NDPTAL85 wrote: > On Sunday, January 20, 2002, at 12:36 PM, Gerard Perreault wrote: > >> Sorry to disapoint you, but MAC had "UNIX inside" since the old days >> of the >> "Lisa" computer (which came out before the IBM PC). Later, their >> MACIntosh >> was based on the XEROX windows interface, had "UNIX inside" and was >> still way >> ahead of then GEM software for PC ("kind of" windows environment). >> >> The main reason they failed all this time was because of their >> proprietary >> hardware, and the unavailability of "MAC compatibles". Because they were >> protecting their hardware so much, it was also difficult to get "MAC >> compatible" cards. Since there was hardly any competion in the MAC world, >> their prices remained high. Micro$oft banked on that by making sure >> that they >> never took any hardware approch that would make the MAC software readily >> compatible on their equipment. >> >> That is still the case today. What would have prevented MAC from >> transforming >> their software to run on a PC? They don't want to. They want you to >> get a MAC >> and be stuck with their hardware line. They don't care about Linux >> running on >> MAC since all they really are interested in is selling hardware. On >> the other >> hand, Micro$oft has the most to lose since it is a software vendor. So >> they >> fight Linux any which way they can, mainly by spreading insecurity >> about it. >> They realize that the commercial battle is already lost though. Linux >> is now >> a commercially viable product accepted by major corporations as a cost >> effective, efficient and reliable solution to any server needs. The >> Korean >> government has lately converted 23% of their desktop to Linux (120,000 >> copies >> of Linux) and they calculated that they saved 80% of the cost of a >> corresponding Micro$oft solution. That kind of numbers is going to be >> hitting >> Micro$oft right in the middle, where it hurts. >> >> You can expect a feirce battle ahead. They are already trying to >> diversify, >> the X box is an example. Pretty soon, products like Lindows, VMware, >> Wine and >> the likes will make M$-Windows a sub-system, something running under the >> control of another major OS, and with time it will be less and less >> used even >> if available. >> >> Good thing for us there isn't anyone to buy Linux from or else they would >> already have done so and it would have been rendered useless. >> >> Gerard Perreault > > > Jesus man. MAC = Mandatory Access Control. Mac = Macintosh computer made > by Apple. Apple is the company and "Macs" are the product they produce. > As for them having "UNIX" inside since the days of the Lisa, thats kinda > incorrect. Mac OS 1 thru Mac OS 9 have no Unix inside. None. Mac OS X is > a Unix however. Apple had their own version of Unix sometime ago called > A/UX but that never really went anywhere. I just want to clear up that > until Mac OS X, the Macintosh absolutely did NOT have Unix inside. > >
Hmmm... Mac SE had the UNIX internals and permissions if you looked thoroughly beneath the hood. I had to to get by a password protected disk once, and I was amazed by what I found. It wasn't UNIX in the same sense that SCO Xenix wasn't UNIX, and to a certain extent in the same way that Windows NT isn't UNIX. But while it may not have been a duck, it swam in water, flew, had webbed feet and quacked. It missed only the simple console and piecemeal batch programs that makes UNIX so useful for many jobs. Truly it was a proprietary design and didn't use X Windows... But, putting semantics aside, I would call you both correct. Civileme
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com