Status of 6.0 for production systems
tedm at toybox.placo.com
Thu Nov 17 12:18:31 GMT 2005
>From: owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
>[mailto:owner-freebsd-questions at 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
>It would be nice if you could at least get your "facts" straight
>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
>>>>> In Steve Jobs keynote speech announcing the big move Intel chips
>>>>> just about entirely stated as because of the 'performance per watt
>>>>> ratio' of Intel CPUs. Check out the picture of the key note speech
>>>>> look at the bottom of the picture with Intel and IBM's PowerPC
>>>> This is a bunch of whitewashing as anyone in the tech industry
>>> Wrong. WHat jobs said was exactly correct
>>>> Jobs changed over to Intel for two reasons. First, because Intel
>>>> 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
>> Or signed a letter of intent which would prod IBM. There is nothing
>> in the design of the G5 that makes it so that you cannot make low
>> 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. You can compile Darwin - I mean MacOS
for Intel just as easy as for Power PC. And besides, they are going to
doing it anyway - or do you really think Apple is going to turn it's back
all it's Power PC installed base? Right now nobody knows if the public
will go for the Intel-based Macs. Apple is claiming the public will but
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
Don't forget the Apple Lisa and what happened to it.
How long have you been running FreeBSD? And you still are so ignorant of
porting UNIX to other platforms? 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:
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.
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
so great and compelling that people would buy it.
People are leaving Sparc architecture in droves 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.
>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.
>There was nothing in their roadmap and nothing technology wise they
Yeah, right they are going to publish their roadmap so Intel can see it.
>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 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
>> 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
give free upgrades to all their customers? Of course not. You will have
buy the stuff with real money. And as for Rosetta, what rubbish -
are always slow, 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? Much
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
hardware and software.
>> Once again typical Apple apologizing. When Apple dumped MacOS Classic
>> in favor of MacOS X, all the Apple proponents who for years were
>> that MacOS was the best OS in existence, didn't let the door hit
>> them on
>> 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.
>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.
>> 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
>> while PC's didn't, conveniently forgot that now the resale value of
>> 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
>> that Jobs walks on like he's Apple's Savior, Jobs can do no wrong
>> is the
>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
>> 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.
> He did take some
>stock grants and options after turning the company around.
78 million bucks ring a bell? per year?
>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.
>> 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.
>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.
"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
(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.
>> 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
>> Apple for the latest and greatest Intel gear, as well as help out
>> all the
>> ISV's writing software for MacOS X by giving them a reason to prod
>> all of
>> into buying software upgrades. And you can't get enough of it!
>> 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?
>> 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
>> owners who think they are 'different kinna car people' will be saying
>> Chevrolet is a 'different kinna car' Cast from the same mold you all
>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
>Every person who wants FreeBSD to adopt a real logo is a right wing
Boy, your just stuck on this logo thing. FreeBSD already has a real
see the following:
$ head -15 /usr/share/examples/BSD_daemon/README
# "THE BEER-WARE LICENSE" (Revision 42):
# <phk at FreeBSD.ORG> wrote this file. As long as you retain this notice
# can do whatever you want with this stuff. If we meet some day, and you
# this stuff is worth it, you can buy me a beer in return. Poul-Henning
# $FreeBSD: src/share/examples/BSD_daemon/README,v 18.104.22.168 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 at FreeBSD.org> holds the copyright to the
BSD Daemon and you may need to get his explicit permission before
>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
naieve Mac users"
"Mere use of OS X means your a zealot"
>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
crazed conspiracy theorist"
More information about the freebsd-questions