[OT] really?

[Eric Dunbar]

I'll only touch on a few points (I disagree with you on a number of
fronts but it's not worth re-hashing tired old arguments that have
already been articulated (I'm no politician)).

On 6/13/05, Daniel Gimpelevich <daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 10:13:53 -0400, Eric Dunbar wrote:

> > 3. Direct access to h/w is just as discouraged under Windows as it is
> > under any other OS and will not really do much for 3rd party
> > developers. Gamewriters especially write and use their own libraries
> > and industry standard graphics programming languages.
> 
> I don't know where you got that idea, but even if it were true, it
> wouldn't make any difference to a user unless the same "libraries and
> industry standard graphics programming languages" supported multiple OSes,
> like OpenGL does. Games generally do not get coded exclusively using
> OpenGL or any other multi-OS API.

Umm. That's why there are APIs -- to avoid direct h/w access. OpenGL
and other such graphics programming languages provide a platform
agnostic means of accessing graphics cards. Some programmers *do* go
straight to the source, and, having i86 for both their Windows and Mac
OS code will make that job that much easier, if they do. Plus, drivers
for Windows x86 tend to be of much higher quality than for Mac PPC.
The reason they don't exist for Linux (with a few oddball exceptions)
is that Linux just doesn't constitute a large enough a paying base and
there are too many variants to support (I'd hate to take the support
calls of Linux computer "users" (i.e. don't know the first thing about
sudo)).

> > The processor is much more than a coincidence. Codecs are often
> > written at a lower level and especially the multi-media ones that have
> > to use a lot of processor-specific stuff.
> 
> They don't have to use it, but they do anyway, and that's a no-no under
> OSX-x86.

They don't have to but efficiency demands that they do!

> Windows users like "free as in beer" even more than Linux users do, and
> the bulk of codecs for Windows are free as in beer, but not free as in
> speech, i.e. not open-source. "Paying customers" refers to content
> providers, whose *NIX market share is far greater than among ordinary
> users. Linux users' desire for software to be open-source has not affected
> the availability of non-free (as in speech) codecs for Linux much.

Can you expand on "not affected the availability of non-free (as in
speech) codecs for Linux much."? Do you mean that these codecs *are*
available for Linux (there are MANY more codecs available on x86 Linux
than on PPC Linux)? Officially, unofficially? What?

> > Moving to i86 (not x86 since they're only talking Intel so far) will
> > bring a *lot* of benefits for Mac OS X users (and Mac Linux users...
> > though, it seems like YDL won't follow... I guess that makes sense
> > since Fedora and Ubuntu (which I think will supplant Debian as the
> > Debian distro of choice) are already well established on i86).
> 
> What do x86 Linux users currently have that PPC Linux users don't? Not
> that much. What OSX-x86 users would have that OSX-ppc users don't would
> be comparable to that. The benefits of moving OSX to x86 aren't really
> benefits, and I can elaborate on why any such benefit you can list isn't
> really a benefit. The exception to that is that I can't counter the
> promise of faster processors with less physical overhead in the future.

I really do think you underestimate the psychological importance of
"Intel Inside" for computer users and coders. Mac may be widely known
*outside* of the Mac-computing community but PowerPC/PPC IS NOT!!!
Even for those who know PPC is a niche market, and not necessarily
associated with Mac.

Even if the benefits from switching to i86 are no more than
psychological and speed (and I think there are more that come with
low-level x86 code compatibility) they're worth it.

> Before I continue, I think it's worth bringing up the phenomenon of the
> most popular Linux security exploits really being x86 processor exploits.
> PPC Linux users are immune to them, but people who run Linux on Intel Macs
> won't be.

Yep, that's a problem that's already been pointed out. The trade-offs
are minor though since Apple is quite good about keeping system
"closed" by default and patched (it's a hell of a lot easier to patch
an OS X system than YDL or even Ubuntu (though, Ubuntu is now
apparently testing an auto-update daemon)).

> Debian as the Debian distro of choice? Depends on whose choice you mean.
> If you mean a desktop-based computer user such as yourself, I'd be
> astonished if Debian (the distro) were ever a first choice. Ubuntu is
> improving, but their competition as a Debian desktop distro of choice on
> x86 isn't Debian, but MEPIS. Fedora Core can never replace YDL, even on
> x86. If you want YDL on x86, Fedora is NOT your answer.

You are correct. I did say "Debian as the Debian distro of choice".
And, I meant what I said, no more, no less!

Perhaps you're not familiar with the ecology of the Debian community?
There are a tonne of Debian-based distros based on the Debian
repositories. Ubuntu is itself nearly 100% Debian (unstable) except
that is has a different philosophy guiding its development and
operation, and, Ubuntu appears poised to supplant Debian as the most
widely used Debian-based distro. This does not say that Debian will
die. It will remain the gold standard upon which Ubuntu is based and
Ubuntu's changes will feed back into Debian's development. I also
expect to see Ubuntu chew into the relative "market share" of other
distros, including MEPIS. DistroWatch shows that there's a phenomenal
level of interest in Ubuntu, but, that's not a 100% accurate measure
since those numbers can be inflated through a concerted effort on the
part of fan(atics).

Time will tell which ones climb to the top. Ubuntu will definitely
become one of the "big boys".

As for YDL vs. FC... don't know, don't care. As long as my server runs
Apache, Samba, AppleTalk, Webmin, Webalizer, Gallery and GNOME via
XDCMP (for experimentation) I'm happy (plus, I may start experimenting
with LTSP or FreeNX).

> > They take tried and tested ideas and revolutionise them
> > *before* anyone else does so, and they often do it right.
> 
> Another fact, but one that, fairly or unfairly, paints Mac users as
> early adopters, with all that that implies.

They are not always the first adopters but are definitely early
adopters. Apple takes what is normally a painful process and makes it
easy. That's Apple's magic formula. Others in turn copy Apple once
Apple has shown the model's value. In 1983/1984 they (including Lisa)
were "first adopters" with the Mac GUI. In 1987 they were early
adopters with high quality colour graphics (unseen except in the tiny
niche of Commodore's world). The elimination of floppy drives in 1998.
Etc.

> > I'd happily switch to another OS and/or hardware manufacturer if the
> > quality and experience were right, BUT, with Apple and its Mac you
> > know what you're getting, and you know how long you can rely on them
> > (that is perhaps their strongest point and why users have stuck with
> > them through thick and through thin).
> 
> That was in Apple's interests before, but the success of the iPod seems to
> be saying to Apple that such reliability may no longer be in their
> interests. That is changing the landscape of the market forever, and in
> ways that will not be fully understood for quite some time.

The iPod is a disposable consumer product that does one task, and one
task only! It's not like a computer.

> > If you are the first adopter of a new technology you know you won't
> > get software support for long (e.g. Macintosh (128), PPC x1x0/x2x0,
> > Beige G3/PB3400). That's a principle that's well known and understood
> > in the tech universe and not special to Apple (and, if you don't
> > understand that then you probably shouldn't be an early adopter and
> > shut up if you ever try to whinge (I love knocking those people down a
> > peg or two ;-)).
> 
> It seems that Mac users truly tend not to understand that. What else can
> explain the mind-boggling percentage of OSX machines that have already
> been upgraded to Tiger?

Tiger is "proven" technology. 10.4 is little different from 10.3.
Moving to 10.0 WAS a major shift, however!

> > Apple's first line of Macs (68K) had a INCREDIBLY long life span. The
> > Mac Plus was still supported by an OS released TEN years after it was
> > released. My beloved Quadra 700 with a PPC accelerator likewise
> > survived for a whopping 8 years with new OSes. And, in the current
> > line-up the iMac from 1998 is still supported by the latest OS, 7
> > years later and many B&W G3s from 1999 will undoubtedly be
> > *functional* with the latest version of an OS for even longer!
> 
> Tiger only supports machines with built-in Firewire, so the iMac from 1998
> that you mention is already frozen in time with its lack of Firewire. The
> lifespan of Apple machines is still incredibly long compared to Windows
> ones, but not compared to previous Apple machines.

Didn't know which ones Apple had dropped support for. I'm guessing
that G3s may be next on the chopping block (perhaps Apple could use
graphics card size as its next discriminator?).

> > The way Apple is now selling its OS upgrades as new versions of an OS
> > suggests to me that Apple *has already* been focussing on shifting its
> > business model to that of a hybrid OS-hardware manufacturer and not
> > just a hardware manufacturer that happens to produce an OS to sell its
> > h/w.
> 
> I'll believe that when they take the restriction to Apple hardware out of
> their EULA, which won't happen as long as they know what's good for them.

That still doesn't change the fact that Apple is now making more off
selling OSes than it ever did (in relative income).

Eric.