Paul is basically ragging on every Mac OS X 10.5 review as being nothing but puff-pieces. I get a special mention, because...
Now, obviously, I didn’t read all available reviews -but among those whose efforts I did read only one: John Welch writing for information Week, mentioned DTrace - and that in passingSpecifically, I said:
For developers and sysadmins who have a need to monitor the low-level activities of any application on a given Mac, Mac OS X 10.5 now comes with its own implementation of DTrace.
That's evidently not good enough for Paul. Well Paul, I wrote 5,528 words in that review. While I did not in fact, spend a lot of time on DTrace, it's because a) I'm not really a developer, and b) I don't know enough about DTrace to speak intelligently on it, so I, (here's the whacky part), didn't say anything about it because I would then be guilty of talking about something I don't know anything about. I know that's a silly concept at ZDvorakNet, but in my world, it's important. Of course, Paul leaves out the list of non-UI puffery that I did mention like:
- The death of Netinfo, and some details on its replacement
- Improvements in Directory Services behavior for mobile users
- File System events, a major component in how Time Machine works
- Changes in AppleScript and the OS scripting architecture
- What the new AutoFS implementation does for you in the real world
- A light overview of security changes
But evidently, since I didn't spend another 10K words on developer items that I am rather unqualified to talk about, I was writing a barbie interview.
Of course, I'm still doing better than Ol' Paul, who is talking out his nethers all over the place:
Similarly, none of them mentioned ZFS or its relationship to “Time-machine”That would be due to there not being a relationship between ZFS and Time Machine. (Not "Time-machine". Time Machine. Two words...."Time"..."Machine". Time Machine. New backup application from Apple. Big hit. Time Machine) Time Machine uses HFS+, not ZFS. Of course, the fact that ZFS support in Mac OS X 10.5 is read-only would make it rather hard to use it for backups, because, as I recall, there's rather a lot of writing in the backup process.
exactly nobody mentioned that the new Spaces capability (essentially the standard Unix multi-screen capability) now supports separating the display from the rest of the machine.Huh? WirelessVGA? When did *that* happen? Or maybe he's confusing Spaces with Apple Remote Desktop. Paul...Spaces is just multiple desktops. It doesn't "disconnect" the display from the machine. It's not Terminal Services, nor is it even X11. That would be of course...um...X11.
It gets better:
But if you ignore the partisan reviewers and ask what the real bottom line on “Leopard” is, the answer turns out to be the iPhone - because the current Mactels are this generation’s Apple IIIs.Okay, come on, admit it. There's a "Most Full Of Crap Article of the Month" award at ZDvorakNet, and Paul's really working it hard to get his bronze crapper. By the end of it, he's not even writing English:
What’s going on is that 10.5 is a mixed bag reflecting both short and long term agendas. In the short term it cleans up some x86 issues and offers some new user features raising the bar for Microsoft’s next effort -particularly with respect to time machine because this will be hard for Microsoft to duplicate while Apple’s adoption of ZFS means that all of the compexity here will disappear in the next release.I'd try to interpret that, but gosh, it appears I don't speak idiot.
In the long term, however, what 10,.5 is about is positioning Apple’s application developers to jump to the integrated server/playphone world of the future - that’s why there’s so much Solaris and Java development stuff there.
Every time Paul Murphy mentions my name, I taser a baby. Is that what ZDvorakNet really wants?