Comment Re:Several exploits (Score 1) 554
Ok, my bad - I should have explained:
Yes, I understand you're saying "(you've) never stated that OS X is "just a UNIX" or is "primarily a UNIX" or that "the most significant thing about it is its UNIX-ness". Just that it is, among many things, a UNIX"
The point that I try to present is that through it's evolution, OS X continues to be based less and less on UNIX technology as components are replaced with (arguably) better ones, while retaining the same functionality and compatibility. This provides developers and enterprise some backwards-compat and ease of integration among "true" 'nix systems, while leaving the largest chunk of the market - companies like mine - the best of both worlds.
Like my remix and hybrid car analogy, if a human being is augmented over 10, 20 years, via successive versioning we'll call Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, and...Sabretooth (I should TM that) - until all that remains is a robot with a human "interface and compatibility layer" - (read: flesh, ai, repro) - do you still call it a human? I'd say "Android with Human technology" At some point, "Human-Based" does become innaccurate. I concede that. And of course there are marketing reasons to continue using the term "UNIX-based," it's what caught most of us geek's attention.
(Pardon the run-ons, I'm pressed for time, so the editing sucks.)
As for a specific point it stopped being a UNIX, I asked the chaps in my dept, and most feel its murky at best. Ultimately, I think this may be a "glass half-full" issue. Its one of those things where the value is greater than the sum of it's parts.
One fellow says "Is Windows a DOS?"
(I say it's a shit soup.)
The distinction between "is" and "provides" can be very subtle. The iterations of evolution in the growth of any OS leave numerous points that are open for renaming or categorization. When dealing with terms that can be taken as product names as easily as they can a specific technology, we get into arguing shades of grey.
I say Windows stopped being DOS with W2k, with the kernel changes. One says 95, when you stopped seeing DOS. No one thinks Windows is DOS, yet Windows provides DOS technology for compatibility, and ultimately, was based on DOS. Yet it is, in fact a "Disk Operating System." (sh&t, that is the acronym, right? :) But no one actually says that, because of the sheer confusion it creates - many things fit that description.
Seriously, we could almost debate what defines "conciousness." But for the majority of us, the further something gets from its original state, the harder it is to feel accurate in using the same description. Perhaps it's the feeling that UNIX is as much a brand as it is a technology, or the radically different vibe you get interacting with OS X, but it simply feels less and less accurate to call it anything other than an OS "based on and providing UNIX technology." Based on 10% or 80%, I couldn't say. But it's divergent enough from every other beast that the mold simply doesn't fit.
Obviously, no one at Apple is going to say anything that would make us think that there will be less and less *nix technology in the OS in the future - it would scare a lot of you off. But for guys like me, who got into it initially because of the UNIX technology and provisions, the evolution or naming isn't that concerning. As long as the hooks are there for backwards-compat and interop, I'm cool to see things get swapped, as long as it's for the better. And as that happens, someone is going to decide it's no longer UNIX, and eventually say version XY.Z is no longer "based" on UNIX.
It's a fine line, and I wonder if we crossed it with Panther. I know that's when I started noticing big changes. The changes to Tiger (which I haven't picked up yet), that ASoTV described seem pretty big to me. Five years from now, I doubt they'll still be saying "Based On." Perhaps some will take that as a snub, but I think they're being about as accurate as they can be without getting hypertechnical, which few of us want, no?
Distilled: Often a product name or technology enter the mainstream and are rapidly contorted and missapplied (See: Kleenex, PC, Walkman). Marketing descriptions of actual products can often appear innaccurate to the minority of people with intimate knowledge of the sector. But this is often simply the result of trying to simplify the message for the market. Apple doesn't say "it's a UNIX" because that would obviously have explicit meaning for you, and set expectations. Rather, by saying "UNIX based" and "provides UNIX interop & X11 app compatibility," we buy it knowing that there's going to be differences and potential hiccups, more so than say simply shuffling your system from AIX to HP, or for Linux, Suse to Mandrake. Personally, I find it much better anytime marketing errs on the side of caution. We all know this ambiguity provides them a way out if something changes down the road, but why do we know it? Because we see the ambiguity, and the differences. M$ would not be so kind.
I'm still waiting for them to buy SCO so they can start the "me too!" game.
Anyways, I realize I just spent ten minutes typing this up, so I'm just going to say that after this, we may just have to agree to disagree. Hopefully we can at least agree this is a minor issue in the grand scheme of things. Personally, I'm just praying Apple keeps the momentum. I was a MS/RH guy before trying out OS X, (I really thought pre-X blew) and it's damn near changed my life.
Just out of curiosity - what OSes do you work with/prefer?
Yes, I understand you're saying "(you've) never stated that OS X is "just a UNIX" or is "primarily a UNIX" or that "the most significant thing about it is its UNIX-ness". Just that it is, among many things, a UNIX"
The point that I try to present is that through it's evolution, OS X continues to be based less and less on UNIX technology as components are replaced with (arguably) better ones, while retaining the same functionality and compatibility. This provides developers and enterprise some backwards-compat and ease of integration among "true" 'nix systems, while leaving the largest chunk of the market - companies like mine - the best of both worlds.
Like my remix and hybrid car analogy, if a human being is augmented over 10, 20 years, via successive versioning we'll call Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, and...Sabretooth (I should TM that) - until all that remains is a robot with a human "interface and compatibility layer" - (read: flesh, ai, repro) - do you still call it a human? I'd say "Android with Human technology" At some point, "Human-Based" does become innaccurate. I concede that. And of course there are marketing reasons to continue using the term "UNIX-based," it's what caught most of us geek's attention.
(Pardon the run-ons, I'm pressed for time, so the editing sucks.)
As for a specific point it stopped being a UNIX, I asked the chaps in my dept, and most feel its murky at best. Ultimately, I think this may be a "glass half-full" issue. Its one of those things where the value is greater than the sum of it's parts.
One fellow says "Is Windows a DOS?"
(I say it's a shit soup.)
The distinction between "is" and "provides" can be very subtle. The iterations of evolution in the growth of any OS leave numerous points that are open for renaming or categorization. When dealing with terms that can be taken as product names as easily as they can a specific technology, we get into arguing shades of grey.
I say Windows stopped being DOS with W2k, with the kernel changes. One says 95, when you stopped seeing DOS. No one thinks Windows is DOS, yet Windows provides DOS technology for compatibility, and ultimately, was based on DOS. Yet it is, in fact a "Disk Operating System." (sh&t, that is the acronym, right?
Seriously, we could almost debate what defines "conciousness." But for the majority of us, the further something gets from its original state, the harder it is to feel accurate in using the same description. Perhaps it's the feeling that UNIX is as much a brand as it is a technology, or the radically different vibe you get interacting with OS X, but it simply feels less and less accurate to call it anything other than an OS "based on and providing UNIX technology." Based on 10% or 80%, I couldn't say. But it's divergent enough from every other beast that the mold simply doesn't fit.
Obviously, no one at Apple is going to say anything that would make us think that there will be less and less *nix technology in the OS in the future - it would scare a lot of you off. But for guys like me, who got into it initially because of the UNIX technology and provisions, the evolution or naming isn't that concerning. As long as the hooks are there for backwards-compat and interop, I'm cool to see things get swapped, as long as it's for the better. And as that happens, someone is going to decide it's no longer UNIX, and eventually say version XY.Z is no longer "based" on UNIX.
It's a fine line, and I wonder if we crossed it with Panther. I know that's when I started noticing big changes. The changes to Tiger (which I haven't picked up yet), that ASoTV described seem pretty big to me. Five years from now, I doubt they'll still be saying "Based On." Perhaps some will take that as a snub, but I think they're being about as accurate as they can be without getting hypertechnical, which few of us want, no?
Distilled: Often a product name or technology enter the mainstream and are rapidly contorted and missapplied (See: Kleenex, PC, Walkman). Marketing descriptions of actual products can often appear innaccurate to the minority of people with intimate knowledge of the sector. But this is often simply the result of trying to simplify the message for the market. Apple doesn't say "it's a UNIX" because that would obviously have explicit meaning for you, and set expectations. Rather, by saying "UNIX based" and "provides UNIX interop & X11 app compatibility," we buy it knowing that there's going to be differences and potential hiccups, more so than say simply shuffling your system from AIX to HP, or for Linux, Suse to Mandrake. Personally, I find it much better anytime marketing errs on the side of caution. We all know this ambiguity provides them a way out if something changes down the road, but why do we know it? Because we see the ambiguity, and the differences. M$ would not be so kind.
I'm still waiting for them to buy SCO so they can start the "me too!" game.
Anyways, I realize I just spent ten minutes typing this up, so I'm just going to say that after this, we may just have to agree to disagree. Hopefully we can at least agree this is a minor issue in the grand scheme of things. Personally, I'm just praying Apple keeps the momentum. I was a MS/RH guy before trying out OS X, (I really thought pre-X blew) and it's damn near changed my life.
Just out of curiosity - what OSes do you work with/prefer?
