Re: A whole new meaning to putting tasks in the background...

  • From: Neil Doane <caine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: technocracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 01:20:05 -0700

* M.K. Chatterji (chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) on [09-27-00 19:59] did utter:


> On the Mac on the other hand, we were able to load OS X (in 26 
> minutes) and it worked the first time -- and I mean everything 
> worked, even local and inter networking--and even all the legacy Mac 
> apps! (Albeit in a separate window.) Of course it was Mac hardware, 
> and that helps when it comes to consistency. Earlier, I used OS X 
> Server and it too worked right off the bat, and included Apache and 
> QT streaming server and ssh shell accounts.

ssh accounts?  Very interesting.  Do they include ssh with OS X?  If so, do
they have a non-US version and a US version?  Am I mistaken in thinking that
exporting ssh would violate US crypto laws?
> I think that with the vast hardware variations of Intel platforms out 
> there, and with the installs of hardware, (and the fine-control of 
> that hardware install which you referred to above) it's going to 
> continue to be a long time before such an exercise is a no-brainer 
> for a clueless home user -- like me. And I speak from recent 
> experience.

I'll just say this: given a slightly narrower field of vision on the
hardware side, I think you'd have probably had alot more fun.  I know people
who can't even _spell_ "OS" who've installed recent versions of RedHat and
Stormix.  I understand your plight, you wanted "Linux on weird, quirky
ancient hardware (that maybe isn't even functional)" to work as easily as 
"Mac OS X on a probably well-maintained example of one of the, what, 
maybe 50 possible combinations of hardware that it supports".   I'm not
saying that Linux is as easy to install as Mac OS X, but given Mac OS X's 
narrow hardware scope, it's been considerably easier for its developers to 
focus on fit and finish.  Consider that Linux does all the same basic 
functions as Mac OS X Server does, but does it on a _staggering_ variety of 
hardware combinations; then consider that it's really not _that_ far behind 
even something as newbie-friendly as Mac OS X.   

All that said, the general gist of what you're saying is clear.  You want
Linux to be able to be installed and be as easily and immediately
universally-functional as Mac OS X.  My point is that with the right
hardware (that is, if you were as selective about choosing your hardware as
the Mac OS X developers are about choosing what hardware will be supported), 
it sounds like you'd have probably not had nearly so much of a headache. 


       . /._ o /     --personal="caine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" 
      /|//- / /     --business="caine@xxxxxxxxxxx"
     / ''- / /__   --homepage="";
~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Other related posts: