

[synergy]

Some well thought out posts are here.

Great car example Citizensane.

Yes microsoft will try and hijack Rendezvous.

Being an open standard though Apple needs to get the 3rd party hardware companies on board and get them on board quick. Just give the code to the linux geeks and it will be there. Get printer companies and scanner companies to put it on as well.
Biggest would be Palm style devices. Add it on there and then it can get the critical mass going.

[shadowfax0]

Discuss a who what now...? These are forums, flame! Ha, discussion, phewee, you almost ahd me there for a sec Citizensane! Man you sure are a joker! And now with that behind us, Macintosh sucks, and I hope MS wins with Longhorn (that should get this forum back on track, discussion, ha!) :D

[sparkleytone]

don't confuse rendezvous with what it isn't. right now as it exists it is NOT a replacement for network configurations. its basically a much better alternative to the PnP technology that Intel and M$ pushed so hard and now seems to have disappeared off the radar. Its a very good technique for smart devices to be easily dropped into a network, but is not designed to give internet access and robust file sharing capabilities. Basically it just utilizes the standard 169.blahblah address of all network interfaces using the TCP/IP protocol and networks all the enabled devices within a subnet. A great utilization of existing technologies, but definitely not a substitute for them.

[awrc]

Originally posted by citizensane
Which will survive? Whose strength will not be eroded into the land of oblivion?

LONGHORN . . . or JAGUAR?



That's like asking "Who will survive, MacOS 7.6 or Windows XP Pro?" in 1997. The most common answer would be "What's Windows XP Pro?" Jaguar is here and now, Longhorn...er, sorry, LONGHORN, is still, what, three years away?

Without some idea of what OS X will look three years from now, it's impossible to make a valid comparison. There's not even that much known about LONGHORN beyond the whole "file system is a database" thing.

While I can hazard a guess the direction Windows will take (it won't get smaller, it'll be stuffed with Microsoft's proprietary take on everything to become popular between now and 2005, it'll require a DNA sample at installation time to verify your identity) I've not got a clue what Apple might do in this time period.

I guess one approach is to ask "what in OS X is looking a bit creaky?" My #1 candidate right now is the filesystem - what's the big idea having a limit on path lengths in 2002? I'm guessing this'll move in a similar direction to LONGHORN, although hopefully slimmer (since the impression I get of the LONGHORN filesystem is that it's going to be "files stored in a database" rather than "a filesystem with database-like features".

[sparkleytone]

hopefully the filesystem won't be too much an issue in the future as OS X is actually getting MORE UNIX-y these days. Apple is giving in to the UNIX gurus on having alot more fundamental UNIX. I still don't really see why some third party can't create a kernel extension for ReiserFS and figure out a way to lay out the MacOS on it. I wonder how many Apple licenses that would break lol. Its a fairly simple process if they go with an existing file format such as Reiser or even a variant of BeFS. The lack of this feature leads me to believe that either Apple is working on a new journaling, lightning fast Mac-only filesystem, or they are just ignoring us.

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by sparkleytone
hopefully the filesystem won't be too much an issue in the future as OS X is actually getting MORE UNIX-y these days. Apple is giving in to the UNIX gurus on having alot more fundamental UNIX. I still don't really see why some third party can't create a kernel extension for ReiserFS and figure out a way to lay out the MacOS on it. I wonder how many Apple licenses that would break lol. Its a fairly simple process if they go with an existing file format such as Reiser or even a variant of BeFS. The lack of this feature leads me to believe that either Apple is working on a new journaling, lightning fast Mac-only filesystem, or they are just ignoring us. ...Apple recently hired Be's head file system guy... <laughs evilly, gives Longhorn's new FS the finger>
Anyway, people have left out the most important thing in Longhorn... Palladium. Palladium alone (if what has been said about it is anywhere close to true) means that Longhorn has already lost the entire tech-savvy market (at least the ones that care about their freedom).

<edit> btw, I'm putting my vote in for citizensane to get the "Best Newbie" award </edit>

[jouster]

Are you an author? Cause I read a pretty much identical passage in a book recently.....enjoyed it then and now!!

G'damn it, can't remember the name of the book....

[Paolo]

Microsoft didn't copy apple as far as I know, they both copied.. xerox or someone who had a moused based operating system...
But apple just copied and improved,
where as Microsoft just copied...

But in the end that doesn't make microsoft any worse than apple... in that instance.

(but keep in mind I do still hate M$ with a passion)

I'm waiting for the day George w bush says 'Bill gates... is an evil man...'

[alex_ant]

Citizensane, I actually read that whole post, and it was funny, but useful more as a humor article than a straight-up analogy I think. :)

(The computer - car analogy is awful, and it has become so cliched that I just have to laugh every time someone brings it up in a serious argument... but I know that's not what you were trying to do, so that's OK. :))

In an OS X vs. Longhorn comparison, you'll have to compare Longhorn to what OS X will be not now but three years from now, because Longhorn isn't due for a long time yet. I believe, without being a software engineer or having seen a single line of source code to either OS, that OS X benefits from smarter design in a number of places. What it needs is to be faster, and I believe great strides will have been made in that category in 3 years' time. OS X by then should be far superior to what it is today, with a mature resolution-independent vectorized display, a next-generation filesystem, highly optimized core components, and an enhanced interface. I like OS X's Unix core, but I hope the developers at Apple realize that Unix is not the be-all end-all of OS design. I think the Unix "everything is a file" concept is long obsolete, as is IMO the traditional Unix directory structure. And Apple apparently agrees with me, so that's good.

Longhorn is still vaporware, announced so early I would presume in order for Microsoft to steal some attention from Apple. I won't criticize it because I have no idea what it will end up looking like. It will probably be very good technologically. But I think OS X will be very competitive and I'm very confident that it will be better architecturally and probably (but not certainly) usability-wise. Never underestimate Microsoft's ability to rip off Apple's good ideas.

Alex

[CodeWare, Inc.]

Moderators forgive me, but: I'd like to create a new operating system.

Windows has its uses, Longhorn will probably have its uses, and who can say what potentials lie latent in Blackcomb.

Honesty: I was never a fan of what Apple cognoscenti now call "Classic." OS 9, 8, 7, 6 . . . were not deeply layered. They lacked the fizzling spark of idealism I see coursing in the simplicity-inspired GUI of OSX. This will overcome anything Microsoft can hurl at it; Unix's history of survival is almost proof of that. When Microsoft releases Longhorn (whatever the product is then called), it will be hailed as a "new beginning" for that company. When Apple churns out OSX 2005, I hope we fans can answer queries for "opinions on future improvements" with an honest, bold, drenched-in-pride "Why tamper with perfection?"

If not--if we do not have the patience for bureaucratic gestalt, if we do not wish to drop hundreds of dollars for software which will only get better--why not make our own? Something different, something new. And I'm not talking about Linux--I mean an operating system that really shines: one which combines the hardened uncrashability of UNIX with the sheek and style of only-dreamt-of computer interfaces (viz. Minority Report, et cetera). It must be honed to a point where further improvements are unnecessary--something that could be used alongside a desktop "Broadbench" (or whatever we're using by 2025) and considered perfectly modern, without any enhancements on its original mod. Yes, this proposal may be far-fetched. But impossibility is a dying cynicism.

Are you familiar with the Bryce 5 interface? Imagine an OS GUI like that, 10x.

(B5 is an example only--picture whatever your favorite application GUI is.)

Let's build ONYX IVY. "The perfect OS."

Takers, anyone?

[JonGretar]

Originally posted by Beej
As for longhorn... well... yeah. By 2005 OS X will be very different to what it is now, and longhorn will be introducing many 'new; features Jaguar will bring us.

MS should give up trying to innovate. They should just let it work like it has always worked.

Apple innovates.
Microsoft copies.

Although I am a big Mac fan and love the new OS X and Jaguar. I have to protest what you say here. :confused:

MacOs has not done anything that hase not been done before. The new OS X has a great look and functionality that shoots it way ahead of Windows.
But in the end. MacOS is just an operating system based on Next/BSD and has nothing in it I haven't been using for years. The first time I sat down in front of MacOs X I felt right at home. Because I was at home. I knew this system from before. It was just better organized and more advanced UI.

I'm not saying it is bad. Quite the opposite. It's a great OS and the best one in it's user genre (Still prefer unix for servers).

But Apple copies as well.
Microsoft just copies it later and not as well.

[sparkleytone]

apple licensed the GUI from Xerox. Bill Gates STOLE the interface from a preview given to him by Steve Jobs himself.

[JonGretar]

Originally posted by sparkleytone
apple licensed the GUI from Xerox. Bill Gates STOLE the interface from a preview given to him by Steve Jobs himself.

No... Apple did not license it. That is why Xerox sued Apple... In many ways the same lawsuit Apple showed M$ a year later.

Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are both businessmen. That is why they have survived for so long. And Steve has showed many ruthless sides of himself through the years too. Don't blame Gates for everything. There are other people working at that damn MS too. ;)

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by CodeWare, Inc.
Are you familiar with the Bryce 5 interface? Imagine an OS GUI like that, 10x.

(B5 is an example only--picture whatever your favorite application GUI is.)

Let's build ONYX IVY. "The perfect OS."

Takers, anyone?
I'll tell you what, you get to work on that, and I'll get to work on ending poverty, curing cancer, increasing life expectancy to 135 worldwide, ending famine, disease, and democratizing the world. Cheers. :)

[sparkleytone]

ummm you'll have to do more than that. theres no way he'll be done with his OS yet. It won't even be at alpha stage ;)

[blogo]

Originally posted by Beej
Wow... OK... I'm easily distracted, especailly on the Internet... I must admit I didn't read more than the first two paragraphs of your post.

Ever heard the thing about having to get people on the Internet what they want within 7 seconds or they lose interest and go elsewhere? I'm one of them :)

[sneed]

Originally posted by JonGretar


No... Apple did not license it. That is why Xerox sued Apple... In many ways the same lawsuit Apple showed M$ a year later.

Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are both businessmen. That is why they have survived for so long. And Steve has showed many ruthless sides of himself through the years too. Don't blame Gates for everything. There are other people working at that damn MS too. ;)

The difference in my mind is that when Apple 'appropriated' Xerox's technology (GUI, mouse, ethernet, etc..), it was languishing in PARC. If I remember correctly, Xerox had no plans to use any of it.

Microsoft, on the other hand, took a look at the application of that technology (which is as important as, if not more important than, the technology itself) and copied both.

[CodeWare, Inc.]

To settle the historical matters: it's time we all rented Pirates of Silicon Valley.

[arn]

http://www.woz.org/letters/pirates/12.html


Q from E-mail:
Woz, Did you feel wrong stealing outright from Xerox, and what did you think when Microsoft stole from Apple? Do you think Microsoft has a monopoly on the computer industry? Plan on going back to Apple? Also, can you point out more of the minor flaws in the movie? Thanks, David

WOZ:
Steve Jobs made the case to Xerox PARC execs directly that they had great technology but that Apple knew how to make it affordable enough to change the world. This was very open. In the end, Xerox got a large block of Apple stock for sharing the technology. That's not stealing outright._

Apple didn't get any stock from Microsoft. Nor was Apple dealt with openly in this area by Microsoft._

[Nipsy]

This is the original work from which citizensane stole his post (I'm assuming he is not the author because of the great disparity in organizational & argumentative skills).

I would recommend EVERYONE who cares about thier OS with more than a fleeting smile/frown, take the time to read the whole thing:

http://www.spack.org/words/commandline.html

[Dr. Distortion]

Originally posted by awrc


That's like asking "Who will survive, MacOS 7.6 or Windows XP Pro?" in 1997. The most common answer would be "What's Windows XP Pro?" Jaguar is here and now, Longhorn...er, sorry, LONGHORN, is still, what, three years away?

I think you should make the comparison between Rhapsody (Darwin?) and Windows XP in 1997, because back then there were already rumors about the OS that's now called os X. :)

[CodeWare, Inc.]

Strange. Before C.S.'s posts got popular, his signature was (literally) "[lines and lines of gibberish]"--which I remembered from Neal Stephenson's novel CRYPTONOMICON (http://www.cryptonomicon.com). Owning this, I decided to check it out--and sure enough, the same is written where a "signature block" would appear in an e-mail conducted by one of the characters in NTS's 910 page beast.

Also . . . the first line of C.S.'s "biography" ("Citizen Sane issues from a rootless clan of itinerant [blah blah blah]") matches the biography of Neal Stephenson which appears in the endpapers of his 1992 novel, SNOW CRASH (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0553380958/reader/1/ref=lib_dp_TFCV/002-7458785-0574467#reader-link).

Another strange thing. In his earlier profile (which has undergone significant revision), C.S. had "http://www.well.com/~neal" as his "homepage".

And notice: when C.S. become a popular target to criticize, he, suddenly and completely, vanished. Hm . . .

[crude analogy]

ha ha ha. neal steph's codename on boston u's mainframe comp. was "citizensane_nts ". cool. u guys got nts to do posts here. (even for a little while)

[jacka55]

Originally posted by citizensane
These tanks are being cranked out, on the spot, at a terrific pace, and a vast number of them are lined up along the edge of the road with keys in the ignition. Anyone who wants can simply climb into one and drive it away for free.


The car example's good, but the Linux part is woefully off (For example, M1 tanks aren't street legal. I would have chosen Ferraris® or something. But I'll let that go.) Anyway, I would have described the Linux dealership more like this:

Across the street is a Linux dealership...etc etc. The buyer may, if he likes choose to purchase for a competitive price a fully assembled M1 tank, complete with all of the limited options available to an M1 tank. Or, he can simply take home an engine for free. He will then be expected to assemble the rest of the tank from scratch and without any sort of a manual, using whatever parts he can find for free that fit with the other parts he finds, and the appropriate parts required by the parts he finds. However, if, for example, the cylinder heads don't fit in his cylinders, he will be expected to resize them himself. If his transmission happens to be missing a rod, he'll be expected to make his own rod. If he can't find a gear box for his particular model of tank, he'll be expected to build his own. Finally, if he goes back to the dealership to service his partially assembled tank, they'll say they don't offer service to free models, and will offer to sell him a fully assembled tank.

So there.

[crude analogy]

why does it matter if it's street legal? how does that relate to the analogy? oh, it doesn't.

(p.s. -- your writing is an eyesore compared to neal's. live the adage: "never be a second rate someone else. be a first rate you.")

i don't know about you, but i can't exactly maintain an M1 Abram tank very well. sure, i could hop into one--but would i be able to drive it off the lot? not likely. they can be as free as air, and it still might take a hundred reference manuals to move it three feet. doesn't change that it was free--(which is all nts meant to stress).

don't argue simply for the sake of arguing. paint's you as a pompous jerk.

[jacka55]

Crude Analogy is right. Legality doesn't matter. That's why I didn't change it, it is in parenthesis, and I said "I'll let that go." The point of my crappy, 2 minute writing is that I thought his gave Linux too much credit. I don't feel that he used an M1 tank to mean that it is is hard to use, but rather, based on the description of the M1, has everything you need in a car, and the additional benefit of a tank. Linux isn't hard to use, but it is hard to maintain (Volunteers, of course, will take care of the maintenance part). Mostly though, the key idea of my "eyesore" writing was that one doesn't get Linux for free with everything installed and "the key in the ignition." If you want it for free, you have to work your little rear end of for days to build a complete and usable system. You can, of course, buy a distribution with the key in the ignition if you like.

All that, of course, is irrelevant to the actual topic here: LONGHORN vs. OS X, so I better put my opinion in. Why the heck is Microsoft already completely overhauling XP? Wasn't XP (supposed to be) a complete overhaul of Windows? It appears that they were to be planning on LONGHORN and I personally like the fact that Apple at least seems to be intending to keep OS X and beyond based on essentially the same framework for quite sometime to come_— far longer than Microsoft intends to keep their OSes and, from the look of things, at least for as long as OS <=9 was built on the same framework. Although I don't like Microsoft's plans to completely change about every 5 years, and thus forcing everyone expend vast amounts of capital to keep current, we have long since learned that Microsoft wins everything. As bad as they look, as much as their products suck, and as much as they concoct evil schemes to be present at or control every possible access point to the internet, they always win. The computer industry is still young in comparative terms, and very open to shaping by the will of a Mogul such as Microsoft. It's been seen with Standard Oil, Carnegie Steel, AT&T, De Beers... the list goes on and on. So I think LONGHORN will win, not because it's better — because it will necessarily suck — but it will win because Microsoft has the marketing might to force it on the population. Someday, as has always happened, Microsoft's fate will change, but not that time is not yet.

I'm hate to say it, but that's one point for LONGHORN.

[crude analogy]

people, don't be schmoozed by expired FORTUNE magazine stats. jacka55 is one pitifully undereducated brat. (and apparently anti-mac, if it could get any worse.)


i predict longhorn's failure merely on the basis that it's a bad, milisci name. like "operation latte thunder" or some likewise-clancyish sobriquet. **** the "black promotion engine" that is microsoft. it's only 50,000 members strong. not even enough to fill the hubert-humphries metrodome.

microsoft is not invincible. like codeware said: "impossibility is a dying cynicism." i say: overthrow. steal from the rich to feed the poor. grind down its foundation until critical mass leaves it no other option but to topple, inexorably.

we can do it. we will do it.

the black empire's days are numbered.

[CodeWare, Inc.]

Originally posted by CodeWare, Inc.
Moderators forgive me, but: I'd like to create a new operating system.

Windows has its uses, Longhorn will probably have its uses, and who can say what potentials lie latent in Blackcomb.

Honesty: I was never a fan of what Apple cognoscenti now call "Classic." OS 9, 8, 7, 6 . . . were not deeply layered. They lacked the fizzling spark of idealism I see coursing in the simplicity-inspired GUI of OSX. This will overcome anything Microsoft can hurl at it; Unix's history of survival is almost proof of that. When Microsoft releases Longhorn (whatever the product is then called), it will be hailed as a "new beginning" for that company. When Apple churns out OSX 2005, I hope we fans can answer queries for "opinions on future improvements" with an honest, bold, drenched-in-pride "Why tamper with perfection?"

If not--if we do not have the patience for bureaucratic gestalt, if we do not wish to drop hundreds of dollars for software which will only get better--why not make our own? Something different, something new. And I'm not talking about Linux--I mean an operating system that really shines: one which combines the hardened uncrashability of UNIX with the sheek and style of only-dreamt-of computer interfaces (viz. Minority Report, et cetera). It must be honed to a point where further improvements are unnecessary--something that could be used alongside a desktop "Broadbench" (or whatever we're using by 2025) and considered perfectly modern, without any enhancements on its original mod. Yes, this proposal may be far-fetched. But impossibility is a dying cynicism.

Are you familiar with the Bryce 5 interface? Imagine an OS GUI like that, 10x.

(B5 is an example only--picture whatever your favorite application GUI is.)

Let's build ONYX IVY. "The perfect OS."

Takers, anyone?


Still no takers? This surprises me, because the offer was genuine.

Please! All who have dreamt of a "perfect OS," step forward. Or . . . should I make a new thread?

[DavidFDM]

If recall my history correctly, Steve went to Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center and saw the crude beginnings of a graphic interface. Xerox didn't feel it would go anywhere and sold it to Apple for $1 million. Apple then assembled a grand team of UI designers and programmers who built the Mac OS. As I understand it, the Xerox OS was very rough compared to the finished Mac OS.

Wired had a great article on Microsoft. Evidently, Gates was very impressed with the Mac OS and offered to help Steve and Co. get this on everyone's box, from AT&T to Zenith. Steve said no. They wanted to do it all themselves. Interestingly, one of the most vocal opponent to Gates' help was Jean-Louis Gassee, of Be Inc. fame.

Microsoft then decided to move forward with their version of a graphic interface. And the rest is history.

[RUNCIBLE 2.0]

This thread is a rip-roaring, swashbuckling adventure!

Rather than intervene, I think I'll stay in the comfort of this shady palm, sucking down icy daquiri and spectating.

[crude analogy]

it sucks, the position we're in. every time we buy something, from that moment on, it ages. there's nothing we can do about it. macs, pcs, whatever. when i get osx jaguar, i know i'm going to be impressed. but ... new things will come out, neat little haxies, mods to augment jag. and bring about more of its "full" potential. then, who knows, two years down the road: 10.3, cougar. and we'll be ****ed out of 129$ again--or more. why put up with these totalitarian scum? someone needs to make a company that delivers "ultimate upgrade": where, once you buy a product, every time an upgrade is announced, you send off two bucks and they ship you the newest crap. how'd that be? for some of you, i know this will be an excuse to launch massive, dramatic replies with the sole intention of berating or degrading me for "being so short-sighted" or whatever. if you're one of those people, **** you in advance.

[jacka55]

Originally posted by crude analogy
and apparently anti-mac, if it could get any worse

That's cute. Actually, I own stock in Apple. (I of course, bought it on a Monday, and on that Friday, Apple didn't meet expectations, made front page news, and took the whole market down with it. That was a few years ago. Yeah for good timing.) I support Apple because it doesn't (appear to) seek to take over the world like some companies do. Like Steve said, We have 5% of the market right now. If we get 5% more, that will double our market share.

Microsoft can play their little game, and Apple can continue to be better. Most people seemed to think that XP was going to fall flat on it's face, but it didn't. I, however, wouldn't want that can of worms scenario opened up where Apple takes over the computing world. That would then make Apple would be the evil empire, and we wouldn't be "Thinking Different" anymore. I didn't say Apple won't increase their market share, because they most definitely will. They just won't "win" this particular round per se. Microsoft has indeed over-stayed its welcome here in Our-Happy-Computing-Home, but John Q. Business (And the current John Q. Conservative-Administration) hasn't quite mustered up the courage to kick him out. Yet. But yes, Microsoft's days are numbered — in years.

I'm not anti-mac, just anti-"irrational exuberance" about the infallibility of the Mother Ship. Far too many Mac users lie to themselves, blindly accept everything Apple says, and leap to proclaim the superiority of Apple and how much Microsoft sucks to everyone to the point of annoying the bloody hell out of 90% of people who don't care (Though, that's not to say I'm innocent of the crime of Apple v. Windows instigation). But I'll definitely add that accusation to my quote-of-the-day list. I think it's funny. Reminds me of

- "I think war is bad."
- "You're Anti-American! Get out of this country! You might as well go join the Taliban and Al-Qaeda if you're going to say that!"
- "Whatever."
- "MISSILES! BOMBS! TANKS! OH YEAH!" (drools...)

[RUNCIBLE 2.0]

Alright, maybe my decision to resist intervention was a BIT premature . . .

Setting my frosted Joe Columbo glass aside, I'm bound to wonder: who allowed "crude analogy" to register a name at MacRumors.com? Shouldn't there be some kind of screening policy? I mean -- openly hostile comments directed at Apple Computers, Inc. . . . well, shouldn't be regarded as mere fluff. What if this guy's a genuine homocidal freak-pot near the boiling point? Or is that what everyone is, underneath.

Fun-slash-scary to think about.

[crude analogy]

war IS bad, but worse is: biting the hand that feeds you.

for a Westerner to trash Western culture is like criticizing our nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere on the grounds that it sometimes gets windy, and besides, Jupiter's is much prettier. you may not realize its advantages until you're trying to breathe liquid methane.

so **** your liberal/wozniak comments. you're only peeling back the facade, revealing a total lack of education beneath.

what i "blindly" accept is filtered and distilled through finely-honed reasoning and logic. it seems you only adopt what the naysayers, the merchants of cynicism, expel.

if you're not innocent, you can't accuse. knowing, not believing, knowing that apple will soar above longhorn and all its connotations is not "irrational exuberance"--it is justified patriotism. which, despite your hippie mindset, is not the result of brainwashing or narrow-mindedness. i don't care what oscar wilde says -- "patriotism is a virtue of the vicious" -- because he wrote that in a letter regarding a certain german political idealist, initials A.H..

so keep knocking down your fellow men. keep assuring yourself that deep inside that head of yours is the only intelligent person on earth--that everyone around you, everyone on this forum, is at least fourteen points dimmer. that's how you come off, and that's how you will always be.

you're right. you're not anti-mac. you're anti-innovation.

[jacka55]

Originally posted by crude analogy
it sucks, the position we're in. every time we buy something, from that moment on, it ages. there's nothing we can do about it. macs, pcs, whatever. when i get osx jaguar, i know i'm going to be impressed. but ... new things will come out, neat little haxies, mods to augment jag. and bring about more of its "full" potential. then, who knows, two years down the road: 10.3, cougar.

Oh yeah, I'm afraid I agree with the first half of crude analogy's post here. The question, as I see it, is When is enough enough? In the computing world, apparently never any time soon. Companies have to continue to make money. It sometimes makes me wonder if perhaps a subscription model for software wouldn't necessarily be so bad. Isn't that really more similar to the software development model? What if you did subscribe to a piece of software as long as you were a subscriber, just like a magazine? It might allow a constant stream of income for the developer, encourage quicker updates (since people might feel that the subscription isn't worth it if it isn't updated punctually), and a host of other possible benefits. Unfortunately, it could also be used to milk the customer for all the money manageable, and that, of course, would be bad.

[RUNCIBLE 2.0]

Curious obnosa of the present dialectal battle:

1., APPLICATION OF GRAMMATICAL DICTUMS, LACK OF ACUITY IN:

subject (a) "crude analogy"

features: A distinct, unwavering ability to deliver streams of clear, fluid
thought -- coupled, however, by an almost utter neglect of conventional
grammatical axioms.

exempla gratia: "you're right. you're not anti-mac. you're anti-innovation."
(lack of appropriate capitalization). "****" (non-existent word use, also
called "false neology"). Many other examples -- refer to the compendium
"LONGHORN vs. JAGUAR ?" for more.

VÍS-A-VÍS:

2., APPLICATION OF GRAMMATICAL DICTUMS, DISPLAY OF ACUITY IN:

subject (b) -- ironically -- "jacka55"

features: An obvious grasp of most grammatical dictums, though certain
excusable slippages appear in unedited posts (viz. "I afraid I agree", etc.).
Capable of delivering long streams of clear, continuous thought. Articles
composed in an overtly professional manner, of a level acceptable by most
major (computing) magazines, WIRED among them (circ. 500,000).

exempla gratia: "I'm not anti-mac, just anti-'irrational exuberance' about the
infallibility of the Mother Ship." (excellent rejoinder). "I support Apple because
it doesn't (appear to) seek to take over the world like some companies do. Like
Steve said, We have 5% of the market right now. If we get 5% more, that will
double our market share." (professional sentence structure).

[crude analogy]

i hate people



osx SUCKS

[RUNCIBLE 2.0]

Well, that's certainly a change of mood . . .

[Ateazz]

hi guys,

You know what I thing we're going to.
Have you seen the commercial "the knwledge navigator"
See that in a combination with OS-X interface.

Just my guess