Thread
Sun Ultra 10
Ultra 5/10s are great machines to get into Sun UltraSPARC hardware. You pretty soon reach the limits though with them, but to make it a bit more viable I recommend this:
- Get a SUN SymBIOS SCSI card (has to have a Sun ROM to boot a SPARC)
- Get *2* decent UWSCSI drives about 9-18GB. They will fit, trust me
- Upgrade to at least 512MB of RAM.
- Get a Sun UPA framebuffer if it hasn't got one already (some have Creator3d cards in the UPA slot - look for a 13W3 video connector on the top card slot at the back). If you really want to go loco you could get an Elite3d m3 or m6 card, but that's probably overkill on a U10 [] ]'>
I had one specced right up like that and it was a neat little Solaris 10 box. I ultimately sold it and bought a Dual 450MHz Processor Ultra 60/elite3d with 1.5GB RAM though [
] ]'> That REALLY runs Solaris 10 well!
For all your sun needs SunHELP is invaluable, especially the SunHELP mailing lists (which I'm on several of). Don't be alarmed if the main SunHELP mailing list seems a little quiet, the daily backchatter tends to go on on other lists, but we all sub to it and help anyone who asks there.
I also suggest reading up on the machine at:
SunStuff (OSIAH)
You can look over all the other SPARC hardware there too and drool over the big enterprise servers
A useful tidbit you will need there is your machine falls into the 'sun4u' architecture classification (as do all other Ultras).
If you really get stuck in a corner then you can PM me. I've been through the learning process with the same machine as you so I know them pretty much inside out. My collection has since grown to 5 Sun SPARC machines of various types, and one Sun Java Workstation (x64 Opteron).
- Get a SUN SymBIOS SCSI card (has to have a Sun ROM to boot a SPARC)
- Get *2* decent UWSCSI drives about 9-18GB. They will fit, trust me
- Upgrade to at least 512MB of RAM.
- Get a Sun UPA framebuffer if it hasn't got one already (some have Creator3d cards in the UPA slot - look for a 13W3 video connector on the top card slot at the back). If you really want to go loco you could get an Elite3d m3 or m6 card, but that's probably overkill on a U10 [
] ]'>I had one specced right up like that and it was a neat little Solaris 10 box. I ultimately sold it and bought a Dual 450MHz Processor Ultra 60/elite3d with 1.5GB RAM though [
] ]'> That REALLY runs Solaris 10 well!For all your sun needs SunHELP is invaluable, especially the SunHELP mailing lists (which I'm on several of). Don't be alarmed if the main SunHELP mailing list seems a little quiet, the daily backchatter tends to go on on other lists, but we all sub to it and help anyone who asks there.
I also suggest reading up on the machine at:
SunStuff (OSIAH)
You can look over all the other SPARC hardware there too and drool over the big enterprise servers
A useful tidbit you will need there is your machine falls into the 'sun4u' architecture classification (as do all other Ultras).If you really get stuck in a corner then you can PM me. I've been through the learning process with the same machine as you so I know them pretty much inside out. My collection has since grown to 5 Sun SPARC machines of various types, and one Sun Java Workstation (x64 Opteron).
I plan to use my U5 as a server, so don't have a monitor connected. (Unfortunately I have to leave the kbd connected so it will boot. Pretty stupid if you ask me.) It's actually a smidge faster than my main server, albeit with less RAM. I wish the SunPCi cards were usable under Solaris 10.
I've learned that Wikipedia is pretty useless for anything beyond the absolute basics about Sun hardware. I put together a nice little template for SGI hardware, and a similar one for Sun stuff would be cool, but I just don't know enough to do it.
I've learned that Wikipedia is pretty useless for anything beyond the absolute basics about Sun hardware. I put together a nice little template for SGI hardware, and a similar one for Sun stuff would be cool, but I just don't know enough to do it.
You are right. According to Sun, there are no restrictions. Back in the Solaris 8 days (last one I downloaded for my SPARCstation LX), you had to pay for Solaris if running it on more than 8 CPUs.
I just discovered that my Compaq Evo N600C (a freebie currrently running Kubuntu) will run Solaris 9 and 10. Hmm....
Peace,
Drew
I just discovered that my Compaq Evo N600C (a freebie currrently running Kubuntu) will run Solaris 9 and 10. Hmm....
Peace,
Drew
Quote:
"Beacouse it works"
Answer: NO. Too much time to get it configured on a standard PIII pc. My idea of an OS is one that has an application binary standard :Ex .app .bin .exe and does not have to compile 1/2 of the applications out there. I gave liniux 3 chances, well, they are used up. It does not have complete functionality out of the box. For instance, it took 2 hours to get ubuntu to play a mp3! A DARN MP3! At least firefox and flash worked... But, my Idea of an OS is one that you don't have to configure for a month. I got my macbook like home in 2 hours. In that time frame, I put all the apps I needed, got all my Docs on there, and customized it. In Linux, i could not even get 1/2 that done. Now on a usability standpoint: It sucks for people who are used to DOS commands (Me). The commands are soooooo different. Also, for someone who is 100%GUI I imagine it would be like hell. You know now the iPhone now has a higher presentage of web share than web browsers on Linux? Shows you how many people use it for day-to-day as there main machine. NOW, I am only bashing usability. The Linux kernel could be used for something great. It is a wonderful server platform, and It is wonderful for embedded use. It could be great if Mr.Torvaldes took charge of the Linux OS again. He needs to make a set of core standards beyond the kernel.
Rant form the users eye.
"Beacouse it works"
Answer: NO. Too much time to get it configured on a standard PIII pc. My idea of an OS is one that has an application binary standard :Ex .app .bin .exe and does not have to compile 1/2 of the applications out there. I gave liniux 3 chances, well, they are used up. It does not have complete functionality out of the box. For instance, it took 2 hours to get ubuntu to play a mp3! A DARN MP3! At least firefox and flash worked... But, my Idea of an OS is one that you don't have to configure for a month. I got my macbook like home in 2 hours. In that time frame, I put all the apps I needed, got all my Docs on there, and customized it. In Linux, i could not even get 1/2 that done. Now on a usability standpoint: It sucks for people who are used to DOS commands (Me). The commands are soooooo different. Also, for someone who is 100%GUI I imagine it would be like hell. You know now the iPhone now has a higher presentage of web share than web browsers on Linux? Shows you how many people use it for day-to-day as there main machine. NOW, I am only bashing usability. The Linux kernel could be used for something great. It is a wonderful server platform, and It is wonderful for embedded use. It could be great if Mr.Torvaldes took charge of the Linux OS again. He needs to make a set of core standards beyond the kernel.
Rant form the users eye.
Macintoshman, yeah what I love about Solaris is how you can use programs from previous versions just fine, there's a standard packaging system, and in general, compatibility is excellent. Even Solaris 10 today still has SunOS 4.x compatibility (hint: SunOS 4.x became Solaris 1.x). You can run programs from even the late 1980s on modern Solaris releases. Try that with an early Linux program without recompiling.
macintoshman, you sound as if you have been scarred by Linux.
While your experience may have been unsatisfactory, please understand that there are hundreds (indeed thousands) more for whom Linux has been quite satisfactory and useable. You are certainly entitled to your own opinions, and no one can doubt your particular experience if you say it is so, but please don't think that it is the same for everyone else. Everyone else is also entitled to their opinions and have their own experiences with Linux. To assume that everyone else has exactly the same expectations for use that you do is arrogant and short sighted. It is patently untrue. If it had any truth at all, Linux simply wouldn't exist.
Peace,
Drew
While your experience may have been unsatisfactory, please understand that there are hundreds (indeed thousands) more for whom Linux has been quite satisfactory and useable. You are certainly entitled to your own opinions, and no one can doubt your particular experience if you say it is so, but please don't think that it is the same for everyone else. Everyone else is also entitled to their opinions and have their own experiences with Linux. To assume that everyone else has exactly the same expectations for use that you do is arrogant and short sighted. It is patently untrue. If it had any truth at all, Linux simply wouldn't exist.
Peace,
Drew
Yeah I agree on the Linux thing, much more complex than it need be. Very nice once you get it up and running and all the problems worked out though.
oh, and I have an Ultra 60, but I can't get any video out of it. I have a Belkin sun adapter, a PS/2 keyboard, VGA monitor, but no PS/2 mouse. I am told that Sun machines require a mouse to be connected in order to boot, is that probably what the problem is ?
oh, and I have an Ultra 60, but I can't get any video out of it. I have a Belkin sun adapter, a PS/2 keyboard, VGA monitor, but no PS/2 mouse. I am told that Sun machines require a mouse to be connected in order to boot, is that probably what the problem is ?
Macintoshman:
I have to say that if you took 2 hours to get Ubuntu to play an MP3 then I don't know exactly what you're doing wrong. You click Applications, go to the bottom, click Add/Remove, go to 'Sound & Video,' and select any application that says 'Media Player' in the description.
Besides, I'm pretty sure Ubuntu has built-in MP3 support... Been so long since I installed that I don't remember. Debian does; Ubuntu is based on Debian, so I would assume that it does.
Take another look at Ubuntu, and this time use the handy Add/Remove Programs tool. Much more useful than the Windows version. Stick to the programs in there(which provide workable replacements for most if not all of the programs needed for home/office/video editing/etc use) and you'll be fine. True, LINUX doesn't have a standard package, but Ubuntu(again, based on Debian, which is one of the most used distributions when you count all of its children) does, and it's actually far easier to install programs on Ubuntu than on a Mac.
And as for the commands being different; 'cd' and 'dir' are exactly the same(though 'dir' isn't technically a unix command, it's there to make migrating from DOS easier. the rreal command is 'ls') 'del' is 'rm' etc
Plus, when was the last time you used Ubuntu, and what version? It has a six month release schedule, and a LOT has happened since, say, last January. Almost an unimaginable amount since two Januarys ago.
alk:
Thanks for mentioning Aurora. Hadn't seen that before. My SS5 currently has Debian 4.0 on it(and Solaris 7 for historic value) but I'm looking for something more specific to the Sun arch.
I have to say that if you took 2 hours to get Ubuntu to play an MP3 then I don't know exactly what you're doing wrong. You click Applications, go to the bottom, click Add/Remove, go to 'Sound & Video,' and select any application that says 'Media Player' in the description.
Besides, I'm pretty sure Ubuntu has built-in MP3 support... Been so long since I installed that I don't remember. Debian does; Ubuntu is based on Debian, so I would assume that it does.
Take another look at Ubuntu, and this time use the handy Add/Remove Programs tool. Much more useful than the Windows version. Stick to the programs in there(which provide workable replacements for most if not all of the programs needed for home/office/video editing/etc use) and you'll be fine. True, LINUX doesn't have a standard package, but Ubuntu(again, based on Debian, which is one of the most used distributions when you count all of its children) does, and it's actually far easier to install programs on Ubuntu than on a Mac.
And as for the commands being different; 'cd' and 'dir' are exactly the same(though 'dir' isn't technically a unix command, it's there to make migrating from DOS easier. the rreal command is 'ls') 'del' is 'rm' etc
Plus, when was the last time you used Ubuntu, and what version? It has a six month release schedule, and a LOT has happened since, say, last January. Almost an unimaginable amount since two Januarys ago.
alk:
Thanks for mentioning Aurora. Hadn't seen that before. My SS5 currently has Debian 4.0 on it(and Solaris 7 for historic value) but I'm looking for something more specific to the Sun arch.
Oh STFU. Solaris is great, I love it a lot on the Sun's I run it on, it even works great on a PC. But it is a GODS OWN BITCH (apologies in advance to any sensitive religious folk) to install Open Source software on to (compared to say Debian, or Fedora).
The package repository systems available are immature and all work to different rules (in a UNIX system that is so good because it is so holistic). It is in dire need of a system akin to atp-get or rpm so you're not left to install packages ad nauseam with Suns package installer and wrestle un-handled dependencies manually. Sun, thank the lord, are working to provide a lightweight, open source, more Linux-like OS based off of the Solaris kernel and frameworks, that will hopefully grow a decent, 21st century package system that keeps true to the holistic UNIX-like Solaris approach. Solaris is unique among old-industry UNIX as a UNIX that is slowly adapting to the 21st century, instead of pedaling the same UNIX from 1989 that everyone got used to. At the same time though, it also is keeping a vital element of integrity and continuity that Linux lost many years ago.
You have no right to tell people what OS to run on any machine. You're opinion is yours, and one I share for the most part, but frankly the way you express it is wrong, your attitude stinks. If you want to scream and rant go to digg.com. Computers are there to do what you want to do with them. If you can't do it with the 'native' OS then you have to look elsewhere. Linux is a versatile and portable OS, so it deserves to be run wherever it can thrive. It sucks on some platforms, but then again it's what your used to, and what support that platform has. Debian is very well supported on non-x86 platforms (it's one of few Linux distros that really has that diversity, normally reserved for BSDs).
Do what you want, with what you have, but don't try to be the voice and hands of others.
Linux Airlines
Disgruntled employees of all the other OS airlines decide to start their own airline. They build the planes, ticket counters, and pave the runways themselves. They charge a small fee to cover the cost of printing the ticket, but you can also download and print the ticket yourself. When you board the plane, you are given a seat, four bolts, a wrench and a copy of the seat-HOWTO.html. Once settled, the fully adjustable seat is very comfortable, the plane leaves and arrives on time without a single problem, the in-flight meal is wonderful. You try to tell customers of the other airlines about the great trip, but all they can say is, "You had to do what with the seat?"
Disgruntled employees of all the other OS airlines decide to start their own airline. They build the planes, ticket counters, and pave the runways themselves. They charge a small fee to cover the cost of printing the ticket, but you can also download and print the ticket yourself. When you board the plane, you are given a seat, four bolts, a wrench and a copy of the seat-HOWTO.html. Once settled, the fully adjustable seat is very comfortable, the plane leaves and arrives on time without a single problem, the in-flight meal is wonderful. You try to tell customers of the other airlines about the great trip, but all they can say is, "You had to do what with the seat?"
I did. Ubuntu 6, DSL,Puppy,Fedora, you name it. I mean, OS X is proof that unix can be fun and easy. I just dont see the benifit form spendng months getting a system running. Maby I was trying some obscure apps. IDK.
I am just trying to say that the OS should stay out of the users way most of the time, not requiring to be "Fed". I tired, posted on a linux forum about it (Not Here) and they said " We are not here to tell you all the steps of compiling an app, figure it out on your own."
Good way to drive away new users.
I am just trying to say that the OS should stay out of the users way most of the time, not requiring to be "Fed". I tired, posted on a linux forum about it (Not Here) and they said " We are not here to tell you all the steps of compiling an app, figure it out on your own."
Good way to drive away new users.
I fail to see what OS X has to do with UNIX, certification or not.
The apps are all programmed with APIs and a mindset that has nothing to do with UNIX. OS X is about the pretty face, not what's underneath. Sure, you've got bash on top and pipes and sockets if you want them, but that's completely insulated from the rest of the system, it doesn't seem to work together with Cocoa side of things, beyond nice drag and drop into Terminal.app. BeOS is more UNIX-like than OS X is...
The apps are all programmed with APIs and a mindset that has nothing to do with UNIX. OS X is about the pretty face, not what's underneath. Sure, you've got bash on top and pipes and sockets if you want them, but that's completely insulated from the rest of the system, it doesn't seem to work together with Cocoa side of things, beyond nice drag and drop into Terminal.app. BeOS is more UNIX-like than OS X is...
thats becasue only at isvery core routeens is it UNIX based, the most basic levels. mostly to handle the kernel booup. originaly OSX was intended to have alot mof unix structure but in the end they just built the very core off of it.
an excamplewould be that MS DOS 7 was at the very core of windows 95/98
Macintoshman:
Reread my post about installing applications on Ubuntu. And get a new version of it. You can go to a bookstore and get a handy book of how to use it with a DVD in the back for less than $20.
I have not had to compile one application in the two years I've been using Ubuntu. All of them have either had a package in the Add/Remove Programs dialog or have had a workable replacement there. (Side note: I've compiled several by CHOICE, but that's beside the point.) I really don't understand why you seem to think compiling applications is necessary for a Linux system. It's not, any more than it is for a Mac OSX system. Sure there are a few distributions that are source-only like Gentoo and Source Mage, but we're talking Ubuntu here.
What applications do you need so badly?
Reread my post about installing applications on Ubuntu. And get a new version of it. You can go to a bookstore and get a handy book of how to use it with a DVD in the back for less than $20.
I have not had to compile one application in the two years I've been using Ubuntu. All of them have either had a package in the Add/Remove Programs dialog or have had a workable replacement there. (Side note: I've compiled several by CHOICE, but that's beside the point.) I really don't understand why you seem to think compiling applications is necessary for a Linux system. It's not, any more than it is for a Mac OSX system. Sure there are a few distributions that are source-only like Gentoo and Source Mage, but we're talking Ubuntu here.
What applications do you need so badly?
I ran into the same problem when I first started with Ubuntu. I was frustrated that I couldn't play/encode MP3's out of the box. The reason is that a default Ubuntu install only has unrestricted open-source software. To install non-free, patent encumbered, binary software or drivers, just enable the other repositories: Restricted, Universe or Multiverse (I forget which one).
I don't believe it took you months to get Ubuntu, DSL or Puppy to run. No way.
Awesome! It is driving me crazy having this sitting here with no video because of the lack of the kb/mouse!
To everyone else:
Thanks for the replies! I have upgraded the memory on this to 512mb and I noticed it does have the long SUN video card in the first slot! Yay!
If you couldn't easily get Ubuntu working your hardware was either poorly supported or faulty, or you are clueless. DSL is a hacker's Linux distro, made for a specific purpose. It's not easy to install because it's target is hackers and tweakers. Puppy, I'd enever heard of until I read that, but it looks like a Slackware spinoff, again Slackware has always been seen as a distro for people who like tinkering, not just using an OS. Fedora, again is a distro on the same path as Ubuntu (but IMHO a great deal more poorly put together) - if it doesn't work you can assume either hardware problems or user incompetence (apart from Fedora Core 5, which was truly god awful). I stopped using Fedora and switched to Ubuntu 7.04 (and have since moved to 7.10) when the auto-update feature in Fedora 6 decided to eat it's own young and totally screw up my OS. I've never had the same issues with Ubuntu however.
I won't hide the fact that Linux can often be a pain to work out, but if you stick to modern, well known versions (Ubuntu being possibly the best known) then the help is out there on forums and mailing lists. I see the working stuff out part as part of the experience. I enjoy it as much as I dislike it. If that's not your bag then fair enough, but again stop assuming you are everyone and realise your opinion is your own and no more.
OS X is cool, no doubt, and as an every day OS I love it because it's practically transparent to the tasks I carry out. If I do something in OS X I know it'll work and I know it'll be relatively painless, and that's the beauty of the Mac OS environment as it is today. It's so easy it's almost not there.
It seems like an old cliche, but I come back to this every time anyone asks why I do these crazy things. The answer? "Because I can". The sense of achievement and satisfaction you gain from grafting away at something and finally getting it working the way you want is very rewarding for those of us that have the patience. Just because you can't be bothered with all that jazz doesn't mean no-one should.
Besides that, compiling is almost never necessary on major distros anymore, s they all have extensive pre-compiled binary repositories, or in Gentoo's case a system of distributing and compiling source automatically.
If you get so far and get stuck then leave it and go away, at some point you'll have a brainstorm, or think of a new angle to try and get a bit further. Problem solving is a very valuable skill, and this is above all other things the way I learned to do it right.
If you need an OS that 'stays out of your way' then use Mac OS. It's clear that that is the environment you enjoy working in, and that's all to the good. Others here enjoy Mac OS some of the time, but like to get their teeth into something more meaty from time to time. It's a good way of learning that not all computer tasks are done through fancy UIs and preferences dialogs. Some times you have to take the gloves off and get your hands dirty. Apart from anything else you might learn something that you can use in OS X at the terminal...I am just trying to say that the OS should stay out of the users way most of the time, not requiring to be "Fed". I tired, posted on a linux forum about it (Not Here) and they said " We are not here to tell you all the steps of compiling an app, figure it out on your own."
Good way to drive away new users.
To each, is own.
OS X has everything to do with UNIX. It *is* a UNIX. Saying OS X is nothing to do with UNIX is like trying to claim AIX and Solaris are nothing to do with UNIX just because you do everything through CDE. OS X's UI layer is highly advanced but without UNIX it would not have the solid foundations to build upon.
You have singularly failed to understand the very heart of what makes OS X so good. Because the APIs are so good and Apple have done such a good job of Cocoa, every API in OS X handles a large array of UNIX functionality and offers that up to the developer in an easily digestible form that makes development a joy (most of the time). However, a developer still must understand UNIX and how it works to develop for the Mac environment, because to understand UNIX is to understand what makes Mac OS X tick. Far from being nothing to do with each other, Cocoa and UNIX are one and the same, what you see as 'OS X' and 'UNIX' are simply the extreme ends of a linear scale, with cool GUI apps at one and and the nitty gritty low-level functionality at the other. UNIX != Terminal.app. UNIX is an established standard that means an OS has to do 'certain things' the way every other UNIX does, in order to provide an easy interoperability. That *does not* stop at the terminal. That goes to all corners of the OS, the development tools, the file structure, the behaviour of the OS, and how it talks to the outside world. UNIX is not just the 'core' of OS X, it is the foundations and the life blood that flows in the veins of OS X.
Apple are far from a 'bunch of idiots'. In fact they have leveraged UNIX in ways no other OS programmers have ever managed. Producing an OS that is both UNIX through and through, and seamlessly easy to use. The latter does not turn it's back on the former, it embraces it and allows it to empower the OS to be powerful and still usable.
I rest my case.
Sweet, it'll make a nice first Sun UltraSPARC box then. You could always download the Solaris 10 ISOs from Sun while you are waiting. I would consider finding a DVD-ROM (most standard ATAPI units will work) nigh-on essential. Installing Solaris 10 from 6 CDs is highly laborious!
Linux has become as eye candy friendly and bloated as any other newer OS. While most sane distros included an installer app that works with specific packages, some pride themselves on having you do all the work to earn your geek credability.
Funny I had a working Fedora Core machine a while back that self destructed when it did an auto update as well (FC 3 or 4). I don't use linux because there are no compelling apps I need that are linux only.
I wonder how many of the OSX users on this forum even pay for their apps instead of pirating them.
Funny I had a working Fedora Core machine a while back that self destructed when it did an auto update as well (FC 3 or 4). I don't use linux because there are no compelling apps I need that are linux only.
I wonder how many of the OSX users on this forum even pay for their apps instead of pirating them.
I've paid for a lot of the apps I use on my Mac, and almost all of the apps I use on my Windows PC. (I use fewer apps, but I seem to use the PC apps more often, since they're things like Microsoft Word.)
As far as Linux goes, it seems pretty easy, even straightforward at times to me, but I'll admit to thinking that it has its place, and that place isn't on any computer that I expect to be able to play MP3 files. I'd use it on a hobbybox and on a server, but not much else, unfortunately.
A Solaris (or IRIX, as I have more SGI than Sun in my house) box, I would consider using as my main computer in the situation that every one of my Macs and Windows computers died, but luckily that's unlikely. They make great hobbyboxes though, I recently got a new hard disc for my SGI workstation, and I'm thinking about getting a Sun box to play with.
As far as Linux goes, it seems pretty easy, even straightforward at times to me, but I'll admit to thinking that it has its place, and that place isn't on any computer that I expect to be able to play MP3 files. I'd use it on a hobbybox and on a server, but not much else, unfortunately.
A Solaris (or IRIX, as I have more SGI than Sun in my house) box, I would consider using as my main computer in the situation that every one of my Macs and Windows computers died, but luckily that's unlikely. They make great hobbyboxes though, I recently got a new hard disc for my SGI workstation, and I'm thinking about getting a Sun box to play with.
Like I said, some people might not want that, geek credibility means jack **** to some people after all, no matter how much geeks think it rocks bells. Some people have better things to do with their time, and that's fine by me. FWIW Another reason I use ubuntu is because all it's major branches come on a single 650MB CD, which contains enough t o get most users going pretty well, and a good software manger to add more if it's needed. While I know even compressed onto 1 CD it's still bloated, at least it gives you half a chance of downloading it in a reasonable time frame and it's a lighter install than something like Fedora or SuSE.
I'm pretty much the same, I use OS X 60% and XP 40% (for games), but I do maintain and use Ubuntu just to keep my nails sharp-ish and so that I can understand it when someone asks for help, so, unlike Windows users I can at least offer them a clue, not just say 'sorry I don't help with Windows problems anymore'. I like to stay in touch with technology too, and I realised a couple of years ago I knew jack about Linux as it stood at the time so I have made a point to keep half an interest in it since to see where it's going.
I don't know whether to take offense at that remark, or not , so I won't, but sweeping statements like that do annoy me, no matter how true they might be. You sound like a record exec on one of those 'You're a young person so you don't buy any for your music you download it all off BitTorrent' rants.
FWIW I pay for anything I think justifies its price tag in quality, usability and actual use in my everyday routine. That covers 95% of what's installed on my Mac Pro. I am BIG supporter of small software companies and have over 20 registered Mac OS X shareware apps on my drive ATM that I use regularly and enjoy immensely. I also notably have a copy of OS X for every OS X capable Mac I own, including the 8500. I've long since given up ripping everything. If I can't afford something I'll find a cheaper or free (as in beer) alternative.
One reason I love Sun is they made their entire OS Open Source and free to license
Not only that but they roll the best developments on the Open Source side into their mainline enterprise OS.I personally like the new and upcoming Fluxbuntu because it combines the nice, easy Ubuntu and the lightness of Fluxbox.
Xubuntu's cool too.
On the topic of paying for software:
I have payed for:
100% of the software currently on my Windows gaming box
0% of the software that's currently on my Linux boxen
and 10% of the software that's on my Mac OSX boxen.
And yet I haven't pirated one piece.
FOSS, ain't it grand?
I have made donations to several notable OSS projects that I like though.
Xubuntu's cool too.
On the topic of paying for software:
I have payed for:
100% of the software currently on my Windows gaming box
0% of the software that's currently on my Linux boxen
and 10% of the software that's on my Mac OSX boxen.
And yet I haven't pirated one piece.
FOSS, ain't it grand?
I have made donations to several notable OSS projects that I like though.
Silicon Valley Pirate -
You are right, of course. OS X is UNIX and both Cocoa, Carbon and everything else on OS X relies on UNIX through-and-through. I know this. I was just being difficult because I'm not really a fan of OS X.
My point was basically that all the cool stuff about UNIX, the pipes and the networkering and the lightweightness, the building-bigger-stuff-from-smaller-components, plain text configuration files, bash scripting and standard interfaces, seem to have been replaced in OS X by behemoth GUI apps, AppleScript, XML and other nasty things.
An example: a proper graphical UNIX would in my mind have no need for an app like iTunes, or iPhoto or similar. It would have a modular file manager that would make organising, finding and previewing of ALL files easy, and use scripting of external, non-interactive applications to perform functions like converting between audio file formats etc., and only resort to interactive apps to view or create files.
It most certainly would not use a 113 MB app* to move MP3 files to an external hard drive - or that same Music File Organiser Application to move dates and notes into your PDA.
That is what I mean by OS X not being UNIX. I know that [NSFileWrapper openWithPath:] is open() underneath. That's trivial, from my point of view.
*with localisations, yes. The binary is 28MB. I don't think I have a 28MB binary on any of my non-OS X computers.
You are right, of course. OS X is UNIX and both Cocoa, Carbon and everything else on OS X relies on UNIX through-and-through. I know this. I was just being difficult because I'm not really a fan of OS X.
My point was basically that all the cool stuff about UNIX, the pipes and the networkering and the lightweightness, the building-bigger-stuff-from-smaller-components, plain text configuration files, bash scripting and standard interfaces, seem to have been replaced in OS X by behemoth GUI apps, AppleScript, XML and other nasty things.
An example: a proper graphical UNIX would in my mind have no need for an app like iTunes, or iPhoto or similar. It would have a modular file manager that would make organising, finding and previewing of ALL files easy, and use scripting of external, non-interactive applications to perform functions like converting between audio file formats etc., and only resort to interactive apps to view or create files.
It most certainly would not use a 113 MB app* to move MP3 files to an external hard drive - or that same Music File Organiser Application to move dates and notes into your PDA.
That is what I mean by OS X not being UNIX. I know that [NSFileWrapper openWithPath:] is open() underneath. That's trivial, from my point of view.
*with localisations, yes. The binary is 28MB. I don't think I have a 28MB binary on any of my non-OS X computers.
NeXTStep is a mix of BSD UNIXsoftware and the Mach kernel. It's not pure BSD UNIX, but from the end user point of view, that distinction is academic.
Call me crazy, but I don't consider middleware like iTunes to be a part of an operating system. I'll give you Cocoa and Carbon and all the frameworks that Apple bundles (really, does anyone consider WebKit to be a part of the OS?!), and I'll agree that Aqua is not CDE (ick, though the simplicity does have its charm at times) or even X based, but the GUI system is not what defines UNIX.
Did you know that you can run KDE on your OS X box? ssh into it and start KDE remotely. (Of course, you have to install it first.)
Check this out: http://finkcommander.sourceforge.net/ FinkCommander should scratch that free open source software itch...
Maybe this is also an academic question, but would you not consider Darwin to be a BSD-like UNIX?
Peace,
Drew
Call me crazy, but I don't consider middleware like iTunes to be a part of an operating system. I'll give you Cocoa and Carbon and all the frameworks that Apple bundles (really, does anyone consider WebKit to be a part of the OS?!), and I'll agree that Aqua is not CDE (ick, though the simplicity does have its charm at times) or even X based, but the GUI system is not what defines UNIX.
Did you know that you can run KDE on your OS X box? ssh into it and start KDE remotely. (Of course, you have to install it first.)
Check this out: http://finkcommander.sourceforge.net/ FinkCommander should scratch that free open source software itch...
Maybe this is also an academic question, but would you not consider Darwin to be a BSD-like UNIX?
Peace,
Drew
The comment on pirating was not directed at anyone in particular, just a general question since plenty of people who might have swung with Linux seem to just get OSX and pirate Apps instead. I have seen people who hang out on IRC spend mad money on hardware and not a cent on software.I don't know whether to take offense at that remark, or not , so I won't, but sweeping statements like that do annoy me, no matter how true they might be. You sound like a record exec on one of those 'You're a young person so you don't buy any for your music you download it all off BitTorrent' rants.
FWIW I pay for anything I think justifies its price tag in quality, usability and actual use in my everyday routine. That covers 95% of what's installed on my Mac Pro. I am BIG supporter of small software companies and have over 20 registered Mac OS X shareware apps on my drive ATM that I use regularly and enjoy immensely. I also notably have a copy of OS X for every OS X capable Mac I own, including the 8500. I've long since given up ripping everything. If I can't afford something I'll find a cheaper or free (as in beer) alternative.
One reason I love Sun is they made their entire OS Open Source and free to license
I can't say I have a legit copy of every app I use, but I try to get a legit copy of anything I use more then a couple times to test. I don't bother getting multiple copies on my OS since I don't generally have more then one machine on at a time anyway and I am the only computer user in this house.
Oddly enough even for my retro collection I try to get every app, game, and utility I use to be legit (my house is overflowing with boxed mac and some old pc software , just added Norton desktop 3 for Win 3.x this week).
Mac OS X would not be here without NeXT
Please don't talk to me like I'm an idiot.
I don't really care for KDE either, mind you. Nor GNOME. IRIX is pretty decent but the file manager, for instance, still feels a little bolted on.
Or install it from MacPorts (Fink is a bit crap, IMO) and edit your .xinitrc to run it automagically, and then run it via X11.app.
You can even log in without the GUI (login as >console) and open -a X11.app as root, although that will log you in as root cos but only root can start the windowing system (and X11.app needs Quartz running)..
Oh FFS. Of course it is.
The point is, the package that gets delivered to end users, the way the Mac OS X operating system works, the philosophy and the metaphors that are built into the programming model, they're not UNIX-like at all. That's why I bring out iTunes as an example: it's a "good OS X app", which it probably is, good integration with the dragging and the dropping, lickable user interface, all that - but to call something that puts all that functionality into a single blob UNIX-like is just insane.
I don't recall any other graphical UINX OS apps being much different. In fact I think OS X is na exception as it is closer to the UNIX ideal than many others, and this is boosted by a lot of developers making great 'one shot' apps anf Utilities.
Look at Apple's OS X Application collection. This *IS* a UNIX way of thinking, and as OS X develops it is becoming more prominent and more useful. Apple believe in an Application for each task, and binding them along a common framework to allow them to interact fully. Applescript and Automator are great for doing 'Mashups' in OS X where you can script applications together to make results. All this is like shell scripting together UNIX tools at the terminal, but on a macro scale, where whole tasks (or workflows if you will) are bound together by a common language and framework, rather than single operations are carried out per program unit. I've not met any other OS yet that makes this so easy or so powerful. For Apple's ideal it's still only just taking shape, but they have the right idea, and thought the scale is different, the concept is the same as UNIX's own 'large operations using small pieces', except here the possibility exists to perform colossal operations using multiple applications.
In OS X it ceased to stop at the 'good integration with drag and drop phase' when iLife came out with a common media library structure. Arguably it ceased to stop there in 1994/5 when Applescript was released in System 7.x, but back then not many apps supported it. TBH they still didn't when OS 9 was ditched in 2003. OS X has almost breathed new life in to it as a language and a structure. It's still a bit of a weird thing, and I personally find it hard to work with, but the results from those who can work with it are great.
What has happened is the scale of computing has grown as the power of computers has grown and the scale of technology has shrunk. Applications have come to express the 'unitary' task of computing, for better or worse, I guess it depends how good the apps are really. Eventually it'll be whole computers.
Currently the technology and usage in OS X is still at an early stage. Automator is a step in the right direction, making scripting Apps together more humanly possible, as good as Applescript is it still doesn't make sense to the average user. Applescript is, though, to Apps what shell scripts are to UNIX tools.
I agree with Phreakinus here, and most everyone else that shares the same sentiment against you, macintoshman. It's not that big a deal. Like SVP said, it's either the hardware that's not supported that's giving you problems, or you need to read up on how to actually install GNU/Linux on said architecture. The same issues with hardware support would arise on any OS if it's not officially suported. This is why MS used to have a hardware compatibility list (I think they still do that IIRC). So long as you stick with hardware that is well supported, there's nary a problem.
Macintoshman, please don't blame your lack of know-how on installing certain operating systems on the OS itself. And don't tell us what it SHOULD be running on. As it stands, we never thought that we would be running OS X on Intel-based innards, and yet here we are running Intel Macs and some are even running Hackintoshes. So let us run GNU/Linux or whatever else we want on our own hardware (not that we REALLY need your permission)...
kthxbai... :