It still runs like crap and it seems most/all of the
(non-Apple)(Open)Darwin developers were caught somewhat off-guard by
it. Jordan K.H. and others in Apple have apparently been using Intel
boxes for a while now.
On 6/6/05, Jacob Meuser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apple is still distributing D
Except Aqua and all the PDF functionality, nearly all the
UNIX-underpinnings, Core Audio, Core Data, Cocoa Bindings, the Mach
kernel (3.0).
The current Mail.app hardly resembles the old NeXT/OPENSTEP Mail.app.
The framework has been rewritten and updated so much, I really
wouldn't say it all comes
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 12:56:32AM -0700, T. Joseph CARTER wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 11:39:33PM -0700, Bob Miller wrote:
> > >Rumors of Apple switching to an Intel based processor pre-date the
> > >existence of this site. The earliest reference in our archives comes
> > >from [10
Next year? They're already out.
On 6/6/05, T. Joseph CARTER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think we're going to see Intel x86-64 chips in the next year. I can't
> swear to it, but we'll see.
___
EUGLUG mailing list
euglug@euglug.org
http://www.euglug.o
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 04:54:52PM -0700, Bob Miller wrote:
> GTK is the GNU Toolkit.
it's the _GIMP_ Toolkit.
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
___
EUGLUG mailing list
euglug@euglug.org
http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
Actually he is somewhat correct in regards to the X standing for 10.
Apple tried, and failed to make it clear that the X stood for 10.
They have since broken their own policy on this and now it goes by
Mac OS X v10.4. I would imagine it was a large argument between the
engineers and Mark
Upgrade to a 1.7.? version of Mozilla, then click the link
pointing to the XPI for Moz 1.7. That's the easiest way.
--- Jeff Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now, that's MAKING SOME SENSE here for sure! - I do intend to
> still use Mozilla
> as my brower and switch between that and Konquorer
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 08:46:12AM -0700, Mike Cherba wrote:
> Ughh, Great, Now all the Mass Market Computers will be based on
> outdated 1970s technology. There go my hopes of someday being able to
> get a PC with a sane (RISC) architecture. Why couldn't Intel and AMD
> make this kind of break
.
John Fleming
> http://www.debian.org/News/2005/20050606
>
> cue snarky comments...
>
>
>
> --
> http://Zoneverte.org -- information explained
> Do you know what
http://www.debian.org/News/2005/20050606
cue snarky comments...
--
http://Zoneverte.org -- information explained
Do you know what your IT infrastructure does?
___
EUGLUG mailing list
euglug@euglug.org
http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
Rob Hudson wrote:
> What's the best way to handle blockers? I got this today when I
> attempted an upgrade...
I'd like to know that too.
--
Bob Miller K
kbobsoft software consulting
http://kbobsoft.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What's the best way to handle blockers? I got this today when I
attempted an upgrade...
[blocks B ] <=x11-themes/gnome-themes-2.8.2 (is blocking
x11-themes/gtk-engines-2.6.3)
[blocks B ] app-admin/system-tools-backends-1.2.0)
Thanks,
Rob
__
Was there a question to that, or was it a simple complaint?
The explicit question was how this could have happened.
We want to avoid it from happening in the future. We now
have a clue about this. Here is a more detailed description
of the action sequence.
1. Edit a DOS file in vim.
2. Wit
Now, that's MAKING SOME SENSE here for sure! - I do intend to still use Mozilla
as my brower and switch between that and Konquorer as well, but Mozilla will be
the MAIN SHOW to deal with.
So, what is the step by step to down load this?
Jeff
Mr O wrote:
If you still intend to use Mozilla for
well, maybe it will help blow the mind powers of the 68K PPC's...!?!? or may
make people like me, with a live mac able to upgrade from 68K to a big mac and
cheeseburger to run on those oldies??
Rodney Mishima wrote:
Maybe fat binaries won't be as fat as the 68k/ppc ones were.
___
A guy here at work created a file in vim on an NFS mounted
filesystem. The first line was
#!/bin/bash
As long as that line was there the script failed with
: bad interpreter: No such file or directory
I pulled it up in emacs, figuring that any control chars
would be visible. Nothing.
After
Title: Re: [Eug-lug] true: Intel will be inside (the Mac)
Rosetta
My god. They are going to be shipping fat
binaries AGAIN (according to the link below).
Let me scrape my jaw off the ground, one sec.
-Max
Maybe fat binaries won't be as fat as the 68k/ppc ones
were.
Another update:
Rosetta
ke
My god. They are going to be shipping fat binaries AGAIN (according to the link
below).
Let me scrape my jaw off the ground, one sec.
-Max
Rodney Mishima wrote:
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06/06/liveupdate/index.php
The rumors are true: Intel will be inside (the Mac) according to the
And while we're on the topic of Jobs' ego, OS X is largely descended from his old NeXT system, along
with the other bits pointed out below. The OS X non-spatial Finder, Mail.app, the whole .app
framework, all of it comes from NeXT.
-Max
Rodney Mishima wrote:
I don't know much about MacOS. But
Title: The rumors are true: Intel will be inside (the
Mac)
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06/06/liveupdate/index.php
The rumors are true: Intel
will be inside (the Mac) according to the MacWorld WWDC
coverage:
As the Intel
logo lowered on the stage screen, Jobs said, "We are going to
make th
I don't know much about MacOS. But I thought that MacOS X was
someting like MacOS 10
I think there was MacOS 7, 8, 9, and the X stands for 10...
I am right?
No. You are wrong.
For the sake of a timeline, OS X uses version numbers 10.x.x
which indicate that it is a SUCCESOR to Mac OS 9 and ea
T. Joseph CARTER wrote:
> There were exactly two times in the past Apple has considered MacOS X on
> Intel-architecture chips. You've cited one of them. The other was back
> when MacOS X was called Rhapsody.
Star Trek was derived from MacOS System 7, which was Classic, not OS
X. At that time,
On 6/6/05, Rodney Mishima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Maybe, Apple is utilizing Intel for their manufacturing capabilities
and hopefully NOT for the X86 specific chips. Supposedly, Apple has
the rights to the G5 and can get someone else; eg. Intel instead of
IBM, to manufacture them in the qua
I think the guys at Apple got exactly what they wanted. I don't
remember ever being this interested in Jobs' annual ego boosting speech.
-Mike
On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 09:45, larry price wrote:
> On 6/6/05, Rodney Mishima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Maybe, Apple i
I find it hard to believe that Apple would break binary compatibility with existing PowerPC-targeted
OS X software.
So, to roll out x86 or other non-Power CPUs, I would expect Apple to plan full binary compatibility
with PowerPC binaries. And once that step is taken, they might as well throw in
On 6/6/05, Rodney Mishima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe, Apple is utilizing Intel for their manufacturing capabilities
> and hopefully NOT for the X86 specific chips. Supposedly, Apple has
> the rights to the G5 and can get someone else; eg. Intel instead of
> IBM, to manufacture them in the q
Ughh, Great, Now all the Mass Market Computers will be based on
outdated 1970s technology. There go my hopes of someday being able to
get a PC with a sane (RISC) architecture. Why couldn't Intel and AMD
make this kind of break in backwards compatability and shift the world
off of the horror tha
Ughh, Great, Now all the Mass Market Computers will be based on
outdated 1970s technology. There go my hopes of someday being able to
get a PC with a sane (RISC) architecture. Why couldn't Intel and AMD
make this kind of break in backwards compatability and shift the world
off of the horror that
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 11:39:33PM -0700, Bob Miller wrote:
> >Rumors of Apple switching to an Intel based processor pre-date the
> >existence of this site. The earliest reference in our archives comes
> >from [10]March 15, 2000 (this site was founded in Feb 2000). For some
> >persp
I just installed it for firefox, took about three minutes, palyed with
it a bit,
looks cool, but still ripening.
Looks more featureful than iCal.
On 6/5/05, Mr O <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you still intend to use Mozilla for your browser then you'll
> want the one for Moz App Suite if you
30 matches
Mail list logo
