OS X Leopard

[Robor]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Robor
I find it odd that Mac doesn't offer their 'superior' OS to the Intel clone platform though. I guess having such a limited (controlled) hardware compatibility list makes life easier for them.

From http://www.apple-history.com/body.php?page=history&section=h7:

There was one more big obstacle to tackle: Clones. Jobs felt that Clone Vendors such as Power Computing were cutting into Apple's high-end market, where they traditionally made the most profit. Clones had failed to effectively expand the MacOS market, instead taking customers away from Apple. Jobs remedied this apparent failure of the Clone experiment by all but pulling its plug.

Apparently Sculley, Spinder (who started the Mac OS licensing to 3rd party companies), and Amelio drove Apple to the brink of death.

And, if they release a stand-a-lone product they have to compete with Microsoft, and support the massive amount of crap hardware out there. Every ****** motherboard made will need to be supported, and I don't think Apple has the infrastructure out there to handle it.

Yep, and unfortunately that's the weakness of it (IMO). I was on the phone with my fiancee last night and she went to a computer store and Radio Shack looking for a Mac compatible webcam. Of course she found none. I looked through about 15 webcams at CompUSA and none of them were Mac compatible. Of course, you can get one from the Mac Store for $150.

I think my fiancee is starting to see the light though. Last night she said she was interested in trying out Linux.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Robor
I find it odd that Mac doesn't offer their 'superior' OS to the Intel clone platform though. I guess having such a limited (controlled) hardware compatibility list makes life easier for them.

From http://www.apple-history.com/body.php?page=history&section=h7:

There was one more big obstacle to tackle: Clones. Jobs felt that Clone Vendors such as Power Computing were cutting into Apple's high-end market, where they traditionally made the most profit. Clones had failed to effectively expand the MacOS market, instead taking customers away from Apple. Jobs remedied this apparent failure of the Clone experiment by all but pulling its plug.

Apparently Sculley, Spinder (who started the Mac OS licensing to 3rd party companies), and Amelio drove Apple to the brink of death.

And, if they release a stand-a-lone product they have to compete with Microsoft, and support the massive amount of crap hardware out there. Every ****** motherboard made will need to be supported, and I don't think Apple has the infrastructure out there to handle it.

Yep, and unfortunately that's the weakness of it (IMO). I was on the phone with my fiancee last night and she went to a computer store and Radio Shack looking for a Mac compatible webcam. Of course she found none. I looked through about 15 webcams at CompUSA and none of them were Mac compatible. Of course, you can get one from the Mac Store for $150.

I think my fiancee is starting to see the light though. Last night she said she was interested in trying out Linux.

Which has how many compatible webcams?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Which has how many compatible webcams?

I'm not sure... I've got a Logitech Fusion but I haven't tried using it in Linux yet. I use Gaim for Yahoo Messenger and it works fine for text but it doesn't do video. I've heard both Gyach and Kopete support video but I haven't tried either yet.

 

[Anogar]

Well, I'm a noob, so feel free to flame me, but if someone were to go out and buy a boxed copy of OS X and then install it on their PC, how would that be illegal? They paid for it, they installed it on their computer... seems pretty straight forward.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Anogar
Well, I'm a noob, so feel free to flame me, but if someone were to go out and buy a boxed copy of OS X and then install it on their PC, how would that be illegal? They paid for it, they installed it on their computer... seems pretty straight forward.

Check the EULA.

 

[L00ker]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
The person you talked to is an idiot. You should have called back and gotten someone else. Or switch to consumer friendly software.

They may very well be an idiot but that doesn't change the fact that the point I was making is that the agressiveness of microsofts "anti-piracy campaign" impacts actual paying customers as much (if not more) than the non paying variety. Know what my fix ended up being? Using a pirated key because it was EASIER to use that then deal with the assclowns who provide the product! Even though I am a licensed user, hell I have 3 licenses for XP but only 1 in use...

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Sendmail has been quite good in the past couple of years. Both qmail and postfix aren't free, so they aren't very good replacements for some OSes.

Sendmail has gotten better, although I wouldn't say it is "good" as of yet, I wouldn't trust it in my enterprise, but hey it's your server at risk right? And how do you figure that qmail and postfix aren't free?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qmail

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postfix_%28software%29

Postfix is open source and qmail is free and redistributable so long as you don't change the source, What about it isn't free? Both are available as source and very compilable under most POSIX compliant OS's.. I don't know what NOC you work in but it wouldn't be mine!


Sure roll your eyes but every time you post you look less and less knowledgable, so keep posting so I can keep schooling...

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: L00ker
They may very well be an idiot but that doesn't change the fact that the point I was making is that the agressiveness of microsofts "anti-piracy campaign" impacts actual paying customers as much (if not more) than the non paying variety. Know what my fix ended up being? Using a pirated key because it was EASIER to use that then deal with the assclowns who provide the product! Even though I am a licensed user, hell I have 3 licenses for XP but only 1 in use...

I've had absolutely no problems with activation, except when I had to rely on Windows' craptastic wireless support to do it. I called, and less than 10 minutes later I was activated.

Sendmail has gotten better, although I wouldn't say it is "good" as of yet, I wouldn't trust it in my enterprise, but hey it's your server at risk right? And how do you figure that qmail and postfix aren't free?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qmail

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postfix_%28software%29

Postfix is open source and qmail is free and redistributable so long as you don't change the source, What about it isn't free? Both are available as source and very compilable under most POSIX compliant OS's.. I don't know what NOC you work in but it wouldn't be mine!

Neither are free, both have increadibly restrictive licenses. Not being able to modify the sources and redistribute the resulting binary makes it not free.

EDIT: Fixed the italics.

 

[L00ker]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Neither are free, both have increadibly restrictive licenses. Not being able to modify the sources and redistribute the resulting binary makes it not free.

EDIT: Fixed the italics.

Both have ZERO cost to the person that decides to use it, please show me where I can PURCHASE a postfix or qmail license, You won't because it's not for sale! Hence the term free. You can modify the postfix code and redistribute it but if anything should arise out of it (security hole etc) you will be solely accountable and not the original author of the code. This is intended to protect the author from prosecution not restrict your ability to modify it for your own use. Qmail is a little different in that you may include patches that you have created when re-distributing it but you may not include it by default which is perfectly reasonable as the end user should know what they are adding as far as patches anyways, both are free (at no cost because apparently you don't quite grasp the websters definition of free) to redistribute, both allow you to modify the source for your own purpose and both allow you to offer your changes in the form of patches to the rest of the world, in one case you will have to apply the patch yourself and the other you will be the only one held accountable for it's code which is more than reasonable... Maybe your concept of free is different then mine? if you don't have to pay for it generally thats what makes it "free"

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: L00ker
Maybe your concept of free is different then mine? if you don't have to pay for it generally thats what makes it "free"

At first I thought you were just playing dumb but apparently you actually don't understand that the word has more than one meaning. I think pretty much everyone else understood right away that n0cmonkey was talking about free-as-in-speech.

Besides, not being able to distribute modified versions properly is a stupid restriction and doesn't fit any reasonable definition of open source.

 

[KeithP]

Well, I'm a noob, so feel free to flame me, but if someone were to go out and buy a boxed copy of OS X and then install it on their PC, how would that be illegal?

I may be wrong but I believe the retail copies of OS X are PPC only versions not Intel versions. The only way to get the Intel version is to copy the original discs that came with an Intel-based Mac. We will have to wait for OS X 10.5 (Leopard) to legally purchase a retail copy of OS X that will run on a Intel-Mac.

-KeithP

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: L00ker

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
It's disrespectful to the people that put money and time into the product. That's close enough to a sin for me.

Are you even effin serious? Do you actually know any REAL developers? The only developers I have ever met after working in this industry for ~20 years that get bent when someone takes their product and makes it do something it wasn't designed to are the pompus arrogant ones that horde everything they do and think Bill Gates should rule the world! The others usually want to know how you made it work and are very interested in it!

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Inconsequential to the subject at hand.

Actually this is ENTIRELY consequential to the issue as it is a more than true statement, it's people like Bill Gates and other software moguls that have advocated absolutely insane levels of product licensing to the point of inconvieniencing the legitimate customer to 'insure' piracy prevention, just as a point I own a sony vaio laptop that came with XP Pro and I had some issues with it and had to re-install XP 2x in less than 120 days and had to call MS to "activate" my product key and they essentially told me "it was activated less than 120 days ago you need to purchase a new license" This is why I refuse to give them any more of MY hard earned cash because they make me jump through effin hoops to use their less than quality product.

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
That is such a stupid statement I shouldn't reply, but I will.

Productive industry standard software:
Kerberos - available on Linux
SMB shares - available on linux
sendmail - available on linux (yes, it's THE standard in email)

SENDMAIL? Are you that clueless? sure sendmail if you want the MOST insecure MTA in the industry! Sure it was standard 10-15 years ago but ANY modern *nix has replaced it with postfix qmail or some variation thereof...

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
apache - available on Linux
Lotus notes - available on Linux

Have you ever maintained a lotus based system? Holy crap I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy! And HARDLY an industry 'standard' system!

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

photoshop - works with wine on Linux
Office - works with Crossover Office on Linux

Hmmm, what was your point again?

I can diggit, but I can also respect people in the process. If you can't, walk in front of a bus.

EDIT: I probably wouldn't bitch so much if people at least bought a copy of the OS (x86/PPC/whatever) from a retailer. Yeah, it's still being assish, but just a little less.

Maybe it is you that should look for the first bus you see and RUN for it! hopefully the impact of you running at it combined with the speed it is already travelling at will cure your ignorance, if not it will certainly be one less jackhole wasting oxygen that could be otherwise used to do something productive instead of condemning people for doing something different! Thanks license nazi! Who do you work for the RIAA?

i've never met a developer who wanted people to steal their paycheck.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Robor
I find it odd that Mac doesn't offer their 'superior' OS to the Intel clone platform though. I guess having such a limited (controlled) hardware compatibility list makes life easier for them.

From http://www.apple-history.com/body.php?page=history&section=h7:

There was one more big obstacle to tackle: Clones. Jobs felt that Clone Vendors such as Power Computing were cutting into Apple's high-end market, where they traditionally made the most profit. Clones had failed to effectively expand the MacOS market, instead taking customers away from Apple. Jobs remedied this apparent failure of the Clone experiment by all but pulling its plug.

Apparently Sculley, Spinder (who started the Mac OS licensing to 3rd party companies), and Amelio drove Apple to the brink of death.

And, if they release a stand-a-lone product they have to compete with Microsoft, and support the massive amount of crap hardware out there. Every ****** motherboard made will need to be supported, and I don't think Apple has the infrastructure out there to handle it.

Yep, and unfortunately that's the weakness of it (IMO). I was on the phone with my fiancee last night and she went to a computer store and Radio Shack looking for a Mac compatible webcam. Of course she found none. I looked through about 15 webcams at CompUSA and none of them were Mac compatible. Of course, you can get one from the Mac Store for $150.

I think my fiancee is starting to see the light though. Last night she said she was interested in trying out Linux.

compusa has a whole mac section, i find it hard to believe they didn't have a single mac compatible webcam.

i'm not sure why not wanting to support every 2 bit hardware manufacturer is a weakness tho. it keeps their OS quite stable, which is something that can't be said for the popular alternative. this makes for a happy user, which can't possibly be a bad thing.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: L00ker

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
The person you talked to is an idiot. You should have called back and gotten someone else. Or switch to consumer friendly software.

They may very well be an idiot but that doesn't change the fact that the point I was making is that the agressiveness of microsofts "anti-piracy campaign" impacts actual paying customers as much (if not more) than the non paying variety. Know what my fix ended up being? Using a pirated key because it was EASIER to use that then deal with the assclowns who provide the product! Even though I am a licensed user, hell I have 3 licenses for XP but only 1 in use...

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Sendmail has been quite good in the past couple of years. Both qmail and postfix aren't free, so they aren't very good replacements for some OSes.

Sendmail has gotten better, although I wouldn't say it is "good" as of yet, I wouldn't trust it in my enterprise, but hey it's your server at risk right? And how do you figure that qmail and postfix aren't free?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qmail

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postfix_%28software%29

Postfix is open source and qmail is free and redistributable so long as you don't change the source, What about it isn't free? Both are available as source and very compilable under most POSIX compliant OS's.. I don't know what NOC you work in but it wouldn't be mine!


Sure roll your eyes but every time you post you look less and less knowledgable, so keep posting so I can keep schooling...

as many times as i've had to activate various copies of windows i own from reinstalling everytime i see a story like this i can only think the person is "stretching the truth". most all of the reps i've talked too hardly even spoke clear english, so short of telling them "yeah i have it installed on 20 pcs" i don't think they are going to tell you to buy a new license. if i can call and get a code for my oem copy of home twice in a week, i'm fairly certain anyone can without raising any red flags unless they admit to having it on multiple machines.

 

[Xyclone]

I tried hacking it for my AMD Athlon 64 3200+, but after a frustrating day i realized it wasn't worth it. Windows >>>>>>>> OS X.

 

[L00ker]

Originally posted by: kamper
At first I thought you were just playing dumb but apparently you actually don't understand that the word has more than one meaning. I think pretty much everyone else understood right away that n0cmonkey was talking about free-as-in-speech.

Besides, not being able to distribute modified versions properly is a stupid restriction and doesn't fit any reasonable definition of open source.

Have you read the licensing for either of these products? You can distribute a modified versio n of postfix but by doing so you assume any and all liability for the outcome, so make sure you do it correctly, how is that restrictive? Holding you accountable for the piece of software you re-engineered... As for qmail you can distribute it with the patch that you add so in essence you can re-distribute it modified the user just has to patch it once they un tarball it which isn't all that different from being open source, yes it's not in the public domain etc but it's not far from it. still the bottom line is that the statement was made that there are free alternatives to sendmail, these are both free if nothing else no matter how you look at it they are financially free and work quite well and are far more secure then sendmail. My first senior systems engineer I worked for explained it like this, why plug the hull of a leaking ship indefinitely when you can just replace the hull and not have to worry about it?

 

[manly]

Originally posted by: KeithP

Well, I'm a noob, so feel free to flame me, but if someone were to go out and buy a boxed copy of OS X and then install it on their PC, how would that be illegal?

I may be wrong but I believe the retail copies of OS X are PPC only versions not Intel versions. The only way to get the Intel version is to copy the original discs that came with an Intel-based Mac. We will have to wait for OS X 10.5 (Leopard) to legally purchase a retail copy of OS X that will run on a Intel-Mac.

-KeithP

That's correct. Bundled restore discs are tied to specific machine models IIRC.

If you're looking for a webcam for a Mac, try to pick up a (used) Logitech 4000. It offers both OEM and 3rd party drivers.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: L00ker

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Neither are free, both have increadibly restrictive licenses. Not being able to modify the sources and redistribute the resulting binary makes it not free.

EDIT: Fixed the italics.

Both have ZERO cost to the person that decides to use it, please show me where I can PURCHASE a postfix or qmail license, You won't because it's not for sale! Hence the term free. You can modify the postfix code and redistribute it but if anything should arise out of it (security hole etc) you will be solely accountable and not the original author of the code. This is intended to protect the author from prosecution not restrict your ability to modify it for your own use. Qmail is a little different in that you may include patches that you have created when re-distributing it but you may not include it by default which is perfectly reasonable as the end user should know what they are adding as far as patches anyways, both are free (at no cost because apparently you don't quite grasp the websters definition of free) to redistribute, both allow you to modify the source for your own purpose and both allow you to offer your changes in the form of patches to the rest of the world, in one case you will have to apply the patch yourself and the other you will be the only one held accountable for it's code which is more than reasonable... Maybe your concept of free is different then mine? if you don't have to pay for it generally thats what makes it "free"

free Audio pronunciation of "free" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fr)
adj. fre·er, fre·est

1. Not imprisoned or enslaved; being at liberty.
2. Not controlled by obligation or the will of another: felt free to go.
3.
1. Having political independence: ?America... is the freest and wealthiest nation in the world? (Rudolph W. Giuliani).
2. Governed by consent and possessing or granting civil liberties: a free citizenry.
3. Not subject to arbitrary interference by a government: a free press.
4.
1. Not affected or restricted by a given condition or circumstance: a healthy animal, free of disease; free from need.
2. Not subject to a given condition; exempt: income that is free of all taxes.
5. Not subject to external restraint: ?Comment is free but facts are sacred? (Charles Prestwich Scott).
6. Not literal or exact: a free translation.
7.
1. Costing nothing; gratuitous: a free meal.
2. Publicly supported: free education.
8.
1. Not occupied or used: a free locker.
2. Not taken up by scheduled activities: free time between classes.
9. Unobstructed; clear: a free lane.
10. Unguarded in expression or manner; open; frank.
11. Taking undue liberties; forward or overfamiliar.
12. Liberal or lavish: tourists who are free with their money.
13. Given, made, or done of one's own accord; voluntary or spontaneous: a free act of the will; free choices.
14. Chemistry & Physics.
1. Unconstrained; unconfined: free expansion.
2. Not fixed in position; capable of relatively unrestricted motion: a free electron.
3. Not chemically bound in a molecule: free oxygen.
4. Involving no collisions or interactions: a free path.
5. Empty: a free space.
6. Unoccupied: a free energy level.
15. Nautical. Favorable: a free wind.
16. Not bound, fastened, or attached: the free end of a chain.
17. Linguistics.
1. Being a form, especially a morpheme, that can stand as an independent word, such as boat or bring.
2. Being a vowel in an open syllable, as the o in go.

On Dictionary.com the definition of free you restrict yourself to is #7. Qmail isn't free, and postfix's license is ristrictive. Both limit freedom. They aren't free.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: L00ker
My first senior systems engineer I worked for explained it like this, why plug the hull of a leaking ship indefinitely when you can just replace the hull and not have to worry about it?

Sendmail X should fix most of the comments about sendmail.