If you prefer, instead of reading "UNIX inside", read "UNIX based" or
"derived from UNIX", I don't care and I don't know what percentage of UNIX is
now left in MAC OS anyway. The point is that MAC has been on the UNIX road
and they did not want to take it. After all, if they were to sell a MAC with
Linux preinstalled, who would buy it. Better buy a cheaper PC with Linux,
unless the pretty box is really what you care about.
Have a nice day, I'm off and I won't ague about this anymore...
Thanks.
Gerard Perreault
On Sunday 20 January 2002 12:53, 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> If God is so powerful, can he create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Gerard Perreault
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
