BOF meeting. It is not all bad!

[Jean Drolet]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bonjour...
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I was at the BOF meeting at Macworld last night. The news there was better
than one might be lead to believe based on the discussions that are taking
place on this list.

Here is what I understand based on statements made by Apple employees.
Since so much was said this is far from a complete report.

- They intend to deliver at least a watered-down version of OSX Server to
developers. After all, they need developers to write apps. If WO is
included, there will likely be a charge, but less than $995. Apple is
basically giving away the developer version of WO4.0 ($99) to academia. So
your guess is as good as mine regarding the developer price.
- Apple is operating in a new paradigm. They no longer pre-announce
products. They work in secret and they only announce products if they know
for sure that they will deliver and when. They believe that the surprise
effect is better from a marketting point of view. Several Apple employees
claimed to have been surprised by some of the announcements at the keynote.
Besides, this approach eliminates the vaporware factor. In the long run
this could give Apple more credibility with its customers, while, alas,
antagonizing its developers. Remember that Apple has promised the moon
several times in the past but not always delivered. Now delivery is
paramount.
- Regarding YellowBox for NT (and I suppose that applies to 98 as well),
they are working on some arrangements for licensing it. In the end the
arrangement may be that they don't productize it, but I think that when it
is ready and the time is right for its introduction, they will release it.
- I also got a sense that OSXServer is a product that is very much alive. I
think that they very much want to continue to improve on it in the future;
whether these improvement are introduced as new versions of OSXServer or
rolled into OSX or find there way in a wintel version, I don't know. They
are modest with this entry in the server market. They seem to be
approaching it with caution. But they did not set any limits to how far
they will take the technology in the future.
- They confirmed that OSXServer for wintel would not ship in February -- no
plans to productize it at all at the moment.
- Regarding Objective-C vs Java, they did not say anything negative about
objective-C. They simply said that they are promoting Java, which is
currently a second class citizen (nothing said about demoting objective-C).
They want to bring the benefits of the frameworks to multitude who program
in Java. I left thinking that learning Java might be a very good idea, but
that objective-C would continue to serve me well for several years at
least.

I also found more info at the Apple booth today:

- No PPP (but I found a hardware solution -- see my previous e-mail)

- They seem to realize that they need to provide OSX (not server) to
developers -- It may be in the form of a GM version in the first half of
the year.

I think that in the past, we were given scenarios of what would happen in
the future, and that future did not always come. Now, if we are only given
a snapshot of the present, it does not mean that there is no future. On the
contrary, the future may be brighter. Clearly, they do not want to break
anymore promises -- that is a very good sign indeed.

Sincerely,

J e a n D r o l e t
San Francisco

[Michael Giddings]

Hi Jean
I have no idea about your past experience with Steve Jobs and NeXT.
If you've had some such experience then you may know what I'm
talking about. If you don't, please listen to me I hope that if
nothing else it imparts some healthy skepticism of anything Apple
reps told you last night.

*EVERY* single time I can remember when dealing with these people,
when there is has been even the slightest hint that something might
be dropped or axed, it has been (in reference to YB/NT not being
"productized"). Almost every expectation had for any product related
to this technology has been crushed. There are often well meaning
employees in the company that will make things sound positive - but
it doesn't matter because a few words from Steve or any of the other
high-ups at Apple will change the policy in a microsecond, at any
time (even the day before it is planned to ship). There is nothing
that even well meaning employees such as Alex H.can do when that
happens. And it seems to happen with good frequency, if the past is
any judge.

I personally had a delusion that the iCEO had somehow grown up and
become more stable by the time he returned to Apple, therefore
stabilizing the future of Openstep/YB. But Apple, under his
direction, is acting exactly as NeXT did, particularly towards
developers who aren't in what Apple sees as vogue. Today his focus
is Games and game developers. Tomorrow they'll be dropped stone cold
for whatever the latest greatest is. To me that reflects upon Steve
(though it could be partly due to others he brought with him - I
don't know). Apple may sell a lot of computers now that they're in
flashy colors, etc., but that is no reason for me, or for many other
small developers, to continue with them. Sure, a Strawberry iMac
might look interesting on my desk, but as far as my work is concerned
it would be an $1,100 paperweight. I've programmed for the Mac
Toolbox before (prior to moving to NeXT) and I won't go back, for
many reasons. Instead I will move onto something that has a _future_
and is moving forward.

It's all well and good that Apple doesn't want to make promises they
can't keep. But what about promises they've already made? Such as
releasing at least one version of this technology for Intel? Such as
supporting the older macs? Such as releasing YB/NT with a runtime
for a reasonable price? Such as releasing this product anywhere near
when promised (Q3 98, err, no, by the end of the year, err, no, by
the end of Q1 99 . . . . . . . . . ) Well, obviously the combination
of the past Apple and the past NeXT = present Apple aren't a very
good one at keeping ANY promises whatsoever (since neither of the
component companies were ever good at that).

So, if you believe what the Apple reps told you, it seems we are
waiting for a black box (for which we will know nothing of the
details until it ships), from a company that has proven itself
unreliable. Looking at it positively one could say what they told
you: that they don't want to overpromise. Another way of looking at
it is that they have the gall to ask us to wait longer for a product
with uncertain specifications and uncertain future direction and
uncertain timeline, after breaking all other promises they've made
with respect to the product. Three days ago I would have been
looking at it the former way. But the delusion has now shattered. I
am suddenly (after 9 years!) seeing the glass as much worse than
half empty....

Michael Giddings

PS. Sorry for the continued venting. However, 9 years of this kind
of treatment from NeXT->Apple-> iHateComputersCO, is enough to build
up quite a bit of steam. I would in the past occasionally vent, but
rarely, so unfortunately most of it is coming out now. And since
everyone else around here uses Windows they could only say "I told
you so . . . ", which would not be very theraputic.

[Sebastian Gunner]

Post by Michael Giddings
It's all well and good that Apple doesn't want to make promises they
can't keep. But what about promises they've already made? Such as
releasing at least one version of this technology for Intel? Such as
supporting the older macs? Such as releasing YB/NT with a runtime
for a reasonable price? Such as releasing this product anywhere near
when promised (Q3 98, err, no, by the end of the year, err, no, by
the end of Q1 99 . . . . . . . . . ) Well, obviously the combination
of the past Apple and the past NeXT = present Apple aren't a very
good one at keeping ANY promises whatsoever (since neither of the
component companies were ever good at that).

If someone finally realises that they are a lier it is certainly
sensible to shut up for a while and pay carful attention to what they
actually say, listen to yourself speak and hear what you are saying you
are going to undertake and complete. There is little point in this
however if you simply decide not to ever promise again. The main issue
I would of thought is not so much the promises being broken as a point
of principle, because lets face it a lot doesn't happen if you never
make a promise, so much as the changes in direction and the management
of developer interest in the platform. Standing up to accoumplish
something is hard to condeme. One of your Presidents (Abraham Lincoln I
think) failed at many things, an A4 page of things, in his political
life before becoming President. I personally would like to hear not so
much specific product promises as a statement of intention for the
future. Apple is doing some great stuff, always has, but where are they
going as a company. There has been a lot of refocussing on Apple
stronge holds or what they consider to be there core markets in recent
times and this has, with other actions turned Apple from a state of
questionable viability to once again profitable and viable. What now?
what next? There is no new vision for the future of Apple to replace
the one that has been recently accoumplished through this refocussing
strategy. As something to go for it is already done. I was hoping that
the MacosX -S would indicate strongely the new future for Apple the new
markets and further strengthening of old markets. I would be happy with
a non technical statement of intent re its desire to expand its server
line and rest market share.

[Sebastian Gunner]

Post by Michael Giddings
It's all well and good that Apple doesn't want to make promises they
can't keep. But what about promises they've already made? Such as
releasing at least one version of this technology for Intel? Such as
supporting the older macs? Such as releasing YB/NT with a runtime
for a reasonable price? Such as releasing this product anywhere near
when promised (Q3 98, err, no, by the end of the year, err, no, by
the end of Q1 99 . . . . . . . . . ) Well, obviously the combination
of the past Apple and the past NeXT = present Apple aren't a very
good one at keeping ANY promises whatsoever (since neither of the
component companies were ever good at that).

If someone finally realizes that they are a liar it is certainly
sensible to shut up for a while and pay careful attention to what they
actually say, listen to yourself speak and hear what you are saying you
are going to undertake and complete. There is little point in this
however if you simply decide not to ever promise again. The main issue
I would of thought is not so much the promises being broken as a point
of principle, because lets face it a lot doesn't happen if you never
make a promise, so much as the changes in direction and the management
of developer interest in the platform. Standing up to accomplish
something is hard to condemn. One of your Presidents (Abraham Lincoln I
think) failed at many things, an A4 page of things, in his political
life before becoming President. I personally would like to hear not so
much specific product promises as a statement of intention for the
future. Apple is doing some great stuff, always has, but where are they
going as a company. There has been a lot of refocusing on Apple
strong holds or what they consider to be there core markets in recent
times and this has, with other actions turned Apple from a state of
questionable viability to once again profitable and viable. What now?
what next? There is no new vision for the future of Apple to replace
the one that has been recently accomplished through this refocusing
strategy. As something to go for it is already done. I was hoping that
the MacosX -S would indicate strongly the new future for Apple the new
markets and further strengthening of old markets. I would be happy with
a non technical statement of intent re its desire to expand its server
line and claim a noticeable market share.

[Michelle L. Buck]

It is odd that Apple does not want to break any promises given that I can
not recall them keeping any in the last 5+ years. OK they may or may not
have shipped OS 8.1 and 8.5 "on-time" but I don't care about those.

[Michelle L. Buck]

I can not now remember why I have stayed on this roller coaster ride to
poverty for so long. I woke up this morning and realized that I do not need
or want anything from Apple except my money back. In the past 9 years I
have spent or directed the spending of millions of dollars on the
technologies that are now apparently truly dead. I have no reason to
continue this crap so I won't.

[Michael Bartosh]

Post by Michelle L. Buck
It is odd that Apple does not want to break any promises given that I can
not recall them keeping any in the last 5+ years. OK they may or may not
have shipped OS 8.1 and 8.5 "on-time" but I don't care about those.

Bitter bitter bitter. Isn't it the NeXT people always saying Apple
needs to stop selling a religion and start being a business (not
accusing everyone here, but it's a common thread).

Well crucify them for making business decisions.

Mac hardware is _still_ coming down in price. Jobs has made it clear
that, rather than throwing a GREAT OS onto white boxes, he wants to
keep it at home and drop the cost on our boxes. This is smart to me.
The new G3's for $1599- wow- that kick serious price competitive ass.

YB for win- it's a good idea. I think. I hope they keep it. But
corporate knows more about corporate than I do. If Apple keeps coming
out with the coolest package- best hardware and greatest OS (anyone
here NOT at least pleased w/ OS X Server? Esp those at MacWorld who
have had a chance to see it?) then I will work my best to represent
them, and do what I can to advance within the culture.

If they drop the ball- if Jobs leaves or dies or something and
there's no one left in his wake that can take care of business- if
rumors start leaking weekly, and the number of cpu models baloons- if
inventory gets out of hand, the OS starts wreaking, and engineering
groups stumble around in the political mess that WAS Cupertino in the
Spindler-Amelio-Gasse- even late Scully days- I will be among the
first to leave.

I, for one, believe in the religion. A lot of people expect Apple to
conform to THEIR image of what it should be. Apple is not NeXT. Apple
is not a previous Apple. Apple is a new machine- the best of the Old,
the best of NeXT, w/ a little Chiat Day thrown in. Quit expecting,
quit demanding. Look at what is offered, be patient and wait for it-
when it comes, if you don't like it, don't storm off like a spoiled
kid.

Apple is not NeXT- it is not going to produce NEXTSTEP 5.0. It is not
the old apple- it is not going to produce "Mac OS 8.9.4a, w/ Server
Addition and Net Booting", it is going to produce MacOS X. New.
Mature. Different.

-mab

[Ronald C.F. Antony]

Post by Michael Bartosh
Mac hardware is _still_ coming down in price. Jobs has made it clear
that, rather than throwing a GREAT OS onto white boxes, he wants to
keep it at home and drop the cost on our boxes. This is smart to me.
The new G3's for $1599- wow- that kick serious price competitive ass.

And no business is going to toss out all the old hardware at once.
If MS were to stick to any niche, just because that niche is
profitable, they would never have grown to be that big.
The fact that Apple can make a bundle on their hardware/software
combo, doesn't mean they can't also take a bite out of the other
market. What matters is the profit, not the revenue.
Apple makes $x profit on a copy of of OSXS-Mac, they make $y profit
on the average G3 PowerMac. What stops them from selling OSXS-intel
for $999+$y? No loss in profit, potentially a few less machines
sold, a little less logistics problems and adding the potential
for new converts to their software platform.
In particular, they can take advantage of the fact that hardware
decisions are often made elsewhere than software decisions, and
switching to Mac requires thus TWO agreements, while just installing
Apple software on a PC requires just ONE.
Never mind, of course, the fact that they had made a promise in this
respect.

Post by Michael Bartosh
I, for one, believe in the religion. A lot of people expect Apple to
conform to THEIR image of what it should be. Apple is not NeXT. Apple
is not a previous Apple. Apple is a new machine- the best of the Old,
the best of NeXT, w/ a little Chiat Day thrown in. Quit expecting,
quit demanding. Look at what is offered, be patient and wait for it-
when it comes, if you don't like it, don't storm off like a spoiled
kid.

Good for you. If I want religion, I ask the Pope or go to a Rabbi.
I don't care about Apple. Apple is a company as greedy and worthless
as MS. What I care about is if I get the products I want or need.
Apple promised them, and they will not deliver.
I don't run storm off like a spoiled kid, I walk away in disgust like
a disgruntled customer. You know, that "the customer is king" principle
is my religion, not the "gracefully accept (and pay for) what Jobs
offers on the Apple altar".

Ronald
==============================================================================
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists
in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the
unreasonable man." G.B. Shaw | ***@cubiculum.com | NeXT-mail welcome

[Joshua Moore]

Post by Michael Bartosh
I, for one, believe in the religion. A lot of
people expect Apple to conform to THEIR
image of what it should be. Apple is not NeXT.
Apple is not a previous Apple. Apple is a new
machine- the best of the Old, the best of
NeXT, w/ a little Chiat Day thrown in. Quit
expecting, quit demanding. Look at what is
offered, be patient and wait for it- when it
comes, if you don't like it, don't storm off like a
spoiled kid.

We, collectively, owe nothing to Apple because we've bought from them in
the past. Many of us have been loyal users for many years of both NeXT
and Apple products, enjoyed them and endorsed them and maybe even
defended them against critics. The moment we start to feel
disenfranchised is exactly when we have the right to "storm off like a
spoiled child".

If the technology stops serving our needs and the current regime no
longer values what we value then we owe it to ourselves to move on. It's
not fair to make statements like this denigrating others (intentionally
or not) for making that choice.

Post by Michael Bartosh
Apple is not NeXT- it is not going to produce
NEXTSTEP 5.0. It is not the old apple- it is not
going to produce "Mac OS 8.9.4a, w/ Server
Addition and Net Booting", it is going to
produce MacOS X. New. Mature. Different.

That's left to be seen. It is my opinion that if they don't make changes
very quickly neither NeXT or Apple developers will stick around much
longer. It sounds fatalistic, but at the moment Apple isn't giving me
any reason to think differently.

We're at a crossroads. I'm willing to stick around until the WWDC, but
others can't wait that long. Others *won't* wait that long.

------
"But there's nothing more sadistic than an infant, waving his pistol in
my face. He wants me right down on my knees, crumbling in disgrace. He
underestimates my mind, I know he's messing with my head."
- Trigger Happy Jack by Poe

[William V. Campbell Jr.]

Post by Michael Bartosh

Post by Michelle L. Buck
It is odd that Apple does not want to break any promises given that I can
not recall them keeping any in the last 5+ years. OK they may or may not
have shipped OS 8.1 and 8.5 "on-time" but I don't care about those.

Bitter bitter bitter. Isn't it the NeXT people always saying Apple
needs to stop selling a religion and start being a business (not
accusing everyone here, but it's a common thread).
Well crucify them for making business decisions.
Mac hardware is _still_ coming down in price. Jobs has made it clear
that, rather than throwing a GREAT OS onto white boxes, he wants to
keep it at home and drop the cost on our boxes. This is smart to me.
The new G3's for $1599- wow- that kick serious price competitive ass.
YB for win- it's a good idea. I think. I hope they keep it. But
corporate knows more about corporate than I do. If Apple keeps coming
out with the coolest package- best hardware and greatest OS (anyone
here NOT at least pleased w/ OS X Server? Esp those at MacWorld who
have had a chance to see it?) then I will work my best to represent
them, and do what I can to advance within the culture.
If they drop the ball- if Jobs leaves or dies or something and
there's no one left in his wake that can take care of business- if
rumors start leaking weekly, and the number of cpu models baloons- if
inventory gets out of hand, the OS starts wreaking, and engineering
groups stumble around in the political mess that WAS Cupertino in the
Spindler-Amelio-Gasse- even late Scully days- I will be among the
first to leave.
I, for one, believe in the religion. A lot of people expect Apple to
conform to THEIR image of what it should be. Apple is not NeXT. Apple
is not a previous Apple. Apple is a new machine- the best of the Old,
the best of NeXT, w/ a little Chiat Day thrown in. Quit expecting,
quit demanding. Look at what is offered, be patient and wait for it-
when it comes, if you don't like it, don't storm off like a spoiled
kid.
Apple is not NeXT- it is not going to produce NEXTSTEP 5.0. It is not
the old apple- it is not going to produce "Mac OS 8.9.4a, w/ Server
Addition and Net Booting", it is going to produce MacOS X. New.
Mature. Different.
-mab

Bravo Michael, my sentiments exactly. But what the NeXt people really are
pissed about is no MacOS X Server for Intel. I can understand their
disappointment, this is a decision that I'm sure was not made lightly. You
can't take a Monopoly head-on until all your ducks are in a row, so to
speak.
I personally believe MXS-Intel will see the light of day when the time is
right. Of course this doesn't help the YB developers now, who have invested
time and money in hopes of using this product.
And it's not that they don't want to switch to the G3 machines, but the
customers that they are trying to sell to already have huge sums of money
invested in Intel boxes. These folks DO NOT want to buy new machines to run
so *new fangled* OS.

just my my .02

--
"I Am what I Am, and I Am what I Am Not"

from -"Conversations with God"

soup jr.
country liv'n
***@san.rr.com

[Michael Bartosh]

Post by Joshua Moore
We, collectively, owe nothing to Apple because we've bought from them in
the past. Many of us have been loyal users for many years of both NeXT
and Apple products, enjoyed them and endorsed them and maybe even
defended them against critics. The moment we start to feel
disenfranchised is exactly when we have the right to "storm off like a
spoiled child".

No- leaving is fine- if Apple doesn't suit your taste. But storming
out and acting all pissy because they didn't fit one person's
particular idea of what should be done- that's childish. We should
not expect them to please 100% of the people 100% of the time. I
don't like everything about the OS X strategy. I dislike quite a few
things about it. Overall, though, it's brilliant, IMHO. I think
they're doing a great job of pleasing the right amount of people.
There were some real consequences and some hard decisions to be made.
If I didn't think so, I wouldn't act like a child, I'd take my wares
elsewhere- probably BE- the haiku interface they had is very nice.

What I'm saying is that it's silly to, without knowing anything of
their internal business model or goals (and we shouldn't- hell, I am
employed by them and I don't know- I'm HiEd support, not corporate)
to impose some mold, based on OUR desires, and expect them to follow
it, even if it does not fit their business model and would, in their
opinions, endanger their revenue streams.

If you don't like it, fine. Go elsewhere, try to do it better (pull a
jobs and form another NeXT). Don't whine. (not that you were whining-
this is in regards to the original post)

-mab

[Gabriel Androczky]

Post by Michael Bartosh
What I'm saying is that it's silly to, without knowing anything of
their internal business model or goals (and we shouldn't- hell, I am
employed by them and I don't know- I'm HiEd support, not corporate)
to impose some mold, based on OUR desires, and expect them to follow
it, even if it does not fit their business model and would, in their
opinions, endanger their revenue streams.

I don't believe this is fair.
On the counterpart, for example Apple would have pulled out what is in
Mac OS and put in in the former OpenStep from NeXT and released for
example OpenStep 5 with all the good stuff which is in Mac OS and would
run it _only_ on intel boxes, would your opinion look like this?

Post by Michael Bartosh
If you don't like it, fine. Go elsewhere, try to do it better (pull a
jobs and form another NeXT). Don't whine. (not that you were whining-
this is in regards to the original post)

Sure, when investing in NeXT technology first, and then with the promise
of a follow-up, in Apple technology, we made a commitment and suddenly
almost every apparent reason we opted for this scheme is dropped.
This is much much money we've thrown out the window.

Now YOU come and say don't whine, go elsewhere, hang yourself?
Thanks a lot.

By acquiring NeXT, Apple has some moral, ethical obligations towards
former NeXT partners and customers. People can not be just dropped like
that. If it is so, what keep Apple from dropping YOU next time for
whatever reason related to their *business model* in the future.

Software business is just like any other business, you create something
there is need for. If people you intend to sell your product to don't
expect what you create, then you don't sell.
Why not satisfying the NEED of many former, actual and future customers,
especially when the product we're all *whining* about (OSX intel) has
already been pre-released to developers (Rhapsody intel). Now these
people HAVE already made investments.


Gabriel


--------------------------------------------------------------
A C C E N T C O M M U N I C A T I O N S

We Make Your Web Groove http://www.accentcomm.com
Tel: [phone] e-mail: ***@accentcomm.com
Fax: [phone]
--------------------------------------------------------------

[Ronald C.F. Antony]

Post by Michael Bartosh
No- leaving is fine- if Apple doesn't suit your taste. But storming
out and acting all pissy because they didn't fit one person's
particular idea of what should be done- that's childish. We should
not expect them to please 100% of the people 100% of the time.

No, but we should expect them to keep up the promises.
Unfortunately "baby-boomer flexi-morals"TM are commonplace these days,
and I bet Apple's lawyers find a way to explain us why a promise is
not a promise, the same way as Clinton was able to explain on TV how
touching a woman with objects and through clothes does not constitute
a "sexual relationship" even if it results in stains on HER clothes.
But I don't care about legalities, I care about the implicit trust
that has been broken.

Bill Gates at least can be trusted to do everything to keep people.
He screws the competition, not the customers (at least as long as they
are willing to pick up the tab).

Ronald
==============================================================================
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists
in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the
unreasonable man." G.B. Shaw | ***@cubiculum.com | NeXT-mail welcome

[Joshua Whalen]

Post by William V. Campbell Jr.
I personally believe MXS-Intel will see the light of day when the time is
right.

Something to keep in mind is what I believe is a significant
strategic thread that has been running through the steve's mind since he
returned to apple: How to get microsoft to undermine microsoft. In his
first macworld address back in '97 when he still just a "consultant", steve
said "Apple's victory does not depend on Microsoft's defeat" Now, this is a
near-excat paraphrase of the late Morihei Ueshiba, better known as Osensei,
founder of the japanese martial art, Aikido. OSensei said: "Your victory
does not depend on the attacker's defeat."

As a former intermediate Aikido student, I've noticed a very AiKi
like thread running through many of the choices, public statements, and
product releases vis-a-vis MS since the Steve's return. For example, at the
August '97 Macworld, Gates says, in a videotaped and multi-casted
statement, that "Microsoft will continue making Office for Mac in exchange
for Apple making IE the default browser for Mac." Steve then follows this
up with the statement: "MacOS plus Windows equals 100% of the personal
computer market" Several weeks later, DOJ begins their anti-trust
investigation of MS. Gates himself PUBLICLY delivered the last straw, and
Steve made him do it! And yet, Netscape gets all the blame, allowing apple
to pit one against the other and reap the greatest benefits!

In Dr. Tevanian's DOJ testimony, He states that apple killed Rhap
because MS leaned on them to do it. If Rhap ships before the trial ends,
this statement is obviously false. If Rhap ships after MS is declared to
have monopoly power, then Apple can ship Rhap intel with no repercussions
from MS, because as an officially decalred Monopoply, MS cannot kill one
product to protect another. This is all that has to come out of the DOJ
suit to end MS's bullying tactics, because it makes it EASY for any company
to make civil antitrust claims against MS. I think that, regardless of any
other outcome from the MS/DOJ suit, that MS will almost certainly be
decalred a monoploy, whether or not they are judged to have mis-used
monopoly power against netscape, et al.

So, this is what I think is really going on. Be patient. Steve is "Using
the one to cut the many", I think, and it looks like it's working.

Onegaishimatsu!

Joshua

[Joshua Whalen]

One little adendum to my post on Steve's "MacKiDo" strategy. For more
details on Ueshiba Sensei's teachings (may make some of Job's seemingly
inscrutable strategising a little more comprehensible, see
"<http://users.vnet.net/highlndr/morihei.html>", and for details on aikido
itself, see <http://www.aikido.com>.

Over and out
Joshua

[William V. Campbell Jr.]

Post by Joshua Whalen

Post by William V. Campbell Jr.
I personally believe MXS-Intel will see the light of day when the time is
right.

Something to keep in mind is what I believe is a significant
strategic thread that has been running through the steve's mind since he
returned to apple: How to get microsoft to undermine microsoft. In his
first macworld address back in '97 when he still just a "consultant", steve
said "Apple's victory does not depend on Microsoft's defeat" Now, this is a
near-excat paraphrase of the late Morihei Ueshiba, better known as Osensei,
founder of the japanese martial art, Aikido. OSensei said: "Your victory
does not depend on the attacker's defeat."

[snip]

I agree. SJ is becoming a master of artful deception. While Bill G. reaches
for profit. Steve Jobs reaches for greatness!

*quality+vision =profits=greatness*


--
"Whatever you want-Wants you"


William V. Campbell Jr.
Country Liv'n
***@san.rr.com

[R.H van Amerongen]

Post by Joshua Whalen
In Dr. Tevanian's DOJ testimony, He states that apple killed Rhap
because MS leaned on them to do it. If Rhap ships before the trial ends,
this statement is obviously false. If Rhap ships after MS is declared to
have monopoly power, then Apple can ship Rhap intel with no repercussions
from MS, because as an officially decalred Monopoply, MS cannot kill one
product to protect another. This is all that has to come out of the DOJ
suit to end MS's bullying tactics, because it makes it EASY for any company
to make civil antitrust claims against MS. I think that, regardless of any
other outcome from the MS/DOJ suit, that MS will almost certainly be
decalred a monoploy, whether or not they are judged to have mis-used
monopoly power against netscape, et al.
So, this is what I think is really going on. Be patient. Steve is "Using
the one to cut the many", I think, and it looks like it's working.
Onegaishimatsu!

My idea, but he did lost a lot of first adopters, and those group are
very important. Those are the one's who are willing invest in Apple
tech.

[Steven D. Arnold]

Hello, Jean, and thanks for this information. My comments below...

Post by Jean Drolet
- They intend to deliver at least a watered-down version of OSX Server
to developers.

If the charge for this is $400 or less (assuming it includes WO), I'd buy a
copy. Otherwise it's out of my price range.

If I did buy a copy, it'd be a great way to get me into the WO world, which is
something I'd like to do.

Post by Jean Drolet
- Apple is operating in a new paradigm. They no longer pre-announce
products. They work in secret and they only announce products if they
know for sure that they will deliver and when.

I'm fine with that strategy of theirs -- but it doesn't explain why developers
have not received beta copies of Server at all in the last, what, six, seven
months? You never saw that pattern with 8.5. And I've never heard of a major
OS being released as Server is without any significant beta testing by
developers.

Post by Jean Drolet
Remember that Apple has promised
the moon several times in the past but not always delivered. Now
delivery is paramount.

It seems to me that delivery is quite lacking in terms of stating a delivery
date and sticking to it.

Post by Jean Drolet
- Regarding YellowBox for NT (and I suppose that applies to 98 as well),
they are working on some arrangements for licensing it. In the end
the arrangement may be that they don't productize it, but I think
that when it is ready and the time is right for its introduction,
they will release it.

What does it mean that they might not productize it? Does that mean that
developers writing an app for YB/NT can't get a copy of YB to distribute with
their program, or what?

Post by Jean Drolet
- Regarding Objective-C vs Java, they did not say anything negative
about objective-C. They simply said that they are promoting Java, which
is currently a second class citizen (nothing said about
demoting objective-C).

I have no complaints whatsoever about this, if that is their attitude.
Objective-C is and will remain my tool of choice. Java is a second-class
citizen not only because of the tools, but because of the language itself.
However, it can only help me for Apple to find ways to improve that picture.

What I would greatly object to is any attempt by Apple to force developers to
use Java rather than Obj-C, either through denying access to existing tools,
making new technologies incompatible with Obj-C, etc.

In the long run, I really think we, the developers, will have to take Obj-C
away from Apple. That is, I feel a sophisticated, open-source, Obj-C-based
development environment is increasingly going to be a necessity. This
environment should work equally well with GNUSTEP and YB. Once this is
accomplished, and GNUSTEP is ported to other platforms, primarily MX and NT,
we will for all practical purposes be free of Apple. Then Apple becomes
merely another OS vendor with a set of classes that we optionally can use.

If any other developers are interested in working with me toward such a goal,
I'd love to hear from you.


steve

[Ronald C.F. Antony]

Post by Steven D. Arnold
In the long run, I really think we, the developers, will have to take Obj-C
away from Apple. That is, I feel a sophisticated, open-source, Obj-C-based
development environment is increasingly going to be a necessity. This
environment should work equally well with GNUSTEP and YB. Once this is
accomplished, and GNUSTEP is ported to other platforms, primarily MX and NT,
we will for all practical purposes be free of Apple. Then Apple becomes
merely another OS vendor with a set of classes that we optionally can use.

GNUStep is exactly that. It's not an entire OS. GNUStep runs on Linux,
*BSD, etc. and is designed to be portable. Apple already uses
the GNU C compiler for ObjC, and the GNUStep libs are reverse engineering
YB. Really, all that is needed to speed up GNUStep is financial backing and
volunteers to work on the project. The rest follows.
GNUStep's tool are under the GNU license, but not the resulting apps.
That means, there is no obstacle (other than currently the somewhat
immature state of the project) to develop commercial apps with GNUStep.

Ronald
==============================================================================
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists
in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the
unreasonable man." G.B. Shaw | ***@cubiculum.com | NeXT-mail welcome

[dIsCoRd]

Post by Michael Bartosh
Mac hardware is _still_ coming down in price. Jobs has made it clear
that, rather than throwing a GREAT OS onto white boxes, he wants to
keep it at home and drop the cost on our boxes. This is smart to me.
The new G3's for $1599- wow- that kick serious price competitive ass.

Not yet they're not. They are still really expensive compared to Intel -
better than before but still with a premium (ranging from about $300 on
the low end to about $1200 on the high end).

People bitch becasue some people are losing careers over this. Others of
us are simply losing (thank god) time and money.

--

/\ karl hsu
/ \ ***@charm.net
/ \ www.charm.net/~discord/
/ () \
/ \
/ \____/ \
/____________\

[Michael Bartosh]

Post by dIsCoRd

Post by Michael Bartosh
Mac hardware is _still_ coming down in price. Jobs has made it clear
that, rather than throwing a GREAT OS onto white boxes, he wants to
keep it at home and drop the cost on our boxes. This is smart to me.
The new G3's for $1599- wow- that kick serious price competitive ass.

Not yet they're not. They are still really expensive compared to Intel -

OK- show me a 450 MHz PII (about on par w/ a 300 MHz G3; a little
slower for most things) w/ USB, Firewire, and a RAGE 128 graphics
card (kicks voodooII in the behind) thata's THAT easy to work on for
$1599.

And on top of that Apple technology is _worth_ a $100-$200 premium- the OS.
No momn' Pop pieced together in a garage, here. Show me a compaq,
dell, gateway w/ all those features.

I haven't looked lately- but I'm sure there's a bundle or special
deal somewhere you might think is competative. Keep in mind that the
iMac is usually bundled (for $1299) w/ either an Epson Stylus 740 or
a Umax Austra 1200 scanner.

Post by dIsCoRd
better than before but still with a premium (ranging from about $300 on
the low end to about $1200 on the high end).
People bitch becasue some people are losing careers over this. Others of
us are simply losing (thank god) time and money.
--
/\ karl hsu
/ \ www.charm.net/~discord/
/ () \
/ \
/ \____/ \
/____________\

[Michael Bartosh]

Post by dIsCoRd

Post by Michael Bartosh
Mac hardware is _still_ coming down in price. Jobs has made it clear
that, rather than throwing a GREAT OS onto white boxes, he wants to
keep it at home and drop the cost on our boxes. This is smart to me.
The new G3's for $1599- wow- that kick serious price competitive ass.

Not yet they're not. They are still really expensive compared to Intel -
better than before but still with a premium (ranging from about $300 on
the low end to about $1200 on the high end).
People bitch becasue some people are losing careers over this. Others of
us are simply losing (thank god) time and money.

I fail to see how someone is going to lose their career over Apple
not supporting white boxes.

Did people lose their career when NeXT quit making black hardware?
Sure, OpenStep runs on it- sort of- like WinNT on a 486.

Post by dIsCoRd
--
/\ karl hsu
/ \ www.charm.net/~discord/
/ () \
/ \
/ \____/ \
/____________\

[Fabien Roy]

Post by Michael Bartosh
Did people lose their career when NeXT quit making black hardware?

I did!
I lost 7 years of work, my company, laid of 12 people and lost $2.6
millions.

Is that enough?

Post by Michael Bartosh
Sure, OpenStep runs on it- sort of- like WinNT on a 486.

Later.

Fabien
---
Fabien L Roy NationsBanc Montgomery Securities, LLC
voice: [phone] 100 North Tryon Street
fax: [phone] NC1-007-09-08
Charlotte NC 28255
Beeper: 143-9722 (1-800-946-46-46) or
http://www.MobileComm.com/message/
email: ***@ncmi.com (NeXT/Mime)
Pager-email ***@mobilecomm.net

[Timothy J Luoma]

Author: Fabien Roy <***@ncmi.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 09:23:37 -0800 (PST)

Post by Fabien Roy

Post by Michael Bartosh
Did people lose their career when NeXT quit making black hardware?

I did!

And others did as well.

The answer is undoubtedly "yes".

TjL

[Michael Bartosh]

Post by Fabien Roy

Post by Michael Bartosh
Did people lose their career when NeXT quit making black hardware?

I did!
I lost 7 years of work, my company, laid of 12 people and lost $2.6
millions.
Is that enough?

Post by Michael Bartosh
Sure, OpenStep runs on it- sort of- like WinNT on a 486.

Later.
Fabien
---
Fabien L Roy NationsBanc Montgomery Securities, LLC
voice: [phone] 100 North Tryon Street
fax: [phone] NC1-007-09-08
Charlotte NC 28255
Beeper: 143-9722 (1-800-946-46-46) or
http://www.MobileComm.com/message/

But the point is, business decisions are thus made- it's not pretty,
but it's probably best in the long run. Apple is not the first to
make these decisions (how many people are hamstrung by SGI or Sun on
occasion? Certainly M$FT comes to mind).

So why treat Apple like the great Satan?

[Timothy J Luoma]

Author: Michael Bartosh <***@tamu.edu>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 09:44:32 -0800 (PST)

Post by Michael Bartosh
So why treat Apple like the great Satan?

Unfortunately I think many people feel that Apple has been acting
like the Prince of Deceivers. They've hung on for the last year with the
promise of an Intel release -- at least one "CR1" as it has been called.

Now they're being told that won't happen?

Sounds like deception to me.

TjL

[Ronald C.F. Antony]

Post by Michael Bartosh

Post by dIsCoRd
People bitch becasue some people are losing careers over this. Others of
us are simply losing (thank god) time and money.

I fail to see how someone is going to lose their career over Apple
not supporting white boxes.

I see a .edu in your e-mail address, and it shows in you answer.
Guess what happens if after the last few year's announcments you
convince your company to
a) migrate slowly from PCs to Macs by means of YB-Win, and OSXS-intel
b) develop web apps with WO, to be run on existing intel server
hardware, with a decent OS
c) start a major shrink-wrap app project with YB, "since the YB-Win
runtime will be free/cheap" and you can cover Win* and Mac with
a single code base.

The way things look, OSXS-intel is totally dead, and YB-Win* is
MIA, possibly available in a year or two, and now only available
at $1500/seat by buying the entire WO package.
Does that look like something your share holders/boss/customers would
take kindly to? This is not about my (or someone else's) personal
computers. This is about losing an entire market for products people
have invested time, resources and credibility in.

Post by Michael Bartosh
Did people lose their career when NeXT quit making black hardware?
Sure, OpenStep runs on it- sort of- like WinNT on a 486.

No, because the transition to intel was much smoother than even
Apple's m68k to PPC transition. NS is NS, regardless on what
hardware it runs on, and black hardware was supported until the
day Apple bought NeXT (and technically still could run OSXS just
fine, since the OS is portable and the drivers are already written).
WinNT is a different beast, and the deployment runtime is still
missing, as is any relevant information on the subject.
It was months ago that Apple employees told us to wait for
an announcement "really soon now". That was before Jobs fucked with
the OSXS strategy and pushed back the release by four to five months
(from October to February/March). Now "really soon now" is over,
and there is not only no information, the things said at the BOF
indicate that there is a big question mark as to if YB-Win will
*EVER* make it, regardless of price.
In other words, if you had been a small developer trying to enter
the Win* and Mac market by writing to YB, you'd be seriously
screwed right about now, meanwhile Adobe, MS, etc. are laughing
at you.
Oh, no, this really doesn't affect anyone's career. We just play
Doom and wait for the paycheck...NOT!

Ronald
==============================================================================
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists
in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the
unreasonable man." G.B. Shaw | ***@cubiculum.com | NeXT-mail welcome

[Wolfgang Rochow]

Post by Michael Bartosh
Bitter bitter bitter. Isn't it the NeXT people always saying Apple
needs to stop selling a religion and start being a business (not
accusing everyone here, but it's a common thread).

and
on Fri, 8 Jan 1999 Joshua Whalen wrote:
<snip>OSensei said: "Your victory does not depend on the attacker's defeat."
and

Post by Michael Bartosh
I agree. SJ is becoming a master of artful deception. While Bill G. reaches
for profit. Steve Jobs reaches for greatness!
*quality+vision =profits=greatness*

IMHO are you not confusing a few things?
1. In the quote from OSensei, reference is made to "attackers" i.e. the enemy
Let me assure you that "NeXT people", or any other developers, are not the enemy although they often feel and appear to be treated that way.

2. The only people that are "bitter bitter bitter" are those developers who feel that they have been suckered into make a valuable investment of time and money into an espoused vision (so masterfully presented in "artful deception"?), lied to, and stone-walled. All they want is promises kept, especially in the area of regularly receiving current beta versions so that their own developments can be marketable in roughly the same time frame as the commercial release from Apple. They want to be treated like business associates not the enemy that needs to be defeated.

3. "artful deception" and "greatness" is an oxymoron. "Quality" includes honesty, at least in my interpretation. Therefore, let's say:
*quality+vision =greatness=profits*
*deception+vision =profits*
If its greatness that Steve Jobs seeks, he should reexamine his methodology, otherwise greatness will elude him.

Wolfgang

[Salvatore Denaro]

Post by Joshua Whalen
near-excat paraphrase of the late Morihei Ueshiba, better known
as Osensei,
founder of the japanese martial art, Aikido. OSensei said: "Your victory
does not depend on the attacker's defeat."

As a TKD student I prefer the direct approach. :)

Post by Joshua Whalen
In Dr. Tevanian's DOJ testimony, He states that apple killed Rhap
because MS leaned on them to do it. If Rhap ships before the trial ends,
this statement is obviously false.

I don't think this is accurate. I'm pretty sure that Dr. Tevanian testified that Apple was dropping Rhapsody because they did not think they could compete against MS's monopoly. That is very different than saying that "MS made us drop it under threat of retaliation"

[dIsCoRd]

Post by Michael Bartosh

Post by dIsCoRd
People bitch becasue some people are losing careers over this. Others of
us are simply losing (thank god) time and money.

Look at some post to NGs, think about people who spent a lot of time and
money banking on the fact that MacOS X was going to run on Intel.

Post by Michael Bartosh
Did people lose their career when NeXT quit making black hardware?
Sure, OpenStep runs on it- sort of- like WinNT on a 486.

JHU's web/ftp server for its public (mac and PC) archives was a 486
running WinNT on 64MB RAM for the last 5 years or so.

I'd say that was reasonable.

My Black Hardware is running OS on 64MB RAM. It also seems reasonable.

--

/\ karl hsu
/ \ ***@charm.net
/ \ www.charm.net/~discord/
/ () \
/ \
/ \____/ \
/____________\

[Joshua Whalen]

<excerpt>IMHO are you not confusing a few things?

1. In the quote from OSensei, reference is made to "attackers" i.e. the
enemy

Let me assure you that "NeXT people", or any other developers, are not
the enemy although they often feel and appear to be treated that way.

</excerpt>


I was refering to microsoft. Read little more slowly this time. You'll
see that's the reference.



Joshua

=========================================================================

=========================================================================

..."You want to make HARMONY SOUP?" asked the Aikido teacher,
chuckling.

"Try this; it's simple. First you take a big pot. Then you pour in
equal

parts of soy souce, chocolate syrup, and coca-cola. Then blend them

together! Mmmm, doesn't taste that good?

...True harmony is not that simple!".

=========================================================================

=========================================================================

[Michael Giddings]

Post by Michael Bartosh
But the point is, business decisions are thus made- it's not pretty,
but it's probably best in the long run. Apple is not the first to
make these decisions (how many people are hamstrung by SGI or Sun on
occasion? Certainly M$FT comes to mind).

No, the point is that Apple has made many specific _published_
promises related to YB and Rhapsody that it is not keeping. As
someone pointed out on the relevant newsgroups, some of the promises
broken could even lead to a winnable lawsuit if anyone cared to do
so. A slipping ship date is one thing. Apple's behavior is in a
whole different league.

Sure, you say, Msft and Sun and all those other companies do this
too. Well, from what I've seen, they haven't perfected the art to
anywhere near the level that Apple (formerly NeXT) has. If you'd
cared to read my post about which you complained that I was whining,
you have seen the comparison of Apple with Yellowbox versus Sun with
JAVA. That is a real world comparison. I consider Sun to be no
angel whatsoever. But they seem to realize that it is important to
support and communicate with their developers in order to get the
technology adopted. And so does MSFT, at least most of the time
(unless you happen to be one of the few developers with a really hot
product in an area that Microsoft wants for their own - then you're
SOL). In fact most OS companies do realize this is important, and if
they don't they eventually DO fail.

So what does that mean? I'm not saying Apple will fail. They have
obviously hit on a winning combination for many consumers. In fact
if I weren't so pissed at the broken promises I might even continue
to recommend Macs for specific purposes to people (I do tend to get
asked computer questions a lot by friends, relatives, and especially
colleagues, since I'm a CS guy in a Genetics department). Instead,
what I'm implying is that the YellowBox/Openstep technology will
most likely fail. Apple is doing nothing at this point that
indicates they have any intention of building momentum behind it, and
eventually the time will slip by when there is any opportunity left
to do so.

And that technology is the _only_ thing I care about from Apple. It
is the _only_ reason I bought two high-end Apple machines in the
past 1.5 years, one of which doesn't even work with that technology.
And though I am a "small time" developer, the programs I work on are
ones important enough to a few people that those people generally
will adopt whatever platform they run on. This would have (and has)
generated sales for Apple (and NeXT). Even if those sales were only
on the order of 5-10 per year, if there are several hundred other
"small time" developers like me out there, that translates into not
insignificant sales influx for Apple. So although they may not go
down the tubes due to this, they certainly aren't benefiting from it
either.

[Joshua Whalen]

Y'know, I don't do this kind of development (more involved with
network stuff) but having just ended a year and change in hollywood, it
occurs to me that the "killer app" for osx server is a fast, renderman
compliant 3D renderer. I've been very disappointed at the dearth of 3D
tools for OSXS, as I do a lot of work in this area as an end user of these
tools. Anyone know if anything like that is in development? I've used a
bunch of mac-based renderers, and some are quite good, but they are
SLOOOOOOWW compared to what you find on SGI, or even Linux or (AIIIIEE!!!!)
NT. Something fast, clean, and able to read native files of popular mac 3D
modeling apps would sell wickedly, I think. Stone design used to have a 3D
tool for the NeXT, I noticed, but the screen grabs didn't exactly blow my
mind. Plus, I found no mention of any plans to port it on the site. With
SGI losing money like a sieve I am reluctant to put my money down on new
SGI gear, but I may have no alternative. I have been patiently waiting for
OSXS and the alleged port of EIAS (Electric Image Animation System) and
(rumored) lightwave to Yellow Box, but Ihave seen no new rumors about these
two, nor betas, nor demos. ANy one know anything?


Joshua

=========================================================================
=========================================================================
..."You want to make HARMONY SOUP?" asked the Aikido teacher, chuckling.
"Try this; it's simple. First you take a big pot. Then you pour in equal
parts of soy souce, chocolate syrup, and coca-cola. Then blend them
together! Mmmm, doesn't taste that good?
...True harmony is not that simple!".
=========================================================================
=========================================================================

[Ronald C.F. Antony]

Post by Joshua Whalen
Y'know, I don't do this kind of development (more involved with
network stuff) but having just ended a year and change in hollywood, it
occurs to me that the "killer app" for osx server is a fast, renderman
compliant 3D renderer.

There is a petition in that respect, but with Apple's current
attitude, forget about it. They just included OpenGL, but as
to RenderMan, I doubt it, even if I were delighted if it would
happen.

Post by Joshua Whalen
Stone design used to have a 3D
tool for the NeXT, I noticed, but the screen grabs didn't exactly blow my
mind. Plus, I found no mention of any plans to port it on the site.

All the cool 3D apps for NS are history, because NeXT didn't port the
3DKit to OpenStep, and Apple never picked it up again. So you're
stuck with Carbon based QTML APIs which stink in comparison to 3DKit,
and even more importantly, which aren't available to developers so far,
at least not on any of the "semi-public" DRs

Ronald
==============================================================================
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists
in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the
unreasonable man." G.B. Shaw | ***@cubiculum.com | NeXT-mail welcome

[Thomas Sivertsen]

[SNIP]

Post by Michael Bartosh
But the point is, business decisions are thus made- it's not pretty,
but it's probably best in the long run. Apple is not the first to
make these decisions (how many people are hamstrung by SGI or Sun on
occasion? Certainly M$FT comes to mind).
So why treat Apple like the great Satan?

Because they have disappointed these people? They haven`t been stepped on by
Sun or SGI, though most probably by M$ (looking at the ratio). They have
been kicked when they are down by Apple. Their anger or disappointment is
perfectly valid.

Apple has done good in some ways, but not in all. People should be allowed
to speak their mind about it. Of course, giving them some different angle is
good, but dismissing it with: "It`s a business decision" is not doing any
good. And talking about the "long run" is not good enough. People have been
waiting for a loooong time for this stuff, and now they are told to take a
hike. They have taken economical and reputational risks for Apple, and that
should somehow be rewarded, IMHO. It`s also good business.

My recipe: Gas+Bottle+Rag+Ligther=Apple-cocktail.

Cheers, Thomas Sivertsen
***@c2i.net

[Michael Bartosh]

Post by Michael Giddings

Post by Michael Bartosh
But the point is, business decisions are thus made- it's not pretty,
but it's probably best in the long run. Apple is not the first to
make these decisions (how many people are hamstrung by SGI or Sun on
occasion? Certainly M$FT comes to mind).

No, the point is that Apple has made many specific _published_
promises related to YB and Rhapsody that it is not keeping. As
someone pointed out on the relevant newsgroups, some of the promises
broken could even lead to a winnable lawsuit if anyone cared to do
so. A slipping ship date is one thing. Apple's behavior is in a
whole different league.

I doubt a law suite would come of much. Rhapsody and MacOS X are two
different strategies- same technology, different strategies. You
can't expect Rhapsody promises to have anything at all to do w/ MacOS
X.

[Michael Bartosh]

Post by dIsCoRd

Post by Michael Bartosh
I doubt a law suite would come of much. Rhapsody and MacOS X are two
different strategies- same technology, different strategies. You
can't expect Rhapsody promises to have anything at all to do w/ MacOS
X.

Strategy != Promise.

Post by Michael Bartosh
Specifically what promises have been broken? Why do you think Apple
issued so few announcements in the past months- to keep people from
banking on technologies that would not be there. Again- Rhapsody
strategy does not count here. The Rhapsody strategy is dead. The
technology lives on in MOSX

See the timeline I posted - Apple Buys next. Apple says here is Rhapsody -
you can all buy computers now. <insert 1 year wait, during which Apple
does _not_ say - Oops, we fucked up>. Oh yeah - here's MXS, but it doesn't
run on those computers. We have a new strategy - buy new ones.
Doesn't make sense.

Apple changed strategies- merged Rhapsody technologies into the MacOS
before they'd originally intended to.

Those promises came from Amelio- they were crazy (run Rhapsody on a
PowerBook 1400?!?!?!)

So Apple changed strategies. The only thing they did say officially
was G3's will be supported. That, with the commercial release, is
true. And I have heard, tho I don't know for a fact- that it does
indeed boot on most PCI 604's.

I don't understand where the promise breaking comes from.

-mab

Post by dIsCoRd
--
/\ karl hsu
/ \ www.charm.net/~discord/
/ () \
/ \
/ \____/ \
/____________\

[Ronald C.F. Antony]

Post by Michael Bartosh
Apple changed strategies- merged Rhapsody technologies into the MacOS
before they'd originally intended to.

That has no bearings on the promises.

Post by Michael Bartosh
Those promises came from Amelio- they were crazy (run Rhapsody on a
PowerBook 1400?!?!?!)

Apple is a corporation, it can't hide behind single people. The reason it
has limited liability is exactly that the actions of it's executives are
binding to the corporation as a whole.

Running Rhapsody on a PB1400 is no problem. I run OS-M 4.2 on a 33MHz 68040
with only 32MB RAM, and it works just fine (ok, more RAM would help, and it's
coming). Even the lowest performing PPC machine can run circles around
my black hardware. There is no reason, except device drivers, not to run
OSXS on the ENTIRE PPC Mac familiy, and even some of the high-end m68k based
Mac Quadras. Given that situation, the breach of promise, is just
Jobs showing us the middle finger, telling us to buy new hardware.
Hey, who knows, OSXS-MarkII may require a G4 CPU. Go and buy new hardware
again....

And please stop defending Apple in regards to broken promises:
They *DID* state that there would be an intel release of Rhapsody, they
even stated that there would be an intel release of OSXS, and they
did state that all Macs shipping 1.1.1997 would be supported.
They also clearly stated that Rhapsody is not a product, but a code
name, and it was made very clear by Apple, that OSXS is the product
"formerly code-named Rhapsody". Thus the statements do apply in full
force to OSXS. This has nothing to do with being pro or anti Apple,
these are simply the facts (and if Apple weren't so busy letting
inconvenient web pages disappear, we'd even have plenty of URLs to
document it.)

As some historian said: the biggest problem with the WWW is that
it's ephemeral, there is no equivalent to a web archive, unlike
with paper publications. The WWW is revisionist history at work.

Post by Michael Bartosh
I don't understand where the promise breaking comes from.

[Ronald C.F. Antony]

Post by Michael Bartosh
Rhapsody and MacOS X are two
different strategies- same technology, different strategies. You
can't expect Rhapsody promises to have anything at all to do w/ MacOS
X.

Promises are promises. I don't care about what their strategy is, I
want the promised products delivered. I don't care if it's in a
brown paper bag, for that matter.

Post by Michael Bartosh
You said yourself, Apple was doing a good job with
many end users. Why would you turn them elsewhere, when it seems
Apple has taken very good care of consumers.

Because I would never advise anyone to buy a product from a flaky
company, regardless how good the product, since people come back to
me when the shit hits the fan and tell me "you told me to buy a Mac,
and now they stopped supporting Y and I needed that to do Z"

I've been down that road with NeXTSTEP, recommending it to people
trying to do 3D graphics w/ RenderMan, just to have NeXT drop
3DKit "because it's not mission critical". I recommended NeXTSTEP
to people trying to do some innovative PIM software beecause of
ixKit, and it was dropped, I recommended YB because of it's
cross-platform nature, and I look like an idiot again.

[Louis Pelletier]

Post by William V. Campbell Jr.
I agree. SJ is becoming a master of artful deception. While Bill G. reaches
for profit. Steve Jobs reaches for greatness!
*quality+vision =profits=greatness*
William V. Campbell Jr.

It's pretty sad too see some people place greatness after profits... but I
guess this is the american way to see things... :oP

And since Macro$oft is make a lot more profits than Apple, does that mean
they do software a lot better??


Louis Pelletier, Québec.

[William V. Campbell Jr.]

[snip]

To repeat myself to drive the point
home: it is all about one after another after another broken promises
related to this technology.

Specifically what promises have been broken? Why do you think Apple
issued so few announcements in the past months- to keep people from
banking on technologies that would not be there. Again- Rhapsody
strategy does not count here. The Rhapsody strategy is dead. The
technology lives on in MOSX

I empathize with the YB developers who were banking on MOSXS-Intel but the
fact remains that no where can it be found that Apple *promised* that
MOSXS-Intel would ship. NOWHERE. When will people realize that if it doesn't
come from the top, don't trust it!

my .02


--
"I Am what I Am, and I Am what I Am Not"

from -"Conversations with God"

soup jr.
country liv'n
***@san.rr.com

[William V. Campbell Jr.]

Post by Louis Pelletier

Post by William V. Campbell Jr.
I agree. SJ is becoming a master of artful deception. While Bill G. reaches
for profit. Steve Jobs reaches for greatness!
*quality+vision =profits=greatness*
William V. Campbell Jr.

It's pretty sad too see some people place greatness after profits... but I
guess this is the american way to see things... :oP
And since Macro$oft is make a lot more profits than Apple, does that mean
they do software a lot better??
Louis Pelletier, Québec.

You missed the point that I was trying to make, so I guess it's my fault for
not making myself clearer.

Let me try again.

My point was one should not aim for profits but aim for greatness as in
great products, then the profits will follow. The reason I laid out my
equation as I did, is that the business world does not recognize greatness
without profits. Of course you can make great profits without great products
but it will caught up with you sooner or later. It's the universal law of
cause and effect. It will not be refuted, no matter how long it takes!

Are you listening Microsoft?

--
"Whatever you want-Wants you"

from- "A Course in Miracles"

William V. Campbell Jr.
Country Liv'n
***@san.rr.com

[Michael Giddings]

Post by Michael Bartosh
I doubt a law suite would come of much. Rhapsody and MacOS X are two
different strategies- same technology, different strategies. You
can't expect Rhapsody promises to have anything at all to do w/ MacOS
X.

I would certainly expect that claim from Apple if such a lawsuit
ever occurred. However, that doesn't mean it's a valid claim. I
think it is not. Apple has made it clear that Rhapsody was becoming
MacOSX/Server. They have the same basis (Mach), the same Unix (BSD
4.4), the same tools (Terminal, BlueBox, Netinfo, etc), the same
object layer (Yellowbox). I think a pretty clear case could be made
that they are fundamentally the same thing that has been renamed.
You call it a difference in strategy. I call it clever marketing.
What would a Judge/Jury think? It's hard to say. Anyway, there
would be other reasons why such a lawsuit would be futile, such as
the fact that one would be fighting a large corporation with deep
pockets.

Post by Michael Bartosh
I work for an Apple Higher Ed sales agent. Which means I do a lot of
things. Manage a medium sized server, take care of some NeXT's in one
client department, demonstrate and support Apple technology, show
people how to use everything from QT to AppleShare IP to MOSXS. It's
a great job. It also means there's a lot I can't say. If you were on
my campus, I probably could say it. I don't know what sales agent, AE
or SE cover your school.

I've become a cynic and you are not (yet). So we probably won't
come to any agreement on this. So all that I will say is that
whatever information you may have about Apple and its plans doesn't
mean much, when a few words S.J. may change it all. He's done it
before (many times) and will do it again. There was once a group of
young, idealistic campus reps for NeXT too - and one of them I knew
later became one of NeXT's bitterest detractors for exactly that kind
of reason.

Post by Michael Bartosh
Specifically what promises have been broken? Why do you think Apple
issued so few announcements in the past months- to keep people from
banking on technologies that would not be there. Again- Rhapsody
strategy does not count here. The Rhapsody strategy is dead. The
technology lives on in MOSX

I would argue this point if I accepted your basic premise that
Rhapsody != MOSX. But since I don't, I won't.

Post by Michael Bartosh
My impression is that a lot of people get an idea of what they think
Apple should do with the technology, and then they get upset when
Apple feels like they should do otherwise.

A lot of people get upset when Apple appears to go out of its way to
make it inaccessible, kicking all of us who've invested in it while
we are down. I don't care what Apple wants to do with it, except
that they live up to certain promises, such as a YB for NT with free
runtimes, a commercial release for Intel, and support for developers
who were told to sign up for the $500 program if they wanted such
support. What I *think* Apple should do with the technology is what
they *said* they would do with the technology! I have no
expectations beyond that (though I do have wishes).

Post by Michael Bartosh
And I'd ask you- all these people who ask you computer advise- are
they end users? You said yourself, Apple was doing a good job with
many end users. Why would you turn them elsewhere, when it seems
Apple has taken very good care of consumers.

Apple has had a very mixed record of taking care of consumers. It
has made very good machines, but it has also made very poor machines
(one of which consumers had to win a class action lawsuit against
Apple to get a promised upgrade option). Right now Apple seems to be
making pretty good machines. But this latest episode simply serves
to remind how fickle Apple can be, especially with S.J. at the helm.
That means I'm very skeptical that Apple will necessarily continue
in any direction that will benefit people to whom I recommend Apple
hardware. And the cost of recommending it is often high. I've had
to handhold and sometimes argue to convince people that Mac's are a
reasonable alternative to Wintel. Why should I bother? Why waste
the time? What has Apple done for me lately (or ever?) to prompt me
to do so?

For anyone else who's followed the thread this far, I want to say
this. I'm not as glum and pessimistic as this all sounds. I've
simply been bitten far too many times to let it happen again, and am
still ruminating on that conclusion I so recently came to. No, I
won't fully forgive Apple. But I'll get on with life just fine. I
actually feel quite liberated! Now that I realize I won't be wasting
a lot of energy and time each day waiting for and searching for the
latest in the Openstep saga, I can now spend that energy and time on
something positive like contributing to Gnustep (or hey, here's a
novel idea: my work!).

Michael Giddings

[dIsCoRd]

Post by Michael Bartosh
I doubt a law suite would come of much. Rhapsody and MacOS X are two
different strategies- same technology, different strategies. You
can't expect Rhapsody promises to have anything at all to do w/ MacOS
X.

Strategy != Promise.

Post by Michael Bartosh
Specifically what promises have been broken? Why do you think Apple
issued so few announcements in the past months- to keep people from
banking on technologies that would not be there. Again- Rhapsody
strategy does not count here. The Rhapsody strategy is dead. The
technology lives on in MOSX

See the timeline I posted - Apple Buys next. Apple says here is Rhapsody -
you can all buy computers now. <insert 1 year wait, during which Apple
does _not_ say - Oops, we fucked up>. Oh yeah - here's MXS, but it doesn't
run on those computers. We have a new strategy - buy new ones.

Doesn't make sense.


--

/\ karl hsu
/ \ ***@charm.net
/ \ www.charm.net/~discord/
/ () \
/ \
/ \____/ \
/____________\

[Dietmar Planitzer]

----------

Subject: Re: BOF meeting. It is not all bad!
Date: Fre, 8. Jan 1999 22:37 Uhr
Y'know, I don't do this kind of development (more involved with
network stuff) but having just ended a year and change in hollywood, it
occurs to me that the "killer app" for osx server is a fast, renderman
compliant 3D renderer. I've been very disappointed at the dearth of 3D
tools for OSXS, as I do a lot of work in this area as an end user of these
tools. Anyone know if anything like that is in development? I've used a
bunch of mac-based renderers, and some are quite good, but they are
SLOOOOOOWW compared to what you find on SGI, or even Linux or (AIIIIEE!!!!)
NT. Something fast, clean, and able to read native files of popular mac 3D
modeling apps would sell wickedly, I think. Stone design used to have a 3D
tool for the NeXT, I noticed, but the screen grabs didn't exactly blow my
mind. Plus, I found no mention of any plans to port it on the site. With
SGI losing money like a sieve I am reluctant to put my money down on new
SGI gear, but I may have no alternative. I have been patiently waiting for
OSXS and the alleged port of EIAS (Electric Image Animation System) and
(rumored) lightwave to Yellow Box, but Ihave seen no new rumors about these
two, nor betas, nor demos. ANy one know anything?
Joshua

I'm not so sure if that helps you, but I'm working on a RenderMan
compliant client/server system that supports plug-in renderers in my
spare-time. The system consists of two layers. A procedural low-level
system (RM client lib, server and renderer) and an Objective-C
framework on top of that (I know, very similar to NeXT's 3DKit...).

A different question, what Mac specific file-formats would a YB based
modeler need to support from your viewpoint ?


Regards,

Planitzer Dietmar

[Dietmar Planitzer]

----------

Subject: Re: BOF meeting. It is not all bad!
Date: Fre, 8. Jan 1999 23:19 Uhr

Post by Michael Giddings
No, the point is that Apple has made many specific _published_
promises related to YB and Rhapsody that it is not keeping. As
someone pointed out on the relevant newsgroups, some of the promises
broken could even lead to a winnable lawsuit if anyone cared to do
so. A slipping ship date is one thing. Apple's behavior is in a
whole different league.

I doubt a law suite would come of much. Rhapsody and MacOS X are two
different strategies- same technology, different strategies. You
can't expect Rhapsody promises to have anything at all to do w/ MacOS
X.

Apple still said that there would be at least one version of MacOS X
Server, AFTER the change from the Rhapsody to the MacOS X strategy. If
you don't believe me, you should get a copy of c't Magazin issue
15/1998 (July/August).
On page 17 you can find an interview with Ken Bereskin and Steven E.
Glass. When the interviewer asked Mr. Bereskin, what would happen to
Rhapsody on Intel, Bereskin replied that Apple WILL SHIP an Intel
version of Rhapsody TO HELP Openstep developers migrate to the PowerPC
(he even spoke of releases and not only a single release).
As it stands now Apple isn't anymore interested in getting OpenStep
people to the PPC - however that's a broken promise, or better a
broken commitment.


Regards,

Planitzer Dietmar

[R.H van Amerongen]

Post by Michael Bartosh
I doubt a law suite would come of much. Rhapsody and MacOS X are
two different strategies- same technology, different strategies.
You can't expect Rhapsody promises to have anything at all to do w/
MacOS X.
Specifically what promises have been broken? Why do you think Apple
issued so few announcements in the past months- to keep people from
banking on technologies that would not be there. Again- Rhapsody
strategy does not count here. The Rhapsody strategy is dead. The
technology lives on in MOSX

Wrong, Rhapsody is the code name for MacOSX
(http://gemma.apple.com/macosx/server/) , and the strategies are
changed without notifying the developers before or even after. And
that is not even the main problem. But if your strategy is promising
things and you changed it later and again, then you are unreliable.
And people who did or makes and have to make decisions will be angry.
If those decisions are small ( buying a new Intel comp for Rhap for
Intel for home development) or big (SW & HW ( 42 iMacs and a few
Intel servers with Rhap for Intel ) something unfortunately is
canceled ) doesn't matter. In this case, Apple's Technology is great
but Apple's reliability and Apple communication to developers is pure
shit. BTW Maybe they did changed there attitude, there are already
new TIL's about the new G3 (blue and White).

[John Blumel]

Post by Michael Bartosh
I doubt a law suite would come of much. Rhapsody and MacOS X are two
different strategies- same technology, different strategies. You
can't expect Rhapsody promises to have anything at all to do w/ MacOS
X.

As has been pointed out on other lists the "is Rhapsody the same as Mac
OS X" issue is of no relevance to the legal issues involved.

The basic case would be that Apple 'induced' consumers to buy pre-G3
systems from Apple by promising, in numerous public statements, that
those systems would run a consumer OS based on NeXT technologies. If an
OS matching that described in those public statements, made by Apple
officials during the first half of 1997, is not delivered to those who
bought pre-G3 systems based on these public statements, Apple might be in
violation of various state and federal laws regarding false and deceptive
advertising.

In other words, Apple promised to consumers an OS that was to be a
combination of the best of OpenStep and the Mac OS and would support all
systems shipping starting as of 1/7/97 and they must either deliver it or
compensate those who bought systems from Apple that it was promised to
support but does not.

Whether such a case would be won or not is, in my opinion, of little
importance as the PR fallout would likely be devastating to Apple.



John Blumel

[Michael Bartosh]

Post by John Blumel

Post by Michael Bartosh
I doubt a law suite would come of much. Rhapsody and MacOS X are two
different strategies- same technology, different strategies. You
can't expect Rhapsody promises to have anything at all to do w/ MacOS
X.

As has been pointed out on other lists the "is Rhapsody the same as Mac
OS X" issue is of no relevance to the legal issues involved.
The basic case would be that Apple 'induced' consumers to buy pre-G3
systems from Apple by promising, in numerous public statements, that
those systems would run a consumer OS based on NeXT technologies. If an
OS matching that described in those public statements, made by Apple
officials during the first half of 1997, is not delivered to those who
bought pre-G3 systems based on these public statements, Apple might be in
violation of various state and federal laws regarding false and deceptive
advertising.

That OS was killed in leau of a different implementation. Rather than
write the legal brief, why don't we agree that if there was a case,
that'd be the sticking point, and that it doesn't really matter whose
wrong or rright, the side with the best lawyers will win.

I hate the American legal system.

I don't thik the PR fallout would be as bad as you think. 90% of
everyone associated w/ Apple is happy with them right now. That's not
going to change becaus eht other 10%- probably less- are not. No
matter how good theur lawyers are.

-mab

Post by John Blumel
In other words, Apple promised to consumers an OS that was to be a
combination of the best of OpenStep and the Mac OS and would support all
systems shipping starting as of 1/7/97 and they must either deliver it or
compensate those who bought systems from Apple that it was promised to
support but does not.
Whether such a case would be won or not is, in my opinion, of little
importance as the PR fallout would likely be devastating to Apple.
John Blumel

[Joshua Whalen]

Post by Michael Bartosh
I doubt a law suite would come of much. Rhapsody and MacOS X are two
different strategies- same technology, different strategies. You
can't expect Rhapsody promises to have anything at all to do w/ MacOS
X.

Simply: Both Amelio and Hanson said in published interviews: Rhapsody will
ship on x date, with y supported platforms. People bought machines on the
basis of those promises. Given the killed Copland project, and the vast
installed base of NuBus PMacs (they were the best selling macs ever at
that point in time), there is enough of a paper trail to build a class
action for selling vaporware. I used to work for an attorney before I got
in to computers, so I have pretty good understanding of what kind of
evidence you need to win a case in civil court. Yes, it is do-able, but I
don't think it is either advisable or neccesary yet. I suspect that apple
will eventually ship this. You can probably expect the announcement shortly
after a verdict in the MS/DOJ suit. I really think that is what this is all
about.

I know this is the last thing you want to hear, but:


Patience.



If I'm right, we're talking a month or so until the trial wraps
up. If I'm wrong about this, I'll even pay the initial attorney
consultation fee. I know just the lawyer.


Joshua

=========================================================================
=========================================================================
..."You want to make HARMONY SOUP?" asked the Aikido teacher, chuckling.
"Try this; it's simple. First you take a big pot. Then you pour in equal
parts of soy souce, chocolate syrup, and coca-cola. Then blend them
together! Mmmm, doesn't taste that good?
...True harmony is not that simple!".
=========================================================================
=========================================================================

[Ronald C.F. Antony]

Post by Joshua Whalen
I suspect that apple
will eventually ship this. You can probably expect the announcement shortly
after a verdict in the MS/DOJ suit. I really think that is what this is all
about.
Patience.
If I'm right, we're talking a month or so until the trial wraps
up. If I'm wrong about this, I'll even pay the initial attorney
consultation fee. I know just the lawyer.

The problem is, that MS will be able to drag out that case for years.
How many years did the anti-trust case against AT&T or against IBM
last? They will appeal, etc. If we wait until that case is over,
the reasons for being interested in OSXS-intel are history, because
by then, we'll have GNUStep.
Patience is a virtue, but I use mine for waiting for a GNU-Hurd/GNUStep
combination, and not on Apple. 10 years of Jobs' vacillations are enough.
But I might take you up on the lawyer offer. I just have enough of
a offbeat sense of humor, that I would get a kick out of seeing a
trial on a subject that cost me plenty of grief over the years.

Ronald
==============================================================================
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists
in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the
unreasonable man." G.B. Shaw | ***@cubiculum.com | NeXT-mail welcome

[Ziya Oz]

Post by Ronald C.F. Antony
They *DID* state that there would be an intel release of Rhapsody,

Rhapsody was/has been/is dead. With it, so is the cross-platform nature of the
strategy.

We are now beginning to see the technical ramifications of that decision as
well.

People want(ed) to see the next OS from Apple as the next reincarnation of
OpenStep, with all that implies.

Jobs has decided to take Apple wherever Microsoft isn't dominant, instead of
butting heads with the Wintel crowd or taking NT head on or playing in MS's
sandbox. Change the playing rules, the terrain, the colors, the devices...

I keep telling you this but you refuse to see it :-)

****
Ziya

[Mark F. Murphy]

Post by Steven D. Arnold
Hello, Jean, and thanks for this information. My comments below...

Post by Jean Drolet
- Regarding YellowBox for NT (and I suppose that applies to 98 as well),
they are working on some arrangements for licensing it. In the end
the arrangement may be that they don't productize it, but I think
that when it is ready and the time is right for its introduction,
they will release it.

What does it mean that they might not productize it? Does that mean that
developers writing an app for YB/NT can't get a copy of YB to distribute with
their program, or what?

Ernest Prabhakar was *very* clear at the BOF.

He said there are no plans to productize a version of the OS for Intel.
This means it will *not* be shipping nor will developers be receiving any
copies.

Someone even asked if he's just being coy because of Apple's current "no
talk" policy until a product ships. He replied that while "no talk" about
certain products doesn't mean that product is dead.... in the case of a
version for Intel, it is definately *not* going to be a product.

Now, without getting into conspiracy theories, does Apple have a version
for Intel in the labs? Well of course. Could Apple release an Intel
version in the future? Well of course. However, the reality is it is
*not* a current product and there's no plans for the future.

So I wouldn't plan anything thinking there might be an Intel version down
the road.

Post by Steven D. Arnold

Post by Jean Drolet
- Regarding Objective-C vs Java, they did not say anything negative
about objective-C. They simply said that they are promoting Java, which
is currently a second class citizen (nothing said about
demoting objective-C).

I have no complaints whatsoever about this, if that is their attitude.
Objective-C is and will remain my tool of choice. Java is a second-class
citizen not only because of the tools, but because of the language itself.
However, it can only help me for Apple to find ways to improve that picture.

Ernest Prabhakar made it clear.

Java is going to be the focus. Apple feels YellowBox is a good extension
to Java and will be offering it as such. Obj-C will still be there, but it
will not be focused on or promoted over Java.

Apple still has Obj-C code. Developers still have Obj-C code. So it is
not going away any time soon (nor is it planned to go away was the feeling
I got). But make no mistake, Java is the language Apple wants to promote.
As Ernest said, it's good enough.

Java is only currently a second class citizen in Mac OS X Server because of
time to market. It will be more of a first class citizen as time moves on
and it gets stronger. That's the plan as I understand Ernest's comments.

mark


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark F. Murphy, Director Software Development <mailto:***@tyrell.com>
Tyrell Software Corp <http://www.tyrell.com>
PowerPerl(tm), Add Power To Your Webpage! <http://www.powerperl.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of Families Against Internet Censorship: rainbow.rmi.net/~fagin/faic

[Ronald C.F. Antony]

Post by Mark F. Murphy
But make no mistake, Java is the language Apple wants to promote.
As Ernest said, it's good enough.

Java is good enough to be workable. So is Windows2000.
PPC is fast, but x86 is fast enough, faster in fact, than 99.5% of
people can use, except when wasting time on computer games.
The point is, Apple sent us one message here: "We no longer are trying
to make better products, we are just trying to make money, any way we
can, even if it means screwing the customers over."


Well, and I try to save money, if I have to deal with crap, I can do
that with MS software and intel hardware, and at least there I
know that the strategy isn't going to change, and I'll have the same
GUI from the TV-remote control, to the cell-phone to the enterprise
server. Why bother with Apple? Java is going to be the same anywhere.

Post by Mark F. Murphy
Java is only currently a second class citizen in Mac OS X Server because of
time to market. It will be more of a first class citizen as time moves on
and it gets stronger. That's the plan as I understand Ernest's comments.

Glad to know that GNUStep and *BSD/Linux/Hurd are making progress at a
pace faster than Apple's stuff. Finally, there will be a choice.

Ronald
==============================================================================
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists
in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the
unreasonable man." G.B. Shaw | ***@cubiculum.com | NeXT-mail welcome

[John Blumel]

Post by Michael Bartosh
That OS was killed in leau of a different implementation. Rather than
write the legal brief, why don't we agree that if there was a case,
that'd be the sticking point...

That is not the sticking point at all but is, rather, the crux of the
argument. This is essentially a case of a change in corporate strategy
resulting in the violation of consumer protection laws.


John Blumel

[Mark F. Murphy]

Post by Ronald C.F. Antony

Post by Joshua Whalen
Y'know, I don't do this kind of development (more involved with
network stuff) but having just ended a year and change in hollywood, it
occurs to me that the "killer app" for osx server is a fast, renderman
compliant 3D renderer.

There is a petition in that respect, but with Apple's current
attitude, forget about it. They just included OpenGL, but as
to RenderMan, I doubt it, even if I were delighted if it would
happen.

It shouold be noted that OpenGL is *not* planned for Mac OS X Server to be
released in Feb (as announced).

This according to info from the BOF.

mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark F. Murphy, Director Software Development <mailto:***@tyrell.com>
Tyrell Software Corp <http://www.tyrell.com>
PowerPerl(tm), Add Power To Your Webpage! <http://www.powerperl.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of Families Against Internet Censorship: rainbow.rmi.net/~fagin/faic

[Steven D. Arnold]

Mark, thanks for this detailed reply.

Post by Mark F. Murphy

Post by Steven D. Arnold
What does it mean that they might not productize it? Does that mean
that developers writing an app for YB/NT can't get a copy of YB
to distribute with their program, or what?

Ernest Prabhakar was *very* clear at the BOF.
He said there are no plans to productize a version of the OS for Intel.
This means it will *not* be shipping nor will developers be receiving
any copies.

Just to be absolutely clear, though, I am not talking about OSX/Intel, but YB
running on top of NT. THAT is gone too?


steve

[Mark F. Murphy]

Post by Steven D. Arnold
Just to be absolutely clear, though, I am not talking about OSX/Intel, but YB
running on top of NT. THAT is gone too?

Not as far as I know.

It's there and Ernest Prabhakar stated it's still an important piece to
Apple's plans. It's just still held up in licensing issues.

Scott Anguish reported that in his BOF report:

http://www.stepwise.com/SpecialCoverage/MacWorldExpo-99-SF/bof.html

mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark F. Murphy, Director Software Development <mailto:***@tyrell.com>
Tyrell Software Corp <http://www.tyrell.com>
PowerPerl(tm), Add Power To Your Webpage! <http://www.powerperl.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of Families Against Internet Censorship: rainbow.rmi.net/~fagin/faic

[Jean Drolet]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bonjour...
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Ronald C.F. Antony
The point is, Apple sent us one message here: "We no longer are trying
to make better products, we are just trying to make money, any way we
can, even if it means screwing the customers over."

I am afraid that this interpretation is based on a quote that was taken out
of context. Apple is promoting Java specifically to satisfy its customers
(the end users) and to attract new developers. We, as developers, are not
customers in the same sense; that is why we are referred to as developers
as opposed to customers. Indeed, we represent only a very small fraction of
the market for end user applications; we are here to provide the
applications needed by end users. The quality of these applications depend
more on the developers than Apple. Developers can still choose to develop
in Objective-C if they want.

Questions to ask Apple might be: If I am starting to program an App today,
which language do you recommend I use? Is there a compelling argument
against programing my App in Obj-C? -- Apple employees who are listening,
please reply! --

They are not taking away anything from Objective-C. They are simply
improving Java support to offer more choices.

Of course this policy will "screw up" some developers, including myself.
You and I may have to learn Java in order to secure future contracts? But,
that would be because our customers are asking for Java; not because Apple
is providing choice.

I would like to clarify that Apple is producing great products because its
customers demand it, not because Apple lives to create great products. If
you look back a few years at Apple products, you will see that Apple is
quite capable of producing crap and that customers do respond by not buying
those products. This maybe what differentiate the Mac marketplace from the
Window marketplace the most. In the Window marketplace, crap can make a
profit, but not in the Mac marketplace...

Sincerely,

J e a n D r o l e t

San Francisco

[Peter Adams]

Post by Jean Drolet
I am afraid that this interpretation is based on a quote that was taken out
of context. Apple is promoting Java specifically to satisfy its customers
(the end users) and to attract new developers.

Yes, and, perhaps, it really is the wave of the future. Certainly it takes Apple
out the NIH box.

Post by Jean Drolet
. The quality of these applications depend
more on the developers than Apple. Developers can still choose to develop
in Objective-C if they want. Questions to ask Apple might be: If I am starting
to program an App today,
which language do you recommend I use? Is there a compelling argument
against programing my App in Obj-C? -- Apple employees who are listening,
please reply! --

I have yet to see anything out of Apple that says Obj-C is dead. As someone else
said, to say you are promoting something does not mean that you are demoting
something else. Obj-C is mature, stable and the implementation language of YB.

Lack of MacOS compatibility was the fatal flaw in the original Rhapsody
strategy. Talking directly to their existing developers Apple stated clearly and
explicitly at WWDC last May, in slides and from the stage, update existing MacOS
applications to Carbon for minimal porting hassle to move to MOSX. Your MacOS
applications will continue to live and bring you income for a minimal rewrite.
For the future write to YB because, Apple stated repeatedly, YB IS the future.
With the release of WO4 (on NT no less) YB = Obj-C = Java. Pretty simple.

To substantiate that Obj-C is alive, and for an early view of the future, take a
look at the Java Client framework in WO4 for an example of a seamless
integration of server-side Obj-C and client-side Java.

Post by Jean Drolet
They are not taking away anything from Objective-C. They are simply
improving Java support to offer more choices.

That is the only Apple-originated message I have seen. Apple's goal to create
the "best Java implementation" is fine with me and takes nothing away from the
Obj-C developer.

Post by Jean Drolet
Of course this policy will "screw up" some developers, including myself.
You and I may have to learn Java in order to secure future contracts? But,
that would be because our customers are asking for Java; not because Apple
is providing choice.

Why? Obj-C is what YB is written in. It is and will be for the (currently)
foreseeable future the performance winner. Apple is not going to rewrite YB in
Java at a point in Java's evolution that would simply cripple YB. Give them
credit for a few brains.

Pete

--
Peter Adams
Systems SW Developer
Stanford Univ Language Center
vc: 650-725-7909
em: ***@stanford.edu
http://www.stanford.edu

[Ronald C.F. Antony]

Post by Jean Drolet
Questions to ask Apple might be: If I am starting to program an App today,
which language do you recommend I use? Is there a compelling argument
against programing my App in Obj-C? -- Apple employees who are listening,
please reply! --

This exact question was put to an Apple person in charge. In order to
protect the anonymity of my sources, I will paraphrase the answer:

- for speed and because most of the current YB code is ObjC right
now ObjC will be required for a little bit longer, i.e. about
a 12 - 18 months.
- our effort is to move EVERYTHING to Java, speed will not
be an issue.
- after that, we may or may not keep ObjC around for legacy
code, but new developments should be Java, and expect
all new YB features to be Java based and Java oriented.

I can't say more, but you get the idea: Apple is doing it again.
Even if they might be willing to keep ObjC if there's demand, the
message they send out is such, that the death of ObjC will be a
self-fulfilling prophecy.

Ronald
==============================================================================
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists
in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the
unreasonable man." G.B. Shaw | ***@cubiculum.com | NeXT-mail welcome

[Dietmar Planitzer]

----------

Subject: Re: 3D stuff
Date: Sam, 9. Jan 1999 19:12 Uhr

<snip>

It shouold be noted that OpenGL is *not* planned for Mac OS X Server to be
released in Feb (as announced).
This according to info from the BOF.
mark

If that's really the case, then it's ridiculous. Apple bought the
OpenGL source code from Conix and they have already ported their GL
implementation to RDR2 back in summer. The latested version was from
Dec. 98.
There's absolutly no technical and other reason why we shouldn't get
OpenGL for MOSXS - absolutly none.


Regards,

Planitzer Dietmar

[Scott Anguish]

Post by Dietmar Planitzer
If that's really the case, then it's ridiculous. Apple bought the
OpenGL source code from Conix and they have already ported their GL
implementation to RDR2 back in summer. The latested version was from
Dec. 98.
There's absolutly no technical and other reason why we shouldn't get
OpenGL for MOSXS - absolutly none.

The 'other' reason is that Mac OS X Server is staunchly aimed at
Server. 3D is a user gig.

[Mark F. Murphy]

Post by Peter Adams
Why? Obj-C is what YB is written in. It is and will be for the (currently)
foreseeable future the performance winner. Apple is not going to rewrite YB in
Java at a point in Java's evolution that would simply cripple YB. Give them
credit for a few brains.

I just got private email from someone who thought YB via Java meant YB was
being re-written in Java.

As far as I know it is not (and wouldn't make sense to do).

YB via Java just means it is exposed to Java... much like QuickTime is
exposed to Java via QT4J... or any other native call (for the most part).
So it is not a 100% pure Java solution. Yet, if YB is available on Mac OS
X/Server and Win, then it's 100% enough.

mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark F. Murphy, Director Software Development <mailto:***@tyrell.com>
Tyrell Software Corp <http://www.tyrell.com>
PowerPerl(tm), Add Power To Your Webpage! <http://www.powerperl.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of Families Against Internet Censorship: rainbow.rmi.net/~fagin/faic

[Ronald C.F. Antony]

Post by Mark F. Murphy

Post by Peter Adams
Why? Obj-C is what YB is written in. It is and will be for the (currently)
foreseeable future the performance winner. Apple is not going to rewrite YB
in Java at a point in Java's evolution that would simply cripple YB. Give
them credit for a few brains.

I just got private email from someone who thought YB via Java meant YB was
being re-written in Java.

That is what certain Apple engineers are saying.

Post by Mark F. Murphy
As far as I know it is not (and wouldn't make sense to do).
YB via Java just means it is exposed to Java... much like QuickTime is
exposed to Java via QT4J... or any other native call (for the most part).
So it is not a 100% pure Java solution. Yet, if YB is available on Mac OS
X/Server and Win, then it's 100% enough.

That's not the case, since that wouldn't be newsworthy. That YB would
be exposed to Java has been the *OLD* plan that was made public at
the same time as the Carbon strategy was unveiled. WO had a Java
interface for a while now, and could access pretty much all of YB.
That wouldn't be news. What *IS* news is, if the foundation of
YB shifts from being ObjC to Java, and that's what's happening/planned.

Ronald
==============================================================================
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists
in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the
unreasonable man." G.B. Shaw | ***@cubiculum.com | NeXT-mail welcome

[Mark F. Murphy]

Post by Ronald C.F. Antony

Post by Mark F. Murphy

Post by Peter Adams
Why? Obj-C is what YB is written in. It is and will be for the (currently)
foreseeable future the performance winner. Apple is not going to rewrite YB
in Java at a point in Java's evolution that would simply cripple YB. Give
them credit for a few brains.

I just got private email from someone who thought YB via Java meant YB was
being re-written in Java.

That is what certain Apple engineers are saying.

Where are they saying this?

Private email? Via questions?

I don't call that a definate change... and once again until it ships, it
aint real.

mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark F. Murphy, Director Software Development <mailto:***@tyrell.com>
Tyrell Software Corp <http://www.tyrell.com>
PowerPerl(tm), Add Power To Your Webpage! <http://www.powerperl.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of Families Against Internet Censorship: rainbow.rmi.net/~fagin/faic

[Mark F. Murphy]

Post by Dietmar Planitzer

Post by Mark F. Murphy
It shouold be noted that OpenGL is *not* planned for Mac OS X Server to be
released in Feb (as announced).
This according to info from the BOF.

If that's really the case, then it's ridiculous. Apple bought the
OpenGL source code from Conix and they have already ported their GL
implementation to RDR2 back in summer. The latested version was from
Dec. 98.
There's absolutly no technical and other reason why we shouldn't get
OpenGL for MOSXS - absolutly none.

Time to market... integration.... testing.... documentation.

Oh yes.... there are plenty of reasons I can think of which affects the
timeframe Apple can get OpenGL on Mac OS X Server.... and if we expect it
out by Feb, don't expect OpenGL on it at this point.

The question was directly asked at BOF in the Q&A. The answer was not this
version.

Now... Conix has OpenGL for Mac OS X Server (a version 1.4a):

http://www.conix3d.com/download_request.html

BTW... what is the source that Apple has actually bought Conix? Other than
a mention on StepWise, I haven't seen any official announcements.

mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark F. Murphy, Director Software Development <mailto:***@tyrell.com>
Tyrell Software Corp <http://www.tyrell.com>
PowerPerl(tm), Add Power To Your Webpage! <http://www.powerperl.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of Families Against Internet Censorship: rainbow.rmi.net/~fagin/faic

[Scott Anguish]

Post by Mark F. Murphy
BTW... what is the source that Apple has actually bought Conix? Other than
a mention on StepWise, I haven't seen any official announcements.

This was told to me privately. Apple has certainly absorbed the
Conix OpenGL programmers.

If you think about it, if you remove OpenGL products for Mac from
Conix, is there anything left?

Apple definately wants to position their OpenGL support as coming
from SGI directly. Nobody outside of the Mac world knows Conix. Everyone
knows SGI.

[Dietmar Planitzer]

----------

Subject: Re: 3D stuff
Date: Son, 10. Jan 1999 21:17 Uhr

<snip>

Time to market... integration.... testing.... documentation.
Oh yes.... there are plenty of reasons I can think of which affects the
timeframe Apple can get OpenGL on Mac OS X Server.... and if we expect it
out by Feb, don't expect OpenGL on it at this point.

I wasn't necessarily refering to the shipping product. It's clear that
it wouldn't be possible to get a quality release of GL in there.
What I was refering to, was the GL dev. release that should be,
according to Apple, available around the same time that MOSXS will be
released. Seeing that this GL implementation has been working on RDR2
for some time now, I don't see why we shouldn't have it for MOSXS
ASAP.

The question was directly asked at BOF in the Q&A. The answer was not this
version.
http://www.conix3d.com/download_request.html
BTW... what is the source that Apple has actually bought Conix? Other than
a mention on StepWise, I haven't seen any official announcements.

It was Janet Stauffer from Conix who brought this to my attention.
That's the offical Conix statement that was released just a few days
ago on the MacOS OpenGL list:

-------------------

Hello OpenGL customers and Friends,

The culmination of four years work came to fruition last Tuesday at
the
keynote address when Steve Jobs announced Apple OpenGL. Apple has
licensed
OpenGL from SGI and purchased the Conix source code.

The keynote address was fantastic. With the incredible power of the
new
G3s, multi-colored and faster iMacs for consumers, and the speed of
ATI's
Rage 128 Apple's OpenGL games and applications will be awesome!

Bob Beretta and John Stauffer, the engineering talent behind Conix
OpenGL
were aquired along with the source code. They have great plans for
the
work they will do at Apple. Conix will continue to support our
Mathematica
plug-ins: Conix 3D Explorer and Mechanical Systems (***@conix3d.com)
and
continue to update OpenGL for eXodus, MachTen, X-Ten and Code Builder.

At the MacWorld Expo last week, I sensed the enthusiasm and commitment
of
the Apple OpenGL team. Many have been long time advocates of Conix and
OpenGL. I got the sense that Apple will be providing full support and
resources for OpenGL developers.

Information about OpenGL at Apple can be found at:
http://www.apple.com/opengl/, or our web page.

Special thanks are in order to John Schimpf at SGI who helped us when
we
were a company of two, Scott Jenkins (formerly of Apple) for early and
continued support, Chis Bentley, who worked with John to provide an
excellent ATI driver and accommodate our customers needs, Brian
Coleman,
Bill LaBate, Kathy Tafel, and many others who worked behind the scenes
for
OpenGL at Apple, Rebecca Gulick (remember Conix Man!), our customers:
New
River Kinematics, Molecular Simulations, Hash, NewTek, auto*des*sys,
Strata, Questar, Synergy, Laminar, and others, John Carmack of ID
Software, and the media and press who've been our continual ally.

Warmest Regards,

The Conix Team






Janet Stauffer
Sales & Marketing

Conix Enterprises, Inc.
***@conix3d.com
http://www.conix3d.com

PO Box 4113
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403

805.546.1040 voice
805.546.1017 fax

-------------------------

Regards,

Planitzer Dietmar

[Mark F. Murphy]

Just found this as well for more USB info:

http://www.macintouch.com/imacusb.html

mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark F. Murphy, Director Software Development <mailto:***@tyrell.com>
Tyrell Software Corp <http://www.tyrell.com>
PowerPerl(tm), Add Power To Your Webpage! <http://www.powerperl.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of Families Against Internet Censorship: rainbow.rmi.net/~fagin/faic

[Ken Case]

It should be noted that OpenGL is *not* planned for Mac OS X
Server to be released in Feb (as announced).

It should also be noted that while _Apple_ has no plans for OpenGL
in X Server, Conix has already ported their OpenGL implementation to
DR2, Conix's latest Mac OS 8 release supports Voodoo2 acceleration
via the Glide SDK, and Omni has written a Voodoo2 driver and ported
the Glide SDK to DR2 for the Quake 2 technology demonstration at
MacWorld.

(Finally, one might note that John Carmack is very eager to develop
Quake Arena on the Macintosh platform using an operating system which
is more stable and robust than Mac OS 8. Check out today's finger
plan update, for example.)

Cheers,
Ken

[Louis Pelletier]

Post by Dietmar Planitzer
If that's really the case, then it's ridiculous. Apple bought the
OpenGL source code from Conix and they have already ported their GL
implementation to RDR2 back in summer. The latested version was from
Dec. 98.
There's absolutly no technical and other reason why we shouldn't get
OpenGL for MOSXS - absolutly none.
Regards,
Planitzer Dietmar

Maybe one: Why would you need OpenGL on a server? Since OS X Server is
marketed only as a server, they could launch OpenGL only on MacOS X...



Louis Pelletier, Québec.

[Ken Case]

Check out today's finger plan update, for example.

You can read John Carmack's current finger plan by typing "finger
***@idsoftware.com" at the command line.

Ken

[Michael Bartosh]

Post by Ken Case

It should be noted that OpenGL is *not* planned for Mac OS X
Server to be released in Feb (as announced).

It should also be noted that while _Apple_ has no plans for OpenGL
in X Server, Conix has already ported their OpenGL implementation to
DR2, Conix's latest Mac OS 8 release supports Voodoo2 acceleration
via the Glide SDK, and Omni has written a Voodoo2 driver and ported
the Glide SDK to DR2 for the Quake 2 technology demonstration at
MacWorld.
(Finally, one might note that John Carmack is very eager to develop
Quake Arena on the Macintosh platform using an operating system which
is more stable and robust than Mac OS 8. Check out today's finger
plan update, for example.)
Cheers,
Ken

what address do you finger?

[D.C.]

You can also get to his .plan file at www.bluesnews.com

Post by Michael Bartosh

Post by Ken Case

It should be noted that OpenGL is *not* planned for Mac OS X
Server to be released in Feb (as announced).

It should also be noted that while _Apple_ has no plans for OpenGL
in X Server, Conix has already ported their OpenGL implementation to
DR2, Conix's latest Mac OS 8 release supports Voodoo2 acceleration
via the Glide SDK, and Omni has written a Voodoo2 driver and ported
the Glide SDK to DR2 for the Quake 2 technology demonstration at
MacWorld.
(Finally, one might note that John Carmack is very eager to develop
Quake Arena on the Macintosh platform using an operating system which
is more stable and robust than Mac OS 8. Check out today's finger
plan update, for example.)
Cheers,
Ken

what address do you finger?

[Hugh Evans]

Post by Ken Case
(Finally, one might note that John Carmack is very eager to develop
Quake Arena on the Macintosh platform using an operating system which
is more stable and robust than Mac OS 8. Check out today's finger
plan update, for example.)
Cheers,
Ken

See Also: http://www.webdog.org/cgi-bin/finger.cgi?id=1&time=19990110165249

++++++++++++++++
"You know your not a kid anymore when Christmas starts to piss you off"

[Ziya Oz]

I don't see why we shouldn't have it for MOSXS ASAP.

Because Apple promotes Mac OS X Server as a server platform (and *not* a
workstation one)?


****
Ziya

[Bruce Fancher]

Well, that would explain a lot, like why Jobs intentionally gave everyone
the impression that "Rhapsody" was dead and hasn't mentioned Yellow Box
since. However, it doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense based on
what I understand their objectives to be.

If they want developers to focus only, or primarily, on the Mac, then of
what value is it to port everything to Java? Why not just continue to use
Objective-C and expose the classes to Java, as they do now? And why
undertake what must be a massive undertaking at at time when they are under
the gun to ship new products and reestablish themselves?

And if this is all true, why hide it from developers, some of whom are
writing in Objective-C, instead of making it known to them? All this serves
to do is piss them off even more when it eventually becomes known.

Also, following this strategy would kill WebObject's competitive advantage.
Assuming that the folks at Watershed will eventually get Relational Objects
Framework up to par with the latest version of EOF, why would I buy a 100%
Java WOF+EOF, instead of a 100% Java ROF?

So, can someone from Apple officially confirm or deny this?

Post by Ronald C.F. Antony
That's not the case, since that wouldn't be newsworthy. That YB would
be exposed to Java has been the *OLD* plan that was made public at
the same time as the Carbon strategy was unveiled. WO had a Java
interface for a while now, and could access pretty much all of YB.
That wouldn't be news. What *IS* news is, if the foundation of
YB shifts from being ObjC to Java, and that's what's happening/planned.
Ronald
==================================================================
============
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists
in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the
NeXT-mail welcome

[Julian Mayer]

Post by Ronald C.F. Antony
- our effort is to move EVERYTHING to Java, speed will not
be an issue.

speed is the giggest issue in server market ( what MOXS is aimed at ) and
also in workstation market. i have lived several years with this really slow
macos ( BeOS does more than twice the speed on same hardware ) and now i
want an speedy os, and not one with an API that needs proprietary JAVA.

[Dietmar Planitzer]

----------

Subject: Re: 3D stuff
Date: Mon, 11. Jan 1999 8:28 Uhr

Post by Dietmar Planitzer
If that's really the case, then it's ridiculous. Apple bought the
OpenGL source code from Conix and they have already ported their GL
implementation to RDR2 back in summer. The latested version was from
Dec. 98.
There's absolutly no technical and other reason why we shouldn't get
OpenGL for MOSXS - absolutly none.

The 'other' reason is that Mac OS X Server is staunchly aimed at
Server. 3D is a user gig.

First, 3d graphics can be much more than a bunch of ugly textured
polygons flying around in a game.
Secondly, MOSXS is the only available successor to RDR2 and the only
predecessor to MacOS X. Especially you should be able to understand
why I would want to continue my development work on MOSXS, rather then
RDR2. But this is only possible for me if Apple continues where Conix
has left off.


Regards,

Planitzer Dietmar

[dIsCoRd]

Post by Bruce Fancher
If they want developers to focus only, or primarily, on the Mac, then of
what value is it to port everything to Java? Why not just continue to use
Objective-C and expose the classes to Java, as they do now? And why
undertake what must be a massive undertaking at at time when they are under
the gun to ship new products and reestablish themselves?

Java has more mindshare than Obj-C...
Don't get me wrong, I really like OC, but Java has _way_ more developers
going for it.

The other thing might be that Apple may be porting YB to Java for several
reasons:
To create a _completely_ cross platform API (They have QT for Java
already, right?)
To maintain a single internal Language base (or at least, only 2 -
ANSI C and JAVA, instead o f C, Java and Obj-C)
Planning on promoting YB as an alternative to the Java class
libraries as presented by Sun? (Ie sortof doing the Microsoft Thing - this
is out version of java - we rock :)

Spped might be taken care of if they really can create a fast JVM - or if
they do compile to native...

And it might be possible to rewrite YB in Java - after all, ObjC started
as a preprocessor to C, and Java _more_ more flexible than C (mostly).

Post by Bruce Fancher
And if this is all true, why hide it from developers, some of whom are
writing in Objective-C, instead of making it known to them? All this serves
to do is piss them off even more when it eventually becomes known.

Not necessarily - they still have the Java to OBjC bridge. As long as they
maintain that, it really doesn't matter, does it? It sorta like
Client-server computing, sexcept with programmin glanguages.

Post by Bruce Fancher
Also, following this strategy would kill WebObject's competitive advantage.
Assuming that the folks at Watershed will eventually get Relational Objects
Framework up to par with the latest version of EOF, why would I buy a 100%
Java WOF+EOF, instead of a 100% Java ROF?

I think its an implementation thing - its not like it matters what
language its written in, just that it performs well and runs on multiple
servers...

--

/\ karl hsu
/ \ ***@charm.net
/ \ www.charm.net/~discord/
/ () \
/ \
/ \____/ \
/____________\

[Ronald C.F. Antony]

Post by dIsCoRd
Java has more mindshare than Obj-C...
Don't get me wrong, I really like OC, but Java has _way_ more developers
going for it.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record: any Java/C programmer
should be able to pick up ObjC in about 2-5 hours at most.
The class libraries are the problem, not the language.
Thus Java bindings would provide enough Java support to lure the
Java programmers towards YB, and then they will realize how easy it
is to learn the language. On the other hand, they will also realize
that it will take them the better part of a month or two (maybe more)
to get fluent with the libraries, regardless of the fact if they use
ObjC or Java.

Ronald
==============================================================================
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists
in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the
unreasonable man." G.B. Shaw | ***@cubiculum.com | NeXT-mail welcome

[Mark F. Murphy]

Post by dIsCoRd
The other thing might be that Apple may be porting YB to Java for several
To create a _completely_ cross platform API (They have QT for Java
already, right?)

Not like the comparison you are trying to make.

QuickTime is *not* re-written in Java. It's APIs are simply exposed to
Java *and* there are some Java classes so one doesn't have to call the APIs
directly. QuickTime is still in whatever langauge it's written in,
probably C.

mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark F. Murphy, Director Software Development <mailto:***@tyrell.com>
Tyrell Software Corp <http://www.tyrell.com>
PowerPerl(tm), Add Power To Your Webpage! <http://www.powerperl.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of Families Against Internet Censorship: rainbow.rmi.net/~fagin/faic

[Chris Douty]

Post by Michael Bartosh

Post by dIsCoRd
See the timeline I posted - Apple Buys next. Apple says here is Rhapsody -
you can all buy computers now. <insert 1 year wait, during which Apple
does _not_ say - Oops, we fucked up>. Oh yeah - here's MXS, but it doesn't
run on those computers. We have a new strategy - buy new ones.
Doesn't make sense.

Apple changed strategies- merged Rhapsody technologies into the MacOS
before they'd originally intended to.

Irrelevant. The courts and the public (at least some of it) can tell that
a product with substantially the same features as discussed in 1997 is
"Rhapsody" regardless of whatever name a marketing department later
bestows upon it.

Post by Michael Bartosh
Those promises came from Amelio- they were crazy (run Rhapsody on a
PowerBook 1400?!?!?!)

Then he should not have made them. However, Apple, Inc. *MUST* deal with
the legal and public statements from their legal CEO which could be
considered "inducements to buy." Many of their other pronouncements and
public statements make similar promises, especially wrt x86-compatible
hardware.

I might also point out that I run OPENSTEP/mach 4.2 on a 33MHz NeXTcube
everyday. The performance is certainly not as good as a 450MHz Pentium
II, but it is adequate for my needs (i.e. everything except 3d gaming).
Rhapsody could run on a Powerbook 1400.

Post by Michael Bartosh
So Apple changed strategies. The only thing they did say officially
was G3's will be supported. That, with the commercial release, is
true. And I have heard, tho I don't know for a fact- that it does
indeed boot on most PCI 604's.

Also irrelevant.

Post by Michael Bartosh
I don't understand where the promise breaking comes from.

See other folks' messages about interviews with Ken Bereksin, the still
binding promises of Gil Amelio, etc.

[Erik M. Buck]

Post by Bruce Fancher
And if this is all true, why hide it from developers, some of whom are
writing in Objective-C, instead of making it known to them? All this

serves

Post by Bruce Fancher
to do is piss them off even more when it eventually becomes known.

This is the new Apple. Screw all developers! They get the little ones now.
They will get the big ones later. I for one can not get more pissed off and
the market in which I am influential makes WebObjects seem like pocket
change.

[Louis Pelletier]

Post by Michael Giddings

Post by Bruce Fancher
And if this is all true, why hide it from developers, some of whom are
writing in Objective-C, instead of making it known to them? All this

serves

Post by Bruce Fancher
to do is piss them off even more when it eventually becomes known.

This is the new Apple. Screw all developers! They get the little ones now.
They will get the big ones later. I for one can not get more pissed off and
the market in which I am influential makes WebObjects seem like pocket
change.

I think you don't realize what Apple is doing...

With Rhapsody, they were keeping you (NeXT developers) but taking a lot of
risks to lose all MacOS developers...

Now, with MacOS X/Carbon, they are keeping all MacOS developers, but risks
to lose you... but only if you aren't able to read through the lines (does
this expression have sense in english? :o).

1) YB is fade away until every has made the move to Carbon;
2) YB support will stay
2.1) Tevanian, Jobs, and all other creators of this wonderfull technology,
now working at Apple would be silly to kill it... it just doesn't make sense;
2.2) With their current strategy, they can't push in two opposite
directions, which would be to promote Carbon AND YB...
3) Java? Objective-C: this is still a main issue for now on...
4) MXS Intel? Forget it for now... *maybe* later...

Just put yourself in Steve Jobs' shoes... what would you do? Tell 12,000
developers that your killing their current toolbox? Just think about it for
a moment... and please, don't believe in magic... Rhapsody was meant to
kill Apple... or at least it was a *very* risky strategy.