3 ms·

Steve knew how powerful and essential networking was to the compute paradigm we accept. Be’s TCP stack was never very good. It never had big money applications

Steve knew how powerful and essential networking was to the compute paradigm we accept. Be’s TCP stack was never very good. It never had big money applications like Frame or Illustrator, and lacked the robust dev platform (and paying customers) that Next had.

Jtsummers 6y ago
BeOS was also a single-user OS, which made it a nonstarter for businesses. It wouldn't fit within corporate IT as it existed at the time. NeXT, however, and Mac OS X based in large part on it were both multi-user OSes which could actually be used by businesses more reasonably. And I'm using "business" in a generic sense. This was an important quality for schools, as well, where Macs were incredibly popular (for a number of reasons, including favorable pricing from Apple and historical support for schools since the 80s). Single user OSes just don't fit within any organization trying to at least pretend to have decent IT.
- frank2 6y ago
  I am mystified by your comment. How has OS X's "multi-userness" helped organizations? Do you literally mean two or more people using the same Mac? Has it been useful for organizations that users can ssh into Macs? Or is Apple Remote Desktop involved? (Does Apple Remote Desktop even allow 2 people two use two instance of OS X's GUI at the same time?) Or by "multi-user" do you refer to the services that can be enabled using the "Sharing" pane of System Preferences (e.g., file sharing, printer sharing, remote management, internet sharing)?
  - Jtsummers 6y ago
    I mean that BeOS didn’t have a way to login as separate people and use the same computer at different times with a clear separation of access rights. Mac OS X did, like most Unix or Unix-related OSes. It’s not about simultaneous use, but standard user management, access control, and permissions. Though yes, technically this also allows multiple to access it simultaneously via ssh and other things that’s not the important part for IT in this instance.
    - frank2 6y ago
      Thanks. For some reason I couldnt think of that on my own.

Jtsummers 6y ago

BeOS was also a single-user OS, which made it a nonstarter for businesses. It wouldn't fit within corporate IT as it existed at the time. NeXT, however, and Mac OS X based in large part on it were both multi-user OSes which could actually be used by businesses more reasonably. And I'm using "business" in a generic sense. This was an important quality for schools, as well, where Macs were incredibly popular (for a number of reasons, including favorable pricing from Apple and historical support for schools since the 80s). Single user OSes just don't fit within any organization trying to at least pretend to have decent IT.

frank2 6y ago
I am mystified by your comment. How has OS X's "multi-userness" helped organizations? Do you literally mean two or more people using the same Mac? Has it been useful for organizations that users can ssh into Macs? Or is Apple Remote Desktop involved? (Does Apple Remote Desktop even allow 2 people two use two instance of OS X's GUI at the same time?) Or by "multi-user" do you refer to the services that can be enabled using the "Sharing" pane of System Preferences (e.g., file sharing, printer sharing, remote management, internet sharing)?
- Jtsummers 6y ago
  I mean that BeOS didn’t have a way to login as separate people and use the same computer at different times with a clear separation of access rights. Mac OS X did, like most Unix or Unix-related OSes. It’s not about simultaneous use, but standard user management, access control, and permissions. Though yes, technically this also allows multiple to access it simultaneously via ssh and other things that’s not the important part for IT in this instance.
  - frank2 6y ago
    Thanks. For some reason I couldnt think of that on my own.