Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 12th Mar 2006 18:40 UTC, submitted by Varg Vikernes
Apple Dan Kusnetzky, Apple program vice president, spoke to PC Pro News at IDC and said that Apple has no plans to support booting into Vista on the new Intel Macs. However, a Microsoft spokesman said that Microsoft would have no problem granting a Windows licence to Apple, in exactly the same way it currently provides licences to Dell and HP: "Microsoft would support Apple the same way it supports every other PC manufacturer." But Dan Kusnetzky said it would be difficult to know who would support that machine if Windows was running on a Mac. However, "no doubt someone will work out how to run Windows on the Mac, even if Apple doesn't technically support that."
Thread beginning with comment 103749
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
stephanem
Member since:
2006-01-11

> your versioning nonsense] You don't have a clue about linux, aren't you? [no need to answer this, answer is obvious]


Right here right now - let's settle this. You prove to me that the nvidia driver compiled on Linux 2.6.15.1 can work on 2.6.15.2 without recompiling and I'll stop posting here on OSNEWS.


If you lose, you stop posting here forever.

Deal?

Dude, I know what I'm talking about so you better back away from this argument.

Reply Parent Score: 1

somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Right here right now - let's settle this. You prove to me that the nvidia driver compiled on Linux 2.6.15.1 can work on 2.6.15.2 without recompiling and I'll stop posting here on OSNEWS.

Why would I do that? I never said that you can do this.
As much as I'm pro Linux, I'm also realistic.

If you go trough my post history on OSNews you can also find my little war with few real zealots about this.

Let me repost it again, or at least the point of it:)
Monolithic kernel and lack of stable ABI in kernel is double edged sword.

Good sides:
1. not bounded to specifics forewer
2. larger gains possible because devs are not bound to ancient history
3. monolithic is faster

Bad sides:
1. companies don't like the moving ground
2. see 1.
3. for each change in main branch, complete kernel has to be recompiled

From a user perspective:
1. there are repositories
2. usualy those repositories follow both, drivers and kernel modifications
3. when you update kernel you usualy update driver too. So there is no more recompiling for users anymore.

As you see, flaws of linux approach are mostly company related. And since my usage is mostly commercial, I could say I'm part of the party that suffers the most from this fact. But even I can't remember one single example where these facts would hurt me.

If you lose, you stop posting here forever.

Why? No one will loose:) I won't argue you don't have it right:) I will just argue that your viewpoint is immature:) And this is the reason for me pointing out that you don't know much about linux:)

Deal?

Nah:) It would be a waste to lose you. You're funny:)

Dude, I know what I'm talking about so you better back away from this argument.

No, you don't:) Or at least your viewpoint is completely missed:) You can't say that something is bad if it provides enough benefits back +1-1=0

Edited 2006-03-12 21:33

Reply Parent Score: 1

stephanem Member since:
2006-01-11

> Let me repost it again, or at least the point of it:)
> Monolithic kernel and lack of stable ABI in kernel is > double edged sword.
>
> Good sides:
> 1. not bounded to specifics forewer

So that's another way of saying, I don't know jack about designing operating systems but lets see what I can hack up this week.

> 2. larger gains possible because devs are not bound
> to ancient history

Imagine how this would play out at MS/Apple/Oracle/IBM/Sun?. You release a patch of your system that toally breaks everyhthing that came before.

> 3. monolithic is faster

OK no arguments here.

> Bad sides:
> 1. companies don't like the moving ground
> 2. see 1.
> 3. for each change in main branch, complete kernel
> has to be recompiled

Why just companies. Users don't like moving ground. One day Nvidia works and the next day it doesn't. I can assure you that through all the SP1s and SP2s and Patch Tuesdays of Windows XP, I've never had to reinstall my Nvidia driver.

> From a user perspective:
> 1. there are repositories
> 2. usualy those repositories follow both, drivers and > kernel modifications
> 3. when you update kernel you usualy update driver
> too. So there is no more recompiling for users
> anymore.

Except these user repositories don't cover all kernel drivers and modules - how about ones from VMWare or Win4Lin or OSS? These people are so religious that they say you want us to maintain proprietary modules - tell the companies to open source them and they jolly well know that the proprietary guys will not.

Edited 2006-03-12 22:01

Reply Parent Score: 3

rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

That's a really lame argument. Apple didn't guarantee that drivers would work between OS X releases either (until 10.4). Nobody seemed to have noticed. The only difference is Linux has a mechanism to detect the driver version and prevent a module from loading but mysteriously failing, and OS X doesn't.

Driver compatibility is a big deal on Windows, where the drivers come from third parties, but on OS X and Linux, where almost all drivers are first-party, it's really not important.

Reply Parent Score: 1

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Right here right now - let's settle this. You prove to me that the nvidia driver compiled on Linux 2.6.15.1 can work on 2.6.15.2 without recompiling and I'll stop posting here on OSNEWS.

The level of maturity around here rivals a Middle School playground sometimes. Why don't you simply just say that your daddy could beat up his daddy?

Reply Parent Score: 1