Leopard Server hardware requirements?

[Nat!]

Am 03.10.2007 um 14:07 schrieb John C. Welch:

> On 10/03/2007 06:32 AM, "Nat!" <nat at mulle-kybernetik.com> wrote:
>
>> As solely a customer of Apple and not a shareholder, I find it
>> amusing, how you emphasize so much with Apple over its problems and
>> needs. Do you also emphasize as much with the problems of the post
>> office, if your letter arrives three days late ? That's a huge
>> logistics large scale project right there too.
>
> Behold the mighty strawman. How glorious, and yet, meaningless.
>
> Funny how you manage to try to come up with the idea that All Big  
> Projects
> Are The Same, along with the even sillier idea that An Established
> Infrastructure With A 200+ Year History is *exactly* the same as An
> Operating System Release

It's sorta funny, to see you try very hard to miss the point I was  
making.

>
>
>> If we separate "everyone" out into
>
>> a) Apple + people with financial investment
>> b) people with emotional investment in Apple (aka Lemmings)
>> c) people who just own Apple computers
>> d) the other 99% of humanity :)
>
>> The benefit for a) is clear. The benefit for b) is none, but because
>> of the faith, what is good for a) is good for b). Then there is c)
>> people, whose hardware becomes obsolete and who don't like it.
>
> You forgot e) The people who refuse to buy new hardware because "by  
> gum, I
> bought this here laptop five/seven/ten years ago, and by cracky, Apple
> should support all hardware forever, because my needs perfectly mirror
> everyone else's"

No, they are logically included in c) b) and a), which goes to show  
that your reasoning abilities < polemic capabilities.

>
>> Here's a case how the advent of Tiger and its arbitrary hardware
>> requirement affected my Apple hardware investment. As a developer
>> it's a major hassle to work with various Xcode versions. So when 10.4
>> came out there was a new incompatible Xcode. Xcode is tied to the OS
>> version. I could have chosen to stay for 10.3 on all machines for
>> just about as long as I needed to buy a machine from the next new Mac
>> line. New Macs don't support old OSs. Not going to 10.4 was not a
>> realistic option though. My company is not an island and the rest of
>> the world progressed to 10.4 quickly.
>
> Welcome to being a developer. People buy new stuff. They want  
> applications
> to run on it. If you refuse to write applications that run well on  
> a new OS
> release, someone else will happily take your customers. As well, if  
> you had
> a machine that was current and new when 10.3 came out, it would run  
> 10.4. So
> unless you had a fairly old mac for 10.3, you didn't have a problem.
>
>> Now suddenly, that laptop I used to develop on the train became
>> useless for its purpose. That is certainly not "good for me" by
>> anyones definition.
>
> Um...camembert or gouda? First of all, unless you're in the dev  
> program, you
> don't know what Leopard's requirements are, and since they haven't  
> been
> announced yet, even if you are, you STILL don't know, because such  
> things
> are flexible even close to a release date. If you have a fairly new
> PowerBook, say, anything released after the Aluminum ones were  
> announced,
> which was 2003, almost 5 years ago at this point, you should be  
> good to go.
> If you have a 400MHz TiBook, which is almost 7 years old? Worry.
>
> Here's one...stop assuming that you're general motors.
>
> By the way, you also got that GM quote wrong, or at least the context,
> because that part is rather quotemining-ish, as it leaves off the  
> important
> lead-in:
>
> "For years I thought that what was good for our country was good  
> for General
> Motors and vice versa. The difference did not exist. Our company is  
> too big.
> It goes with the welfare of the country."

Ouch, that gives it a completely different spin, that I didn't intend.
No.. Wait...

>
> The amusing thing is that the ego behind Charles Wilson's  
> statement, and
> your insistence that Apple never stop supporting any hardware ever  
> made just
> so you're not inconvenienced in the least are rather similar.
>

The problem with that comparison is, that I never insisted on such a  
thing.
You're either a sloppy reader or not a forthright debater.
------------------------------------------------------
A good dog, though a fool.
Who wants a smart dog!  -- R.A. Lafferty