To sleep, perchance to dream? OS 10.2.8 - ay, There's the Rub

Scott Ellsworth <scott@alodar.com> wrote:

> In article <1h3r4u6.wb7k641yazsowN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
> rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:
>
> > It may be cynical, but I get the impression bugs are slipped into
> > OS-updates just before a major (meaning $$) version change.
> > I'll never forget the way OS 9 was slowed and unstabilised
> > compared to 8.6 to soften us up for the "jump" to OS X.
>
> I suspect that is a bit paranoid. Given that slipping bugs into the
> code base is still engineering work, I would be really surprised if they
> bothered.
Not paranoid, just cynical. Im convinced it happened going from OS 8.6
to 9, Jobs had a lot to lose if OS9 appeared faster and more stable than
OS X. In OS X I'm not sure because as a user without Unix I have less
control over the OS. It seems to make programming easier for you guys
but for users apart from the eye candy its become like Windows (well,
almost :-). Files of unknown origin all over the place. Only slightly
more stable than pre OS X too.

ray

> More likely, to me, is testing and focus. I was running Tiger full time
> as of last November, as were many developers I knew. Any bugs in
> releases of 10.3 that came up during that period would not be spotted by
> me. I know other developers who were in the same state.
Hmm... I hear 10.3.9 was a good version.

In article <1h3w57u.vph0y81634mskN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

> Not paranoid, just cynical.

No, you're paranoid. I'm cynical and can see no merit to your argument.

> Im convinced it happened going from OS 8.6
> to 9, Jobs had a lot to lose if OS9 appeared faster and more stable than
> OS X.

Are you suggesting that OS 8.6 was faster than the current versions of
OSX? You're almost certainly right on transitional 8/9/X machines. Not
on new ones.

> Files of unknown origin all over the place. Only slightly
> more stable than pre OS X too.

The files you should concern yourself with are pretty much in the same
place with one layer over them and start with Library. You shouldn't
concern yourself with /Library and it isn't trivial to change it. All
your personal preferences like in System/Preferences in pre OSX versions
are in Library/Preferences( no / in front of Library). Everything to
enhance or destroy your system is accessible via the terminal.
The terminal just sits there until you learn some UNIX commands. I'm
still learning the file system after knowing it in RedHat Linux. There
are new commands, but the old important ones work fine.
Current versions of OSX are far more stable than OS9 and earlier.
Period. You crash applications, not the entire OS.
Geeze, I jumped on my soapbox and perhaps missed the point.

leo

--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>

In article <1h3w57u.vph0y81634mskN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:

> Scott Ellsworth <scott@alodar.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1h3r4u6.wb7k641yazsowN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
> > rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:
> >
> > > It may be cynical, but I get the impression bugs are slipped into
> > > OS-updates just before a major (meaning $$) version change.
> > > I'll never forget the way OS 9 was slowed and unstabilised
> > > compared to 8.6 to soften us up for the "jump" to OS X.
> >
> > I suspect that is a bit paranoid. Given that slipping bugs into the
> > code base is still engineering work, I would be really surprised if they
> > bothered.
> Not paranoid, just cynical. Im convinced it happened going from OS 8.6
> to 9, Jobs had a lot to lose if OS9 appeared faster and more stable than
> OS X.

A simpler explanation is that most of the programmers had been
redeployed to OS 10 by then, so OS 9 got only the bare essentials of
support, as befitted its soon-to-be legacy status.

Joe Gwinn

Leonard Blaisdell <leo@greatbasin.com> wrote:

> In article <1h3w57u.vph0y81634mskN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
> rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:
>
> > Not paranoid, just cynical.
>
> No, you're paranoid. I'm cynical and can see no merit to your argument.
Fine, I can.

> > Im convinced it happened going from OS 8.6
> > to 9, Jobs had a lot to lose if OS9 appeared faster and more stable than
> > OS X.
>
> Are you suggesting that OS 8.6 was faster than the current versions of
> OSX? You're almost certainly right on transitional 8/9/X machines. Not
> on new ones.
Hardware speeds have quadrupled, OS speeds? -hardly. Haven't done
serious number crunching since OS X arrived, and I don't use Tiger so I
can't tell.

> > Files of unknown origin all over the place. Only slightly
> > more stable than pre OS X too.
>
> The files you should concern yourself with are pretty much in the same
> place with one layer over them and start with Library. You shouldn't
> concern yourself with /Library and it isn't trivial to change it. All
> your personal preferences like in System/Preferences in pre OSX versions
> are in Library/Preferences( no / in front of Library). Everything to
> enhance or destroy your system is accessible via the terminal.
> The terminal just sits there until you learn some UNIX commands. I'm
> still learning the file system after knowing it in RedHat Linux. There
> are new commands, but the old important ones work fine.
I haven't touched the command line. I'm a Mac user, not a geek :-/

> Current versions of OSX are far more stable than OS9 and earlier.
> Period. You crash applications, not the entire OS.
> Geeze, I jumped on my soapbox and perhaps missed the point.
Only slightly. I meant these kernel panics, which require a restart.
They occur slightly less frequently than the earlier crashes.
Now that I've removed my desktop weather map of the world <sob> neither
of my CPU kernels have paniced (touch wood) but its early days..

Joseph Gwinn <JoeGwinn@comcast.net> wrote:

> In article <1h3w57u.vph0y81634mskN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
> rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:
>
> > Scott Ellsworth <scott@alodar.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1h3r4u6.wb7k641yazsowN%rlaughton@invalid.com>,
> > > rlaughton@invalid.com (Ray Laughton) wrote:
> > >
> > > > It may be cynical, but I get the impression bugs are slipped into
> > > > OS-updates just before a major (meaning $$) version change.
> > > > I'll never forget the way OS 9 was slowed and unstabilised
> > > > compared to 8.6 to soften us up for the "jump" to OS X.
> > >
> > > I suspect that is a bit paranoid. Given that slipping bugs into the
> > > code base is still engineering work, I would be really surprised if they
> > > bothered.
> > Not paranoid, just cynical. Im convinced it happened going from OS 8.6
> > to 9, Jobs had a lot to lose if OS9 appeared faster and more stable than
> > OS X.
>
> A simpler explanation is that most of the programmers had been
> redeployed to OS 10 by then, so OS 9 got only the bare essentials of
> support, as befitted its soon-to-be legacy status.
>
That would be the benign interpretation of those events..
Dunno, maybe Jobs will come out with the truth in his biography some
day.

ray