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
