Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 07:45:04 -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: <DFF80491-3DD4-4563-BDAC-A5AA871CCE31@shire.net> In-Reply-To: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNOENBFCAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> References: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNOENBFCAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Nov 19, 2005, at 5:10 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: Thursday, November 17, 2005 10:28 AM >> To: Ted Mittelstaedt >> Cc: Free BSD Questions list >> Subject: Re: Status of 6.0 for production systems >> >> >>>> >>>> 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. > > No, they are not the same architecture. Both can run "x86" programs > but the chips have a superset of instructions that are different. > Please > read what the gcc flags -march=opteron and -march=pentium4 do > and quit with the nonsense. If these are the same architecture > then those flags wouldn't exist. Whatever you say Ted. The Opteron is a superset of the 32 bit x86 architecture adding in 64bit capability. They are the same architecture Ted. That doesn't mean each can't have their own optimizations and different sets of features. Architectures are not a chip. They are the architecture with different chips being different implementations. > >> >>> 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? >> > > What Apple WANTS and what they are going to DO may possibly > be different things. > > Apple WANTS obsolescense of the PPC stuff, no question about it. Whatever you say Ted. Obviously Apple hopes that people adopt the x86 stuff as quickly as possible so they can reduce their support costs of PPC. But that doesn't mean the intent and purpose of the move is to cause a spike in sales to make more money. Use your head Ted > They will be pushing with the marketing as hard as they can to do it. > > But, when the pedal meets the metal, that is, when the buyer has > cash in hand and is standing in the computer store looking at the > x86 Mac and the PPC Mac and deciding what to buy - well, what > happens as a result of that, is what Apple is going to DO. > > If the buyers stick with the PPC stuff and ignore the x86 stuff then > Apple has no choice but to give it up and stick with the PPC. Oh > sure, if things get bad Apple will change pricing to practically give > away the x86 stuff compared to the PPC stuff - but right now we don't > KNOW what will happen. I can definitely assure you that if Apple > fails with the marketing campaign to switch the customer base to > x86, that they won't turn their back on PPC - because they will be > unable to do it and stay solvent. But I think you will see them > doing everything short of simply stopping production on PPC gear > to convince customers to buy the x86 gear. Whatever you say Ted. > >> >> 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. >> > > NetBSD m68k runs just as stable as FreeBSD, I've had it running for > years on an old 68K Mac. Read the history of FreeBSD - it was > originally chartered for ONLY the x86. The BSD code itself came to > the PC from a non-PC architecture. ???? Read what I said Ted. I was not talking about netbsd. You like to change the subject when shown you are wrong. > >>> 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 not then why do you feel compelled to comment on it? Does > that bit of news disturb you that much? I merely brought it up to > illustrate that it is not this big major undertaking to support > multiple platforms with UNIX, Apples doing it now. You brought up the irrelevant stuff Ted. Stuff that does not support anything you have said. Of course Unix runs on multiple platforms. No one made any claims to the contrary. The first Unix exposure I ever had was some sort of System III (????? that is from 21 year old memory) on a Z8000. A little later I was using Ultrix on a VAX and some BSD on one of those AT&T machine, 3bXXX, forget its name. In todays world you have Power, Sparc, Itanium, x86, x86-64, etc. All different CPUs. And all irrelevant to the argument. You claim that Apple could easily support multiple architectures. I never disputed that they could do that. Just that no desktop manufacturers support multiple architectures and very few Server manufacturers do (for example, HP is moving everyone away from the HP chip and Alpha to Itanium and with different OS on x86/x86-64). Because it costs a lot more money to support multiple architectures. > > Although, come to think of it, it also illustrates one other point - > that Apple isn't simply taking the Intel CPU and using it in their > own superior hardware design. Instead they are just copying the > existing Wintel motherboard designs and porting to that. We don't know that and that is a subject of much speculation. Will they be adopting Wintel motherboard designs or coming out with something different? (ie, BIOS versus that new Intel thing no one uses, etc) > Yet > even one more reason to ask why are we going to spend extra > money on an x86 Mac hardware when what's in the guts of the > x86 Macintosh is the same thing that is in any typical Wintel clone. We'll see... > >>> >>> 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. > > Jobs thought so but I think that's a rediculous assumption. Whatever you say Ted. Don't let facts get in the way (or historical 20/20 hindsight). > Microsoft > was much much smaller than Apple and they stayed out of the PC > hardware market, and now are far larger than Apple. That proves that > there is no need to be in the hardware market to survive. ???? That does not prove anything. The comparison is a false one. Apple is a HW company and would have to transition to a SW company to fulfill your claim. That is much harder than starting a new market and growing it like MS more or less did. > >> 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. > > And, with the switch to Intel they are now giving up control of the HW > because they are simply porting to the existing Wintel motherboard > designs. We'll see if that is what they do. The internal guts may be the same Wintel motherboard designs or may be different. However, with PPC they never really controlled the HW either as they were dependent on IBM and Motorola. > So much for the "better user experience" More proof that > you don't have to control the HW. Proof of nothing Ted. An Apple designed and integrated x86 Computer will be as user friendly and advanced as the PPC ones are. The CPU has nothing to do with that. > >> >> Jobs did not retard MAc development. He accelerated it. > > Wrong, No, it is 100% correct. The Macintosh market turned around and a lot more advancement took place after Steve returned and a lot more developers work on it now than did then. He accelerated Mac development Ted. The clones did nothing really innovative except use commodity PC parts and cases and cannibalize Mac sales. > the Mac clones at the time were faster and cheaper than the > Apple Macs of the time. They were not faster except that is as that they were shipping less machines, they could adopt the faster CPUs at a quicker pace. So yes, they were faster versions of the same Apple designs because they were more nimble, being copiers of Apple technology instead of doing the R&D. They were cheaper because they did not do any industrial design. > Why do you think Jobs purchased Power > Computing? He wanted their R&D. There was no R&D there Ted. Believe me. Power Computer used an Apple motherboard design they licensed, laid it out in an ATX form, stuck it in an ATX case, and sold it. > If their stuff had been slower or > just ripoffs of the existing Mac designs he would have walked away > from them. They were ripoffs of existing Mac designs Ted. All the clones were. They all licensed Apple motherboard designs and used PC components and cases. The Power Computing stuff was mainly based on the 7500/8500/9500 motherboard. The Motorola stuff was based on the 6xxx series MB but with a 604 CPU instead of a 601/603. Apple bought Power Computing to pay off the Power Computing people and probably forestall litigation. Believe me Ted, I worked in the Mac market at the time as a consultant and as a software developer. I worked on Power Computing and UMAX clones as well as Apple stuff. I went to the Apple Devleoper conferences. > >> 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. >> > > Consider that when MacOS moved to UNIX that all the UNIX software > vendors could now easily port their applications to Macintosh. Those aren't the people who came to the Mac Ted. > Since > a Mac with OSX on it makes the best damn "X Windows workstation" > in existence today, far superior to anything that Sun puts out, it > really > makes a tremendously compelling argument for a UNIX isv to port to > Macintosh. Not only do they get a solid hardware design that has > a company actually interested in the OS behind it, but they can > maybe tap some customers in the traditional Mac software markets. > > Apple's success today is largely due to them coming to their senses > and jettsoning that rediculous pile of assumptions called MacOS, > now Mac OS Classic. For crying out loud - a resource and data fork > for every file? Sheesh! That one decision of Jobs is what saved > Apple > as a company. And it certainly wasn't original, lots of people over > the years long before MacOS X had suggested Apple look at doing > just that. Novell even tried the same thing but they didn't have the > persistence to make it work. Now look where they are. Whatever you say Ted. Forks (or lack thereof) to the rescue! > >> >>> >>>> 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. >> > > The low-power Power 970FX cpu which is currently available from IBM > uses 16 watts at 1.6Ghz. The speed and power of that chip at 1.6Ghz > is far faster than a Pentium running at 1.6Ghz, as has been proven by > benchmarking. See the following article titled > "No More Apple Mysteries, Part Two" here: > > http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2520 > > After some research, the author found serious problems in how MacOSX > is optimized for the PPC. Perhaps if Apples programmers had done the > work, they could have used the existing G5 chips in laptops that would > be just as powerful as anything that is shipping on the Wintel > platform. Whatever you say Ted. > >> >> 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. >> > > IBM is going to say whatever Jobs wants them to say because they > do not want Jobs in a fit of pique to cancel their contract for the > existing > production. He has been known to do things like that, you know. One > year he threw out all the Apples scheduled for demos at a convention > that had ATI video chips in them over some tiff with ATI. Another > time > he > make the bookstore in the Apple office building toss all books by a > publisher > who had pissed him off over some slight. The guy is rather unbalanced > when he thinks someone is crossing him. Whatever you say Ted. > >> 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? >> > > I never said Apple was relying on anything told to them from IBM, > published > or otherwise. I have said Apple is making a marketing, not a > technology, > move that is calculated to make a lot of money for them. Whatever you say Ted. > >>> >>> -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. > > I love this arguement - people are buying lots and lots of currently > shipping > PPC gear so they must be wanting Intel-based gear. You ought to be a > politician. If people were afraid of the Intel move, Ted, they wouldn't now be buying PPC based stuff as they would be leaving the Mac market altogether. OS X is the platform Ted and people's PPC purchases are a show of faith that the Intel platform will be a success. People wouldn't be buying a dying platform. > >> If people were worried about it they wouldn't be >> renewing their commitment to the market > > Or they are afraid all the PPC stuff is going away and they want to > get > a last 5 years or so of life out of their existing software, so buy it > now > while it's still here. Whatever you say Ted. > >> and most vendors will release >> Intel compatible versions of their apps. > > which will cost money, thus making money for those vendors, which > proves my point that this is all about getting more money out of the > Apple customer base. Whatever you say Ted. Of course people will buy Intel compatible versions of their Apps. Since most SW vendors who don't have a free side-grade for their first version Intel compatible apps will wait until they do the next major uupgrade to do so (history supports this based on previous transitions), they won't be making any more money since people would be paying for the upgrade anyway, whether PPC or Intel. I already explained that to you in detail and you keep coming back with your fantasy. > >>> >>> 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. > > That isn't free since everyone running an older version of > something has > to upgrade to the current version in order to get the free > upgrade. Oh > sure it helps CURRENT owners of software - but your only going to own > a current version if you are a good little customer and you have > always > bought the new version of a program when it's been released. I might > point out also that all a company has to do is release a new > version of > their app that is PPC only, followed by an offer for a "free" > upgrade to > x86 when they release that, to qualify for your statement. This makes no sense. If you were happy with your old version, stick with it. Apple has the compatibility layers there to support your old versions. Heck, I still have Photoshop 4 for the Mac. > >> 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. > > Which, if the underlying architecture didn't change, you didn't > have to > buy. Since the underlying architecture will change, now you have to > buy it. No you don't Ted. Apple has the compatibility layers there to support it. People buy the new versions as they want the new features. > > I have worked at several software companies, I worked at them from > 1990 > to 1998 in fact. Every one was vitally interested in customers buying > every version of a software package that they released. The customers > they hated were the ones that bought one version then never > upgraded it > to the new version when that came available. In fact for quite a > while > in > the 90's it was routine practice at many software companies to only > fix > bugs > in the new versions, including security holes. So if a customer > called > in > with a bug they got told that yes, we will fix that bug, but only > in the new version, you will have to buy the new version to get the > fix. > Fortunately that attitude died when Microsoft started giving out > security > patches for free, for current AND PAST software versions. > > So yes I am very familiar with all the tricks used to get software > customers > to keep buying the next version that is released. People buy new versions because they want the new features. Yes, featuritis is a marketing gimmick used to get people to buy more SW. But don't blame Apple for that. MS seems to excel in it much more than Apple... You make no sense Ted. History nor logic support your argument. > >> >> 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. >> > > Once again you are missing the point. Your statement: > > "and spending a lot to make sure the transition is smooth" > > is a perfect example. Sure they are spending to make sure the > transition is smooth but the fact that a transition process even > exists at all is what the real point is. > > Apple is of course spending money on the transition process > BECAUSE THEY WANT PEOPLE TO TRANSITION! Yes, that is not in dispute. What is in dispute is that you claim that Apple want's people to transition so they can drive a spike in revenue. I claim it is because the long term health of their market demands it -- ie, in order to continuing competing their existing platform was not going to cut it. > > If there was no effort to obsolete existing SW then there would > be no need for a transition process, and no need for a new > architecture to transition to. The fact that a transition process > exists at all proves that an attempt to obsolete SW is underway. No it doesn't. That makes no sense. > >>> >>> 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. > > No it isn't, he's done that several times. It is not an ongoing thing. You claimed that what he did was per year. It wasn't. It was a one time thing. He has had, in some other years (not every year), option grants or whatever. (Previous years option grants were the things converted in 04 btw. It was not a new allotment as best as I can tell from reading a few news stories on it). > >> 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... >> > > I won't argue that. Steve Jobs definitely deserves what he makes. > But > your assertion that he just makes what an ordinary Joe makes is > preposterous. I never claimed he makes what an ordinary Joe makes. I merely said that your idea that it was his greed that drives him was preposterous. His ego maybe, but not his greed. > He makes a lot of money because he is an expert at > convincing people they need to spend a lot of money with Apple. This > new architecture thing is just his latest trick to get more money for > Apple. Whatever you say Ted > >>> >>> 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. >> > > Well, I can't argue with this since you seem to have no problem > directly > contradicting what Apple publishes on their website. But then again, > maybe > the Apple website is lying. Since Apple, like many companies, is > so good > at doing that, it could be the case. Apple never published on their website that OS X is based on FreeBSD. Go read it again. > >> >> 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... >> > > We must be looking at different listings. I tried that and I find > a lot > of > copies of posts over the BSD logo design controversy. Which I suppose > you might think that I accused it as being a conspiracy. But in > actuality > I simply accused people of caving in to right wing religious > nutcases. I > might point out that Beastie is still on the FreeBSD website. > Although > he's no longer on the FreeBSD 6.0 bootup screen. Maybe knocking him > off that will quiet down the right-wingers. > > But the only other thing I could find where I was accusing anyone of > a conspiracy was I made a comment a few years ago on one of the > automotive newsgroups that it seems like there's a conspiracy between > the big 3 automakers to use salt on the roads so as to rot out car > bodies so people will keep buying new cars all the time. Since > salting > is > done routinely on the East Coast where the Big 3 are, and really > not done > many other places in the country. And the environmentalists hate it > since it gets into the ecosystem and wreaks havoc with the wildlife. > Interestingly a few other Easterners in the group mentioned seeing > salting trucks driving down roads where they live in the winter, that > had had no snow for weeks, and salting the road anyway. > > But I think maybe your confusion lies because I have many times > pointed > out decisions and actions that happen which have official reasons > given, make a lot more sense when you consider ulterior motives. > Like this Apple Intel thing. And some people don't like that so > they accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist. For example a few > years ago when the US got itself into Iraq I was saying the WMD thing > was baloney, that oil was the reason the US went in. And I think I > got accused by many right-wingers of being a conspiracy theorist. > Funny > how these days that the news media is now saying the WMD thing > was baloney. I guess it's still hard for people to believe that they > get lied to regularly. Whatever you say Ted. > >> >> 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. >> > > Your point was that FreeBSD didn't have a real logo (before the > contest) > I showed you that the FreeBSD distribution itself claimed that Beastie > was the logo. I think that's a bit more than just me denying it, I > think > its > me proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that it has always had a real > logo - Beastie. Whatever you say Ted. People realized that Beastie was not really a logo. Hence the competition. > >> Apple wants to force everyone to >> buy new Macs (Ted) > > Excellent - you finally understand what I'm saying. I have always understood it Ted. Understanding it and agreeing with it are two different things. You claims are utter BS Ted. History does not support it (based on previous transitions). Nor does logic. Nor any other set of facts. > >> 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. >> > > Most successful ways of making money don't pass Occam's Razor. > If they did, then making lots of money would be so simple and obvious > that everyone would be doing it. It was just an interesting observation. And I think a valid observation since people who ascribe all sorts of complexity to actions that can be described in much simpler terms are usually wrong. > > And no company knows what their future needs are going to be anyway. > It may very well be that the decision to switch to Intel was the > stupidest > and most idiotic technical decision that Apple ever made, but 3 months > after doing it a hurricane destroys the only production facility in > the > world that IBM has that manufactures G5's, and if Apple hadn't > switched, > their production of computers would have come to a screeching halt. > If something like that happened, the world would be hailing Jobs as a > true visionary. > > Sometimes, even horrible decisions end up being good ones, due to > side issues that nobody could have forseen. And, vis-versa. > > The one good thing of it is that it will certainly make it easier > to run > FreeBSD on the x86 Macs. Hey, you don't suppose that the Apple > developers might be behind all of this! Maybe Jobs is being snookered > by his own people! ;-) Whatever you say Ted. 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?DFF80491-3DD4-4563-BDAC-A5AA871CCE31>