Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 11:28:13 -0700 From: "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC" <chad@shire.net> To: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> Cc: Free BSD Questions list <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Status of 6.0 for production systems Message-ID: <A6C97EC2-7644-4258-8DC6-BF74EA661714@shire.net> In-Reply-To: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNGEMLFCAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> References: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNGEMLFCAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Nov 17, 2005, at 5:18 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >> [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Chad >> Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC >> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 8:14 PM >> To: Ted Mittelstaedt >> Cc: Free BSD Questions list >> Subject: Re: Status of 6.0 for production systems >> >> >> >> Ted >> >> It would be nice if you could at least get your "facts" straight >> >> (continued below) >> >> On Nov 15, 2005, at 6:15 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Nov 14, 2005, at 9:23 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >>>> >>>>>> A lot of people wondered how Steve Jobs could dare change over to >>>>>> Intel >>>>>> chips. >>>>>> In Steve Jobs keynote speech announcing the big move Intel chips >>>>>> was >>>>>> just about entirely stated as because of the 'performance per >>>>>> watt >>>>>> ratio' of Intel CPUs. Check out the picture of the key note >>>>>> speech >>>>>> and >>>>>> look at the bottom of the picture with Intel and IBM's PowerPC >>>>>> processor. >>>>>> http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/tradeshows/2005/WWDC/ >>>>>> perfperwatt.jpg >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This is a bunch of whitewashing as anyone in the tech industry >>>>> knows. >>>> >>>> Wrong. WHat jobs said was exactly correct >>>> >>>>> Jobs changed over to Intel for two reasons. First, because Intel >>>>> gave >>>>> him a better price on the CPU's. >>>> >>>> This is also a consideration. Price always is/ >>>> >>>> However, the main reason was that the performance they needed at >>>> the >>>> wattage they needed (for laptops) was not on the horizon for PPC. >>>> The G5 can compete against the Intel desktop offerings but there >>>> was >>>> not a laptop G5 coming any time soon [because of energy >>>> dissipation) >>>> and the G4 for laptops was not cutting it. >>>> >>> >>> Rubbish. They could simply use Intel for laptops until IBM got it >>> together. >>> Or signed a letter of intent which would prod IBM. There is nothing >>> inherent >>> in the design of the G5 that makes it so that you cannot make low >>> power >>> and low heat versions of it. >> >> Ted. Apple did play some games to try and prod IBM. And your >> assertion that they could use Intel for laptops until IBM got its act >> together is hysterical. Glad you aren't running Apple or any other >> real company. You want them to commit to a much more expensive 2- >> architecture strategy indefinitely? > > Why not, every major name brand computer manufacturer produces systems > that are either AMD or Intel CPUs. Ted, are you really this dumb or do you just play it in the list. AMD and Intel are the same architecture -- the x86 architecture. And the 64 bit extension is just an extension of that same x86. 2 different physical CPU families but the same architecture. NO comparison. There is no major vendor shipping desktop and laptop computers in more than one architecture of the long haul > You can compile Darwin - I mean MacOS > X Darwin != Mac OS X. Darwin is the underlying kernel and supporting layers but it is not Mac OS X. There is a lot more to Mac OS X. And you, you obviously can compile Mac OS X for both as Apple has been doing that for several years. And they will continue to do that. But over the long term it is a much more expensive proposition and Apple is a company whose job it is to pull a profit and they try to minimize theor expenses just like everyone else. > for Intel just as easy as for Power PC. And besides, they are > going to > be > doing it anyway - or do you really think Apple is going to turn > it's back > on > all it's Power PC installed base? Aha! So forced obsolescence isn't an Apple motive like you earlier claimed as Apple will be supporting both for a while and NOT turning their backs on the installed base. Which is it Ted, forced obsolescence or not? > Right now nobody knows if the public > will go for the Intel-based Macs. Apple is claiming the public > will but > they > really don't know. If the public balks and stops buying Macs > except for > powerPC based ones, Apple will certainly not stop production on the > PowerPC stuff. > Don't forget the Apple Lisa and what happened to it. > > How long have you been running FreeBSD? Sine 1996 > And you still are so ignorant of > porting UNIX to other platforms? No, I am not. I am fully aware that unix like and UNIX runs on multiple platforms. It is also a major undertaking. x86 is still the only real stable version of FreeBSD with the x64 version coming along to join it -- a very related architecture btw. > UNIX was designed to be ported to > many different architectures. For that matter the crackers have > already > broken the weak security and run MacOS X 86 on standard PC hardware: > > http://www.osx86.theplaceforitall.com/howto/ The above is irrelevant to the discussion. Apple made the x86 version of OS X. Not some hacker group. The hackers only got the pre- release dev version to run on HW that lacked the Apple security chip. Big deal. It in no way supports any arguments you have made. > > If I was running Apple I would have opened the specs ages ago. Apple > did so and for a while people made Apple clones, then Apple got > greedy. > Or more specifically, Jobs got greedy. Since he was the one that > killed > the Mac clones. Like it or not Ted, Apple would not have survived without that action. I was not happy with that action but the proof is in the pudding. Apple has revitalized itself greatly and did so by taking control of the Macintosh market, as the owners of the IP, and providing a much better user experience -- doing so by controlling both the HW and the SW. At the time Jobs came back and killed the clones, the Mac market was not strong enough to support that fragmentation of the customer base. > > Jobs had a choice back in 1997 or whenerver he shot down Power > Computing. > The cloners were making Mac clones better and faster than Apple. Jobs > could either circle the wagons and retard Mac development to > continue to > wring money out of Mac users, or he could concentrate on making Mac > software > so great and compelling that people would buy it. Jobs did not retard MAc development. He accelerated it. The number of developers today developing for Macintosh are much greater than they were then. Get your facts straight. Some day, when Apple has 30 or 40% of the market instead of 3-4%, they can again open it up. > > People are leaving Sparc architecture in droves That may or may not be true -- support it. Sun just announced a new sparc chip that will probably do pretty well. And there is very little Solaris x86 compatible HW out there that can compare to normal and high end Sparc boxes -- just the the lower end boxes. > for everything other than > supercomputers, they are going Solaris x86. Why - because the major > motherboard makers do it better and cheaper than Sun, and they would > do it better and cheaper than Apple if Apple allowed it. Maybe or maybe not. That is irrelevant to the discussion. > >> That makes a lot of sense. IBM >> was not interested in making a G5 caliber chip made for laptops. > > That's what Apple says to justify their switch. That is what IBM said and also did. IBM did not come through and had nothing they were working on. Get your facts straight Ted. > >> There was nothing in their roadmap and nothing technology wise they >> were showing. > > Yeah, right they are going to publish their roadmap so Intel can > see it. They publish lots of things, as does Intel, and I am sure IBM gave lots of info to Apple under NDA. IBM as much as came out and agreed with Jobs, using other words, after the Apple announcement. Are you really this dense Ted. Do you think that Apple was relying only on a published roadmap? That they had no contact with IBM and saw IBM commitments and plans for the future? > >> Intel has some nice laptop chipsets and cpus. It is >> difficult and expensive as is to do a multi year transition and keep >> support of PPC machines for the sveeral years that they will be doing >> so after the transition. >> > > -IF- they transition and the Intel-based Mac's don't crash and burn > like the Apple Lisa. It already looks like the Intel transition will be a success based on the buzz and based on the continued growth of the Mac market AFTER the announcement. If people were worried about it they wouldn't be renewing their commitment to the market or even newly committing to it. People want OS X and the underlying architecture to most people is irrelevant. And with all the costly effort Apple is making to make sure people's software investments are supported and maintained, most people won't notice a difference when they buy their first Intel. Some software that is still PPC may have reduced performance, but most GUI apps don't stress the CPU and most vendors will release Intel compatible versions of their apps. It is already happening -- some vendors have already released Intel versions for testing to people who have the test dev boxes. > >> It probably was technically feasible to come up with a G5 caliber >> laptop chip but IBM was not interested for someone as "low volume" as >> Apple. They are much more interested in XBox 360 , Playstation 3 and >> Nintendo evolution. >> >>> >>> Other computer manufacturers have no problems using different >>> CPU's in >>> their products. >> >> Name one major manufacturer in the same market as Apple that has an >> indefinite long term strategy of multiple CPUs. I can only think of >> Big Iron like Sun and IBM. >> >>> >>>>> Second because doing this instantly >>>>> obsoletes the older power PC macs thus pushing all the Mac >>>>> users to >>>>> fork over money for new software and hardware. >>>> >>>> Wrong. Conspiracy-Ted at it again. >>>> >>> >>> But of course you have no answer to the software obsolescence issue. >> >> There is no software obsolescence issue. Besides making it quite >> easy to port software to OS X Intel for most people, since the >> underlying OS and libraries is the same, Apple has invested a ton of >> money into the Rosetta technology which allows PPC software to >> continue to run on the Intel boxes. And they are also still >> introducing PPC machines for a while and will continue to support PPC >> machines for several years so as to avoid the problem. >> > > You are missing the point. Do you think that software vendors who > make > and sell Mac software applications are going to port to MacOS X Intel > then > give free upgrades to all their customers? Of course not. In the past, when Apple went from m68k to PPC, or from OS 9 to OS X, many vendors did come out with their current versions for the new (HW/ SW) architecture. For free. Or they waited to support the new architecture until they had a major new release come out -- which was a paid upgrade no matter the platform. So no, Ted, history does not support your assertion. People's current versions will continue to run in most cases with the Rosetta technology. > You will have > to > buy the stuff with real money. And as for Rosetta, what rubbish - > emulators > are always slow, Facts Ted, facts, not your opinions. Rosetta actually works for lots of classes of HW and provides sufficient performance. > and why spend the money for a new MacOS X Intel box > then not spend money for upgrading all your software to MacOS X Intel > versions and instead run all your existing apps with Rosetta? Over time people will, probably on the same upgrade schedule they would have used and spent money for to upgrade their PPC versions. That is how it worked in the past. > Much > cheaper > to just buy a faster Power PC system and run all your existing apps on > it. It only makes sense to upgrade to MacOS X for Intel if you > replace > everything - > hardware and software. Over the long haul, yes, but in most cases, the additional money outlay is negligible as you would spend the same money on a new Mac , PPC or Intel anyway, and history shows that most vendors will either come out with a free version of their currently shipping app, but for Intel, or will start supporting Intel when they make a major (paid anyway for both PPC and Intel) upgrade. That is how it works Ted. > >>> >>> Once again typical Apple apologizing. When Apple dumped MacOS >>> Classic >>> in favor of MacOS X, all the Apple proponents who for years were >>> saying >>> that MacOS was the best OS in existence, didn't let the door hit >>> them on >>> the >>> ass on the way out of the mac Classic room. >> >> ????? classic MacOS (OS 9) was good for the market it was competing >> in but could not last forever. > > That's what I was telling all those Macaphiles before OS X came > out, of > course they screamed that I was blasphemous. Then once OS X came > out they changed their tune. Utter BS Ted. Maybe a few zealots did but most of the market went along with it. 10.0 had some teething problems and so some people switched later than others. Apple supported OS 9 for a long time after OS X came out -- several years -- both the OS and new HW that supported it, for those people who couldn't or wouldn't upgrade earlier in the cycle. Those are the facts Ted. > >> Apple has the Classic compatibility >> in OS X and for a few years after OS X was introduced continued to >> introduce new machines that support OS 9 natively. I can still run >> lots of my System 7 apps on my G5 under Classic today... no software >> obsolescence and nothing to worry about hitting me in the ass. >> > > But do you tell people to buy Classic apps today? Of course not. Why should we? Do you tell people to buy Win3.1 apps today? People who still need Classic apps can run them just fine. There are people (me included) who have run System 6 or even earlier Mac apps in Classic on the latest OS X. Apple supports earlier versions much better than most desktop companies. You claimed it was an effort to obsolete the SW so people would have to pay more money and generate more revenue. You have provided no supporting evidence. History speaks against your position as well as Apple's actions and statements of now. They are doing and spending a lot to make sure the transition is smooth and people do not suffer like you claim. > >>> When Apple dumped Motorola >>> in favor of IBM all the Apple people who for years had been >>> claiming that >>> Apples were so much better because they held their value over the >>> years >>> while PC's didn't, conveniently forgot that now the resale value of >>> the >>> 68k >>> Mac was zero. >> >> Dude, you have no idea what you were talking about. The PPC Mac was >> introduced in late 93 and 68K based Macs still had value (including >> resale) for a long while (I know as I sold one then). Your good on >> making crap up but bad on facts and history. >> >>> >>> What I think is the biggest joke is that you Apple guys worship the >>> ground >>> that Jobs walks on like he's Apple's Savior, Jobs can do no wrong >>> is the >>> mantra. >> >> Jobs can do wrong. But he has been a lot more successful than you or >> most any other industry executive over the last 7 years. I give the >> guy a break most of the time since he has a track record. >> >>> Yet to the non Apple-colored-eyglasses computer industry, the >>> guy >>> is just as money-grubbing profit-grubbing as any other. >> >> Actually not. I don't like the guy personally, but I respect where >> he has taken Apple and the way he has given Apple new life. Just FYI >> -- He had a $1 salary at Apple for a long while. > > http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/general/2004/12/28/ > generalap_2004_ > 12_28_ap.ds.dsf.all_D878TEIO0_news_ap_org.anpa.html > >> He did take some >> stock grants and options after turning the company around. > > 78 million bucks ring a bell? per year? Your point is? Some years Steve does well because his stock and options do well because his actions have greatly benefitted Apple and its stockholders. He does not get $78m / year. He got $1 in salary and he traded all his options for restricted stock in 04 -- that is a one time event. And Steve is one of the few executives who probably deserve it based on his performance. Many executives companies don't perform as well as Apple and they make as much or more and then leave in disgrace as their company tanks or is in a scandal and take another $30m in a golden parachute... > > You like >> to spew for venom and to you everything is a conspiracy or everyone >> but Ted is a zealot. >> > > You just love the word conspiracy, you use it all the time, however I > have never done so. Most people involved in them don't. > >>> This is a guy >>> that didn't >>> even know that FreeBSD was one of the bases of MacOSX and was >>> telling >>> people it was built on -LINUX- for crying out loud. >> >> ??????????????? Who are you talking about? >> > > When Steve Jobs was talking about MacOS during prerelease days back > in 1999 during one of the developers conferences he referred to it > as a > new OS that was built on that open source Linux software. > > Obviously he knows better now, but he did say that. Give me a reputable link or quote. While I was not at the 1999 Apple Developer Conference (started down the path to registration but then the funds did not materialize to make it happen), I was deeply involved in APple developer lists and don't remember any such thing and had already been using OpenStep for a few years and knew its roots. And no one at the conference talked about that either. Prove it. (And there is only 1 apple dev conference a year) > >> Btw. FreeBSD is NOT one of the "bases" for Mac OS X. Mac OS X did >> inherit the FreeBSD userland and add in a BSD kernel compatibility >> layer compatible with FreeBSD. But Mac OS X is based on OpenStep >> which was a mach based BSD personality (pre FreeBSD) OS. >> > > http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/darwin/faq.html > > "We should note, however, that apart from a few architectural > differences > (such as our use > of the Mach kernel), we try to keep Darwin as compatible as > possible with > FreeBSD > (our BSD reference platform)." > > Remember, "a few architectural differences". Sounds like one of the > bases to me. > > I never said FreeBSD was a base of the OS X -kernel-. That's you > saying > I said that. > I said it was a base of -the OS- which it is. No its not. FreeBSD is used as a base for some non essential parts, replacing the earlier BSD 4.3. OS X works just fine without the BSD layer and the stuff added to the system to support the BSD layer. Yes, OS X uses FreeBSD based software and interfaces but is not reliant on it and hence it is not a base. > >>> >>> Jobs switched CPU's to get a whole lot of you guys to dump you >>> "holds its >>> resale value" hardware in the ashbin, and run out and give a lot of >>> money >>> to >>> Apple for the latest and greatest Intel gear, as well as help out >>> all the >>> software >>> ISV's writing software for MacOS X by giving them a reason to prod >>> all of >>> you >>> into buying software upgrades. And you can't get enough of it! >>> Simply >>> amazing! >>> Apple is working exactly like Microsoft these days yet you all >>> think it's >>> still better! >> >> Ted the conspiracy man. Spewing forth his BS. Ted. You don't have >> a clue of what you are talking about. >> > > Oh, I'm wrong? So you really think it's worse? You dream up all kinds of crap Ted. I did a Google a minute ago "Ted MIttelstaedt conspiracy" . It appears you are convinced of more conspiracies than just this if my cursory glance at the results is correct... > >>> >>> I guess one of these days when General Motors finally gets stick of >>> propping up >>> Saturn (Saturn has never turned a profit since it was founded) >>> all the >>> Saturn >>> owners who think they are 'different kinna car people' will be >>> saying >>> that >>> Chevrolet is a 'different kinna car' Cast from the same mold >>> you all >>> are. >>> >>> >>> Ted >> >> Ted, reading your stuff would be humorous if it wasn't so sad. You >> are pretty smart guy in technical matters. Too bad you are such an >> ass otherwise. >> >> Every person who wants FreeBSD to adopt a real logo is a right wing >> Christian wacko. >> > > Boy, your just stuck on this logo thing. FreeBSD already has a real > logo, > see the following: > > $ head -15 /usr/share/examples/BSD_daemon/README > # > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > ----- > # "THE BEER-WARE LICENSE" (Revision 42): > # <phk@FreeBSD.ORG> wrote this file. As long as you retain this > notice > you > # can do whatever you want with this stuff. If we meet some day, > and you > think > # this stuff is worth it, you can buy me a beer in return. Poul- > Henning > Kamp > # > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > ----- > # > # $FreeBSD: src/share/examples/BSD_daemon/README,v 1.2.2.1 2001/03/04 > 09:19:23 phk Exp $ > # > > This directory contains various stuff relating to the FreeBSD daemon > logo "beastie" and graphic profile. > ^^^^^ > > Kirk Mckusick <mckusick@FreeBSD.org> holds the copyright to the > BSD Daemon and you may need to get his explicit permission before > $ > You call it a logo but it is not really a logo according to good logo design. And interestingly you didn't deny my point. > >> Every person who uses OS X is an Apple Zealot who worships the ground >> Jobs walks on. >> > > Hmm I must be then - since I use it. > > How did we get from "Jobs switched to Intel CPU's to get a shitpile of > money from > naieve Mac users" > > to > > "Mere use of OS X means your a zealot" Go read your words. You made the claim, not me. The quotes are above. > >> That is the world according to Ted Mittelstaedt. >> > > Here's the world according to Chad: > > "Oh God, someone out there thinks differently than I do - they must > be an > insane, > crazed conspiracy theorist" I respect people who think differently. I do not respect people who piss over everyone trying to tell them how great and smart and intelligent they (the pisser) are/(is) and that they (the audience) suck, are stupid, and don't have a clue. We'll let people draw their own conclusions. Ted's conspiracies or the real world of objective facts. Apple wants to force everyone to buy new Macs (Ted) or they made a business decision to switch because the PPC was no longer a long term viable architecture for their needs (Chad). Btw, your theories don't pass Occam's Razor either. You add complexity to Apple's decision when the simplest is Apple's stated public reason. Chad > > Ted > --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad@shire.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?A6C97EC2-7644-4258-8DC6-BF74EA661714>