[Ti] OS X on x86 (was: Apple's True Market Share!)

[Mark C. Langston]

On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 09:50:21PM -0600, Chris Olson wrote:
> Mark C. Langston wrote:
> 
> > It came from your claim that Solaris on x86 isn't fully-functional.
> 
> Since your tone is obviously confrontational,

Only in that I'm confronting you and insisting you support your claims,
rather than tossing about baseless opinion as fact.

 and you are an advocate of 
> x86 and I am not,

I'm not an advocate of x86.  I'm an advocate of rational debate.
"Is so/is not!" is not rational debate.  "Is so/if it's so, where's
your evidence?/Is so!" is what we're having right now.  "Is so/if it's
so, where's your evidence?/here's the basis for my claims" is where
I was trying to get us.

If you somehow view that as x86 advocacy, I pity you.  You're no
better than the people who run around bashing Apple and PowerPC
platforms simply because they're not Wintel boxen; because you're
just doing the opposite.

If you've got a cogent argument to make, make it.  But as long as
your argument includes claims about things like Solaris x86
performance, people (like me) who have worked with Solaris on
many diverse systems for years are going to insist that you back
up your claims, or retract them, or qualify them appropriately.
You've no more right to claim, "$FOO on x86 is bad!" without
objective, well-controlled and properly-collected evidence than
would someone coming in here and claiming OS X on Apple hardware
is bad.  

Just because you're not bashing OS X doesn't make it okay.  If
you tire of hearing it called bashing, do something other than
simply reiterate that something doesn't work right.  Back up
your claims, or avoid making them.


> I'll attempt to put this thread more on-track for 
> appropriate content for this list.
> 
> It's my opinion that it would be a bad move for Apple to port OS X to 
> the x86 architecture.  I have my reasons for believing that, no matter 
> how "unprofessional" those reasons may be.
> 
> If for nothing else, it's because I'm typing this on an *Apple* 
> Powerbook powered by a G4 PowerPC processor instead of some generic, 
> run-of-the-mill Pentium III mobile wrapped up in a black plastic case, 
> or what have you.  So I'm different than the other 95% of the computing 
> world because I have an Apple computer, and Apple Computers are 
> generally associated with quality.  Would the TiBook still be the most 
> sought after notebook computer in the known universe if it was turned 
> into just "another x86 notebook computer"?  I highly doubt it.


Now, see?  Tha's perfectly reasonable.  You stated a position, and
the justification you gave for it is that it's your personal opinion.
That's a far cry from the claims that were being made regarding Solaris
x86.  "I like this OS and this hardware" is unarguable.  "I like this
OS on this hardware because this other OS performs poorly and lacks
functionality on this other hardware" is going to require further
justification, particularly when there are people who know that other
OS in the audience.

You see this all the time in debates about MTAs;  once you can get
beyond the (rather impassioned) religious wars, there are actually a
fairly clear set of criteria for evaluating one MTA against another.
I think the problem here is that some people are either trying to turn
this into a religious war, or think I am, when in fact I'm trying to
move it beyond the realm of religious war, and into an arena where, if
such claims must be made, they can be made fairly and rationally.



-- 
Mark C. Langston                                    Sr. Unix SysAdmin
mark at bitshift.org                                       mark at seti.org
Systems & Network Admin                                SETI Institute
http://bitshift.org                               http://www.seti.org