Status of 6.0 for production systems

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
>[mailto:owner-freebsd-questions at 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.

>
>> 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.
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.

>
>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.

>>   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.

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.  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.

>>
>> 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.  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.

>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.  So much for the "better user experience"  More proof that
you don't have to control the HW.

>
>Jobs did not retard MAc development.  He accelerated it.

Wrong, the Mac clones at the time were faster and cheaper than the
Apple Macs of the time.  Why do you think Jobs purchased Power
Computing?  He wanted their R&D.  If their stuff had been slower or
just ripoffs of the existing Mac designs he would have walked away
from them.

>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.  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.

>
>>
>>> 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.

>
>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.

>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.

>>
>> -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 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.

> 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.

>>
>> 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.

>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.

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.

>
>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!

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.

>>
>> 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.

>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.  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.

>>
>> 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.

>
>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.

>
>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.

>Apple wants to force everyone to
>buy new Macs (Ted)

Excellent - you finally understand what I'm saying.

>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.

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!   ;-)

Ted