On 2009-09-03, Tim Smith <reply_in_group@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> In article <4074963.gPnYOXdPz5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: the Ars Technica review
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | Many of these same developers applauded the "150+ new features" in
>> | Tiger and the "300 new features" in Leopard at past WWDCs. Now they
>> | were applauding zero new features for Snow Leopard? What explains
>> | this?
>> `----
>>
>> http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars
>>
>> GNU/Linux is already ahead.
>
> Really? Let's look at some of the areas Linux is behind Snow Leopard.
>
> 1. Compilers (see page 9 of the above article). Linux is still stuck in
> GCC-land. Apple is fully supporting clang + LLVM, which generates better
> code and is more versatile (and is under a BSD license, so plays nice
> with others).
I'm not sure it's obvious why I should care.
>
> 2. Support for multiple CPUs/cores (see page 10-13). Let's see you take
> an existing C program in Linux, and make it work as easily and
> efficiently on multiple cores or CPUs as the example on page 13.
...you say this as if Unix hasn't been working with multiple processors
since before any form of MacOS ever existed. The idea that Linux can't
readily exploit multiple processors is beyond absurd.
>
> 3. GPU programming (see page 14 and 15). Apple has OpenCL. Fortunately
> for Linux, Apple turned this over to the same group that oversees
> OpenGL, and AMD has a beta available for Linux. However, Apple is still
> ahead at this point.
There are entire companies dedicated to producing OpenCL tuned solutions
for Linux. If you want to rant about an area where Apple is "ahead" this
is certainly not it. If anything, OpenCL is a good demonstration of why
a "closed" platform is bad and tends to stiffle innvoation.
>
> 4. Useful implementation of Wake-on-LAN (see page 22):
>
...real killer feature there.
> 1. DTrace. Almost there for Linux, finally.
>
Nice, if you're a developer.
> 2. Core Audio better in almost every way than even the union of all
> dozen or so Linux audio "solutions".
Saying it is so doesn't make it so.
>
> 3. Anything like Core Animation, Core Video, or Core Image in Linux yet?
> Note that it's not just about finding some program that does some of the
> functions of this--it's also about integrating into the system so that
> they are available in a uniform way to almost all applications.
...and how does that work out for random applications? Where's your
example of this "killer app"?
--
If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either. / | \
|
|
