3 ms·
NeXT was just more mature to me at the time. OSXS was trying to do too much from all directions, while I was of the belief that System 8.6.1 was pretty perfect
by smm11 4y ago
NeXT was just more mature to me at the time. OSXS was trying to do too much from all directions, while I was of the belief that System 8.6.1 was pretty perfect already.
Agree on Be, and I've tried Hauki off and on. It really seems, as I default to using my phone for nearly everything anyway, that a system like that really is ideal at this point. Like a lot of people my day is spent a jump server away, so I haven't cared what I'm using 99 percent of the time.
- lproven 4y agoOK, ISWYM. I mean, yes, NeXTstep was much more mature. No argument. But OS X Server was aimed at a different job, and a different job to classic MacOS as well. People did use NeXTstep as a server -- the first ever web server, notably -- but it wasn't a great one and wasn't its intended role. Classic MacOS was usable as a server too. It seems to be largely forgotten now but the US Army officially moved all its web servers to classic MacOS at one point, because not having any form of shell at all made it largely unhackable. You can't get shell access when there is no shell to get to, and no clever x86 code exploit will help you when none of the servers have an x86 chip in them. It wasn't a very good server, though, and quietly I think they changed to something else a bit more conventional not long afterwards. Compared to Classic, I bet OS X Server was a great server OS. ;-) I think the real purpose of OSXS was to answer the question: "OK, we've done a ton of work porting NeXTstep to PowerMac and grafting a kinda sorta MacOS-like desktop on the thing, and it's cost us a sh1t-tonne of money and person-hours of work with not much to show for it so far. Is there any way we can start to make some money off this thing before it's ready to ship as a desktop OS?"