On 2009-09-03, Ezekiel <not-there@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> 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?
>>>> 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.
> Your ignorance doesn't change why this is very important. Even if you don't
But my "ignorance" does show that the point hasn't been sufficiently proven.
> use compilers you do you applications that were compiled so if the
> developers have access to better tools they are able to produce a better
> product. So end-users also benefit from better compiler technology.
Except those "better tools" don't materialize. Infact, MacOS users
end up installing things built with "inferior compilers" in order
to patch over the holes.
>>> 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.
> Perhaps for once you should actually learn something about the subject
> before commenting on it. Of course Linux, Unix, Windows, etc can all use
> multiple cores/CPU's but it's the ease of doing this that's the issue. Then
> again, you've previously showed your extreme ignorance when it comes to
> knowing even the simplest concepts of multi-threaded applications.
...and yet nothing you've said contributes anything. All you've done
is add even more vacuous rhetoric to the discussion. Meanwhile, those
of us who are Unix users happily continue to full exploit more cores
than an MacOS user has ever seen in one system before.
>>> 4. Useful implementation of Wake-on-LAN (see page 22):
>> ...real killer feature there.
> How do those sour grapes taste?
Some things are just less impressive than others.
If I went into the Apple store and started asking random customers
about this sort of feature, I doubt any of them would care. This
is another "kill feature" that is at best a footnote.
This list is poorly organized. Pisspoor organization from an Apple
user imagine that.
>>> 1. DTrace. Almost there for Linux, finally.
>> Nice, if you're a developer.
> Also nice if you're a user who runs applications written by developers.
...so we come back around to the whole "why are Apple cheerleaders
pushing Free Software" dilemma. This is no joke. This is what happened
the last time I complained about MacOS. Eventually I was directed to
install Free Software onto my Mac. (hilarious)
>>> 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.
> And denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
Denial requires a claim. No real claim has been made.
You see claims can be examined. They can be evaluated. They can be used
as a basis for further work if it turns out that they represent something
new and interesting and desirable.
For me this isn't just an academic question.
I can buy and run Snow Leopard if I want.
vi isn't easy to use. |||
/ | \
vi is easy to REPLACE.