Linux vs OS X vs "Other alternitives"... - Minix

This is a discussion on Linux vs OS X vs "Other alternitives"... - Minix ; Based on: Torvalds pans Apple with 'utter crap' putdown http://www.smh.com.au/news/technolog...090393959.html Linux vs OS X vs "Other alternatives"... I assume they both do it =================== CARDINAL SIN: Linux and OS X both not only run drivers and the file system in ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Linux vs OS X vs "Other alternitives"...

  1. Linux vs OS X vs "Other alternitives"...

    Based on:
    Torvalds pans Apple with 'utter crap' putdown
    http://www.smh.com.au/news/technolog...090393959.html

    Linux vs OS X vs "Other alternatives"...

    I assume they both do it
    ===================
    CARDINAL SIN:
    Linux and OS X both not only run drivers and the file system in the kernel
    privilege space, MINUX and QNX typically don't do this. As a general rule,
    the FS and Drivers and networking should run at 'privileged user' level and
    not system privilege (aka 'su') level. The troika of FS, Drivers and
    networking should not be (a substantial) part of kernel. Keep the kernel
    under 50,000 lines of auditable code -- but 20,000 lines or less is
    preferred.
    ===================

    FILE SYSTEM SUPPORT:
    Linux has almost universal file system support, it runs and boots on about
    anything -- not so much so for OS X
    OS X uses a special FS version for backward compatibility with older Mac
    Apps; Linux can't read this FS!
    Linux should be able to read the slightly variant QNX RTOS FS, but I don't
    think it can do this either.

    TASK SWITCHING:
    Linux uses more lightweight processes than OS X -- but most hardened server
    users can't tell the difference

    X11R7:
    Linux 100%, OS X: there but obscure. Mac Apps cannot be run remotely by X11
    as far as I can tell

    UPGRADING:
    Hard manual labour with some Linux configs, ASUS Eee PC and other versions:
    almost fixed.
    Apple: OS X probably still has the best overall upgrade system.
    Global view: The overall problem is 60% solved. Huge work to be done still.

    POWER MANAGMENT:
    OS X has a very PC like implementation, but I assume power management is not
    in the kernel.
    Linux seems to have had power management added to the kernel space -- bad
    idea.
    It is OK to run power management at system level privilege, but the kernel
    should itself only be slightly modified to make optimal use of sleeping and
    self shutdown.

    Hiding UNIX interface:
    Only some versions of Linux do this well: Linspire (maybe), ASUS Eee PC
    (yes) ... vast work needs to be done.
    OS X does do an excellent job of hiding Unix's interfaces -- to the point of
    transparency.
    Overall: 30% work accomplished, 70% yet to be done (not all universally on
    Linux side).

    == Moral and conclusion ==
    Linux although not crap, needs great improvements to keep it leading edge.
    OS X probably needs an internal cleaning and upgrades to keep it current
    with Linux.
    Both have hyperobese kernel structures, and a redesign is needed to maintain
    performance gains.


  2. Re: Linux vs OS X vs "Other alternitives"...


    "Max Power" wrote in message
    news:fok7o7$9hk$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
    > Based on:
    > Torvalds pans Apple with 'utter crap' putdown
    >

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/technolog...090393959.html
    > view: The overall problem is 60% solved. Huge work to be done still.
    >





    interface:
    > Only some versions of Linux do this well: Linspire (maybe), ASUS Eee PC
    > (yes) ... vast work needs to be done.
    > OS X does do an excellent job of hiding Unix's interfaces -- to the point

    of
    > transparency.
    > Overall: 30% work accomplished, 70% yet to be done (not all universally on
    > Linux side).
    >
    > == Moral and conclusion ==
    > Linux although not crap, needs great improvements to keep it leading edge.
    > OS X probably needs an internal cleaning and upgrades to keep it current
    > with Linux.
    > Both have hyperobese kernel structures, and a redesign is needed to

    maintain
    > performance gains.
    >


    I was recently give a couple of perfectly good G3's
    that were missing the HD's.
    I put in some spare drives.

    The only MAC OS I have is OS9 and it would not load onto the G3's...
    and I am hardly going to go out and purchase OS-X to load onto a couple of
    older freebies.

    Loaded Linux on them and they work just fine...
    two perfectly good machines now 100% free of charge.

    Is Linux the best OS out there?

    In many cases, the answer is: It's the *only* OS out there!


    FWIW: I used Ubuntu which is not my first choice when using Linux on a PC...
    but ...it works just fine



  3. Re: Linux vs OS X vs "Other alternitives"...

    Max Power wrote:
    > Based on:
    > Torvalds pans Apple with 'utter crap' putdown
    > http://www.smh.com.au/news/technolog...090393959.html
    >
    >
    > Linux vs OS X vs "Other alternatives"...
    >
    > I assume they both do it
    > ===================
    > CARDINAL SIN:
    > Linux and OS X both not only run drivers and the file system in the
    > kernel privilege space, MINUX and QNX typically don't do this. As a
    > general rule, the FS and Drivers and networking should run at
    > 'privileged user' level and not system privilege (aka 'su') level. The
    > troika of FS, Drivers and networking should not be (a substantial) part
    > of kernel. Keep the kernel under 50,000 lines of auditable code -- but
    > 20,000 lines or less is preferred.
    > ===================
    >
    > FILE SYSTEM SUPPORT:
    > Linux has almost universal file system support, it runs and boots on
    > about anything -- not so much so for OS X
    > OS X uses a special FS version for backward compatibility with older Mac
    > Apps; Linux can't read this FS!
    > Linux should be able to read the slightly variant QNX RTOS FS, but I
    > don't think it can do this either.
    >
    > TASK SWITCHING:
    > Linux uses more lightweight processes than OS X -- but most hardened
    > server users can't tell the difference
    >
    > X11R7:
    > Linux 100%, OS X: there but obscure. Mac Apps cannot be run remotely by
    > X11 as far as I can tell
    >
    > UPGRADING:
    > Hard manual labour with some Linux configs, ASUS Eee PC and other
    > versions: almost fixed.
    > Apple: OS X probably still has the best overall upgrade system.
    > Global view: The overall problem is 60% solved. Huge work to be done still.
    >
    > POWER MANAGMENT:
    > OS X has a very PC like implementation, but I assume power management is
    > not in the kernel.
    > Linux seems to have had power management added to the kernel space --
    > bad idea.
    > It is OK to run power management at system level privilege, but the
    > kernel should itself only be slightly modified to make optimal use of
    > sleeping and self shutdown.
    >
    > Hiding UNIX interface:
    > Only some versions of Linux do this well: Linspire (maybe), ASUS Eee PC
    > (yes) ... vast work needs to be done.
    > OS X does do an excellent job of hiding Unix's interfaces -- to the
    > point of transparency.
    > Overall: 30% work accomplished, 70% yet to be done (not all universally
    > on Linux side).
    >
    > == Moral and conclusion ==
    > Linux although not crap, needs great improvements to keep it leading edge.
    > OS X probably needs an internal cleaning and upgrades to keep it current
    > with Linux.
    > Both have hyperobese kernel structures, and a redesign is needed to
    > maintain performance gains.
    >



    So show us the code......it's OSS after all.

  4. Re: Linux vs OS X vs "Other alternitives"...

    "Max Power" writes:

    >Based on:
    >Torvalds pans Apple with 'utter crap' putdown
    >http://www.smh.com.au/news/technolog...090393959.html


    Zero information there. Linus is upset about something re the filesystem on
    OSX but the article does not say what.


    >Linux vs OS X vs "Other alternatives"...


    >I assume they both do it


    Both do what?

    >===================
    >CARDINAL SIN:
    >Linux and OS X both not only run drivers and the file system in the kernel
    >privilege space, MINUX and QNX typically don't do this. As a general rule,
    >the FS and Drivers and networking should run at 'privileged user' level and
    >not system privilege (aka 'su') level. The troika of FS, Drivers and
    >networking should not be (a substantial) part of kernel. Keep the kernel
    >under 50,000 lines of auditable code -- but 20,000 lines or less is
    >preferred.
    >===================


    This is a "sin" why? If you worship at the holy microkernel church, perhaps
    it is a sin. Otherwise it is philosophy that may or may not work better for
    your application.


    >FILE SYSTEM SUPPORT:
    >Linux has almost universal file system support, it runs and boots on about
    >anything -- not so much so for OS X
    >OS X uses a special FS version for backward compatibility with older Mac
    >Apps; Linux can't read this FS!
    >Linux should be able to read the slightly variant QNX RTOS FS, but I don't
    >think it can do this either.


    >TASK SWITCHING:
    >Linux uses more lightweight processes than OS X -- but most hardened server
    >users can't tell the difference


    >X11R7:
    >Linux 100%, OS X: there but obscure. Mac Apps cannot be run remotely by X11
    >as far as I can tell


    >UPGRADING:
    >Hard manual labour with some Linux configs, ASUS Eee PC and other versions:
    >almost fixed.
    >Apple: OS X probably still has the best overall upgrade system.
    >Global view: The overall problem is 60% solved. Huge work to be done still.


    >POWER MANAGMENT:
    >OS X has a very PC like implementation, but I assume power management is not
    >in the kernel.
    >Linux seems to have had power management added to the kernel space -- bad
    >idea.
    >It is OK to run power management at system level privilege, but the kernel
    >should itself only be slightly modified to make optimal use of sleeping and
    >self shutdown.


    Again another sermon.


    >Hiding UNIX interface:
    >Only some versions of Linux do this well: Linspire (maybe), ASUS Eee PC
    >(yes) ... vast work needs to be done.


    Why do you want to "hide unix interface" whatever that means?

    >OS X does do an excellent job of hiding Unix's interfaces -- to the point of
    >transparency.


    No idea what his means.

    >Overall: 30% work accomplished, 70% yet to be done (not all universally on
    >Linux side).


    No idea what "work" this is.


    >== Moral and conclusion ==
    >Linux although not crap, needs great improvements to keep it leading edge.
    >OS X probably needs an internal cleaning and upgrades to keep it current
    >with Linux.
    >Both have hyperobese kernel structures, and a redesign is needed to maintain
    >performance gains.


    Your evidence that the kernel structure impacts performance adversely is
    what?




  5. Re: Linux vs OS X vs "Other alternitives"...

    Max Power wrote:
    > Based on:
    > Torvalds pans Apple with 'utter crap' putdown
    > http://www.smh.com.au/news/technolog...090393959.html
    >
    >
    > Linux vs OS X vs "Other alternatives"...
    >
    > I assume they both do it
    > ===================
    > CARDINAL SIN:
    > Linux and OS X both not only run drivers and the file system in the
    > kernel privilege space, MINUX and QNX typically don't do this. As a
    > general rule, the FS and Drivers and networking should run at
    > 'privileged user' level and not system privilege (aka 'su') level. The
    > troika of FS, Drivers and networking should not be (a substantial) part
    > of kernel. Keep the kernel under 50,000 lines of auditable code -- but
    > 20,000 lines or less is preferred.
    > ===================


    Bzzpt! Whatever...
    You are welcome to write your own kernel. Or switch to QNX and
    enjoy the wondrous benefits. I guess that's why QNX is the most
    popular OS out there after all...



    >
    > FILE SYSTEM SUPPORT:
    > Linux has almost universal file system support, it runs and boots on
    > about anything -- not so much so for OS X
    > OS X uses a special FS version for backward compatibility with older Mac
    > Apps; Linux can't read this FS!
    > Linux should be able to read the slightly variant QNX RTOS FS, but I
    > don't think it can do this either.


    Anything is possible. Again, feel free to add the support for it.
    Freedom is a powerful thing to have.

    >
    > TASK SWITCHING:
    > Linux uses more lightweight processes than OS X -- but most hardened
    > server users can't tell the difference
    >
    > X11R7:
    > Linux 100%, OS X: there but obscure. Mac Apps cannot be run remotely by
    > X11 as far as I can tell


    Ok...??

    >
    > UPGRADING:
    > Hard manual labour with some Linux configs, ASUS Eee PC and other
    > versions: almost fixed.
    > Apple: OS X probably still has the best overall upgrade system.
    > Global view: The overall problem is 60% solved. Huge work to be done still.


    You know.. it's easier to upgrade a platform with a more limited scope
    of devices that are supported. Does Apple control driver delivery or
    is that done by the peripheral manufacturer? For the most part,
    the reverse engineered (mostly) drivers come with Linux. That's
    a huge difference. Ask me to upgrade a Windows user... it's a mess.
    Many hours of upgrading individual driver pieces. Can take all day
    long. Maybe Apple makes all device driver upgrades go through
    them somehow (??).

    >
    > POWER MANAGMENT:
    > OS X has a very PC like implementation, but I assume power management is
    > not in the kernel.
    > Linux seems to have had power management added to the kernel space --
    > bad idea.
    > It is OK to run power management at system level privilege, but the
    > kernel should itself only be slightly modified to make optimal use of
    > sleeping and self shutdown.


    The ability to shutdown, remove, hotplug and bring back to life
    the devices that are used within a system is a complicated thing.
    However, IF this can be successfully done, live swapping out of
    a running kernel is probably trivial.

    Btw, you may want to look a bit more at some of the power
    management in Linux distros. You'll find a significant part
    in userland.

    >
    > Hiding UNIX interface:
    > Only some versions of Linux do this well: Linspire (maybe), ASUS Eee PC
    > (yes) ... vast work needs to be done.
    > OS X does do an excellent job of hiding Unix's interfaces -- to the
    > point of transparency.
    > Overall: 30% work accomplished, 70% yet to be done (not all universally
    > on Linux side).


    Hmmm.... this depends very much on the user. For >90% of all users,
    the shell (if that's what you mean) is hidden. But you know, Linux
    (meaning GNU/Linux aka a distro) is designed to be all things
    to all people. Isn't it nice to know that you can have an OS that never
    says "no" to what you are wanting to do?

    Linux fits into many spaces that OS X and Windows cannot because of
    its flexibility (and the freedom of the platform).

    >
    > == Moral and conclusion ==
    > Linux although not crap, needs great improvements to keep it leading edge.
    > OS X probably needs an internal cleaning and upgrades to keep it current
    > with Linux.
    > Both have hyperobese kernel structures, and a redesign is needed to
    > maintain performance gains.
    >


    Freedom. Neither Windows nor OS X are going to give you the freedom
    to make the necessary modifications to adhere to your view of the world.
    However, you DO have the freedom to make the changes to Linux and to
    >90% of the applications that come with a common Linux distribution.

    And that's REALLY the important difference.

  6. Linux only alternitive to OS9... I did not know

    Linux as the only alternitive to OS9 -- for the older RISC PCs ... I did not
    know that this was the case.

    I never meant to cover this case, but needless to say Linux with some
    microkernal like fixes would probably run even better on older Macs (RISC,
    non 68x).

    Still there is no reason why OS X and Linux can't be at design / performance
    parity.


    ////////////////////////////////
    >> Based on: Torvalds pans Apple with 'utter crap' putdown
    >>

    > http://www.smh.com.au/news/technolog...090393959.html
    >> view: The overall problem is 60% solved. Huge work to be done still.

    ==============
    >> == Moral and conclusion ==
    >> Linux although not crap, needs great improvements to keep it leading
    >> edge.
    >> OS X probably needs an internal cleaning and upgrades to keep it current
    >> with Linux. Both have hyperobese kernel structures, and a redesign is
    >> needed to
    > >maintain performance gains.


    ///////////////////////////////

    > I was recently give a couple of perfectly good G3's
    > that were missing the HD's. I put in some spare drives.
    >
    > The only MAC OS I have is OS9 and it would not load onto the G3's...
    > and I am hardly going to go out and purchase OS-X to load onto a couple of
    > older freebies.
    >
    > Loaded Linux on them and they work just fine... two perfectly good
    > machines now 100% free of charge.
    >
    > Is Linux the best OS out there?
    >
    > In many cases, the answer is: It's the *only* OS out there!
    >
    > FWIW: I used Ubuntu which is not my first choice when using Linux on a PC
    > ... but ...it works just fine.




  7. Linux vs OS X vs "Other alternitives"... but microkernals not perfect everywhere

    I don't strictly believe in Microkernals.
    However, Microkernal design ideas and concepts have earned their keep many
    times over.
    Yet, I believe a new balance between adaptability and readability will need
    to be reached sometime in future.

    Linux (like OS X) is at its design limit when it comes to core OS (kernel)
    code.
    Having hundreds of thousands of lines of kernel code is just setting up
    conditions for KERNAL PANIC and Triple Faults.
    Putting the drivers into the 'user' privilege space -- and reducing the
    kernel size by 50% -- would make Linux even more robust than it already is.

    The Linux 'File Systems' to the extent that they are in the kernel needs to
    gradually be moved out of the kernel space.
    I don't mind ~3 file systems in the kernel area (FAT16, FAT32; NTFS(3.1)?
    and maybe ReiserFS + Swap FS).
    Other Unix like FS's should have fully support as usual -- just not in the
    kernel.
    I don't think that this will affect Linux's interoperability or performance
    or adaptability in any way -- so long as the code moves are open to public
    inspection.
    The user should not notice any change at installation or at any other point
    of operation.

    There is no reason why a future Linux can't be used on a spacecraft
    (remember the Voyager Programme) -- and run continuously for 10 or 20 years
    without a reboot. Minix and QNX (and to a lesser degree VxWorks) can do this
    now. That does not mean that Linux has to be a classical microkernel.

    >>===================
    >>CARDINAL SIN:
    >>Linux and OS X both not only run drivers and the file system in the kernel
    >>privilege space, MINUX and QNX typically don't do this. As a general rule,
    >>the FS and Drivers and networking should run at 'privileged user' level
    >>and
    >>not system privilege (aka 'su') level. The troika of FS, Drivers and
    >>networking should not be (a substantial) part of kernel. Keep the kernel
    >>under 50,000 lines of auditable code -- but 20,000 lines or less is
    >>preferred.
    >>===================

    >
    > This is a "sin" why? If you worship at the holy microkernel church,
    > perhaps
    > it is a sin. Otherwise it is philosophy that may or may not work better
    > for
    > your application.



  8. Linux vs OS X vs "Other alternitives"... but microkernals not perfect everywhere

    I don't strictly believe in Microkernals.

    However, Microkernal design ideas and concepts have earned their keep many
    times over.

    Yet, I believe a new balance between adaptability and relyability will need
    to be reached sometime in future.

    Linux (like OS X) is at its design limit when it comes to core OS (kernel)
    code.

    Having hundreds of thousands of lines of kernel code is just setting up
    conditions for KERNAL PANIC and Triple Faults.

    Putting the drivers into the 'user' privilege space -- and reducing the
    kernel size by 50% -- would make Linux even more robust than it already is.

    The Linux 'File Systems' to the extent that they are in the kernel needs to
    gradually be moved out of the kernel space.

    I don't mind ~3 file systems in the kernel area (FAT16, FAT32; NTFS(3.1)?
    and maybe ReiserFS + Swap FS).

    Other Unix like FS's should have fully support as usual -- just not in the
    kernel.

    I don't think that this will affect Linux's interoperability or performance
    or adaptability in any way -- so long as the code moves are open to public
    inspection.

    The user should not notice any change at installation or at any other point
    of operation.

    There is no reason why a future Linux can't be used on a spacecraft
    (remember the Voyager Programme) -- and run continuously for 10 or 20 years
    without a reboot. Minix and QNX (and to a lesser degree VxWorks) can do this
    now. That does not mean that Linux has to be a classical microkernel.

    >>===================
    >>CARDINAL SIN:
    >>Linux and OS X both not only run drivers and the file system in the kernel
    >>privilege space, MINUX and QNX typically don't do this. As a general rule,
    >>the FS and Drivers and networking should run at 'privileged user' level
    >>and not system privilege (aka 'su') level. The troika of FS, Drivers and
    >>networking should not be (a substantial) part of kernel. Keep the kernel
    >>under 50,000 lines of auditable code -- but 20,000 lines or less is
    >>preferred.
    >>===================

    >
    > This is a "sin" why? If you worship at the holy microkernel church,
    > perhaps it is a sin. Otherwise it is philosophy that may or may not work
    > better
    > for your application.



  9. Re: Linux vs OS X vs "Other alternitives"... but microkernals not perfect everywhere

    Max Power hallucinated:

    > I don't strictly believe in Microkernals.
    >
    > However, Microkernal design ideas and concepts have earned their keep many
    > times over.


    They do? Where?

    > Yet, I believe a new balance between adaptability and relyability will
    > need to be reached sometime in future.
    >
    > Linux (like OS X) is at its design limit when it comes to core OS (kernel)
    > code.


    Interesting. The kernel crew will probably disagree

    > Having hundreds of thousands of lines of kernel code is just setting up
    > conditions for KERNAL PANIC and Triple Faults.


    *That* has to be the reason I have not seen a kernel panic in several years.
    The last one was 6 or 7 years ago, when a disk started to fail.
    BTW, triple faults are something entirely different

    > Putting the drivers into the 'user' privilege space -- and reducing the
    > kernel size by 50% -- would make Linux even more robust than it already
    > is.


    Ah yes.

    > The Linux 'File Systems' to the extent that they are in the kernel needs
    > to gradually be moved out of the kernel space.


    Why?

    > I don't mind ~3 file systems in the kernel area (FAT16, FAT32; NTFS(3.1)?
    > and maybe ReiserFS + Swap FS).


    That is prolly nice of you. May I ask who made you "OSS culling committee
    chairman"?

    > Other Unix like FS's should have fully support as usual -- just not in the
    > kernel.


    Naturally not. After all, they would work best there. Can't have that

    > I don't think that this will affect Linux's interoperability or
    > performance or adaptability in any way -- so long as the code moves are
    > open to public inspection.


    Naturally. After all, these recent attempts at hiding code must be stopped
    at all cost

    > The user should not notice any change at installation or at any other
    > point of operation.



    No. Best would be to completely halt any chnage to linux for a time, like 10
    years. One could make agreements with MS to introduce new versions at the
    same time MS innovates a new Windows version


    < snip more utter lunacy >

    Idiot

    Stay with your "micro kernel" Vista and just hide well enough that nobody is
    viewing such a display of complete stupidity
    --
    Klingon function calls do not have 'parameters' -
    they have 'arguments' - and they ALWAYS WIN THEM.


  10. Re: Linux only alternitive to OS9... I did not know

    Max Power wrote:

    > Linux as the only alternitive to OS9 -- for the older RISC PCs ... I did
    > not know that this was the case.
    >
    > I never meant to cover this case, but needless to say Linux with some
    > microkernal like fixes would probably run even better on older Macs (RISC,
    > non 68x).


    You mean, they would better waste processor power?

    > Still there is no reason why OS X and Linux can't be at design /
    > performance parity.


    MAy I ask what reason there would be to make linux *that* *much* slower?

    < snip bottom quote from an imbecile >
    --
    Microsoft? Is that some kind of a toilet paper?


  11. Re: Linux only alternitive to OS9... I did not know

    Max Power wrote:
    > Linux as the only alternitive to OS9 -- for the older RISC PCs ... I did
    > not know that this was the case.
    >
    > I never meant to cover this case, but needless to say Linux with some
    > microkernal like fixes would probably run even better on older Macs
    > (RISC, non 68x).
    >
    > Still there is no reason why OS X and Linux can't be at design /
    > performance parity.


    This is *off-topic* for most if not all of these groups.

    That said, Apple maintains tight control over what hardware is "Macintosh approved". This helps reduce a lot of setup pain, and helps assure thorough integration of available components. This makes a noticeable increase in price (for the additional testing needed to get that seal of approval) and in performance (due to the proper integration, rather than the often haphazard driver and software integration of the open source community).

  12. Re: Linux only alternitive to OS9... I did not know


    "Max Power" wrote in message
    news:fomgm5$481$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
    > Linux as the only alternitive to OS9 -- for the older RISC PCs ... I did

    not
    > know that this was the case.
    >
    > I never meant to cover this case, but needless to say Linux with some
    > microkernal like fixes would probably run even better on older Macs (RISC,
    > non 68x).
    >
    > Still there is no reason why OS X and Linux can't be at design /

    performance
    > parity.
    >
    >



    Here is a link to the machine specs

    http://support.apple.com/specs/power...and-White.html


    The cpu is a PPC





  13. Re: Linux vs OS X vs "Other alternitives"... but microkernals notperfect everywhere

    linux vs OSX or BSD, MSWIN, MINIX, GNU/MACH etc.....

    System studied for different things, do different things..... tryng to
    find the best kernel, it's a useless way to waste time..... doesn't
    seems so?


  14. Re: Linux vs OS X vs "Other alternitives"...

    In article ,
    "philo" wrote:

    > I was recently give a couple of perfectly good G3's
    > that were missing the HD's.
    > I put in some spare drives.
    >
    > The only MAC OS I have is OS9 and it would not load onto the G3's...
    > and I am hardly going to go out and purchase OS-X to load onto a couple of
    > older freebies.


    All G3s will run/boot OS 9.
    Sounds like you had a model specific installer,
    which comes with new Macs.
    The retail OS 9 installer, which I have, installs on all G3s, most G4s.
    and previous PPC Macs.

    OS 9 runs (boots) on PPC Macs from 1994 up to my (2003) G4/1.25 MDD, on
    which I run the latest OS X.5 Leopard.
    In Classic mode under OS X, OS 9 runs on all OS X supported PPC Macs,
    before the Intel Macs.

  15. Re: Linux vs OS X vs "Other alternitives"...


    "Mac G" wrote in message
    news:tomacguy-30AFCE.13415811022008@news.telus.net...
    > In article ,
    > "philo" wrote:
    >
    > > I was recently give a couple of perfectly good G3's
    > > that were missing the HD's.
    > > I put in some spare drives.
    > >
    > > The only MAC OS I have is OS9 and it would not load onto the G3's...
    > > and I am hardly going to go out and purchase OS-X to load onto a couple

    of
    > > older freebies.

    >
    > All G3s will run/boot OS 9.
    > Sounds like you had a model specific installer,
    > which comes with new Macs.
    > The retail OS 9 installer, which I have, installs on all G3s, most G4s.
    > and previous PPC Macs.
    >
    > OS 9 runs (boots) on PPC Macs from 1994 up to my (2003) G4/1.25 MDD, on
    > which I run the latest OS X.5 Leopard.
    > In Classic mode under OS X, OS 9 runs on all OS X supported PPC Macs,
    > before the Intel Macs.



    AFAIK I had just a "generic" OS9 cd that booted fine on a Performa.
    The G3's did have a few minor bugs in them so they were certainly less than
    perfect
    specimens...But at least I got an OS installed...
    I never like to take a machine down to the computer recycler if there is any
    possible hope for it



  16. Re: Linux vs OS X vs "Other alternitives"... but microkernals notperfect everywhere

    axjslack@gmail.com wrote:
    > linux vs OSX or BSD, MSWIN, MINIX, GNU/MACH etc.....
    >
    > System studied for different things, do different things..... tryng to
    > find the best kernel, it's a useless way to waste time..... doesn't
    > seems so?
    >



    Or in other words....'whatever floats yer boat' eh?

+ Reply to Thread