Discussion:
Ubuntu and the Intel Atom 330 Processor
(too old to reply)
Michael Haney
2009-09-11 20:22:16 UTC
Permalink
Hi, all! I'm thinking of building myself a small desktop system using
a rather inexpensive ITX-form factor mobo-CPU combo from Newegg which
has the Intel Atom 330 processor. This is the 2GHz dual-core Intel
Atom, the one that's only just now starting to show up in netbooks and
a new nettop from Acer. Its got 2 SATA, 1 IDE, 4 external USB 2.0
ports plus a header for a front side ports, Gigabit Ethernet, 5.1
audio, the Intel GMA 950 GPU, but no PCIe just one 32-bit PCI slot.
It can support up to 2GB of RAM which for Ubuntu is more than plenty
enough.

I'm wondering, has anyone on this list had experience with Ubuntu
running on Intel Atom processors? My current machine is an aging
1.2GHz AMD Athlon XP 2000+ with 1GB of RAM that I built myself long
ago. It runs Ubuntu ok but its performance isn't the best especially
when using Flash which doesn't run all that great on Linux even on
high end machines.

The primary role of my desktop is to be my everyday machine. That's
the machine I do all my emails, web browsing, music listening, DVD
watching and book writing on. My laptop, which has more horses under
the hood, is my gaming and video conversion machine. So, any
suggestions or thoughts? I'm not sure when I'll be building this. I
don't have a lot of $$$ or I'd get a higher end machine to run Ubuntu
or just go Mac.
--
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
thezorch at gmail.com
http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
Twitter: TheZorch
Skype: thezorch (Voice and/or Chat)
AIM: thezorch at gmail.com
Yahoo IM: zorchhaney
ICQ: 343230252
GoogleTalk: thezorch
MSN Messeger: haneymichael at hotmail.com
Free Your Computer from the Tyranny of Microsoft www.ubuntu.com
Alan Pope
2009-09-11 20:31:30 UTC
Permalink
Hi Michael,
Post by Michael Haney
I'm wondering, has anyone on this list had experience with Ubuntu
running on Intel Atom processors?
Ya. I have an Acer Aspire Revo 3600 which is running Boxee on top of
Ubuntu in my lounge. Love it.
Post by Michael Haney
?My current machine is an aging
1.2GHz AMD Athlon XP 2000+ with 1GB of RAM that I built myself long
ago. ?It runs Ubuntu ok but its performance isn't the best especially
when using Flash which doesn't run all that great on Linux even on
high end machines.
Don't expect miracles as far as flash goes with the Atom 330. If
you're watching videos you're doing a single threaded task, which even
though the 330 is dual-core and HT, you'll not see much benefit. Also
the fact that the flash plugin on linux doesn't do any hardware
acceleration via the video card kinda makes it suck a bit.
Post by Michael Haney
The primary role of my desktop is to be my everyday machine. ?That's
the machine I do all my emails, web browsing, music listening, DVD
watching and book writing on. ?My laptop, which has more horses under
the hood, is my gaming and video conversion machine. ?So, any
suggestions or thoughts? ?I'm not sure when I'll be building this. ?I
don't have a lot of $$$ or I'd get a higher end machine to run Ubuntu
or just go Mac.
I'd recommend not viewing youtube via flash, but grab
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/748 and
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/38074 which makes at least some of
the pain go away.

Cheers,
A.
Michael Haney
2009-09-12 01:02:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Pope
I'd recommend not viewing youtube via flash, but grab
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/748 and
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/38074 which makes at least some of
the pain go away.
Thanks, I'll give those a try. I'm able to play MP4s natively in
Ubuntu without any problems and sometimes use the Video Download
Helper Firefox plugin to do what one of these apparently does.
--
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
thezorch at gmail.com
http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
Twitter: TheZorch
Skype: thezorch (Voice and/or Chat)
AIM: thezorch at gmail.com
Yahoo IM: zorchhaney
ICQ: 343230252
GoogleTalk: thezorch
MSN Messeger: haneymichael at hotmail.com
Free Your Computer from the Tyranny of Microsoft www.ubuntu.com
Ignazio Palmisano
2009-09-12 09:47:40 UTC
Permalink
On 11/09/09 21:22, Michael Haney wrote:
[snip]
Post by Michael Haney
I'm wondering, has anyone on this list had experience with Ubuntu
running on Intel Atom processors? My current machine is an aging
1.2GHz AMD Athlon XP 2000+ with 1GB of RAM that I built myself long
ago. It runs Ubuntu ok but its performance isn't the best especially
when using Flash which doesn't run all that great on Linux even on
high end machines.
I have an Acer One netbook with an Atom N270 (single core, HT, it Looks
Like a dual core). With Ubuntu Netbook Remix, it's pretty quick for the
price. I see it lagging only when the hard disk light comes on (it's a
16 gig SSD, and it doesn't seem the high end of performances). Flash
works, Youtube for example. Not extremely well, but not too bad either.
YMMV, but for email, web, etc, I find it pretty good.
I.
Liam Proven
2009-09-12 13:22:22 UTC
Permalink
Hi, all! ?I'm thinking of building myself a small desktop system using
a rather inexpensive ITX-form factor mobo-CPU combo from Newegg which
has the Intel Atom 330 processor. ?This is the 2GHz dual-core Intel
Atom, the one that's only just now starting to show up in netbooks and
a new nettop from Acer. ?Its got 2 SATA, 1 IDE, 4 external USB 2.0
ports plus a header for a front side ports, Gigabit Ethernet, 5.1
audio, the Intel GMA 950 GPU, but no PCIe just one 32-bit PCI slot.
It can support up to 2GB of RAM which for Ubuntu is more than plenty
enough.
I'm wondering, has anyone on this list had experience with Ubuntu
running on Intel Atom processors?
I'm running such a box as a prototype for something I'm working on. It
runs sweetly on 8.04 but won't even boot Linux Mint 5.1 from CD, which
suggests some subtle incompatibility with this somewhat aged code.

I don't like Atom chips & don't recommend them. They were meant for
small cheap battery-powered devices. For a mains-powered computer,
they make no sense at all. They're deliberately underpowered,
poorly-specified and do not give good value for money.

Cheap does not mean good value. Look at the Celeron chips, another
range of cheap & nasty cut-down and crippled Intel CPUs.

If you are on a really tight budget, I'd go with an older, 2nd-hand
chip or system. A late-model Pentium 4 will be a lot quicker and
probably cost less, though it will run hotter and be noisier.
Alternatively, if you must have new, I'd go for a low-end AMD Sempron
or something. Modern versions of these are not cut-down & crippled
like the lackluster Duron; the Sempron is just a rebadged Athlon XP,
basically. They're cheap, fairly quick & fully 64-bit. I'm typing on
such a box right now with a 2100GHz chip in it, and performance is
very acceptable - *notably* better than my 1.6GHz Pentium-M notebook.
Yet it was about the cheapest AMD chip we could get.

Atoms sort of make sense in netbooks; not anywhere else, for my money.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508
Odd
2009-09-12 15:37:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Liam Proven
Post by Michael Haney
Hi, all! I'm thinking of building myself a small desktop system using
a rather inexpensive ITX-form factor mobo-CPU combo from Newegg which
has the Intel Atom 330 processor. This is the 2GHz dual-core Intel
Atom, the one that's only just now starting to show up in netbooks and
a new nettop from Acer. Its got 2 SATA, 1 IDE, 4 external USB 2.0
ports plus a header for a front side ports, Gigabit Ethernet, 5.1
audio, the Intel GMA 950 GPU, but no PCIe just one 32-bit PCI slot.
It can support up to 2GB of RAM which for Ubuntu is more than plenty
enough.
I'm wondering, has anyone on this list had experience with Ubuntu
running on Intel Atom processors?
I'm running such a box as a prototype for something I'm working on. It
runs sweetly on 8.04 but won't even boot Linux Mint 5.1 from CD, which
suggests some subtle incompatibility with this somewhat aged code.
I don't like Atom chips & don't recommend them. They were meant for
small cheap battery-powered devices. For a mains-powered computer,
they make no sense at all. They're deliberately underpowered,
poorly-specified and do not give good value for money.
I agree
Post by Liam Proven
Cheap does not mean good value. Look at the Celeron chips, another
range of cheap & nasty cut-down and crippled Intel CPUs.
And yet contemporary Celerons, while being crippled, are much
faster than the Atom. That just shows how much it sucks. The
only thing it has going for itself is battery life.
Post by Liam Proven
If you are on a really tight budget, I'd go with an older, 2nd-hand
chip or system. A late-model Pentium 4 will be a lot quicker and
probably cost less, though it will run hotter and be noisier.
Alternatively, if you must have new, I'd go for a low-end AMD Sempron
or something. Modern versions of these are not cut-down & crippled
like the lackluster Duron; the Sempron is just a rebadged Athlon XP,
basically. They're cheap, fairly quick & fully 64-bit. I'm typing on
such a box right now with a 2100GHz chip in it, and performance is
very acceptable - *notably* better than my 1.6GHz Pentium-M notebook.
Yet it was about the cheapest AMD chip we could get.
Atoms sort of make sense in netbooks; not anywhere else, for my money.
I agree.
--
Odd
Conrad Knauer
2009-09-12 13:35:43 UTC
Permalink
(posted + e-mailed)
the Intel Atom 330 processor. ?This is the 2GHz dual-core Intel Atom
Shouldn't that be 1.6 GHz?

http://www.intel.com/products/processor/atom/specifications.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Atom_microprocessors
I'm wondering, has anyone on this list had experience with Ubuntu
running on Intel Atom processors?
I have an Acer Aspire One running an N270 and the computer I'm typing
this from uses a 330 :)

For my needs it runs quite well; I originally built this machine for
my daughter and then realized that it was actually better than the old
machine I was using! ^^; I had most of the parts I needed (case, HD,
power supply, DVD-RW, monitor) so all I needed was the motherboard
(which had the Atom processor on it) and DDR2 RAM (I got the Intel
D945GCLF2 board and a 2GB stick for $165 CN tax included about half a
year ago)

The nicest thing about the 330 is that it can run 64-bit Ubuntu :)
Also, between the dual core and the hyper threading, Ubuntu treats it
as if it had four processors 8-)
The primary role of my desktop is to be my everyday machine. ?That's
the machine I do all my emails, web browsing, music listening, DVD
watching and book writing on. ?My laptop, which has more horses under
the hood, is my gaming and video conversion machine. ?So, any
suggestions or thoughts?
If you're going from a 1.2 GHz single core desktop machine to this, it
will be step up.

If you already have all the other parts handy (as I did) and can
assemble it yourself, then it's economical.
I'm not sure when I'll be building this. ?I
don't have a lot of $$$ or I'd get a higher end machine to run Ubuntu
or just go Mac.
*heh* My wife went Mac; it is indeed $$$ :)

CK
Michael Haney
2009-09-12 17:42:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Conrad Knauer
(posted + e-mailed)
the Intel Atom 330 processor. ?This is the 2GHz dual-core Intel Atom
Shouldn't that be 1.6 GHz?
No, this specific CPU+mobo combo is a 2GHz Atom 330, they do exist but
haven't appeared in netbooks yet. A 2GHz 330 is appearing in a new
tiny-form factor nettop from Acer.

This is the board+CPU combo I'm talking about:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813121359&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-Motherboard+/+CPU+/+VGA+Sets-_-Intel-_-13121359

I got the URL for it from a article at Extremetech.com on how to build
a decent Ubuntu PC on a low budget. The article said this was
specifically a 2GHz Atom 330 and not a 1.6GHz version. Its one of the
first of the 2GHz Atom's actually from what I understand, the same one
that's in that Acer nettop.

That nettop is the Acer AspireRevo, this is the 1st gen with an Atom
230, a new model with this 2GHz Atom 330 is on the way and will be the
first 2GHz Atom to use Nvidia's Ion graphics technology:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/acer-aspirerevo-nvidia-ion-atom,7488.html
Post by Conrad Knauer
I have an Acer Aspire One running an N270 and the computer I'm typing
this from uses a 330 :)
For my needs it runs quite well; I originally built this machine for
my daughter and then realized that it was actually better than the old
machine I was using! ^^; ?I had most of the parts I needed (case, HD,
power supply, DVD-RW, monitor) so all I needed was the motherboard
(which had the Atom processor on it) and DDR2 RAM (I got the Intel
D945GCLF2 board and a 2GB stick for $165 CN tax included about half a
year ago)
The nicest thing about the 330 is that it can run 64-bit Ubuntu :)
Also, between the dual core and the hyper threading, Ubuntu treats it
as if it had four processors 8-)
That's similar to this board's specs, except the CPU is clocked at
2GHz. My budget is extremely limited and it will take time to
assemble the parts to build this system.
Post by Conrad Knauer
If you're going from a 1.2 GHz single core desktop machine to this, it
will be step up.
If you already have all the other parts handy (as I did) and can
assemble it yourself, then it's economical.
That's what I'm hoping for and I do have parts I can use for the new
machine. I already have a descent working DVD-RW drive and two hard
drives. Though I'd get a SATA to use as the boot drive due to the
faster performance.
Post by Conrad Knauer
*heh* ?My wife went Mac; it is indeed $$$ :)
Not so much so anymore. They're now comparable in price to a high-end
Dell or HP laptop, and in quality they're far better than either. My
friends both have Macs, one has two MacBook Pros and another has a
current generation iMac. They are really sweet machines, the iMac
runs games really well and the big screen looks awesome. He replaced
an aging Pentium 4 machine with the iMac. My other friend with the
two MBPs built himself a $3,000 Nvidia SLI gaming rig and has barely
ever used it. He lives out of his MBP and has recently started using
both of them for all of his major projects. The gaming rig is barely
used except when he wants to game and doesn't want to use the HD space
on his MBP to install the games.

He does run Final Fantasy XI from his MBP, which is just one
generation older than the current models. That machine can run Elder
Scrolls IV Oblivion on a setting just below maximum. His gaming rig
and run it at full settings without flinching.
--
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
thezorch at gmail.com
http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
Twitter: TheZorch
Skype: thezorch (Voice and/or Chat)
AIM: thezorch at gmail.com
Yahoo IM: zorchhaney
ICQ: 343230252
GoogleTalk: thezorch
MSN Messeger: haneymichael at hotmail.com
Free Your Computer from the Tyranny of Microsoft www.ubuntu.com
Odd
2009-09-12 18:15:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Conrad Knauer
*heh* My wife went Mac; it is indeed $$$ :)
Not so much so anymore.They're now comparable in price to a high-end
Dell or HP laptop
Nope. If you compare a similarly spec'ed Mac with
a Dell PC, the Mac is quite a bit more expensive.

For instance, you get a Dell Studio laptop with same/better specs
for about half the price of the MacBook Pro.
, and in quality they're far better than either.
No. Apple uses the exact same motherboard and CPU makers
as the rest of the PC OEMs. It's a myth that Apple's stuff is
higher quality.
--
Odd
Ignazio Palmisano
2009-09-12 20:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd
Post by Conrad Knauer
*heh* My wife went Mac; it is indeed $$$ :)
Not so much so anymore.They're now comparable in price to a high-end
Dell or HP laptop
Nope. If you compare a similarly spec'ed Mac with
a Dell PC, the Mac is quite a bit more expensive.
For instance, you get a Dell Studio laptop with same/better specs
for about half the price of the MacBook Pro.
, and in quality they're far better than either.
No. Apple uses the exact same motherboard and CPU makers
as the rest of the PC OEMs. It's a myth that Apple's stuff is
higher quality.
And about the design thing that they got going, I find it way
overrated... it's annoying that my macbook has less usb ports that my
netbook, and they are spaced so that plugging a large usb stick in one
blocks both of them. Not to mention the "slick" design of the case. Both
the plastic macbooks and the newer all aluminium ones have sharp corners
all around the base, where your hands are supposed to be. If you are
like me, using the laptop on your lap, chances are your hands are
resting on that sharp border most of the time. It used to hurt so much I
used a file on it to make it more comfy...
I.
Harold Sawyer
2009-09-12 20:16:21 UTC
Permalink
Apple has recently (time flies as we get older) changed to the Intel
Chips. Before that, didn't they use Motorola?

Harold
Post by Odd
No. Apple uses the exact same motherboard and CPU makers
as the rest of the PC OEMs. It's a myth that Apple's stuff is
higher quality.
--
Harold Sawyer
www.centralconnecticutwcg.org
www.free-inside.com
Odd
2009-09-12 20:24:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harold Sawyer
Apple has recently (time flies as we get older) changed to the Intel
Chips. Before that, didn't they use Motorola?
Yes, Motorola and IBM. PowerPC RISC chips. While the architecture
was more elegant than x86, they had no chance against the Intel juggernaut.
Apple did the only sensible thing, and switched.

Curiously, PowerPC is in all the 3 major consoles:
Xbox 360, Playstation 3 and the Wii.
--
Odd
Chris Rees
2009-09-14 10:45:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd
Post by Harold Sawyer
Apple has recently (time flies as we get older) changed to the Intel
Chips. ?Before that, didn't they use Motorola?
Yes, Motorola and IBM. PowerPC RISC chips. While the architecture
was more elegant than x86, they had no chance against the Intel juggernaut.
Apple did the only sensible thing, and switched.
Xbox 360, Playstation 3 and the Wii.
--
Odd
Not really curiously; power management (which Intel is strong on)
isn't such a big deal in a games console. In a laptop etc it's
everything.

Chris
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in a mailing list?
Odd
2009-09-14 11:19:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Rees
Post by Odd
Post by Harold Sawyer
Apple has recently (time flies as we get older) changed to the
Intel Chips. Before that, didn't they use Motorola?
Yes, Motorola and IBM. PowerPC RISC chips. While the architecture
was more elegant than x86, they had no chance against the Intel
juggernaut. Apple did the only sensible thing, and switched.
Curiously, PowerPC is in all the 3 major consoles: Xbox 360,
Playstation 3 and the Wii.
Not really curiously; power management (which Intel is strong on)
isn't such a big deal in a games console. In a laptop etc it's
everything.
Not really true:

'The larger feat, however, was to provide that level of processing power
on as little an energy budget as possible. "Game machines can't really
afford a huge fan and a heatsink," Shippy says -- so the plan was to
create a high-performance chip with a smaller footprint.'

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3904/processing_the_truth_an_interview_.php

The reason for avoiding x86 was the exact opposite of what
you claim. They were too hot.
--
Odd
Chris Rees
2009-09-14 11:23:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd
Post by Chris Rees
Post by Odd
Post by Harold Sawyer
Apple has recently (time flies as we get older) changed to the
Intel Chips. ?Before that, didn't they use Motorola?
Yes, Motorola and IBM. PowerPC RISC chips. While the architecture
was more elegant than x86, they had no chance against the Intel
juggernaut. Apple did the only sensible thing, and switched.
Curiously, PowerPC is in all the 3 major consoles: Xbox 360,
Playstation 3 and the Wii.
Not really curiously; power management (which Intel is strong on)
isn't such a big deal in a games console. In a laptop etc it's
everything.
'The larger feat, however, was to provide that level of processing power
on as little an energy budget as possible. "Game machines can't really
afford a huge fan and a heatsink," Shippy says -- so the plan was to
create a high-performance chip with a smaller footprint.'
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3904/processing_the_truth_an_interview_.php
The reason for avoiding x86 was the exact opposite of what
you claim. They were too hot.
--
Odd
That's really interesting, and NOW it's curious, because the stated
reason Apple moved to Intel was because of this....

I'd guess it's because of the Cell architecture rather than the
traditional multiple cores.

Damn technological advancements!

Chris
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in a mailing list?
Odd
2009-09-14 11:52:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Rees
Post by Odd
Post by Chris Rees
Post by Odd
Post by Harold Sawyer
Apple has recently (time flies as we get older) changed to the
Intel Chips. Before that, didn't they use Motorola?
Yes, Motorola and IBM. PowerPC RISC chips. While the architecture
was more elegant than x86, they had no chance against the Intel
juggernaut. Apple did the only sensible thing, and switched.
Curiously, PowerPC is in all the 3 major consoles: Xbox 360,
Playstation 3 and the Wii.
Not really curiously; power management (which Intel is strong on)
isn't such a big deal in a games console. In a laptop etc it's
everything.
'The larger feat, however, was to provide that level of processing power
on as little an energy budget as possible. "Game machines can't really
afford a huge fan and a heatsink," Shippy says -- so the plan was to
create a high-performance chip with a smaller footprint.'
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3904/processing_the_truth_an_interview_.php
The reason for avoiding x86 was the exact opposite of what
you claim. They were too hot.
That's really interesting, and NOW it's curious, because the stated
reason Apple moved to Intel was because of this....
While Apple might have said that, the main reason was that the PPC
architecture was running out of steam compared to Intel's stuff.
Apple had to pay IBM big money for producing the G5. IBM have
no incentive to compete with x86, other than in the
super-computing/mainframe segment, so money was the only way
they could be convinced. By moving to x86, Apple could get far more
powerful chips for much less. And sure, the G5 were HOT, literally.

The irony in all this is that PPC could have been a viable competitor
to x86, hadn't Apple sabotaged the CHRP(PReP) architecture back
in the day.
Post by Chris Rees
I'd guess it's because of the Cell architecture rather than the
traditional multiple cores.
Damn technological advancements!
Sure is interesting to follow! :)
--
Odd
Chan Chung Hang Christopher
2009-09-14 12:22:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Rees
That's really interesting, and NOW it's curious, because the stated
reason Apple moved to Intel was because of this....
I'd guess it's because of the Cell architecture rather than the
traditional multiple cores.
The reason why Apple moved to Intel was 1) heat issues - not possible to
continue building iMacs with furnaces and 2) IBM was not delivering on
promises to make processors that could perform. IBM and whoever else had
a much bigger fish to fry: millions of Wiis, Playstations and X-Boxes.
Michael Haney
2009-09-14 13:15:57 UTC
Permalink
The big contender soon will be the ARM processors. There's a big push
to get netbooks with ARM processors out on the market and a few
manufacturers are doing just that in 2010. The only thing is Windows
doesn't run on ARM, so the only alternative there is Linux, and most
likely the distro of choice will be Android or Google Chrome OS.

ARM processors are known for their very low power consumption without
compromising on processing power. They are less power hungry than the
Intel Atom and CULV (consumer ultra low voltage) processor families.
The low price of ARM processors is also attractive as they are cheaper
than even Intel's Atom chips. Lower priced netbooks do better in the
sales department. People love low cost netbooks, sales figures don't
lie.
--
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
thezorch at gmail.com
http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
Twitter: TheZorch
Skype: thezorch (Voice and/or Chat)
AIM: thezorch at gmail.com
Yahoo IM: zorchhaney
ICQ: 343230252
GoogleTalk: thezorch
MSN Messeger: haneymichael at hotmail.com
Free Your Computer from the Tyranny of Microsoft www.ubuntu.com
Odd
2009-09-14 13:23:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Haney
The big contender soon will be the ARM processors. There's a big push
to get netbooks with ARM processors out on the market and a few
manufacturers are doing just that in 2010. The only thing is Windows
doesn't run on ARM,
Sure it does. It has for years. Though not the Windows you're probably
thinking of. Windows CE runs not only on ARM but also on other
embedded CPUs.
Post by Michael Haney
so the only alternative there is Linux, and most
likely the distro of choice will be Android or Google Chrome OS.
Perhaps. But I do believe Microsoft will do its utmost to
push Windows CE here.
Post by Michael Haney
ARM processors are known for their very low power consumption without
compromising on processing power. They are less power hungry than the
Intel Atom and CULV (consumer ultra low voltage) processor families.
Yep. And recent multicore ARMs, like the Cortex family are very
impressive.
Post by Michael Haney
The low price of ARM processors is also attractive as they are cheaper
than even Intel's Atom chips. Lower priced netbooks do better in the
sales department. People love low cost netbooks, sales figures don't
lie.
Indeed.
--
Odd
Odd
2009-09-14 20:28:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd
Post by Michael Haney
The big contender soon will be the ARM processors. There's a big push
to get netbooks with ARM processors out on the market and a few
manufacturers are doing just that in 2010. The only thing is Windows
doesn't run on ARM,
Sure it does. It has for years. Though not the Windows you're probably
thinking of. Windows CE runs not only on ARM but also on other
embedded CPUs.
LMAO!!! Windows CE, seriously.
Yes, seriously.
That OS is more of a joke than Windows Mobile.
That OS _IS_ Windows Mobile. Really, where do you get your
info from? This i well known in tech circles. There are at least
three OSes from MS based on it: Windows Mobile, Pocket PC
and their Smartphone OS. There are even more, but I don't
remember them offhand. So stop your laughing, and get your
facts straight.
No manufacturer will use that, no matter how much
leverage Micro$oft has. Its an old outdated OS that nobody develops
for anymore and I don't even think M$ is even maintaining it anymore.
See above.
Post by Odd
Post by Michael Haney
so the only alternative there is Linux, and most
likely the distro of choice will be Android or Google Chrome OS.
Perhaps. But I do believe Microsoft will do its utmost to
push Windows CE here.
Yes, and fail miserably. I've seen Windows CE, its a joke,
Based on your limited knowledge I can see why you'd think that.
major
adoption of it would be a monumental step backwards for netbook
manufacturers. With the netbook market being so hot right now its too
risky to use WinCE. Its not up to the task.
See above.
When you look at cost benefits and practicality I can't see an ARM
netbook being paired up with Windows CE. Won't happen, it doesn't
have the utility of Android or a full bore Linux netbook-centric
distro like Ubuntu Netbook Remix. Unless M$ is willing to pump a ton
of money into modernizing CE
They have modernized it continually. Get your facts straight.

Btw, try to keep mails on the list. This one was sent directly
to me.
--
Odd
Jan Claeys
2009-09-23 01:54:01 UTC
Permalink
Op maandag 14-09-2009 om 09:15 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Michael
Post by Michael Haney
ARM processors are known for their very low power consumption without
compromising on processing power. They are less power hungry than the
Intel Atom and CULV (consumer ultra low voltage) processor families.
Intel is not the only x86 manufacturer...

http://xcore86.com/

1.2 W for a 1 GHz x86 SoC (CPU + flash + I/O + video + audio + network +
etc. all on 1 chip).

http://www.norhtec.com/products/gecko/

x86 netbook running 4h on 8 cheap rechargable AA batteries...
--
Jan Claeys
Michael Haney
2009-09-23 02:28:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Claeys
Intel is not the only x86 manufacturer...
http://xcore86.com/
1.2 W for a 1 GHz x86 SoC (CPU + flash + I/O + video + audio + network +
etc. all on 1 chip).
http://www.norhtec.com/products/gecko/
x86 netbook running 4h on 8 cheap rechargable AA batteries...
This isn't new, there was an x86 system on a chip marketed for
desktops that flopped miserably in the 90's.

What I'm curious about is the overall performance of this Xcore86
module. Can it handle the X.org XGL accelerated desktop or even
Windows 7, can it handle Flash video playback without jittering, and
can it handle HD quality streamed video? Its a deal breaker if it
can't, but if it can it might have a shot but its got heavy
competition from ARM chip makers and Nvidia's Tegra ARM-based CPU+GPU
on one chip which is showing a lot of promise.
--
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
thezorch at gmail.com
http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
Twitter: TheZorch
Skype: thezorch (Voice and/or Chat)
AIM: thezorch at gmail.com
Yahoo IM: zorchhaney
ICQ: 343230252
GoogleTalk: thezorch
MSN Messeger: haneymichael at hotmail.com
Free Your Computer from the Tyranny of Microsoft www.ubuntu.com
Christopher Chan
2009-09-23 05:11:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Haney
Post by Jan Claeys
Intel is not the only x86 manufacturer...
http://xcore86.com/
1.2 W for a 1 GHz x86 SoC (CPU + flash + I/O + video + audio + network +
etc. all on 1 chip).
http://www.norhtec.com/products/gecko/
x86 netbook running 4h on 8 cheap rechargable AA batteries...
This isn't new, there was an x86 system on a chip marketed for
desktops that flopped miserably in the 90's.
Cyrix? Wait...x86 system on a CHIP? One chip doing everything?
Michael Haney
2009-09-23 06:09:00 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 1:11 AM, Christopher Chan >
Post by Christopher Chan
Cyrix? Wait...x86 system on a CHIP? One chip doing everything?
Yeah, I think it called Cyrix. There were some desktop systems with
that chip sold in the mid to late 90's but they didn't sell too well.
They were seriously underpowered compared to regular PCs. Packard
Bell was one company that planned to sell systems with that chip.
Look here: http://news.cnet.com/Packard-Bell-to-use-Cyrix-chips/2100-1001_3-211455.html

A few companies also used the MediaGX which Cyrix also developed which
put CPU, sound and video on the same chip. Compaq, Packard Bell and a
fledgling eMachines sold low-cost PCs using the MediaGX chip. Cyrix
later merged with National Semiconductor in 1997 and by 2000 the
company that had been Cyrix was gone. The MediaGX didn't do to badly
sales wise and opened the door for other low-cost CPUs like the
Celeron, Duron, VIA's netbook CPUs and the Atom.

One of the last surviving pieces of technology that Cyrix developed
lives on as the AMD Geode processor, an ultra-low power (consuming on
0.9 volts) x86 compatible CPU. AMD bought the Geode CPU technology
rights from National Semiconductor sometime before 2000 and unveiled
their version in 2006. Some Geode versions borrow technology from the
MediaGX chip also.

Hercules, of Hercules video card fame, has a netbook out that uses the
AMD Geode CPU. Here's the URL:
http://www.hercules.com/uk/ecafe/bdd/p/84/ecafe-trade-ec-800-h20g-s/
--
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
thezorch at gmail.com
http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
Twitter: TheZorch
Skype: thezorch (Voice and/or Chat)
AIM: thezorch at gmail.com
Yahoo IM: zorchhaney
ICQ: 343230252
GoogleTalk: thezorch
MSN Messeger: haneymichael at hotmail.com
Free Your Computer from the Tyranny of Microsoft www.ubuntu.com
Liam Proven
2009-09-23 20:36:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Haney
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 1:11 AM, Christopher Chan >
Post by Christopher Chan
Cyrix? Wait...x86 system on a CHIP? One chip doing everything?
Yes, indeed. There have been loads.
Post by Michael Haney
Yeah, I think it called Cyrix.
Cyrix was a company, not a product. They shot to fame with an improved
Pentium-compatible chip, the 6x86 - the Pentium was an 80586
technically - which fitted straight into an Intel Socket 7. So you
could take the Pentium out, put in a 6x86 and get 20% or so better CPU
performance.

This was the Pentium 1 era - Intel Socket 7 devices.

The 6x86 was a brilliant chip - I bought several, ran 1 or 2 myself. I
gave them very positive reviews, too.

They had great integer performance, good FP performance, were
socket/bus/software compatible.

But they were killed by a single app.

Quake, from Id Software.

Quake used an almost unknown feature of the Intel Pentium called
overlapped FP ops. As the FPU (floating point unit, in the Pentium and
486, part of the main CPU on the same die) used different registers
from the integer part of the CPU, you could set up an FPU operation,
kick it off, go run some integer ops, then come back and get the
result of the FPU operation. Essentially you could, with *very*
careful instruction sequencing in the machine code, run floating point
and integer maths *at the same time*.

Cyrix didn't implement this. Why bother? Nobody used it.

Until Quake.

Result, though the 6x86 was 20% or so faster in general use - integer
or FP - in Quake it was half the speed or less.

Everyone added Quake to their benchmark tests, Cyrix scored really
badly, sales crashed and Cyrix nearly died.

They came back with the 6x86MX and 6x86M2, which fixed the problem,
but by the time of the 100MHz front-side bus processors, Intel's
Pentium II was taking over - with a totally different socket. (Indeed,
at first, not a socket, a slot.)

At the midrange, AMD bought struggling x86 CPU designers NexGen and
from the lackluster sluggish NexGen K5 produced the quick and cheap
AMD K6 which did pretty well.

Cyrix did indeed produce the SoC device the MediaGX though.

When Cyrix went under, Via bought the company and the name, but AMD
bought the SoC business and made the MediaGX into the Geode. The
lower-end, slow Geodes are still Cyrix devices; the higher-end Geodes
are low-end Athlon chips, not full SoCs, I believe. They still need
separate video controllers.

A Geode chip is the basis of the OLPC XO-1, the "$100 laptop". They're
also used in many tiny Linux boxes, e.g. the Linutop:
http://www.linutop.com/linutop2/index.en.html

I reviewed one for the Register:
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/05/12/review_desktop_pc_linutop_2/
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508
Derek Broughton
2009-09-14 13:37:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Rees
Post by Odd
Post by Harold Sawyer
Apple has recently (time flies as we get older) changed to the Intel
Chips. Before that, didn't they use Motorola?
Yes, Motorola and IBM. PowerPC RISC chips. While the architecture
was more elegant than x86, they had no chance against the Intel
juggernaut. Apple did the only sensible thing, and switched.
Xbox 360, Playstation 3 and the Wii.
Not really curiously; power management (which Intel is strong on)
isn't such a big deal in a games console. In a laptop etc it's
everything.
Huh? PowerPC chips always used less power than Intel chips. They maybe
didn't have strong power _management_ because they never needed it to go
head to head with an Intel. When Macs were PowerPC, comparable laptops were
often getting twice the battery time compared to Intels. It was the only
thing that ever even made me consider them.
--
derek
David Sanders
2009-09-14 14:47:28 UTC
Permalink
Huh? ?PowerPC chips always used less power than Intel chips. ?They maybe
didn't have strong power _management_ because they never needed it to go
head to head with an Intel. ?When Macs were PowerPC, comparable laptops were
often getting twice the battery time compared to Intels. ?It was the only
thing that ever even made me consider them.
--
Not really true. PowerPC (G5) was comparable to Intel P4 - and had far
worse heat characteristics. This is why it was so hard to put it in a
laptop. Plus the Intel Core-duo's are far far cooler then PowerPC,
which is why Apple dropped the Power architecture. It just couldn't
compete on per-watt or per-clock performance.

As for games consoles - they aren't multi-purpose, IE - they're not
running a big multi-tasking OS most of the time, so single-task
performance is important, and powerpc is a good fit.
David Sanders
2009-09-14 14:54:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Sanders
Huh? ?PowerPC chips always used less power than Intel chips. ?They maybe
didn't have strong power _management_ because they never needed it to go
head to head with an Intel. ?When Macs were PowerPC, comparable laptops were
often getting twice the battery time compared to Intels. ?It was the only
thing that ever even made me consider them.
--
Not really true. PowerPC (G5) was comparable to Intel P4 - and had far
worse heat characteristics. This is why it was so hard to put it in a
laptop. Plus the Intel Core-duo's are far far cooler then PowerPC,
which is why Apple dropped the Power architecture. It just couldn't
compete on per-watt or per-clock performance.
As for games consoles - they aren't multi-purpose, IE - they're not
running a big multi-tasking OS most of the time, so single-task
performance is important, and powerpc is a good fit.
Actually I'd forgotten, the G5 was sooo bad that they couldn't even
put it in a laptop. There never was a G5 macbook or powerbook.
Conrad Knauer
2009-09-13 15:40:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd
Post by Conrad Knauer
*heh* ?My wife went Mac; it is indeed $$$ :)
Not so much so anymore.They're now comparable in price to a high-end
Dell or HP laptop
Nope. If you compare a similarly spec'ed Mac with
a Dell PC, the Mac is quite a bit more expensive.
For instance, you get a Dell Studio laptop with same/better specs
for about half the price of the MacBook Pro.
, and in quality they're far better than either.
No. Apple uses the exact same motherboard and CPU makers
as the rest of the PC OEMs. It's a myth that Apple's stuff is
higher quality.
As an aside, I wasn't even getting into quality issues; I was talking
about the cash outlay to get a Mac in the first place... the Apple
Care and OS upgrade (care and feeding)... the buy a new one rather
than upgrade the old one (because an iMac is basically a laptop on a
stand and not really upgradable other than the RAM) mentality...

It's just very different from how I do things with Linux (tend to use
low-end parts, refurbish old systems).

CK
Odd
2009-09-14 18:01:45 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Odd <iodine at runbox.no
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Conrad Knauer <atheoi at gmail.com
Post by Conrad Knauer
*heh* My wife went Mac; it is indeed $$$ :)
Not so much so anymore.They're now comparable in price to a high-end
Dell or HP laptop
Nope. If you compare a similarly spec'ed Mac with
a Dell PC, the Mac is quite a bit more expensive.
For instance, you get a Dell Studio laptop with same/better specs
for about half the price of the MacBook Pro.
I don't think this is an oranges to oranges comparison (trying to avoid
the obvious pun there).
I chose an Apple model randomly.
Better would be to compare the Latitude line with the macbook pro line.
Better for Mac zealots perhaps. It makes Apple's pricing look
less outrageos.
The price for an E5300 to the MacBook Pro 13" is very close but for the
price the Dell is 1lb lighter (20%) and has a 3 year warranty vs. 1yr
for Apple.
OK.

(Btw, try to keep mails on the list)
--
Odd
Matthew Nuzum
2009-09-15 02:42:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd
? ? For instance, you get a Dell Studio laptop with same/better specs
? ? for about half the price of the MacBook Pro.
I don't think this is an oranges to oranges comparison (trying to avoid
the obvious pun there).
Better would be to compare the Latitude line with the macbook pro line.
Better for Mac zealots perhaps. It makes Apple's pricing look
less outrageos.
Well, there are different classes of computers. As a happy latitude
owner I can tell you that there is a huge difference between this line
and the consumer models. The Lenovo thinkpads are in the same
category.
Post by Odd
(Btw, try to keep mails on the list)
Argh.

--
Matthew Nuzum
newz2000 on freenode, skype, linkedin, identi.ca and twitter
David Sanders
2009-09-15 11:23:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Nuzum
Well, there are different classes of computers. As a happy latitude
owner I can tell you that there is a huge difference between this line
and the consumer models. The Lenovo thinkpads are in the same
category.
You'd be suprised. My Dell Studio 1735 has a LED-backlit 17"
widescreen, HDMI, Firewire, Tons of USB ports, expresscard, SD, VGA
out, Wireless, "slot-loading" DVD+-rw, backlit keyboard, 2ghz
dual-core, 4gb of RAM, very nice case-design, great battery-life (for
a desktop replacement beast). Best of all is full Ubuntu compatibility
:-)

It cost ?500 inc VAT new straight from Dell. The Mac just can't
compete, sorry. The newer inspirons have better CPUs, but AFAICT they
are exactly the same design and spec-wise.

It really is a very handsome beast, and the first non-Thinkpad I've ever owned.
Michael Haney
2009-09-15 14:26:37 UTC
Permalink
Well, the Mac experience is more than the hardware. You're missing
the point if you look at just the hardware alone. There is also the
software. Mac OS X is a fully-certified Unix operating system under
the hood. There are fewer security vulnerabilities, and most viruses
and malware for the Mac exist only as extremely limited
proof-of-concept code. There is a lot of specialized software for the
Mac which has few or no alternatives on Linux or Windows. There is
far more software for the Mac that you might imagine and its a myth
that the Mac doesn't have any worthwhile software at all. Not to
mention also Macs have an EFI which has several distinct advantages
over a traditional BIOS. To top it off, Mac OS X just works without
any of the usual hassles of using Windows.

Macs also have BootCamp which can be used to run Ubuntu, and does so
very well according to the Ubuntu users group I'm a member of. Also,
Maximum PC and PC Magazine have done several benchmarks which prove
that Intel Macs run Windows Vista Ultimate "faster" than a comparably
or better equipped traditional PC. Let us also not forget that the
current generation MacBook Pros have the longest battery life of any
notebook computers currently on the market except for a few netbooks.
I've done some research on that one, point me to a PC-based
non-netbook notebook or laptop with a 10+ hour battery life.

But, being a poor boy I have the next best thing which is Ubuntu. ;)
My experience with Mac OS X feels just like Ubuntu with Gnome and
Avant Window Navigator installed. Except for a few differences Mac OS
X feels like Linux.
--
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
thezorch at gmail.com
http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
Twitter: TheZorch
Skype: thezorch (Voice and/or Chat)
AIM: thezorch at gmail.com
Yahoo IM: zorchhaney
ICQ: 343230252
GoogleTalk: thezorch
MSN Messeger: haneymichael at hotmail.com
Free Your Computer from the Tyranny of Microsoft www.ubuntu.com
Henrik Horneber
2009-09-15 14:46:10 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Michael Haney
There are fewer security vulnerabilities, and most viruses
and malware for the Mac exist only as extremely limited
proof-of-concept code.
IBMs 2008 security report does not agree.
http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/iss/xforce/trendreports/xforce-2008-annual-report.pdf

Scroll down to Most Vulnerable Operating Systems and see for yourself.

regards,
H
Michael Haney
2009-09-16 00:01:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henrik Horneber
IBMs 2008 security report does not agree.
http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/iss/xforce/trendreports/xforce-2008-annual-report.pdf
Scroll down to Most Vulnerable Operating Systems and see for yourself.
Though its now an outdated report thank for it nonetheless. I noticed
that Microsoft was #1, which is no surprise to me and Apple is
apparently #2. Again, no OS is perfect and unhackable, but they can
be harder to hack and/or infect.

Interestingly, Linux survived the Pwn to Own hacking contest at CanSecWest 2008.
https://mail.google.com/mail/?hl=en&zx=1eanx5f9mt5co&shva=1#inbox/123afdfd79f44fec

I did notice the MacBook Air went down 2 minutes after the bell. I'd
like to see how Mac OS X fairs after over a year of security updates
and fixes.

Anyway, unless I suddenly get a crap load more money a month I won't
be getting a Mac. Ubuntu is just as good for me. I've got WinXP on
this machine I haven't booted into that OS in ... oh gosh ... about a
year!? No wait, I booted into it six months ago to do something that
I forget what it was now and I remember Zone Alarm was fussing at me
that it was out of date and my anti-virus was screaming that its
registration code had expired. Reminded me why I left Windows for
Linux in the first place.
--
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
thezorch at gmail.com
http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
Twitter: TheZorch
Skype: thezorch (Voice and/or Chat)
AIM: thezorch at gmail.com
Yahoo IM: zorchhaney
ICQ: 343230252
GoogleTalk: thezorch
MSN Messeger: haneymichael at hotmail.com
Free Your Computer from the Tyranny of Microsoft www.ubuntu.com
Odd
2009-09-15 15:08:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Haney
Well, the Mac experience is more than the hardware. You're missing
the point if you look at just the hardware alone. There is also the
software. Mac OS X is a fully-certified Unix operating system under
the hood.
Which means zilch to 99.99% of Mac users.
Post by Michael Haney
There are fewer security vulnerabilities,
Nope. See Henrik's mail.
Post by Michael Haney
and most viruses
and malware for the Mac exist only as extremely limited
proof-of-concept code.
Because of Mac's market share. My Amiga has even
less malware. So it must be better than MacOS by
your reasoning.
Post by Michael Haney
There is a lot of specialized software for the
Mac which has few or no alternatives on Linux or Windows.
Name one that has no Windows equivalent.
Post by Michael Haney
There is
far more software for the Mac that you might imagine and its a myth
that the Mac doesn't have any worthwhile software at all.
No one here has claimed that the Macs don't have
any worthwhile software.
Post by Michael Haney
Not to
mention also Macs have an EFI which has several distinct advantages
over a traditional BIOS.
Which means zilch to 99.99% of Mac users and even less to
Windows users.
Post by Michael Haney
To top it off, Mac OS X just works without
any of the usual hassles of using Windows.
What hassles would that be?
Post by Michael Haney
Macs also have BootCamp which can be used to run Ubuntu, and does so
very well according to the Ubuntu users group I'm a member of.
My PC runs Ubuntu very well too.
Post by Michael Haney
Also,
Maximum PC and PC Magazine have done several benchmarks which prove
that Intel Macs run Windows Vista Ultimate "faster" than a comparably
or better equipped traditional PC.
URLs please.
Post by Michael Haney
Let us also not forget that the
current generation MacBook Pros have the longest battery life of any
notebook computers currently on the market except for a few netbooks.
I've done some research on that one, point me to a PC-based
non-netbook notebook or laptop with a 10+ hour battery life.
Forgive me if I don't take your "research" seriously. You have made
quite a few claims here without any backing. I await your answers.
--
Odd
Amedee Van Gasse (Ubuntu)
2009-09-15 17:37:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Haney
Well, the Mac experience is more than the hardware. You're missing
the point if you look at just the hardware alone. There is also the
software. Mac OS X is a fully-certified Unix operating system under
the hood. There are fewer security vulnerabilities, and most viruses
and malware for the Mac exist only as extremely limited
proof-of-concept code. There is a lot of specialized software for the
Mac which has few or no alternatives on Linux or Windows. There is
far more software for the Mac that you might imagine and its a myth
that the Mac doesn't have any worthwhile software at all. Not to
mention also Macs have an EFI which has several distinct advantages
over a traditional BIOS. To top it off, Mac OS X just works without
any of the usual hassles of using Windows.
If Mac OS X is a fully-certified Unix operating system, then logically
shouldn't all Mac software also be able to run on Linux? In theory?
--
Amedee
Odd
2009-09-15 18:14:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amedee Van Gasse (Ubuntu)
If Mac OS X is a fully-certified Unix operating system,
It is.
Post by Amedee Van Gasse (Ubuntu)
then logically
shouldn't all Mac software also be able to run on Linux? In theory?
No. Their executable formats are not compatible. Apple could
however use something like Solaris' lxrun if they wanted to.

http://www.sun.com/software/linux/compatibility/lxrun/index.xml
--
Odd
Liam Proven
2009-09-15 18:25:46 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Amedee Van Gasse (Ubuntu)
Post by Amedee Van Gasse (Ubuntu)
Well, the Mac experience is more than the hardware. ?You're missing
the point if you look at just the hardware alone. ?There is also the
software. ?Mac OS X is a fully-certified Unix operating system under
the hood. ?There are fewer security vulnerabilities, and most viruses
and malware for the Mac exist only as extremely limited
proof-of-concept code. ?There is a lot of specialized software for the
Mac which has few or no alternatives on Linux or Windows. ?There is
far more software for the Mac that you might imagine and its a myth
that the Mac doesn't have any worthwhile software at all. ?Not to
mention also Macs have an EFI which has several distinct advantages
over a traditional BIOS. ?To top it off, Mac OS X just works without
any of the usual hassles of using Windows.
If Mac OS X is a fully-certified Unix operating system, then logically
shouldn't all Mac software also be able to run on Linux? In theory?
Not even slightly, no.

Mac OS X does not use the X Window System as used in most Linux
systems or all other graphical Unixes; it has its own display layer,
called Aqua, based around a rendering system called Quartz based on
PDF. It also includes many layers of Apple software: Core Image, Core
Data, Core Audio, Core Animation, QuickTime, & a large & extensive set
of Objective-C class libraries inherited from NeXT Computer.

OS X does include an X server as an optional extra; it runs under
Aqua. So it's *MUCH* easier to get Linux (or other xNix) apps running
under OS X than it would be to get OS X apps runningunder xNix.

Saying that, there is a FOSS reimplementation of the original NEXTstep
libraries and frameworks. It's caled GNUstep:
http://www.gnustep.org/

If GNUstep got more attention & a bunch of updates, it might be
possible to recompiled FOSS apps for OS X & run them on Linux.

FWIW, I think it's criminal that there isn't a distro based around
GNUstep & its NeXT-style GUI.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508
Michael Haney
2009-09-15 21:09:27 UTC
Permalink
NOTE: Dang, someone needs to fix the list settings. Sorry for
sending that directly to you Liam. Here's what I sent.
Post by Liam Proven
Not even slightly, no.
Mac OS X does not use the X Window System as used in most Linux
systems or all other graphical Unixes; it has its own display layer,
called Aqua, based around a rendering system called Quartz based on
PDF. It also includes many layers of Apple software: Core Image, Core
Data, Core Audio, Core Animation, QuickTime, & a large & extensive set
of Objective-C class libraries inherited from NeXT Computer.
OS X does include an X server as an optional extra; it runs under
Aqua. So it's *MUCH* easier to get Linux (or other xNix) apps running
under OS X than it would be to get OS X apps runningunder xNix.
Saying that, there is a FOSS reimplementation of the original NEXTstep
http://www.gnustep.org/
If GNUstep got more attention & a bunch of updates, it might be
possible to recompiled FOSS apps for OS X & run them on Linux.
FWIW, I think it's criminal that there isn't a distro based around
GNUstep & its NeXT-style GUI.
My friend's experience running X Windows apps under Mac OS X is that
even with fast hardware the software runs sluggishly. Open Office
would indeed run but he constantly complained about it being sluggish
and slow to respond sometimes. I tried it out and he was right. You
CAN run some Linux software on the Mac but they don't run smoothly.
Also, the software has to be recompiled in the Elf binary format that
the Mac users. It won't run native Linux binary format applications
even with the X Server component.

Open Office is now available in native Mac Aqua format.

And, yes, Mac OS X is indeed Unix 03 certified:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2007/08/mac-os-x-leopard-receives-unix-03-certification.ars
--
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
thezorch at gmail.com
http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
Twitter: TheZorch
Skype: thezorch (Voice and/or Chat)
AIM: thezorch at gmail.com
Yahoo IM: zorchhaney
ICQ: 343230252
GoogleTalk: thezorch
MSN Messeger: haneymichael at hotmail.com
Free Your Computer from the Tyranny of Microsoft www.ubuntu.com
Michael Haney
2009-09-15 21:12:04 UTC
Permalink
NOTE: This is getting old really fast. Sorry Mark for the direct
email. Here's the answer to his BootCamp Question.
I've got a question about BootCamp. The school I teach at is getting new
Macs for my department's computer lab with BootCamp. They intend to run OS
X. whatever and Windows XP. I'd like to add Ubuntu to the mix. Will
bootcamp handle a third OS? Can I install Wubi Ubuntu inside the XP
bootcamp?
Wubi is a certainty because it doesn't really write anything to the
boot sector (that I'm aware of) but only modifies the Windows Boot
Menu. As for triple booting a Mac with BootCamp it is indeed
technically possible but its not simple to setup. When setup the EFI
will see multiple boot partitions and will allow you to manually
select them at boot time with the keyboard or mouse. The EFI can also
let you selectively boot from a USB Flash drive, external USB hard
drive, or external CD/DVD-ROM drive. I've seen a friend of mine put a
MacBook Pro into external drive mode turning the notebook's internal
hard drive into an external drive for transfering files. I "think"
though I'm not certain that only works via Firewire.

BTW!!! You MUST have a full-install disk and not an upgrade disk of
Windows XP SP2 or SP3 when you're installing Windows into the BootCamp
partition.

This page has all the info on what you need to do to Triple Boot a Mac
in BootCamp:
http://wiki.onmac.net/index.php/Triple_Boot_via_BootCamp
--
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
thezorch at gmail.com
http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
Twitter: TheZorch
Skype: thezorch (Voice and/or Chat)
AIM: thezorch at gmail.com
Yahoo IM: zorchhaney
ICQ: 343230252
GoogleTalk: thezorch
MSN Messeger: haneymichael at hotmail.com
Free Your Computer from the Tyranny of Microsoft www.ubuntu.com
Michael Haney
2009-09-15 21:28:13 UTC
Permalink
No OS is 100% perfect nor 100% safe, but you can't deny that Mac and
Linux have far fewer threats against it online than Windows.

I've look up all kinds of info online about viruses for the Mac and
then looked up viruses for Windows. Yeah, there are viruses for the
Mac, but they're a pitiful handful compared to the insane multitudes
that threaten Windows. Only recently has Apple actually decided to
add a malware scanner to their OS. Snow Leopard will have a malware
scanner because the increased popularity of the Mac also means people
are starting to make malware for that platform.

I've also noticed that a few game developers are taking short cuts
when releasing titles for the Mac. Instead of developing native Elf
format binaries they're using Cedar, which is a specialized commercial
implementation of Wine designed just for that one game. EA has been
doing this recently. I'm not sure how well the games run but I
understand that many games run on Mac OS X using Crossover Games
(another commercial implementation of Wine) and the Mac version of
Wine
rather well.

On Linux I used to run Guild Wars with Wine and I run an old music
player called ModPlug Player (the BEST player for Mod format music,
period) for my Mod music collection.
--
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
thezorch at gmail.com
http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
Twitter: TheZorch
Skype: thezorch (Voice and/or Chat)
AIM: thezorch at gmail.com
Yahoo IM: zorchhaney
ICQ: 343230252
GoogleTalk: thezorch
MSN Messeger: haneymichael at hotmail.com
Free Your Computer from the Tyranny of Microsoft www.ubuntu.com
Odd
2009-09-15 21:57:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Haney
No OS is 100% perfect nor 100% safe, but you can't deny that Mac and
Linux have far fewer threats against it online than Windows.
No one is denying that.

It's interesting how you avoid commenting on anything that
disputes your statements in previous mails. I can only assume
you have no answers, and you're afraid to admit you were wrong.
You're fast losing any credibility you might have had.
--
Odd
Michael Haney
2009-09-15 23:39:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd
No one is denying that.
It's interesting how you avoid commenting on anything that
disputes your statements in previous mails. I can only assume
you have no answers, and you're afraid to admit you were wrong.
You're fast losing any credibility you might have had.
I'd rather now reply to people who seem to like stiring up trouble and
starting arguments. Instead of politely commenting on my statements
you chose to be condescending and outright hostile. You lost a great
deal of credibility with me almost immediately.

The article citing the Mac as being able run Vista faster than most
other PC hardware was in the print version of Maximum PC and PC
Magazine (and was some time ago too), and I haven't been able to find
an online version or I would have put it in my initial email. Perhaps
I should have stated that the first time. I stand by my comments
because I've seen it myself first hand. Nearly everyone I know has a
Mac and my exposure to them is very high.

You shouldn't attack people because you don't like Macs. Its counter
productive, it perpetuates the "totally incorrect" impression that
Linux users are quick tempered raving zealots who would rather start
arguments than actually have an intelligent conversation/debate, and
it totally ruins any first impressions someone new might have of you.

I didn't come to this group to be a bad tempered person's punching
bag. I came to talk to follow Ubuntu users and have civil
discussions.
--
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
thezorch at gmail.com
http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
Twitter: TheZorch
Skype: thezorch (Voice and/or Chat)
AIM: thezorch at gmail.com
Yahoo IM: zorchhaney
ICQ: 343230252
GoogleTalk: thezorch
MSN Messeger: haneymichael at hotmail.com
Free Your Computer from the Tyranny of Microsoft www.ubuntu.com
Odd
2009-09-16 09:48:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Haney
Post by Odd
No one is denying that.
It's interesting how you avoid commenting on anything that
disputes your statements in previous mails. I can only assume
you have no answers, and you're afraid to admit you were wrong.
You're fast losing any credibility you might have had.
I'd rather now reply to people who seem to like stiring up trouble and
starting arguments.
You don't like people challenging your beliefs. That's fine.
But for the future you may want to check your facts before putting
them on a public list where they can easily be picked apart by people
with more knowledge than you. This is the second time now.
Post by Michael Haney
Instead of politely commenting on my statements
you chose to be condescending and outright hostile. You lost a great
deal of credibility with me almost immediately.
Well, I'll try to be nicer in the future, OK? Perhaps you
can do a little fact checking? Win-win you see.
Post by Michael Haney
The article citing the Mac as being able run Vista faster than most
other PC hardware was in the print version of Maximum PC and PC
Magazine (and was some time ago too), and I haven't been able to find
an online version or I would have put it in my initial email. Perhaps
I should have stated that the first time. I stand by my comments
because I've seen it myself first hand.
Yes, I believe you have seen that article. Vista is a dog, so it
doesn't surprise me. I did not know it was a print article.
Post by Michael Haney
Nearly everyone I know has a
Mac and my exposure to them is very high.
I don't see how that is relevant to your claims.
Post by Michael Haney
You shouldn't attack people because you don't like Macs.
I don't like Macs? What makes you say that? They are perfectly
fine PCs, just like Dell's. Overpriced, yeah. But that's just a
fact. I wish you wouldn't lie about me.
--
Odd
Graham Todd
2009-09-16 17:01:27 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:39:03 -0400
Post by Michael Haney
it perpetuates the "totally incorrect" impression that
Linux users are quick tempered raving zealots
That's me! I want to grow up to be a quick tempered raving zealot, Mum!
Post by Michael Haney
who would rather start
arguments than actually have an intelligent conversation/debate
Oh, I don't know....

A debate (or so my Philosophy professor tells me) is between two
parties who are attempting to test their opponents' assertions by the
rules of logic. Its adversarial but only to a point. Dictionary.com
defines a debate as, "a formal contest in which the affirmative and
negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers"
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/debate)

I haven't seen a great many of these on the Sounder list, but on the
other hand I've seen a number of arguments and some conversations
(generally as the arguments are dying out), and but for the appearance
of trolling, even these arguments (defined by Dictionary.com as "an
oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation: a
violent argument" - on the other hand one definition says an argument
is a debate....) seem reasonably intelligent.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/argument)

So I guess I'll remain happy starting debates (even if I don't fully
support the proposition I'm espousing), and being a zealot for the
philosophy of free software. At least people start to THINK then and
not just accept pap force-fed to them [but I've just realised - maybe
that DOES make me a quick tempered raving zealot.... 8-:( ]
--
Graham Todd
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments

Please, no MS-Office documents -
http://linux.sgms-centre.com/advocacy/no-ms-office.php
David Sanders
2009-09-15 21:34:27 UTC
Permalink
NOTE: ?Dang, someone needs to fix the list settings. ?Sorry for
sending that directly to you Liam. ?Here's what I sent.
Post by Liam Proven
Not even slightly, no.
Mac OS X does not use the X Window System as used in most Linux
systems or all other graphical Unixes; it has its own display layer,
called Aqua, based around a rendering system called Quartz based on
PDF. It also includes many layers of Apple software: Core Image, Core
Data, Core Audio, Core Animation, QuickTime, & a large & extensive set
of Objective-C class libraries inherited from NeXT Computer.
OS X does include an X server as an optional extra; it runs under
Aqua. So it's *MUCH* easier to get Linux (or other xNix) apps running
under OS X than it would be to get OS X apps runningunder xNix.
Saying that, there is a FOSS reimplementation of the original NEXTstep
http://www.gnustep.org/
If GNUstep got more attention & a bunch of updates, it might be
possible to recompiled FOSS apps for OS X & run them on Linux.
FWIW, I think it's criminal that there isn't a distro based around
GNUstep & its NeXT-style GUI.
My friend's experience running X Windows apps under Mac OS X is that
even with fast hardware the software runs sluggishly. ?Open Office
would indeed run but he constantly complained about it being sluggish
and slow to respond sometimes. ?I tried it out and he was right. ?You
CAN run some Linux software on the Mac but they don't run smoothly.
Also, the software has to be recompiled in the Elf binary format that
the Mac users. ?It won't run native Linux binary format applications
even with the X Server component.
Open Office is now available in native Mac Aqua format.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2007/08/mac-os-x-leopard-receives-unix-03-certification.ars
Unix-certified pretty much means diddly-squat - We're Linux users
here, not BSD users. The BSD/Solaris/HP-UX userland is no-where near
as modern or friendly as Linux (unless they've nicked the GNU utils -
which for instance BSD does).

Mac-OS X is a decent enough operating system, apart from that, IMO,
the Mach-kernel inside Monolithic kernel is a terrible terrible idea.

So, look at a few benchmarks for OSX vs Linux with apache, mysql
compiled with GCC 4.4 compared to Mac OS X and GCC 4.1 (latest
available in XCode AFAIK).

It's faster, cheaper, runs on anything you want to put it on. End of story.
David Sanders
2009-09-15 21:35:53 UTC
Permalink
And just for the record. UNIX != Linux, in case Unix compatibility
makes you think that MacOS X is in any way Linux "compatible".
Michael Haney
2009-09-15 21:44:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Sanders
And just for the record. UNIX != Linux, in case Unix compatibility
makes you think that MacOS X is in any way Linux "compatible".
I found that out a long time ago. Their binary formats are completely
different.

I would go for a Mac if I could afford one but I like Ubuntu a lot and
its way better than Windows by a long shot. I just wish Flash did
suck so much under Linux. That Grease Monkey script is a life saver
for Youtube but I also frequent Hulu.com, Crackle.com, Crunchyroll.com
Funimation.com, AnimeNewsNetwork.com and Joost.com (gotta love 20mbps
100% fiber broadband with no bandwidth caps) almost everyday. I
hardly ever watch TV, I get most of my nightly entertainment online
via several streaming sites. Fewer commercials that way. And
sometimes with AdBlocker Plus no commercials, HA! :)
--
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
thezorch at gmail.com
http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
Twitter: TheZorch
Skype: thezorch (Voice and/or Chat)
AIM: thezorch at gmail.com
Yahoo IM: zorchhaney
ICQ: 343230252
GoogleTalk: thezorch
MSN Messeger: haneymichael at hotmail.com
Free Your Computer from the Tyranny of Microsoft www.ubuntu.com
Amedee Van Gasse (Ubuntu)
2009-09-16 10:52:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Haney
Post by David Sanders
And just for the record. UNIX != Linux, in case Unix compatibility
makes you think that MacOS X is in any way Linux "compatible".
I found that out a long time ago. Their binary formats are completely
different.
I always thought that Unix compatible was more or less synonymous for
source-compatible, as in "write once, compile everywhere".

Of course the executable format is different, but if you could grab the
source of a Mac program (AND all of its dependencies), wouldn't it at
least in theory be possible to recompile from scratch? My gut feeling
tells me that this should at least be true for simple console
applications.
--
Amedee
David Gerard
2009-09-16 10:55:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amedee Van Gasse (Ubuntu)
Of course the executable format is different, but if you could grab the
source of a Mac program (AND all of its dependencies), wouldn't it at
least in theory be possible to recompile from scratch? My gut feeling
tells me that this should at least be true for simple console
applications.
Only if the source only used stuff in POSIX.


- d.
Amedee Van Gasse (Ubuntu)
2009-09-16 11:02:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Gerard
Post by Amedee Van Gasse (Ubuntu)
Of course the executable format is different, but if you could grab the
source of a Mac program (AND all of its dependencies), wouldn't it at
least in theory be possible to recompile from scratch? My gut feeling
tells me that this should at least be true for simple console
applications.
Only if the source only used stuff in POSIX.
That is what "in theory" and "AND all of its dependencies" implies.
Odd
2009-09-16 11:01:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amedee Van Gasse (Ubuntu)
Post by Michael Haney
Post by David Sanders
And just for the record. UNIX != Linux, in case Unix compatibility
makes you think that MacOS X is in any way Linux "compatible".
I found that out a long time ago. Their binary formats are completely
different.
I always thought that Unix compatible was more or less synonymous for
source-compatible, as in "write once, compile everywhere".
That's true. There may be a few differences between the BSD branch
of UNIX and the System V branch, but they are minor.
Post by Amedee Van Gasse (Ubuntu)
Of course the executable format is different, but if you could grab the
source of a Mac program (AND all of its dependencies), wouldn't it at
least in theory be possible to recompile from scratch? My gut feeling
tells me that this should at least be true for simple console
applications.
For simple console applications, yes. But for more advanced
stuff, that uses Apple's proprietary software layers, you're out
of luck.
--
Odd
Amedee Van Gasse (Ubuntu)
2009-09-16 11:08:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd
Post by Amedee Van Gasse (Ubuntu)
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:35 PM, David Sanders
<dsuzukisanders at gmail.com>
Post by David Sanders
And just for the record. UNIX != Linux, in case Unix compatibility
makes you think that MacOS X is in any way Linux "compatible".
I found that out a long time ago. Their binary formats are completely
different.
I always thought that Unix compatible was more or less synonymous for
source-compatible, as in "write once, compile everywhere".
That's true. There may be a few differences between the BSD branch
of UNIX and the System V branch, but they are minor.
Post by Amedee Van Gasse (Ubuntu)
Of course the executable format is different, but if you could grab the
source of a Mac program (AND all of its dependencies), wouldn't it at
least in theory be possible to recompile from scratch? My gut feeling
tells me that this should at least be true for simple console
applications.
For simple console applications, yes. But for more advanced
stuff, that uses Apple's proprietary software layers, you're out
of luck.
That's exactly why I wrote "if you COULD grab the source" (I'm not
claiming that you can, but for argument's sake, lets just assume that it
is possible).
I also wrote "AND all of the dependencies". I consider the Apple
proprietary software layers as dependencies.

Remember, this is sounder, the off-topic list, where we don't discuss real
things but explore the realms of the imaginable and unimaginable. *cue
Outer Limits theme*
:-)
Odd
2009-09-16 11:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amedee Van Gasse (Ubuntu)
Post by Odd
Post by Amedee Van Gasse (Ubuntu)
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:35 PM, David Sanders
<dsuzukisanders at gmail.com>
Post by David Sanders
And just for the record. UNIX != Linux, in case Unix compatibility
makes you think that MacOS X is in any way Linux "compatible".
I found that out a long time ago. Their binary formats are completely
different.
I always thought that Unix compatible was more or less synonymous for
source-compatible, as in "write once, compile everywhere".
That's true. There may be a few differences between the BSD branch
of UNIX and the System V branch, but they are minor.
Post by Amedee Van Gasse (Ubuntu)
Of course the executable format is different, but if you could grab the
source of a Mac program (AND all of its dependencies), wouldn't it at
least in theory be possible to recompile from scratch? My gut feeling
tells me that this should at least be true for simple console
applications.
For simple console applications, yes. But for more advanced
stuff, that uses Apple's proprietary software layers, you're out
of luck.
That's exactly why I wrote "if you COULD grab the source" (I'm not
claiming that you can, but for argument's sake, lets just assume that it
is possible).
I also wrote "AND all of the dependencies". I consider the Apple
proprietary software layers as dependencies.
Remember, this is sounder, the off-topic list, where we don't discuss real
things but explore the realms of the imaginable and unimaginable. *cue
Outer Limits theme*
:-)
Ah, OK. If we had all of the source code to OS X, we could do anything.
So you're right about that. :)
--
Odd
Graham Todd
2009-09-16 16:01:39 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:12:58 +0200
Post by Amedee Van Gasse (Ubuntu)
Remember, this is sounder, the off-topic list, where we don't
discuss real things but explore the realms of the imaginable and
unimaginable. *cue Outer Limits theme*
:-)
[snipped]

Although an ageing Brit, I seem to remember that from 1964 by The
Mar-Ketts, the L.A. surf instro band.....

But we didn't have anything like surf when I was growing up in the
wilds of Essex, just tarmac-black mud in the Thames Estuary. Ah!
Nostalgia ain't what it used to be....
--
Graham Todd
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments

Please, no MS-Office documents -
http://linux.sgms-centre.com/advocacy/no-ms-office.php
Liam Proven
2009-09-16 11:52:41 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Amedee Van Gasse (Ubuntu)
Post by Amedee Van Gasse (Ubuntu)
Post by David Sanders
And just for the record. UNIX != Linux, in case Unix compatibility
makes you think that MacOS X is in any way Linux "compatible".
I found that out a long time ago. ?Their binary formats are completely
different.
I always thought that Unix compatible was more or less synonymous for
source-compatible, as in "write once, compile everywhere".
Of course the executable format is different, but if you could grab the
source of a Mac program (AND all of its dependencies), wouldn't it at
least in theory be possible to recompile from scratch? My gut feeling
tells me that this should at least be true for simple console
applications.
All of the GUI code, class libraries, programming frameworks etc. are
proprietary, closed source. This is why purist FOSS advocates dislike
Apple.

(Jaded old Unix veterans tend to be more pragmatic and like OS X
because it Just Works? with minimal fiddling or configuring.)

But the point is, yes, a very minimal OS X app could be compiled on
another Unix - but so minimal that it is no longer a Mac OS X app in
any meaningful sense.

OTOH, with not that much work, you /can/ recompile some Mac OS X apps
against GNUstep and produce an app that will work fine on Linux.

If it's a proper Mac app, with a Mac GUI, then no, it only works on a
Mac, or a compatible set of libraries - meaning NeXTstep, OpenStep or
GNUstep.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508
Amedee Van Gasse (Ubuntu)
2009-09-16 11:57:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Liam Proven
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Amedee Van Gasse (Ubuntu)
Post by Amedee Van Gasse (Ubuntu)
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:35 PM, David Sanders
<dsuzukisanders at gmail.com>
Post by David Sanders
And just for the record. UNIX != Linux, in case Unix compatibility
makes you think that MacOS X is in any way Linux "compatible".
I found that out a long time ago. ?Their binary formats are completely
different.
I always thought that Unix compatible was more or less synonymous for
source-compatible, as in "write once, compile everywhere".
Of course the executable format is different, but if you could grab the
source of a Mac program (AND all of its dependencies), wouldn't it at
least in theory be possible to recompile from scratch? My gut feeling
tells me that this should at least be true for simple console
applications.
All of the GUI code, class libraries, programming frameworks etc. are
proprietary, closed source. This is why purist FOSS advocates dislike
Apple.
(Jaded old Unix veterans tend to be more pragmatic and like OS X
because it Just Works? with minimal fiddling or configuring.)
But the point is, yes, a very minimal OS X app could be compiled on
another Unix - but so minimal that it is no longer a Mac OS X app in
any meaningful sense.
OTOH, with not that much work, you /can/ recompile some Mac OS X apps
against GNUstep and produce an app that will work fine on Linux.
If it's a proper Mac app, with a Mac GUI, then no, it only works on a
Mac, or a compatible set of libraries - meaning NeXTstep, OpenStep or
GNUstep.
You needed a lot of words to say that you agree with me :-)
(read my other mail about the hypothetical case that you could get the
source of proprietary, closed source software)
Liam Proven
2009-09-16 11:57:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Haney
My friend's experience running X Windows apps under Mac OS X is that
even with fast hardware the software runs sluggishly. ?Open Office
would indeed run but he constantly complained about it being sluggish
and slow to respond sometimes. ?I tried it out and he was right. ?You
CAN run some Linux software on the Mac but they don't run smoothly.
Also, the software has to be recompiled in the Elf binary format that
the Mac users. ?It won't run native Linux binary format applications
even with the X Server component.
True, you do need to recompile to Mac format. An X server is not a
Linux emulator!

But it depends on the app. Frankly, OpenOffice /is/ a bit sluggish, on
all platforms. It's not an artefact of OS X, X.11 or anything else.
Yes, as you point out, there is a native port now - and before that,
there was NeoOffice/J with a native Java GUI - but they're still
sluggish too.

Fast apps are pretty fast, even under Apple's Aqua X.11 server.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508
John McCabe-Dansted
2009-09-16 12:22:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Liam Proven
Post by Michael Haney
My friend's experience running X Windows apps under Mac OS X is that
even with fast hardware the software runs sluggishly. ?Open Office
would indeed run but he constantly complained about it being sluggish
and slow to respond sometimes. ?I tried it out and he was right. ?You
CAN run some Linux software on the Mac but they don't run smoothly.
Also, the software has to be recompiled in the Elf binary format that
the Mac users. ?It won't run native Linux binary format applications
even with the X Server component.
True, you do need to recompile to Mac format. An X server is not a
Linux emulator!
I understand that FreeBSD is capable of running Linux binaries, it is
suggested in this thread that Darwin also has this capability
(although no-one tried because you'd need all the Linux versions of
the libraries as well).
http://forums.appleinsider.com/archive/index.php/t-9587.html
--
John C. McCabe-Dansted
Chris Rees
2009-09-16 12:48:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McCabe-Dansted
Post by Liam Proven
Post by Michael Haney
My friend's experience running X Windows apps under Mac OS X is that
even with fast hardware the software runs sluggishly. ?Open Office
would indeed run but he constantly complained about it being sluggish
and slow to respond sometimes. ?I tried it out and he was right. ?You
CAN run some Linux software on the Mac but they don't run smoothly.
Also, the software has to be recompiled in the Elf binary format that
the Mac users. ?It won't run native Linux binary format applications
even with the X Server component.
True, you do need to recompile to Mac format. An X server is not a
Linux emulator!
I understand that FreeBSD is capable of running Linux binaries, it is
suggested in this thread that Darwin also has this capability
(although no-one tried because you'd need all the Linux versions of
the libraries as well).
? http://forums.appleinsider.com/archive/index.php/t-9587.html
--
John C. McCabe-Dansted
They could put this on the Google home page for a month, and people
would still make threads about it.

DARWIN IS NOT FREEBSD.

Darwin is based on the Mach microkernel, and Apple took the USERLAND
(tcsh, ls etc) from FreeBSD. The kernel of Darwin is nothing like the
kernel of FreeBSD; FreeBSD has a monolithic kernel like the Linux
kernel, and Darwin is microkernel based.

Linux binary emulation is implemented mostly in the FreeBSD kernel.
Since Darwin is based on Mach, not FreeBSD, it doesn't have the same
features. It is intended for Mathematica, the Valve dedicated servers
etc that are compiled for Linux and Windows but not anything else. On
a Mac, most of the programs compiled only for Linux have a Mac
version, thus making Linux emulation pointless. FreeBSD can run Linux
binaries, but Darwin can't; because Darwin is not FreeBSD.

Sorry John, I'm not moaning at you, just the wide-held perception that
Mac OS X is FreeBSD (a perception that Apple have done _nothing_ to
debase).

Chris
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in a mailing list?
Liam Proven
2009-09-16 13:32:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Rees
Darwin is based on the Mach microkernel, and Apple took the USERLAND
(tcsh, ls etc) from FreeBSD. The kernel of Darwin is nothing like the
kernel of FreeBSD; FreeBSD has a monolithic kernel like the Linux
kernel, and Darwin is microkernel based.
Not to disagree with anything you've said, which is all bang-on the nail...

But... :?)

I've been reading up on Mach & OS X and things recently. On top of
Mach, OS X runs a single large monolithic "server" to provide the
Unix-compatible APIs, and that server too is derived from BSD. So it's
not a pure microkernel, because of its Unix compatibility. The purists
say it's not a ?K at all.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508
Chris Rees
2009-09-16 15:17:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Liam Proven
Post by Chris Rees
Darwin is based on the Mach microkernel, and Apple took the USERLAND
(tcsh, ls etc) from FreeBSD. The kernel of Darwin is nothing like the
kernel of FreeBSD; FreeBSD has a monolithic kernel like the Linux
kernel, and Darwin is microkernel based.
Not to disagree with anything you've said, which is all bang-on the nail...
But... ?:?)
I've been reading up on Mach & OS X and things recently. On top of
Mach, OS X runs a single large monolithic "server" to provide the
Unix-compatible APIs, and that server too is derived from BSD. So it's
not a pure microkernel, because of its Unix compatibility. The purists
say it's not a ?K at all.
Yeah, you're right about the purists. I haven't time to research this
new point of yours right now, but off the top of my head they have
merely implemented the BSD-style APIs, which have many differences
from the Linux APIs, but are true 'Unix' and more Free than the Linux
kernel, too.

That's a hand waving explanation, and anyone who wants to tell me it's
crap can do so :P

Chris
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in a mailing list?
David Sanders
2009-09-16 16:53:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Rees
Yeah, you're right about the purists. I haven't time to research this
new point of yours right now, but off the top of my head they have
merely implemented the BSD-style APIs, which have many differences
from the Linux APIs, but are true 'Unix' and more Free than the Linux
kernel, too.
That's a hand waving explanation, and anyone who wants to tell me it's
crap can do so :P
Chris
--
It's crap for a lot of apps. MySQL, httpd - in fact anything that
relies on Unix-style signals is buggered.

Basically for desktop apps it's all very nice, but for high
transaction server apps it sucks balls (and in fact it will generally
be slower for any BSD-style app).
John McCabe-Dansted
2009-09-16 18:12:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Liam Proven
Post by Chris Rees
Darwin is based on the Mach microkernel, and Apple took the USERLAND
(tcsh, ls etc) from FreeBSD. The kernel of Darwin is nothing like the
kernel of FreeBSD; FreeBSD has a monolithic kernel like the Linux
kernel, and Darwin is microkernel based.
FWIW, I never said that the Darwin kernel was based on FreeBSD.
Neither did the link I cited (although they appeared to assume that
the Linux compatibility was standard to all BSDish OSes)
Post by Liam Proven
Not to disagree with anything you've said, which is all bang-on the nail...
But... ?:?)
I've been reading up on Mach & OS X and things recently. On top of
Mach, OS X runs a single large monolithic "server" to provide the
Unix-compatible APIs, and that server too is derived from BSD. So it's
not a pure microkernel, because of its Unix compatibility. The purists
say it's not a ?K at all.
Sounds a somewhat like MkLinux. I understand that MkLinux is binary
compatible with Linux so its possible to maintain Linux compatibility
with Mach (And MkLinux is closer to being a true micro-kernel
architecture, according to wikipedia). Given that Darwin is
opensource, arguably it is possible to run Linux binaries on Darwin
given a sufficient amount of effort and a sufficiently loose
definition of "Darwin". It shouldn't even take that much effort if the
statement "OS X instead takes the NextStep approach and runs a hybrid
system where the BSD kernel is grafted on top of Mach running in a
single kernel address space." from Wikipedia is correct.

The BSDs in general do seem to like binary compatibility. There is a
(stalled) project to support MacOS X binaries on NetBSD.
--
John C. McCabe-Dansted
Liam Proven
2009-09-16 18:54:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McCabe-Dansted
Sounds a somewhat like MkLinux.
Yes, it is. MkLinux involved running the Linux kernel on top of Mach
in an analagous way.
Post by John McCabe-Dansted
I understand that MkLinux is binary
compatible with Linux so its possible to maintain Linux compatibility
with Mach
Nope, a leap too far based on faulty reasoning.

Running a Linux kernel on Mach gives you something Linux-compatible.
But OS X does not run a Linux kernel on top of Mach, it runs /part/ of
a BSD kernel on top of Mach, so the part that lends Linux
compatibility is missing.

As is most of Linux's infrastructure: the /etc file structure is all
different, there is no /home and so on. OS X is not a very
traditional-Unix-like Unix.
Post by John McCabe-Dansted
(And MkLinux is closer to being a true micro-kernel
architecture, according to wikipedia). Given that Darwin is
opensource, arguably it is possible to run Linux binaries on Darwin
given a sufficient amount of effort and a sufficiently loose
definition of "Darwin". It shouldn't even take that much effort if the
statement "OS X instead takes the NextStep approach and runs a hybrid
system where the BSD kernel is grafted on top of Mach running in a
single kernel address space." from Wikipedia is correct.
OS X /is/ NextStep, just a newer version.

I'm not sure why you'd want Linux compatibility, though. Yes Linux has
lots of apps, but then, most of 'em are FOSS and so can be ported for
a true native executable rather than an inevitably flawed emulator.
And these days you could run real Linux inside a VM anyway.
Post by John McCabe-Dansted
The BSDs in general do seem to like binary compatibility. There is a
(stalled) project to support MacOS X binaries on NetBSD.
Partly because there are relatively few apps for the BSDs.

OTOH, there are tons of apps for OS X, many are very high quality, and
even a lot of the closed-source ones are small-f free, so there is
much less demand for programs from other xNixes on OS X.

It is worth remembering that OS is not only the most successful
commercial Unix ever, it has outsold every other commercial Unix there
has ever been /all put together./ It also has an estimated 4x the
desktop market share of Linux.

So really, we don't have a lot to give OS X, but potentially, a lot to
learn from it.

At the user level, it is dramatically more polished than any Linux.
App installation is easier and more user-comprehensible. It looks
gorgeous and notably is significantly /unlike/ Windows, whereas Linux
is under the hovering MS thread of 275 infringements of Windows
patents on the desktop and how it works.

At the programmer level, Apple also innovates hard, with new tools and
facilities and languages and libraries which the FOSS world would do
well to emulate.

Much of OS X /is/ FOSS. Apple is FOSS-friendly.

Instead, many FOSS programmers are embracing Micros~1's .NET, which
however good it may be, is not GPL and is from a company that calls
Linux "communist", "cancer" and "a curse". Micro~1 is the world's
biggest, richest software company, the most litigious, it is
documented and convicted as a liar, a thief, a cheat and an illegal
monopolist.

We should /never/ trust /anything/ from MS, no matter how good or
useful or tempting it may seem. Make no mistake, MS would like to
exterminate the FOSS community from the face of the Earth.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508
Christopher Chan
2009-09-17 01:54:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Liam Proven
Instead, many FOSS programmers are embracing Micros~1's .NET, which
however good it may be, is not GPL and is from a company that calls
Linux "communist", "cancer" and "a curse". Micro~1 is the world's
biggest, richest software company, the most litigious, it is
documented and convicted as a liar, a thief, a cheat and an illegal
monopolist.
We should /never/ trust /anything/ from MS, no matter how good or
useful or tempting it may seem. Make no mistake, MS would like to
exterminate the FOSS community from the face of the Earth.
You are going to get yourself censored and banned by Ubuntu developers
if you keep that up. :-D
Michael Haney
2009-09-17 19:01:15 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Christopher Chan
Post by Christopher Chan
Post by Liam Proven
Instead, many FOSS programmers are embracing Micros~1's .NET, which
however good it may be, is not GPL and is from a company that calls
Linux "communist", "cancer" and "a curse". Micro~1 is the world's
biggest, richest software company, the most litigious, it is
documented and convicted as a liar, a thief, a cheat and an illegal
monopolist.
We should /never/ trust /anything/ from MS, no matter how good or
useful or tempting it may seem. Make no mistake, MS would like to
exterminate the FOSS community from the face of the Earth.
You are going to get yourself censored and banned by Ubuntu developers
if you keep that up. :-D
Won't stop it from being true though. Didn't you ever hear about the
Streisand Effect? Its an Internet phenomenon where an attempt to
censor or remove a piece of information backfires, causing the
information to be widely publicized. Of course, this particular genie
has already been released. Everyone knows Micro$oft is likened to
Mordor and Steve Balmer is its Sauron.

One OS to rule them all, one OS to find them, and in the darkness bind
them with restrictive licensing. :-D
--
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
thezorch at gmail.com
http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
Twitter: TheZorch
Skype: thezorch (Voice and/or Chat)
AIM: thezorch at gmail.com
Yahoo IM: zorchhaney
ICQ: 343230252
GoogleTalk: thezorch
MSN Messeger: haneymichael at hotmail.com
Free Your Computer from the Tyranny of Microsoft www.ubuntu.com
David Sanders
2009-09-17 06:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Liam Proven
Much of OS X /is/ FOSS. Apple is FOSS-friendly.
Instead, many FOSS programmers are embracing Micros~1's .NET, which
however good it may be, is not GPL and is from a company that calls
Linux "communist", "cancer" and "a curse". Micro~1 is the world's
biggest, richest software company, the most litigious, it is
documented and convicted as a liar, a thief, a cheat and an illegal
monopolist.
We should /never/ trust /anything/ from MS, no matter how good or
useful or tempting it may seem. Make no mistake, MS would like to
exterminate the FOSS community from the face of the Earth.
Please don't pretend for a second that if Apple were in the dominant
monopoly position they would somehow be "nicer" than Microsoft. Would
you mind telling me which particular project Apple funded that has
helped the rest of the FOSS ecosystem?

Was it buying CUPS? Was it Darwin(ho ho ho!)? Erm, anything else?

Basically Apple used big bits of BSD userland and kernel, and, if you
look at the FreeBSD contributor map, gave absolutely nothing back. Of
course with the BSD license, that's not neccesary - which is why IMO
it's a bad license - completely suited to Tivo-isation.

I think you'll find that the Mono project is not on shaky legal ground
- it's already been allowed to go on for too long for MS to suddenly
pull the carpet from under Manuel's feet.
Odd
2009-09-17 11:24:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Sanders
Post by Liam Proven
Much of OS X /is/ FOSS. Apple is FOSS-friendly.
Instead, many FOSS programmers are embracing Micros~1's .NET, which
however good it may be, is not GPL and is from a company that calls
Linux "communist", "cancer" and "a curse". Micro~1 is the world's
biggest, richest software company, the most litigious, it is
documented and convicted as a liar, a thief, a cheat and an illegal
monopolist.
We should /never/ trust /anything/ from MS, no matter how good or
useful or tempting it may seem. Make no mistake, MS would like to
exterminate the FOSS community from the face of the Earth.
Please don't pretend for a second that if Apple were in the dominant
monopoly position they would somehow be "nicer" than Microsoft.
Indeed. Apple is actually worse than Microsoft. But since they
have a relatively small market share, most people don't notice it.
Post by David Sanders
Would
you mind telling me which particular project Apple funded that has
helped the rest of the FOSS ecosystem?
Was it buying CUPS? Was it Darwin(ho ho ho!)? Erm, anything else?
Webkit?
Post by David Sanders
Basically Apple used big bits of BSD userland and kernel, and, if you
look at the FreeBSD contributor map, gave absolutely nothing back. Of
course with the BSD license, that's not neccesary - which is why IMO
it's a bad license - completely suited to Tivo-isation.
Yep.
Post by David Sanders
I think you'll find that the Mono project is not on shaky legal ground
- it's already been allowed to go on for too long for MS to suddenly
pull the carpet from under Manuel's feet.
I fear you are right.
--
Odd
Michael Haney
2009-09-17 19:19:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd
Indeed. Apple is actually worse than Microsoft. But since they
have a relatively small market share, most people don't notice it.
Odd, despite our disagreements in past posts I wholeheartedly agree
with you here in some respects. Apple's behavior under Steve Jobs'
leadership has been something of a disappointment lately. Apple has a
opportunity to step up and be a huge moral role model in the computer
industry, but instead they're becoming worse than the evil empire that
Gates built.

Their iTunes App Store shenanigans is one primary example. You do not
under any circumstances treat your development community like 2nd
class citizens, but that's what Apple is doing. When the iPhone was a
new commodity that might have been able to get away with it but
nowadays Apple has a lot of smartphone competition from Blackberry,
the Palm Pre, Android phones, and many of (cringe) Windows Mobile
smartphones. Many of these now have app stores with far fewer
restrictions and those restrictions are CLEARLY POINTED OUT. The
rules of the iTunes App store seem to change every second of every of
every day and getting your app accepted is something akin to playing
Russian Roulette.

Like the Skype app getting approval but the Google Voice app didn't.
There's lots more examples where that came from though.
--
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
thezorch at gmail.com
http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
Twitter: TheZorch
Skype: thezorch (Voice and/or Chat)
AIM: thezorch at gmail.com
Yahoo IM: zorchhaney
ICQ: 343230252
GoogleTalk: thezorch
MSN Messeger: haneymichael at hotmail.com
Free Your Computer from the Tyranny of Microsoft www.ubuntu.com
Odd
2009-09-17 20:30:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Haney
Post by Odd
Indeed. Apple is actually worse than Microsoft. But since they
have a relatively small market share, most people don't notice it.
Odd, despite our disagreements in past posts I wholeheartedly agree
with you here in some respects. Apple's behavior under Steve Jobs'
leadership has been something of a disappointment lately. Apple has a
opportunity to step up and be a huge moral role model in the computer
industry, but instead they're becoming worse than the evil empire that
Gates built.
Their iTunes App Store shenanigans is one primary example. You do not
under any circumstances treat your development community like 2nd
class citizens, but that's what Apple is doing. When the iPhone was a
new commodity that might have been able to get away with it but
nowadays Apple has a lot of smartphone competition from Blackberry,
the Palm Pre, Android phones, and many of (cringe) Windows Mobile
smartphones. Many of these now have app stores with far fewer
restrictions and those restrictions are CLEARLY POINTED OUT. The
rules of the iTunes App store seem to change every second of every of
every day and getting your app accepted is something akin to playing
Russian Roulette.
Yeah, that's an uncertainty developers don't need.
Post by Michael Haney
Like the Skype app getting approval but the Google Voice app didn't.
There's lots more examples where that came from though.
Tt doesn't make any sense. Like you said, it's like Russian Roulette.
It's simply not acceptable from a developer's viewpoint. I wonder how
long Apple will continue this..
--
Odd
Michael Haney
2009-09-17 22:19:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd
Tt doesn't make any sense. Like you said, it's like Russian Roulette.
It's simply not acceptable from a developer's viewpoint. I wonder how
long Apple will continue this..
Until one of two things happens, either the FCC forces Apple to clean
up their act in the App Store (which I doubt but it would be nice) or
Apple start loosing developers to their competition (ie; the Palm Pre,
Black Berry, Android, Windows Mobile, etc). Sooner or later the
development community is going to get fed up and seek greener
pastures. I suspect it won't be too long from now before we start to
see a slow exodus towards one of the other smartphones, which over
time will go from a trickle to a flood if the status quo doesn't
change. The iPhone isn't the only easily usable touch screen
smartphone on the market anymore, and Apple had better take notice
because the end of their glory days at the top is fast approaching.
--
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
thezorch at gmail.com
http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
Twitter: TheZorch
Skype: thezorch (Voice and/or Chat)
AIM: thezorch at gmail.com
Yahoo IM: zorchhaney
ICQ: 343230252
GoogleTalk: thezorch
MSN Messeger: haneymichael at hotmail.com
Free Your Computer from the Tyranny of Microsoft www.ubuntu.com
Michael Haney
2009-09-17 19:30:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd
Post by David Sanders
I think you'll find that the Mono project is not on shaky legal ground
- it's already been allowed to go on for too long for MS to suddenly
pull the carpet from under Manuel's feet.
I fear you are right.
I like to point out here that, if Microsoft hurt Mono, they would also
anger a very big software developer (EA Games) with regards to a very
big franchise (The Sims 3)... which would unleash a hoard of lawyers and
a lot of Mac and iPhone users who are as vocal as us but are armed with
lots and lots of stickers.
I've been pretty concerned about Micro$oft's recent contributions of
open source. I would not put it past them to do this in order to set
a Patent Infringement Trap for Linux. It easily fits into the usual
Micro$oft strategy. Steve "Office Chair Hurler" Balmer has been
waving the "Linux violates our patents" banner for a while now and
still does it despite Micro$oft's OSS contributions. The point is,
the company has never shown that it can ever be trusted. Backstabbing
the competition, not playing by the rules, is a tactic which Micro$oft
has turned into an art form.
--
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
thezorch at gmail.com
http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
Twitter: TheZorch
Skype: thezorch (Voice and/or Chat)
AIM: thezorch at gmail.com
Yahoo IM: zorchhaney
ICQ: 343230252
GoogleTalk: thezorch
MSN Messeger: haneymichael at hotmail.com
Free Your Computer from the Tyranny of Microsoft www.ubuntu.com
Liam Proven
2009-09-18 13:23:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd
Post by David Sanders
I think you'll find that the Mono project is not on shaky legal ground
- it's already been allowed to go on for too long for MS to suddenly
pull the carpet from under Manuel's feet.
I fear you are right.
I like to point out here that, if Microsoft hurt Mono, they would also
anger a very big software developer (EA Games) with regards to a very
big franchise (The Sims 3)... which would unleash a hoard of lawyers and
a lot of Mac and iPhone users who are as vocal as us but are armed with
lots and lots of stickers.
Bye,
Dylan
Can you explain, please?

Mono is the open-source version of .NET. The Sims is a Windows game
that runs natively on Windows so it doesn't need Mono, it can use real
native .NET.

.NET is not going away; developers can use that in safety, so long as
they are content to be on a proprietary platform - which games
companies actively like, by and large.

Concerns about Mono are basically irrelevant to devs on Windows.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508
Dylan McCall
2009-09-18 14:45:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Liam Proven
Can you explain, please?
Mono is the open-source version of .NET. The Sims is a Windows game
that runs natively on Windows so it doesn't need Mono, it can use real
native .NET.
.NET is not going away; developers can use that in safety, so long as
they are content to be on a proprietary platform - which games
companies actively like, by and large.
Concerns about Mono are basically irrelevant to devs on Windows.
You missed the Mac part. The Sims 3 runs on MacOS as well and uses
Mono for scripting game events, I believe on both platforms :)
Liam Proven
2009-09-18 14:51:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dylan McCall
Post by Liam Proven
Can you explain, please?
Mono is the open-source version of .NET. The Sims is a Windows game
that runs natively on Windows so it doesn't need Mono, it can use real
native .NET.
.NET is not going away; developers can use that in safety, so long as
they are content to be on a proprietary platform - which games
companies actively like, by and large.
Concerns about Mono are basically irrelevant to devs on Windows.
You missed the Mac part. The Sims 3 runs on MacOS as well and uses
Mono for scripting game events, I believe on both platforms :)
Aahh. That I did not know.

Still, for the chance to knife Linux if it came up, at the cost of
pissing off EA & inconveniencing another MS rival, I think they'd take
it like a shot.

I use the word "knife" as that is official MS terminology. As in the
famous meant-to-be-off-the-record quote when negotiating with AOL:
"what do we have to do to get you to knife Netscape?" Bear in mind
that at this point, AOL was a shareholder in Netscape. But it did as
MS wanted, embedded IE into the official AOL client for Mac as well as
Windows, and did not directly support /its own product/.

MS, of course, was not prosecuted for that particular bit of
back-stabbing treachery. Other companies that MS has knifed include
Adobe, Apple, Stac, IBM, Lotus, Wordperfect, Digital Research, Central
Point and more besides. Some of these lived. Some you have possibly
never heard of, but they were all big at one time before MS decided
they were a threat.

At the moment, Linux is the biggest single threat to MS. If they can
find a way to hurt or kill the FOSS world, believe me, they will.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508
Dylan McCall
2009-09-17 19:16:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd
Post by David Sanders
I think you'll find that the Mono project is not on shaky legal ground
- it's already been allowed to go on for too long for MS to suddenly
pull the carpet from under Manuel's feet.
I fear you are right.
I like to point out here that, if Microsoft hurt Mono, they would also
anger a very big software developer (EA Games) with regards to a very
big franchise (The Sims 3)... which would unleash a hoard of lawyers and
a lot of Mac and iPhone users who are as vocal as us but are armed with
lots and lots of stickers.


Bye,
Dylan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/sounder/attachments/20090917/2392c897/attachment-0002.pgp
Christopher Chan
2009-09-16 03:29:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amedee Van Gasse (Ubuntu)
If Mac OS X is a fully-certified Unix operating system, then logically
shouldn't all Mac software also be able to run on Linux? In theory?
UNIX certified does not mean binary compatibility. You cannot run a
HP-Unix binary on Solaris or AIX for instance. Especially if they are
compiled for different architectures.

What it means is that certain 'interfaces' have standard behaviour like
ps, ifconfig and other commands and also system calls so you should be
able to compile a program on any UNIX OS without having to make changes
to the code notwithstanding libraries outside the POSIX specification.


Most Mac software are not even compilable on Linux and one reason have
been given by Liam.
Michael Haney
2009-09-16 04:15:54 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Christopher Chan
Post by Christopher Chan
UNIX certified does not mean binary compatibility. You cannot run a
HP-Unix binary on Solaris or AIX for instance. Especially if they are
compiled for different architectures.
What it means is that certain 'interfaces' have standard behaviour like
ps, ifconfig and other commands and also system calls so you should be
able to compile a program on any UNIX OS without having to make changes
to the code notwithstanding libraries outside the POSIX specification.
Most Mac software are not even compilable on Linux and one reason have
been given by Liam.
This I understand. The push for Unix Certification for Mac OS X was
to make the platform more attractive to businesses, which
traditionally have been dominated by Microsoft. Linux has been
gaining ground in the enterprise server market.

Here's info on the adoption rate of Ubuntu Server Edition: (its a PDF file)
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ubuntu.com%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2Fu1%2Fserver_report_v2.pdf&ei=aGOwSs-MMKGStgfXqq2yCA&usg=AFQjCNGoNm4vfDll_hULAeJnQcsfERmV7w&sig2=I3WW-hXR1WUYMbJBFjVgiQ

I've learned that KDE 4.1 can use some Mac OS X Dashboard widgets, but
only if they don't use any OS X system files or native Mac apps like
the iTunes widget for example.
--
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
thezorch at gmail.com
http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
Twitter: TheZorch
Skype: thezorch (Voice and/or Chat)
AIM: thezorch at gmail.com
Yahoo IM: zorchhaney
ICQ: 343230252
GoogleTalk: thezorch
MSN Messeger: haneymichael at hotmail.com
Free Your Computer from the Tyranny of Microsoft www.ubuntu.com
Amedee Van Gasse (Ubuntu)
2009-09-16 10:58:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Chan
Post by Amedee Van Gasse (Ubuntu)
If Mac OS X is a fully-certified Unix operating system, then logically
shouldn't all Mac software also be able to run on Linux? In theory?
UNIX certified does not mean binary compatibility. You cannot run a
HP-Unix binary on Solaris or AIX for instance. Especially if they are
compiled for different architectures.
What it means is that certain 'interfaces' have standard behaviour like
ps, ifconfig and other commands and also system calls so you should be
able to compile a program on any UNIX OS without having to make changes
to the code notwithstanding libraries outside the POSIX specification.
Yes that is what I wrote already.
You do know that I have Tanenbaum's bible (Modern Operating Systems) on my
bookshelf? And that I have read it cover to cover?
--
Amedee
Jan Claeys
2009-09-23 02:13:09 UTC
Permalink
Op dinsdag 15-09-2009 om 11:52 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Mark
I've got a question about BootCamp. The school I teach at is getting
new Macs for my department's computer lab with BootCamp. They intend
to run OS X. whatever and Windows XP. I'd like to add Ubuntu to the
mix. Will bootcamp handle a third OS? Can I install Wubi Ubuntu
inside the XP bootcamp?
Bootcamp is a BIOS emulator that you need because Windows can't boot on
systems without a BIOS. To run linux on a Mac, you don't need Bootcamp,
as linux works fine with or without a BIOS.

Anyway, you probably want to have a look at rEFIt & related
documentation.
--
Jan Claeys
Odd
2009-09-23 08:34:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Claeys
Op dinsdag 15-09-2009 om 11:52 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Mark
I've got a question about BootCamp. The school I teach at is getting
new Macs for my department's computer lab with BootCamp. They intend
to run OS X. whatever and Windows XP. I'd like to add Ubuntu to the
mix. Will bootcamp handle a third OS? Can I install Wubi Ubuntu
inside the XP bootcamp?
Bootcamp is a BIOS emulator that you need because Windows can't boot on
systems without a BIOS.
That's not true, Windows has supported EFI since W2K, if only on
Itanium systems. Also, 64bit versions of both Vista and Server 2008
do support EFI.
--
Odd
Jan Claeys
2009-09-24 11:43:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odd
Post by Jan Claeys
Op dinsdag 15-09-2009 om 11:52 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Mark
I've got a question about BootCamp. The school I teach at is getting
new Macs for my department's computer lab with BootCamp. They intend
to run OS X. whatever and Windows XP. I'd like to add Ubuntu to the
mix. Will bootcamp handle a third OS? Can I install Wubi Ubuntu
inside the XP bootcamp?
Bootcamp is a BIOS emulator that you need because Windows can't boot on
systems without a BIOS.
That's not true, Windows has supported EFI since W2K, if only on
Itanium systems. Also, 64bit versions of both Vista and Server 2008
do support EFI.
Right, I should have said: "common consumer versions of Windows".

(Also, some linux drivers for x86 need the BIOS, but I'm not sure those
are needed/used on a Mac?)
--
Jan Claeys
Mark Miller
2009-09-15 15:52:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Haney
Macs also have BootCamp which can be used to run Ubuntu, and does so
very well according to the Ubuntu users group I'm a member of. Also,
Maximum PC and PC Magazine have done several benchmarks which prove
that Intel Macs run Windows Vista Ultimate "faster" than a comparably
or better equipped traditional PC.
I've got a question about BootCamp. The school I teach at is getting new
Macs for my department's computer lab with BootCamp. They intend to run OS
X. whatever and Windows XP. I'd like to add Ubuntu to the mix. Will
bootcamp handle a third OS? Can I install Wubi Ubuntu inside the XP
bootcamp?

tnx

mcm
--
--
Mark C. Miller
mr.mcmiller at gmail.com [home]
mcmiller at ologn.org [church]
mark_miller at mail.nobl.k12.in.us [school]
mmiller at millermc.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/sounder/attachments/20090915/eeea9466/attachment-0002.htm
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...