kefka's Profile

innate, Ease-of-adoption? I picked up a copy of MOSX Server - the first edition many years ago. Heh - I was writing decent Cocoa apps the first day I snapped up a copy of the original Mac OS X Server. Ease-of-adoption for languages is a joke when the platform comes with so many headaches. The simple fact is corporations generally go with what their IT staff tell them to go with. Most techs like having jobs so they recommend the only platform they know reliably self-destructs. Mac OS X is, if not as easy to break, just as difficult to troubleshoot as some other, more popular operating systems that will go unnamed. ;) I'm quite aware of Java. Remember WebObjects? Pure java these days - began much as Cocoa did. In fact Cocoa was quite cross-platform in older variations and likewise was well-respected in the corporate world. I code as readily in WO/Java as I do Cocoa/Obj-C. :) juanxer, Apple isn't Apple anymore. It's Next. Next had mad corporate respect. Apple doesn't support education customers? That's a joke, right? I just got through talking to a pal who manages IT for an Oregon school distract. The iBooks are running OS 9 and Apple is providing free upgrades for them. :) The HPC coups you speak of were based on the Power architecture - no longer Apple's primary choice of processor. To understand why VT made their supercomputer out of Mac boxen had more to do with the processor than the company. They considered all platforms - Apple provided the best bang for their buck, period. Regarding Darwin Apple already opened CoreFoundation which is an awesome and powerful set of C APIs. If the trend of open sourcing "Core" API continues we may see CoreImage open-sourced too but don't quote me on that. Darwin, from a technical perspective, is pretty keen. Bleeding edge? I dunno but whattaya want, it is free. While Apple's current consumer oriented technologies aren't exactly good for the corporation Mac OS X Server, XSan, the XServe are making inroads. Apple doesn't want to be a sony. Apple wants to be Apple. Apple didn't install rootkits on PCs of iTMS users. Heh, fact is, the settlement offered by Sony does offer songs utilizing Apple's DRM technology. Sony seems to think they can rely on Apple. Mac OS X needs very little "tuning" to become a high-end web server capable of handling millions of hits an hour. Licensing the OS is an interesting notion but just not gonna happen. And basic is a terrible language - not just for business but for everything! It's just a piss poor language. True the modern variants are better than what I started with when I was coding on my Commodore some seven years after my birth :P but it's still junk. The acceptance of VB in the corporate market merely means you can sell trash and profit. I've a friend that works for a major bank and he grumbles about VB constantly.

Rather - no need to triple boot. :P We'll definitely see some sort of virtual machine architecture akin to VPC or VMWare.

Absolute drivel. Far more people drive automobiles than use computers so the notion that it'd be easier to convert Americans to right handed driving is just sheer stupidity. I mean is this kind of ignorant statement supported by Apple Matters staff? This is Apple Matters not Microsoft Matters! OMGWTFLOLBBQDRINKTEHVODKA Apple is at the forefront of real corporations using and contributing to open source. Show me another high volume desktop vendor that has taken as active an approach to OSF as Apple has. Oh that's right, you can't. As for Apple being "more" proprietary than Windows - that just again demonstrates pure ignorance. The guts of Apple's OS are open source, period. MS has to be forced to "open" so-called "standards" by government bodies. I don't think many think that Apple will take over the world but it will provide a much more competitive system against MSFT now that the playing field is level. Maybe even some significant market share. I agree corporations have become more dependent on Windows than they were but facts are facts and UNIX is still favored over Windows in the corporate market. Facts are facts - Mac OS X shares a hell of a lot more in common with Unix than Windows ever could. Ease of portability directly relates to cost and the companies looking to replace aging Unix systems will look at Apple whether you believe it or not. A long history of being control freaks? Now this is the about the most ridiculous statement in the "article". At least make some citations. Such as Steve Jobs wanted the Mac to be a "closed" architecture because he wanted to provide reliable computers. The fact that so many people are looking for a way to get out of using Windows, and they are en masse, means that Steve was right in terms of the long-term effects of reliability on the end-user. When Apple has exercised control over IT's technology it usually provided some real and tangible benefit. When MSFT hides something it isusually to cover crap code in their OS that renders it as insecure or "open" as a door frame with no door. OSF on the desktop is a joke and will continue to be a joke until somebody actually does something new with the display system. X11 is a crock, useful, but a crock nonetheless.