RedHat (and many other companies) seem to do just fine selling Linux. RedHat offers Fedora Core Linux free, but Apple has offered Darwin for both x86 and PPC free for a long time.x86isslow said:i think the linux kernel's license would be an obstacle, apple's choice of bsd was because they could sell things they made based on it. if they went with linux, they'd have to make their OS free.
OSX Server has fundamental issues that makes it terribly inefficient as a multiuser server.dashiel said:exactly who is complaining about OS speed on any apple modern apple hardware? this strikes me as a fanboy wet dream that has very little upside and loads of headaches.
The site is called "Low End Mac". I'm using a 450 MHz G4 PowerMac and I can relate to some of what he's talking about. But, I do think his argument is flawed as others have pointed out.dashiel said:exactly who is complaining about OS speed on any apple modern apple hardware? this strikes me as a fanboy wet dream that has very little upside and loads of headaches.
Really? After nearly a decade of tweaks for PowerPC architecture, will the twisted and strained underpinnings just nicely unwind and smooth out? He mentions that the NeXT PowerPC port was scrapped when NeXT 486 was released, but perhaps that material, or at least their plans, can be adapted to the OSX86 transformation.The underlying kernel is a bit of a hack, ported from NeXT's x86-based OS to the PowerPC, and moving the Mac to Intel CPUs will improve things.
RedHat charges for support of RHEL and also includes customizations that run on top of the OS.mduser63 said:RedHat (and many other companies) seem to do just fine selling Linux. RedHat offers Fedora Core Linux free, but Apple has offered Darwin for both x86 and PPC free for a long time.
Hehe a bit harsh judgement but I agree. I really hope that the new Intel Mac won't make life even more difficult for us developersPhotorun said:And why should Macs play well with Windows? I get tired of this argument, how about Windows playing nice with Macs... or hell, Windows playing nice with ANYONE! They're the closed-source knuckleheads keeping the computing world kicking and screaming barely out of the DOS era but you don't see people pointing figures that direction.
longofest said:The guy goes on and on about Mach's weaknesses, but doesn't talk about its strengths, like the security benefit of only having necessary processes running in the kernel, etc...
Apple has done a great job I think of toning down Mach's weaknesses.
By the way... for those who think that the kernel in OSX is BSD... nope. It's Mach. OSX is a hybrid between Mach and BSD, where the kernel is Mach which handles IPC and memory management, etc, and BSD handles system calls and other user-level functionality.
Perhaps, but it seems more like a Linux fanboy wrote it more than anything....Paul O'Keefe said:Lowendmac is an extremely good resource. It's one that I call on often. This article, however, is probably out of their element and knowledge area. I think it came out of a recent bunch of stories dealling with linux experiences on older mac hardware.