Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 21 Aug 2002 20:23:30 -0400 (EDT)
From:      John Bleichert <syborg@stny.rr.com>
To:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: FreeBSD on a Mac
Message-ID:  <Pine.LNX.4.44.0208212020270.17375-100000@janeway.vonbek.dhs.org>
In-Reply-To: <1029957422.17756.59.camel@markx.vladsempire.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 21 Aug 2002, Josh Paetzel wrote:
> Date: 21 Aug 2002 19:17:01 +0000
> From: Josh Paetzel <friar_josh@webwarrior.net>
> On Thu, 2002-08-22 at 00:11, John Bleichert wrote:
> > On 21 Aug 2002, Josh Paetzel wrote:
> > > From: Josh Paetzel <friar_josh@webwarrior.net>
> > <snip>
> > > On Wed, 2002-08-21 at 23:45, David Kelly wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 21 August 2002 04:17 pm, Derrick MacPherson wrote:
> > > > > > If there is any feature I'd like for FreeBSD to have is Apple's
> > > > > > Aqua.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah, it's a nice interface, I find it gets more annoying after time
> > > > > though. To be honest, my fave interface to any unix I have used so
> > > > > far is 4Dwm from SGI. There was a few attempts at creating Aqua for
> > > > > Linux, but Apple asked them to stop working on it. Short sighted I
> > > > > would think, but what else is new?
> > > > 
> > > > I too miss the simple and clean 4Dwm.
> > > > 
> > > > But its not just the look of Aqua I desire for FreeBSD, but the whole 
> > > > shooting match behind it. If FreeBSD had that then all MacOS X 
> > > > applications should be as easy or easier to port to FreeBSD than Linux 
> > > > apps are today.
> > > > 
> > > > And Apple would have a state of the art x86 platform.
> > > > 
> > > > -- 
> > > > David Kelly N4HHE, dkelly@hiwaay.net
> > > 
> > > A stste of the art i386 platform would be the death knell of apple. 
> > > They are a hardware company.  If suddenly all they had to sell was OSX
> > > and the other 3 apps they make that no one uses where does that leave
> > > them?
> > > 
> > > Apple is a lot like Sun, or SGI, or to stretch the analogy a tad
> > > Compaq/HP.  When you buy their systems you are buying a turn-key
> > > solution.  They (sometimes) designed the hardware, they wrote the OS,
> > > they wrote the drivers, and there's on number on the back of the
> > > handbook you call when something gets fux0red.
> > > 
> > > I'm not claiming to have the end-all authoritative opinion on this, but
> > > apple WOULD have to do some radical shifting around of their operation
> > > if they were going to do OSX on i386, and I just don't see that shifting
> > > around happening.
> > > 
> > > Josh
> > > 
> > 
> > The reason we got a PowerMac was for the tightly integrated hardware/opsys 
> > design. It's very cool, and I'm a PPC fan anyway. I like Aqua for it's 
> > polish and visual appeal, but I like XFree86 for it's ridiculous, arcane 
> > configurability and speed. 
> > 
> > I would rather have OSX on PowerPC hardware and nice, clean, quick FreeBSD 
> > on my Athlon.
> > 
> > But Mr. Kelly's comment about "a state of the art x86 platform" still 
> > stands.
> > 
> > JB
> > 
> 
> Right, which goes back to Apple can't control the hardware anymore, and
> they are forced to compete pricewise with Dastardly Dan's House of
> Clones.  Think IBM, circa 1983.
> 
> Josh
> 

Right - I agree with you, Apple will and should stay on PPC and not x86 
hardware, for better or worse. I just agreed they'd have a good system on 
x86 too.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.44.0208212020270.17375-100000>