First of all my recollection of the name Rhapsody showing up on Apple's
article (and not Copland) is correct. I may not be able to easily find
the page again in a myriad of articles, but I am able to recall that I
saw Rhapsody and not Copland. Your conclusion "Can't find article
therefore must be wrong" is almost insulting and I don't think you would
accept any such comment made to yourself in a similar situation.
Then again, under the law the owner of a property who has both the
controlling and beneficial ownership (the default), has the *sole* right
to determine whatever concerns the property. Nobody else has.
Unless Apple has placed the controlling ownership into a trust and only
retained the beneficial ownership (i.e. for tax reasons), which is
unlikely and in which case it would be the trustees who decide, ...
Unless that was the case, they, Apple are the only ones to determine
anything that concerns their property. If they say Rhapsody is a
different piece of property than OSX, then that is legally binding for
as long as they don't change their mind and say differently.
In any event I couldn't care less and this whole discussion misses the
point. The point was that until there is a product on the market (i.e. a
Newton revival or a PDA version of iPod) anything is but rumours and not
to be taken seriously as history shows that projects can go on and on
and change and change and eventually they can get cancelled or if they
don't get cancelled then at least they have gone through so many
reinventions and redefinitions that nobody even remembers what they once
were intended to be.
In other words, don't hold your breath for a PDA iPod no matter what the
rumours are. We may as well believe in Father Xmas, not much of a
difference there. I believe it when I see it and I don't expect anything
any time soon if at all.
kind regards
BK
On Tuesday, November 27, 2001, at 04:44 , Bill Davis wrote:
>> Two days ago I have just helped some Japanese chap to get OSX Server up
>> and running and we were going through all the Japanese TIL articles on
>> Apple Japan's web site.
>>
>> We found something that looked like an OSX mini-FAQ which was derived
>> from an English Apple document and it said ...
>>
>> "Q: Is MacOS X the same as Rhapsody ?
>>
>> A: No, MacOS X is not Rhapsody."
>>
>> That is Apple who said that.
>
> Then it's wrong. OS X _is_ derived from Rhapsody. PERIOD. It's not
> the absolute original concept, but Rhapsody = NextSTEP+MacOS. The only
> real diff from the original Rhapsody to OS X is Carbon.
>
>
>> I tried to find the article again, but because we went through so many
>> articles, I simply can't recall exactly which one it was. I make no
>> promises but I will keep looking and if I find it I'll post the link.
>
> AHA! You can't find it because your memory is wrong. Because that
> simply
> is NOT the facts.
>
> You probably saw "Copland" and now remember it as "Rhapsody". They are
> NOT the same thing. COPLAND was the MacOS redesign project that Apple
> abandoned when they bought NeXT.
>
>
>> As far as your comments on the architecture go, there are some things
>> that look alright to me, but others raise suspicion. For example, I
>> remember to have read about Rhapsody, even with an architecture diagram
>> of it in a MacWorld or MacUser or MacSomethingElse magazine well
>> *before* Steven Jobs rejoined Apple and well before Apple even
>> considered to use OpenStep as a base.
>
> Then your memory is wrong. What you are thinking of is Copland, NOT
> Rhapsody. They are not even remotely the same thing. Copland was the
> MacOS X redesign that Apple abandoned before/when Apple bought NeXT's
> tech.
>
> Copland was before Steve Jobs return
>
> Rhapsody and OS X are after.
>
> Those are the facts. Parts of the work done on Copland may have shown
> up
> in Rhapsody/OS X though.
>
> I'm sure parts of the MacOS emulator they had that ran on Unix years and
> years ago went into the Classic emulator in OS X. That was a product
> that Apple sold for Unix boxes for a number of years. Most people don't
> even remember or know that that existed too.
>
>> Before Apple decided they would go
>> with OpenStep, they were in talks with Be to use BeOS as a base for the
>> new OS to come.
>
> That was the rumor, but there was never a public announcement of any
> such
> thing.
>
>
>> So, clearly, Apple didn't always have OpenStep on their
>> mind, an impression one might get reading your comments. In reality,
>
>> Apple was running around like a headless chicken trying to come up with
>> something but even if they had good ideas they could never agree on a
>> direction. Steven Jobs changed that and it was only then that OpenStep
>> became the direction. Work on Rhapsody had been done long before that.
>
> Wrong, wrong, wrong. COPLAND, something TOTALLY different than
> NeXTStep/OpenStep/Rhapsody/OS X came before Steve Job's return. It was
> a totally different OS design, although certain parts of Copland showed
> up in OS 9 and probably even in OS X (possibly even in OS 8.)
>
>
>> I clearly remember that Jobs announced that Rhapsody was to be
>> abandoned
>> for something else.
>
> Again, you are WRONG. Your memory is just plain wrong. The only change
> Steve announced re: Rhapsody was the introduction of Carbon due to the
> developers complaining abouy being forced to rewrite their current apps
> in Cocao (OpenStep/NextSTEP/Project Builder) to make use of OS X's
> features. Carbon allows OS X native apps without a total Cocoa rewrite.
>
>
>> Sure, there will have been some level of publicity
>> stunt behind that, but I also seem to remember that it was also stated
>> that some work that had gone into Rhapsody was to be salvaged for OSX.
>
> Again, you're memory is wrong. It was the work on COPLAND that went
> into
> Rhapsody/OS X.
>
>> Besides, it is Apple who owned whatever was Rhapsody
>
> Again, COPLAND, not Rhapsody.
>
>> and it is Apple who
>> bought OpenStep. They are the owners of all this stuff and as such they
>> have the ultimate owenership rights which means it is up to them to say
>> what it is and what it not is. That's what the law in the US says
>> anyway.
>>
>> If Apple says Rhapsody is not OSX, I'll go with that.
>
> Apple never said that, despite what you say you read. And if a
> translation of an FAQ said that on an Japanese web page, then the
> translation was incorrect. PERIOD.
>
> Rhapsody IS OS X. Or rather, OS X is the final form of Rhapsody +
> Carbon
> + a bit of Copland.
>
> - Bill
>
>
> --
> This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net
> To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or
> mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe
>
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
-- This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sat Dec 01 2001 - 20:03:56 EST