Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Avie Tevanian Leaving Apple?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
MkLinux was not experimental, but a real environment -- I used it years ago, back on a 7100av -- ah, the good old days. MkLinux kicked Mac OS 8/9's but in speed at that time -- I also had fun running NEXTSTEP 3.3 & OpenStep for MACH on my Canon object.station 41... ;-)
NeXT/Apple merger was a brilliant move, the next brilliant move would be for Apple to buy Palm, me thinks -- an Apple Treo would be great.
NeXT/Apple merger was a brilliant move, the next brilliant move would be for Apple to buy Palm, me thinks -- an Apple Treo would be great.
Marlor said:
I'm not stupid and I know my way round a mac- can trouble shoot most problems I've come across but all this talk of Mach, kernels, Free BSD and what not just leaves me confused- guess my level of knowledge isn't that great with regards to the underlining progamming of OSX, Unix, Linux etc.
Not something I've ever had to have knowledge of- OSX just works for me! Sure I've had the odd 'Kernel panic'- just rebooted and was all fine!?
Maybe I'll have to investigate all this sh*t and what it means one day- til then I'll happily plod along knowing most problems I'll fix one way or another
Not something I've ever had to have knowledge of- OSX just works for me! Sure I've had the odd 'Kernel panic'- just rebooted and was all fine!?
Maybe I'll have to investigate all this sh*t and what it means one day- til then I'll happily plod along knowing most problems I'll fix one way or another
Don't blame him
Don't blame him. Working for both NeXT and Apple, under incredible pressure for so many years, will make anyone leave and look for something else.
And also, Avie has no more challenges -- he helped design most advanced operating system on Earth, and there's no similar opportunity rising on the market. He's just bored now and wants to enjoy his well deserved millions. There are young guys coming now, with all new crazy ideas, and he just wants to go. Smart move.
In fact, I envy him!
Well done, Avie! Stay away from technology, Steve Jobs and everyone else and enjoy your life!
Don't blame him. Working for both NeXT and Apple, under incredible pressure for so many years, will make anyone leave and look for something else.
And also, Avie has no more challenges -- he helped design most advanced operating system on Earth, and there's no similar opportunity rising on the market. He's just bored now and wants to enjoy his well deserved millions. There are young guys coming now, with all new crazy ideas, and he just wants to go. Smart move.
In fact, I envy him!
Well done, Avie! Stay away from technology, Steve Jobs and everyone else and enjoy your life!
My guess
I bet Microsoft MacBu hired him for the upcoming co-Virtual PC OS based on Windows XP Pro SP2/Win2003 SP3 for cross over via Virtualization to OS X?!!
Or the upcoming tweak for Office 12 to OS X; just a guess/dream.
I bet Microsoft MacBu hired him for the upcoming co-Virtual PC OS based on Windows XP Pro SP2/Win2003 SP3 for cross over via Virtualization to OS X?!!
Or the upcoming tweak for Office 12 to OS X; just a guess/dream.
The F_FULLFSYNC thing is kind of amusing. VMS has that behavior by default (you have to jump through hoops to get around it), and sure enough, software ported over from Unix has a tendency to bog down there because Unix application programmers assume that syncing is cheap.shawnce said:
Even more amusing is that no one learns from the past. Here, it appears that Apple had to rediscover this problem independently and reinvent the solution decades after it was solved.
Avie was at Sun ??Nemesis said:
http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/
Advanced Solaris OS Features
A $500-million investment produced the most advanced operating system ever built, with more than 600 new features in Solaris 10,
A $500-million investment produced the most advanced operating system ever built, with more than 600 new features in Solaris 10,
Wow, that's three times the number of new features in OSX 10.4...
And Microsoft too!AidenShaw said:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/evaluation/features/mobility.mspx
"Windows XP Professional is the most advanced operating system ever created for laptops."
The past of Apple is irrelevant.
What matters in the present and the momentum. These are very positive days for Apple. Really all the company has to do now is concentrate on cost reduction, as their existing hardware and software go down the price learning curve.
Really there is no reason why a MacBook Pro could not be $ 1000 in a year and $ 500 in two. And Apple will sell its ass off with a $ 500 MacBook Pro, it could easily sell 300 million laptops worldwide.
Many other laptops are now $ 499. They share many common hardware parts. And Mac OSX does not have Gates charging for that Windoze.
That is 150 billion in sales.
What matters in the present and the momentum. These are very positive days for Apple. Really all the company has to do now is concentrate on cost reduction, as their existing hardware and software go down the price learning curve.
Really there is no reason why a MacBook Pro could not be $ 1000 in a year and $ 500 in two. And Apple will sell its ass off with a $ 500 MacBook Pro, it could easily sell 300 million laptops worldwide.
Many other laptops are now $ 499. They share many common hardware parts. And Mac OSX does not have Gates charging for that Windoze.
That is 150 billion in sales.
Aimless company
Avie was at Sun ??
Sun is aimless company. No vision.
Maybe not dead now, but in the years to come, for sure.
Avie was at Sun ??
Sun is aimless company. No vision.
Maybe not dead now, but in the years to come, for sure.
goglamosh said:
Macrumors should give out a trophy for most insane comments. I nominate this post as the first winner!
OSX is already built on BSD which, like linux, is based on Unix.
Why in plu-perfect hell would they do all the work to switch it to linux? There would be 0 benefit. It doesn't make sense at all.
sam-i-am said:
Oh yeah, the ol' Linux support parties...I really can't stand that system...to say 0 benefit is to be euphemistic; that junk belongs to PCs...and PCs only.
cybermiguel said:
How exactly is it "obsolete" if it gives kick-ass performance and stability? Monolithic kernels are far from "obsolete".
What on EARTH are you talking about here?
BRLawyer said:
I HONESTLY don't understand why Mac-users have to bash Linux. Seriously. Linux and OS X could co-exists BEAUTIFULLY with each other, but you guys seem to have determined that that must not happen. Linux is constantly mocked and flamed among Mac-users. Why? Did Linus Torvalds steal your girlfriend or something? Are you afraid that Linux is going to "steal your thunder"? In short: what is your problem?
As to your comparison of Windows and Linux... Well, let's just say that it's REALLY off-base. I use Linux, and I use Windows (at work). And I can say that troubleshooting Linux is A LOT easier than troubleshooting Windows is! And when something goes wrong with Linux, you can actually fix it. With Windows, it might not be so. And "barebones"?!?!? Most Linux-distros ship with metric assload of developer-tools, server-tools, apps, servers etc. etc. Linux is many things, but "barebones" it's not. Sure, you can run a minimal Linux-install, but you do that by your own choice, and not because you are forced to because Linux is "barebones".
And when I started using OS X alongside Linux, I found the software-base on OS X to be "paltry" when compared to Linux
.BRLawyer said:
I have used OS X for a while. And I like Linux more. I guess we have a disagreement here then? Or are you now saying that your personal opinion matters more than my personal opinion? that my opinion does not matter, whereas your opinion is the universal truth?
For some people (like me) it IS the better OS. For some other people OS X is the better OS. And some other people prefer Windows. Or are you now trying to tell that OS X is objectively and universalle "better"? It might be better FOR YOU. It's not better FOR ME.
I have seen plenty of "normal users" using Linux. Linux CAN be a complex OS meant for complex tasks. And it can be a simple OS for "normal users". I would have zero problems recommending Linux to some grandmother.
My wife has used Linux+KDE. And yes, she complained about various things in it. She has also been using OS X. And guess what? She complains about various things in it as well! In fact, it seems to me that she complains MORE about OS X than about Linux/KDE.
BRLawyer said:
You really seem to have some issues. I just can't understand this hostility Linux receives from Mac-users. You guys are ALMOST as bad as SGI-users!
Evangelion said:
Sorry Evangelion, but to say that Linux should be "friends" with OS X means the same as expressing that Alienware is as "cool" as Macs.
I fully respect your opinion, but I just can't see Linux in many normal users' households in its current state. It IS a complex OS, it HAS software base problems, software installation is CUMBERSOME and troubleshooting is sketchy at best.
If Macs have problems with games, Linux is a disaster; besides, Linux has extremely limited offerings from major developers; and the complicated plethora of distros just sends one message to NORMAL consumers: Why the hell are there so many? What is the difference? I have no clue...
No, I am not talking about us crazy MacRumors posters...I am talking about people who are NOT computer-savvy at all; people who need a closed box that works. And in this sense, even Winblows is better than Linux.
I want an OS with FULL plug-n-play; I don't wanna mess with drivers, CUPS, configs etc...I wanna be able to fire up Apple Store online and buy everything I need in terms of software; and I don't wanna know if the last version of StarOffice is still compatible with the last version of MS Office.
For me, Linus, Yellow Dog et al. may stay in the catacombs of the computing world...or just bother Microsoft, for that matter...not Apple and OS X. Call me blunt, call me shallow, but for me Linux is just crude...and has been crude and heterogeneous for ages...it never consolidates, it never stabilizes...no, thanks.
This is a rediculous statment. A MBP will never cost $500-1000. Even if they would sell Billions of units, 0% of a billion is still ZERO. If apple sold MBP at $700-800 they would be in the tank in a heartbeat. Stock holders whould be certain that Steve has gone insane and do everything possible to remove him.mgauss said:
There is these things called cost of doing business (ie R&D, benefits, salaries cost to ship, utilities, rents, etc etc, that probably add significant cost to each of apple's products. Its not just a factor of the cost of the componenets that make up the machine.
Gross margin begets net margin. Net margin is one of the true indicators of the health of a company. If it is improving without the selling price of the products increasing, then a company is doing an excellent job at driving efficiencies througout the costing structure. And they are still producing a qulity product that can maintain the gross margins needed on the front end.
$500 MBP. Why would you spend $400 on a video iPod then????
BRLawyer said:
I'm saying that there are ZERO reason why Linux and OS X couldn't co-exist with each other. But you guys seem to want to make that as hard as possible.
You could say the same about OS X as well. For many cases Windows would be a better choice.
So is OS X. The key is to hide that complexity. Linux can be complex to the user. And it can be very simple as well.
Opinion, not a fact. When I started using OS X after using Linux for years, I found that OS X had "software base problems". All the apps that I used and loved in Linux were simply not there. And the apps that I did manage to find, usually cost money.
How so? On my Linux (Kubuntu) I have basically two means of installing apps:
a) I launch a package-manager. I select the app I want in the package-manager and click "install". The app is installed
b) I have installed Klik on my machine. That means that I can install apps by (*drum roll*).... klicking on a link in a website. That's it.
How exactly are those methods "cumbersome"? Or are you whining because it's different from OS X, and everyhting that is not like OS X is "cumbersome"? Or, IOW, you are stating your subjective opinion as fact.
No it isn't. you are stating your personal opinion as fact. Is your personal opinion worth more than my personal opinion?
Again: Opinion, not a fact. I HAVE seen lots and lots of "closed boxes" that run Linux, and they do it with zero issues. Windows would suck, since its full of spyware, viruses and other miscellianeous crap. OS X would be better, but it requires specific hardware to work. Linux has the advantage in that it would work on just about all hardware out there.
That's your choice. But just cut out the BS, OK? Dont like Linux? Fine, you have that choice. But please: don't spread bunch of personal opinions as facts. There really is no need for the hatred towards Linux. Linux did not steal your girlfriend, it did not scratch your car nor did it drink your beer. I honestly don't understand the hatred towards Linux. Success of Linux does NOT take anything away from Apple. Fact is that Linux could be Apple's and OS X's best friend in the computing-world. An OS that actually implements and follows open and documented standards? An OS that actually tries to work well with other OS'es? And still, all we ever hear from Mac-users is bitching and moaning, as far as Linux is concerned.
It just boggles the mind, really.
shawnce said:
For those of you still confused about this, read this:
http://developer.apple.com/document.../additionalfeatures/chapter_10_section_8.html
The XNU Kernel is a bit of a strange Mach + BSD4 hybrid. It is not microkernel, but does use Memory management, IO, and messaging from Mach (which is microkernel). Apple claims this gives them the best of both worlds, Anandtech claims it gives them the worst.
You decide...
Yeah, Anandtech's article - which, FWIW, I think is flawed on a technical level too (which doesn't mean I'm weighing in on XNU vs Linux) - does have a lazy use of language. Nonetheless, if one takes its tests at face value, its not actually comparing the parts of Mac OS X that make Mac OS X Mac OS X. It's comparing the kernels.BRLawyer said:
It's a poor test that -
1. Gives apparent independent ammunition to the pro-Linux (or pro-monolithic) kernel camp, who are convinced Apple went in the wrong direction with XNU and Mach.
2. Is so poor it's easily demolished, and those on the defensive, such as those who dislike monolithic designs and/or those who like XNU have every reason to point out its flaws.
It would, right now, be silly for Apple to switch Mac OS X from XNU to Linux. While Linux may give them more efficiency, and a base compatable with the vast majority of PCs out there, and possibly a little more reliability, and more compatability with third party hardware, and better compatability with non-Mac OS X native applications (though most just need a recompile, so it's open to question how big a benefit that is), and support for more obscure networking and file system standards and the interoperability that comes with it, and less work - more ease relying upon third parties - when porting operating system components such as SAMBA, Apache, Kerberos, and PostgreSQL, there are slight differences that would require days of work for Apple to overcome in terms of building compatability layers.
For example, XNU uses the "Mach-O" executable format, whereas Linux uses ELF. To support this, Apple would essentially have to write a module for Linux that supports Mach-O binaries. Likewise, XNU implements system calls in a slightly different way to Linux. To support this, Apple would have to write a translation layer that picks up XNU calls, and calls the appropriate Linux system calls.
I don't see them doing it. We're talking about hundreds, possibly thousands, of dollars worth of programming time just to gain some fractional "efficiency" and reduced efforts involved in supporting third party tools and hardware. Why would they?