Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Apple Businesses

A Linux User At MacWorld 202

Posted by timothy
from the interesting-futures-assembling-themselves dept.
usermilk writes "Linux Journal just posted a pretty cool article, A Penguin Angle on the Ox: Day One at Macworld. It features a Linux user's perspective on MacWorld, OS X, Darwin, and how all these things play together. Most interestingly, he comments on the large number of open-source-Unix bigwigs who are now on Apple's payroll. There's also a pretty concise description of the difference between Apple building off of BSD compared to Microsoft trying to also reap the benefits of open source." Doc Searls' perspective makes a great companion to the report from the floor (and part II) that chrisd posted.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Linux User At MacWorld

Comments Filter:
  • Apple (Score:1, Interesting)

    by neroz (449747)
    I think, for apple to really get in the Linux/Free Software's good books, they need to give something back. The license on Darwin is too restrictive to count, and they did rip off FreeBSD 3.2 (I realise, that is not how the BSD developers see it, but this is reality :-). Something like funding, or code, would go a long way in giving them a better reputation.
    • Re:Apple (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I would think that the fact they employ BSD and Darwin developers, as this article mentions, would count towards "giving back".
    • Re:Apple (Score:3, Informative)

      by pelorus (463100)
      True. They hired Jordan Hubbard and made sure he could pay the rent. They hired Bud Tribble and Brian Croll who were both Eazel developers. All these guys have to pay the rent.

      There was also that NFStest stuff that Avi gave to the BSD guys which they are using to "fix" NFS which is pretty borken!

      I don't think they care about getting into "good books" any more than providing a machine that works. No-one is saying dump Linux, they are saying that when using screen and mutt, use a Mac OS X Terminal window...

      • They hired Bud Tribble and Brian Croll who were both Eazel developers.

        Since Bud was a former Apple employee, I don't think it's so much taking expertise from the community, as it is rehiring expertise.

    • Get over it (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      ...and contribute something yourself.
    • by t (8386)
      It may not seem like it from the outside but I'm sure with that many free software types on the inside there is probably a lot of not so subtle hinting going on. I've often considered working for M$ to try and push them from the inside, or failing that, turn state evidence.

      t.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      Apple gives the unix community some opt-in direction and control, and a platform with MS Office. It legitimises unix as a desktop, and gives more exposure to unix in the corporate desktop environment. It's brilliant, as I can use a decent OS, and still develop apps using linux tools if I desire. I really think it's the best of both worlds.

      I've sold my rev A imac, ordered the new one, and will continue to run my previous Linux box as an fileserver, mp3 server and first level firewall.

      Now to spend less time with hardware configurations and kernel rebuilds everytime I plug something in, and work on a standard hardware platform that lots of other developers have. More time to code, less time doing the dishes.

      Change is good. Embrace it.

  • by mirko (198274)
    I didn't know about Hexley [hexley.com], the Darwin mascot, but what the Hell is this grey picture [linuxjournal.com] in the article?
    • Re:Darwin Mascot (Score:2, Informative)

      by pelorus (463100)
      That's a listing of the "public" wireless networks set up by people on their laptops in the keynote room. you can name the network anything you want so I guess there's some satire there...
  • by jawtheshark (198669) <slashdot&jawtheshark,com> on Friday January 11, 2002 @06:59AM (#2822486) Homepage Journal
    I bought an iBook two weeks ago and it is my first Mac. I was playing around with Linux for over a year and feel quite confident with it. (quite a lot, on my older hardware). You know compiling kernels, getting stuff to work and to interoperate with my Windows machines, setting up a nice desktop and using it as a desktop machine. Worked perfectly and I was hapyp.
    The Mac always looked a bit like toys for me, but they are most of the time pretty. (Yes, that is a selling point for me!) They also have a stimga of being computers for people that don't want to know about computers. However, prettyness and curiosity about OSX got me buying one. Now, I am not desoriented at all using OSX. It really rocks! Command line open and it's all there: it's often more useful than wading through config screens which you are unfamiliar with. I know, stating something like that is very un-Mac, but the point is: you come from a Linux world (or *BSD) and your Mac will feel at home. If you come from a Windows background, I'm pretty sure you will feel at home too (and enjoy a prettier desktop *grin*),

    One people get a bit more open-minded on computers and operating systems, and are willing to give a Mac a a try....then I'm sure the Mac will have a very bright future.

    (A bit offtopic: even from my hardcore PC users co-workers, I only had positive reactions on the design of the new iMac)

    • by glwillia (31211) on Friday January 11, 2002 @07:53AM (#2822578) Homepage
      I agree. I've been using Linux and FreeBSD since 1995, and just recently bought a Mac. OS X is, quite simply, fabulous (despite the interface issues, which I expect will get ironed out soon enough).

      I've heard a lot on /. about how Macs do not appeal to geeks, but I think they might. How many Linux/Unix coder geeks really care about Photoshop and computer graphics (besides rendering?) Judging from what I've seen of KDE/GNOME splash screens (with the exception of Ximian), I'd say not very many. There are some of us out there who want access to a command line and a top-notch development environment, but also might want to create movies and modify images without learning Photoshop (or GIMP) or Premiere, or spending the money on these applications. That's really the appeal of the (new) Mac experience to many geeks: top-notch consumer OS, with the Unix functionality built-in.

      In fact, here in the Physics department, I've watched a fair amount of people switch from Sun/SGI to Linux, or Mac OS X (and even some from Linux to OS X), because it runs their applications, is cheaper than new SGIs/Suns, and just works right away, unlike (sorry) Linux.
      • Me Too!

        I've been using Linux on and off since '96, I use Debian and Netware on my servers, Windows on desktops but I just bought an iBook...

        I love that the GUI is consistant throughout, that everything just works, that I don't have to spend hours going through config files, that it dosen't crash like windows, that I can drop to a shell and nmap away to my hearts content. Most of all I love that my fonts are all smooth and nice and cuddly ;-)

        It's the first computer I've had where I spend more time working with it and less time making it run the way I want it to (except for my deleting Internet Explorer the first day I got it (to remove the dock icon) and since then being unable to find the installer ;-)

        OSX is cool. I love my Mac.
      • In fact, here in the Physics department, I've watched a fair amount of people switch from Sun/SGI to Linux, or Mac OS X (and even some from Linux to OS X), because it runs their applications, is cheaper than new SGIs/Suns, and just works right away, unlike (sorry) Linux.

        Yeah I guess that's why Fermi has their own distro.

      • > I've heard a lot on /. about how Macs do not
        > appeal to geeks

        you'd be surprised how many geeky professional people are using ibooks and imacs, including techies. the old 'apple is about desktop publishing and education' idea is really getting to be ancient history. apple's a lot geekier than they were a couple of years ago, and that's a good thing.

        > That's really the appeal of the (new) Mac
        > experience to many geeks: top-notch consumer OS,
        > with the Unix functionality built-in.

        yeah, definitely. there's also a lot of good software produced for linux/bsd that will find users on os x... as mac users find that you, you'll see the two worlds merging even more.

        > In fact, here in the Physics department, I've
        > watched a fair amount of people switch from ...
        > [snip] ... and just works right away, unlike
        > (sorry) Linux.

        amen. when I was working on pc's and nt, the first thing I had to do with a new machine was reinstall nt and spend hours finding and downloading new drivers. linux can be the same way, if you don't carefully select your hardware ahead of time. no such problem with imacs... you order 1,500 imacs, and they're all going to have the exact same hardware and software installed (correctly) when they arrive.
        • you'd be surprised how many geeky professional people are using ibooks and imacs, including techies.

          Yes I _would_ be surprised. Even if so, this may be a temporary phenomenon. I bought an iBook, and totally regret it. The main reasons why I bought one were:

          I didn't want to support wintel;

          I wanted RISC

          I thought I might use some of the mac multimedia stuff if I was in a hurry.

          I don't care for osx. It's good for other people, but not for me. But the single thing which has made me regret the purchase is the input mechanism. That may seem odd to some people, but this is crucial to me. The keyboard does not work like a normal keyboard, and it cannot be re-mapped as I like. By hardwiring Policy into the Mechanism of the keyboard, they've made the whole iBook a real pain to use for me. And the trackpad is mis-placed. It's good for people who drag-and-drop to work with a computer. But if you have to use the keybaord a lot, it gets in the way and fucks everything up royally. You can reduce its effect by judicious changes in fvwm, but that's not enough. I even hoped to disable it by building the trackpad support as a kernel module, but its driver cannot be turned into a module. So I might go into the driver code and see if I can make it do what I want.

          The Thinkpad would have been far better, even though it had wintel and a 3-hour battery life.

    • I also just recently bought my first Mac, and iBook. I've been impressed with OS X. It was the real reason I bought a Mac. If you want to get all of your GNU Linux utilities you can download GNU-Darwin [gnu-darwin.org].

      I downloaded these tools (about 1 GB full install). It's just like having your favorite BSD distrabution along side the Mac interface. XDarwin lets you run X-Windows rootless so you can run X apps along side Mac ones.

      People know I'm a geek. When I tell non-geeks I bought a Mac they are like ewww... I didn't think geeks liked Macs. I just tell them They do now cause of OS X! But when talking with other geeks, they know exactly why I bought a Mac. I think we will start to see many Unix lovers use Macs for every day desktop stuff. I still plan to use Linux for servers. As the article said, there isn't much conflict here. Linux and OS X can live together.
    • In what way is being a computer for people that don't like computers a stigma? A friend of mine attended a Usenix conference in San Diego just before Christmas. He estimated that 30% of attendees had Apple laptops running OS X.

      Personnally, I think it's the best PC / operating system combination I have ever used.
  • Welcome. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by pelorus (463100)
    At the end of the day, there are two operating systems in the world. Those that are UNIX(like) and those that are just Windows. To me that speaks of opportunities especially for you Linux guys who have excellent knowledge of your systems. Brush up a bit on Darwin and become a Mac OS (X) systems expert. The end users themselves can do the GUI stuff but they may, at some point, need someone to have a look at the plumbing. Hey, if ya make a quick buck then all the better.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11, 2002 @07:02AM (#2822493)
    I'd tried to install linux on a new macintosh but because the hardware is closed and each model only comes with one type of graphics card and hard drive (and all except the TiBook have the same motherboard throughout the model line) I had trouble trying to have a hard time finding the right drivers. Could somebody install some weird hardware on my machine so I could futz with it some a lot more before it works right. I miss PCs.
  • by baptiste (256004) <{su.etsitpab} {ta} {ekim}> on Friday January 11, 2002 @07:24AM (#2822524) Homepage Journal
    I agree with the comment of Apple having a subversive way of getting folks to run *nix at home. I'm a Linux & Windows guy. I've never liked Macs. MacOS was too touchy feely without any way to really get at teh guts (thats why I like regedit - if I really feel ina destructive mood I can knock my PC into the dirt!) Seriously - I hated WIndows for its lack of stability, but didn't feel MacOS 8 or 9 was much better.

    Well, we recently had a Mac user in our area have his HD crash and burn. While I was swapping out the HD he was complaining about how often it crashed, etc, etc. So on a whim I installed OS 10.1 for him. All I can say is wow - what an amazing OS. Not from a "look Ma, a bash prompt" and not necessarily for me - I like my Gnome desktop. But from an average user's perspective, OS X is sweet! The interface is very nice - and it is so stable. The user made that very comment "Why hasn't it crashed on me?" He used to have crashes all the time. Now he has the other Mac users asking if they can upgrade anytime soon.

    No its not perfect. but Apple really managed to finally create a non-technical user desktop and OS built around a stable fast core. Good for them, I hope it really works out for them. I'll stick with Linux case its fun, but my wife, anotehr Mac user at work complains about usign Windows to do stuff at home - maybe she'll get an iMac for her birthday with OS X - nah - the new ones are too ugly :) Don't want people to think my LCD screen took a dump on my desk :)

    • But from an average user's perspective, OS X is sweet! The interface is very nice - and it is so stable. The user made that very comment "Why hasn't it crashed on me?" He used to have crashes all the time. Now he has the other Mac users asking if they can upgrade anytime soon.

      Hehe, sounds like my wife. After an upgrade of her "old" B&W G3 we decided to buy and install OSX. She spent basically one day and night playing with it (iMovies - nice app, plugged the camera via firewire and it worked immediately -, iTunes, etc.). And at the end she told me with surprise "I know it'll sound strange for a linux user to hear this, but I used it for 1 day!! And it NEVER crashed! It never happened before with 9!!".

      BTW the system is really good. The finder is unfamiliar at the beginning, and the tons of special effects make the interface dog slow (I'm the kind of person running windowmaker on at Athlon 800 because I find that all the E/KDE stuff crawls...), but being able to open a terminal, use emacs/gcc/ssh/etc. make you feel at home even if you come from the unix world.

      We had some installation problems: in the upgrade the HD was replaced with a new (blank) one, and it was only after putting it in that we found that the MacOS9 given with X requires a firmware upgrade to be installed correctly (why X does not require it is beyond me). The upgrade program is on the installation CD, but it requires booting from a writable device (no booting from the CD), so we were forced to install MacOS8, upgrade the firmware, reformat the disk and install 9+X.

      I've not looked into the configuration-through-the-command-line issues, for what was needed (setting up the eth card for the local network) the graphics configuration tools were fine.

      The idea of requiring an administrator password to make changes is nice, since it provides a protection which is missing in the old MacOS as in the Win9x world, and which ensures that no stupid mistake will screw up the system.

      Package installation is a vey very nice: drag the file with the "box" icon to your disk and it's done.

      I've not yet been able to burn a CD in any format. I've slipped in a blank CD, and it asks me to initialize it, but even with admin provilege there's no way I can partition/format/??? it with the disk utility. Using an image passes through the disk copy utility which looks like a fairly ultimate image management program, but it refused to create an iso9660 image and crashed on me after a short time. I just downloaded the latest system update and I'll see if it fixes the issues.....

      Overall, it's worth just for the stress reduction of having my wife scream when the system locked hard with all her data lost in never-never land :)
      • How to burn a CD in MacOS X.1 in a few easy steps:

        1. Insert Black CD, it asks you if you want to initialize it. Say yes.

        2. Drag all the files you want to burn to the "CD" icon that appears on your desktop with the name you gave it.

        3. In finder, click either the "Burn" icon, or drag the CD icon to the trash can, which (strangely) turns into a CD Burning icon.

        4. Wait while it burns

        Now, if you want to burn an .ISO, it's pretty easy as well. Open up DiskCopy, and well, just point it to the ISO or DMG and click burn.

        I've had DiskCopy crash while creating image files, but I've never had the burning process die.
        • CD burning works great with my new iBook and OS X. I really enjoy the combo drive.

          One problem that I have yet to figure out though is how to burn a CD without using a damn HFS partition. It will only let me burn 660 MB on a 700MB CD (and 620 on a 650 I think). It's kinda annoying. I still havn't found a way around this.
        • Built in burning is super easy, but get Toast anyways. For some reason the built in burning software will only format about 680MB of a 700MB disk. No problem unless you have a 700MB file... like, oh say, a DAP episode of MST3k. Toast OTOH will format all 700MB.

        • Actually the latest version also burns ISO discs from the Finder (as described above). When initializing, a dialog box allows you to choose a format - Mac HFS+, ISO or Audio CD. Works just great.
    • The user made that very comment "Why hasn't it crashed on me?" He used to have crashes all the time. Now he has the other Mac users asking if they can upgrade anytime soon.

      Usually the problem with these Computer User Non Technical's is that they tend to install all manner of 'exoctica' on their machines that conflict either with each other or with the OS, this is more often than not the cause of crashes.

      I run Linux, W2K, MacOS9.2.2, MacOSX and I work with IRIX. Without exception, if these OSes are correctly installed and configured, they will work correctly - ie they will not 'crash all the time'. I have a Mac running OS9.x at home connected to a file sharing enviornment that I leave running for weeks at a time without any crashes.

      The bottom line is: If you have a problem with your OS crashing - TROUBLESHOOT IT! Don't whinge and whine that the OS is crap - IT'S NOT CRAP - IT WORKS! FIX IT!

      [/rant]
      • I agree with you... up to a point. I've got a database server (Filemaker and Cumulus) running 9.1 that stays up for months at a time. But on designer's machines one corrupt font in ATM crashes Quark which locks the system up. No, that's not all the OS's fault, much blame can be laid at the feet of ATM and Quark (much, much blame for Quark), but classic MacOS's decrepit memory management is a big part of the problem. Unfortunately, lack of a few things (font management, xtension compatability, collection software) prevents upgrading the users to X yet. Servers are all being changed over (the db server being the last one running classic), but it's just not ready for production machines quite yet.

        • I agree with you....up to a point too ;).

          Font problems in Mac OS are 99% of the time due to fonts not being written correctly. A font is a piece of software - most fonts you find on designer's Macs are purty ones they downloaded from the internet that were written by other designers, probably using Fontographer, who have absolutely no clue about FOND resources - they just know how to make purty fonts. Put one of these fonts into ATM, Suitcase or even the system fonts folder and you WILL have problems with applications that try to use this font.

          This has got absolutely nothing to do with the OS, in fact it has nothing to do with ATM or Quark. If the fonts were written correctly ATM and Quark would not crash.

          Mac OS memory management is an entirely different kettle of fish. I agree that the lack of protected memory on mac OSes up to and including 9.x is a pain, but again - if your machine is properly configured this will not cause your machine to crash.
          • You make a good point about avoiding cheap fonts like the plauge, but I'm talking about corrupted fonts. None of my users have cheap ass fonts installed because I'll kill them if they do and they know this. I had to replace a corrupted copy of Adobe Garamond this morning, it's not the fonts themselves as I've seen fonts from many manufacturers do this. Although I will grant that some fonts, IDC Futura for instance, do seem to corrupt themselves at the drop of a hat. I suspect our collection software may be causing some corruption, but I'm not sure yet.

            ATM's problem is that it doesn't automaticly disable corrupted fonts nor does it keep apps that activate fonts from doing so to a corrupted one. Quark's problem is that when it gets a bad font it doesn't do so gracefully. In fact it locks up the computer when it inevitably crashes, every single time, forcing a restart.

            So ATM is missing a feature or two but Quark is the main culprit here. The system shouldn't lock up when an app crashes, but it does so if the app is badly written - like Quark Xpress is - because, among other things, the app doesn't run in protected space. I can crash Photoshop all day long without it taking the system out... for that matter I can try and use a corrupt font in Illustrator or InDesign without it crashing at all, although the font will not display or print correctly. These are the clues that point to slight culpability by ATM and MacOS, and massive negligence by Quark and perhaps Flight Check.

    • I like my Gnome desktop

      I hope that isn't the only thing keeping you from OS X. Remember, it is a Unix. Gnome can compile and run on OS X. It can run in two ways.

      X windows can run along side Aqua, and thus you can switch between Gnome and Aqua with just a keyboard command (which is a pretty neat looking trick)

      You can also shut down Aqua and log in with just a terminal. Then you can do the normal 'startx' and load Gnome using only the Open Source Darwin Kernel. Thus you have a fully Open Source OS.

      Perhaps the most useful part about this is that it makes it really easy to configure hardware. Want to jump on a wireless network? Just configure it in Aqua and switch over to Gnome and use whatever app you like.. Gaim, Netscape, etc...
    • look Ma, a bash prompt


      Bash does not come with OS X. However, as bash is a Gnu product and my favourite shell, I thought, let's be brave and try to install it. We'll see what issues we come up against. Anyway, I did and I had one issue to do with changes to the linker between the 10 and 10.1 build of project builder which I fixed easily. That's when I truely fell in love with OS X. Since then I've installed BerkeleyDB, NEdit, Lesstif, sendmail, fetchmail, Open LDAP and Ghostscript all from source distros with virtually zero problems. I admit I did buy an X Server (Tenon XTools) because the NEdit distro said that was the only X Server it worked with.


      I love this operating system.

  • by Enzo90910 (547270) on Friday January 11, 2002 @08:22AM (#2822642)
    Apple's been bragging for some months now about their being the first company to put "the power and stability" of Unix in the hands of the average user and it seems that's what they did. What I'm wondering now is if this kind of stability put in the homes of millions of people will not change everybody's standard of stability. Five years ago, the standards of stability were Win95 and Mac OS 8 (I'm trying to speak for the general public there,OK? No flame, please). Neither was very stable (although I still remember 95 as being a true nightmare, whereas OS 8 was acceptable, as long as you didn't try anything fancy, such as developing on it), but since nobody had a better example, people were happy with it. Now we've got millions of mac users let loose among their friends and saying their computer (almost) never has to reboot! This could change the acceptable standards of stability, not only for Operating Systems, but also for the whole software industry.

    Most people thought computers had to crash, because that's what they always did. If some start to be STABLE, where is the world going?
    • Yeah, the uptime on my *laptop* is currently 17 days (since I installed the last system upgrade) and that includes moving it around a lot (in sleep mode). Just sweet.
    • I've been using OS X since mid-November (two months). The machine has been up 24/7 since then except for a couple of upgrade reboots.

      I experienced my first crash last night. "Kernel (panic)" totally freaked me out.

      Point is - my expectations had changed. I expected Mac OS 8 & 9 to crash periodically. I expected Win 95 & Win 98 to crash daily at work, if I was doing any intense spreadsheet work.

      Expecting the crash altered my user behavior; I tended to minimize the number of apps open at once, and I would consistently save work before toggling over to or launching another app. I'd gotten out of the habit while using OS X. They were good habits to drop; I think that my productivity increased significantly when I stopped worrying about how the OS would react to my workflow.
  • A Linux User At MacWorld, eh? What is that, like the IT version of the Pepsi Challenge?
  • With one move apple is into the server business as well as desktop. And linux being so popular, unix users/administrators are easier to find these days.
    It was just a matter of timing ..

    I think it would be a good time to give a PC version of OS X, taking after all these years Bill Gates' advice. But i remember microsoft "helped" apple some years back , no ?
    • Apple is a hardware company that also sells software. A PC version of OS X would remove the reason for people to buy Apple hardware ...

      Unless, of course, new features always came out a year later on the intel side.
      .
  • I have used OSX.1 and yeah its O.K. , that all I thought about it, Reminded me of Solaris in performance, I.E. pretty damm slow on hardware Yellow dog freaking screams on. Their hardware is getting better granted, but dumbing down *nix for the average Apple user, who still cant understand why you would ever need more than one button on a mouse ?

    Im not some *nix elitist, hey let everyone use it, what I wonder is the impacts OSX will have on other mainstream *nix variants, I mean is everybody going to whore their codebase up to handle all the fun, pretty eye candy and usability, hiding stuf that doent need hidden , and so on ?

    Apple, from the contact Ive had is a group thats right up their with MS in terms of "OURS ! OURS ! OURS !" They contibute little so far back to the OpenSource domain, their APSL Sucks(IMHO), and is too restrictive.

    Im all for choice. Hey it it ran on X86 (Not JUST DARWIN !) I ......well wouldnt feel any different. Why do people think Apple is less greedy or sniveling than MS, they had it perfected before MS was a player, just happened MS won by default because the PC won the last 30 year batle by a margin of 10:1

    OpenSource and Apple make dangerous bedfellows.
    IBM FREELY gives back to the OpenSource community , this is better than it sounds, If they didnt want to they wouldnt have too they have enough money and power to stall the courts and RMS pretty much forever. Apple does too , keep an eye out....
    • "but dumbing down *nix for the average Apple user, who still cant understand why you would ever need more than one button on a mouse ?"

      You have a problem with this???? Is it just that we don't want l33t grannies fragging us on wolfenstein and berating us for making our perl readable?

      "Apple, from the contact Ive had is a group thats right up their with MS in terms of "OURS ! OURS ! OURS !" They contibute little so far back to the OpenSource domain, their APSL Sucks(IMHO), and is too restrictive."

      As it's your opinion you are entitled to it. Apple has to keep some stuff closed because if you work with completely open source stuff...you go out of business. I mean - who's really doing well in the Open source arena?

      "Why do people think Apple is less greedy or sniveling than MS, they had it perfected before MS was a player, just happened MS won by default because the PC won the last 30 year batle by a margin of 10:1"

      Let me add that I'm not interested in Apple gaining a 90% market share. I trust them more than I trust other companies I'd mention but having a dominance is too much of a temptation for anyone. I'd be quite happy with 10-20%. Course I'd like it if Linux/BSD managed to chalk up another 10-20%. But that's tomorrow...

      "IBM FREELY gives back to the OpenSource community , this is better than it sounds"

      What exactly? Investment or are they throwing a few marketing bucks at something they can talk about in their ads and brochures. Where's the source code to AIX and OS/2? Seems there's not much meat on those bones.

    • The real problem is that Apple is a company with a history of striving for proprietary lock-in. Perhaps they've changed their ways. Perhaps. But I would need more evidence than I've seen so far. I like Apple. This doesn't mean that I trust them.

      OTOH, I don't trust IBM unreservedly either. Many of their "friendly activities" seem to me more like strategic moves. So perhaps they are just "game playing" and the Open Source community is currently an ally against a different enemy.

      OTOH, IBM does save money by using Linux instead of developing AIX. So they may be "permanent allies". As long as conditions remain the same.

      It may be illegal for corporations to have ethics. Perhaps they need to be able to defend any action they take against a stockholders suit. Please keep this in mind when considering a corporation as a friend. They may be counting on banking your friendship. They probably have to be able to defend any action that they may take which could benefit (or harm) you in a court of law. Against their stockholders.
      .
  • "I can go to my Mom's, fire up her iMac, open a shell, ssh to my own server and get some real work done", one guy said to me.

    so this is different from using putty on win95 in which way?

  • Hmmm... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Gizzmonic (412910)
    There were people in line wearing Sun and SGI schwag too...he thought OS X was "subversive" because it "seeds" millions...Of course there was plenty of buzz...unusually high level of hype etc etc.

    Oh man...I could totally make a bong out of those new iMacs...hey! Where did you leave the chips?

  • From the article:


    this attracts a lot of Linux weenies, not to mention UNIX heavies

    Linux developers are weanies and UNIX developers are heavies? When are we going to get some respect?!! Not to mention that UNIX would be all but dead if not revived by the Linux community. Sheesh!

  • Time and time again, /.ers complain that Apple takes but does not give back to Open source. If you believe that the only way to contribute to the Open Source Movement is by releasing all your intellectual property under the GPL license then by your estimations then it has taken and not given back. However, you are then being just as blindly bigotted and dogmatic as those who would only want software released under strict licenses at considerable expense and lack of freedom to the enduser (i.e. MS).

    Apple has contribute to Open Source in several small, but significant ways. For a start, there are currently six open source projects at Apple that it is providing funding for under the APSL:
    1) Darwin (the foundation of Mac OS X)
    2) Quicktime streaming server.
    3) Common Data Security Architecture (CDSA).
    4) Open play - a cross platform network abstraction layer.
    5) Headerdoc.
    6) Documentation.
    Apple gave back all this stuff away despite the fact that the BSD license doesn't force them too (in the case of Darwin).

    Furthemore, Apple provides employment for Open Source programers, such as Jordan Hubbard (FreeBSD) and Guy 'Bud' Tribble (ex-Eazel) - although admittedly since Eazel went tits up because it couldn't make a profit from a GPL product, I don't think Dr. Tribble will be doing as much work on GPL software for a while.
  • by greygent (523713)
    >I also don't think OSX, while being UNIX-compatible, should be called a version of UNIX

    Check your facts.

    Actually it SHOULD be called UNIX:
    1.) It's largely based on BSD. Despite what lawsuits say, BSD IS UNIX, and always has been.

    2.) Apple's OS X got the UNIX (R) "certification a long time ago [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org]. So both technically and legally, OS X is UNIX.
    • 1.) It's largely based on BSD. Despite what lawsuits say, BSD IS UNIX, and always has been.

      The Open Group [unix-systems.org] disagrees, and since they hold the trademark I tend to go with their opinions. For example, in their FAQ [unix-systems.org] is a question regarding BSD/OS:

      BSDI is an independent company that markets products derived from the Berkeley Systems Distribution (BSD), developed at the University of California at Berkeley in the 60's and 70's. It is the operating system of choice for many Internet service providers. It is, as with Linux, not a registered UNIX system, though in this case there is a common code heritage if one looks far enough back in history.

      You can argue that it's "Unix", or "*nix", or whatever, but no BSD is UNIX. They could be, of course, if they were willing to foot the bill for certification, but apparently no one has.

      2.) Apple's OS X got the UNIX (R) "certification a long time ago [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org]. So both technically and legally, OS X is UNIX.

      I participated in that thread back on OSOpinion, before it was posted on /., and I don't recall anyone actually showing that OS X had been certified (actually, no one did on /. did either, if you read the thread). Apple is listed [unix-systems.org] as a "Platform Vendor[] Supporting the Single UNIX Specification", but there is no mention of what OS that refers to, if in fact it has anything to do with UNIX licensing (I just scanned that section of the linked document, and it appears to be a list of vendors supporting that standard itself, rather than a platform that complies with the standard). There are no Apple OSes listed [opengroup.org] as certified UNIX systems under UNIX 98, 95, or 93, which seems to exclude both OS X and A/UX (which I had previously thought to be the best explanation for Apple involvement with the Single UNIX Spec).

      It's true that Apple clearly implies that OS X is UNIX (I don't know if they say so outright or just stick to "UNIX-based"), but it appears that they're referring only to the kernel (not that they'll make that clear if they can help it). One the OS X pages [apple.com] states

      The Mach 3.0 kernel in Darwin gives Mac OS X its robust UNIX base.
      (at the bottom, under "Core OS"). This is, AFAIK, legitimate, since Mach 3.0 was the kernel developer for OSF/1, which was presumably UNIX, but I do think they're pushing the line quite hard in some places.
  • by jchristopher (198929) on Friday January 11, 2002 @12:48PM (#2823734)
    Has anyone tried running Linux on the iBook? If so, what resolution can you get on an external monitor?

    Currently, under Mac OSX the output is limited to 1024x768 (even though the video card supports much more.) Yuck.

    If you can only get 1024x768 under Linux, that would indicate that it's actually a hardware limitation.

    If you can get more, however, that might indicate that there is hope for a BSD/Linux driver to be used as the basis for a new OSX driver that would unlock the capability of the hardware that Apple took away.

  • I've owned my G4 for about 2 years now. By day, I'm a windows programming lacky. But, thanks to OS X, by night I'm turning slowly into a Unix ninja. I love having a shell whenever I need it. I'm learning C on my box. I've used Apple's free project builder for a few chapters of a Java tutorial. I'm running mySQL. I'm running Apache, and serving from my Mac box 24/7. I'm also running PHP for the odd server side script... and I hope this only goes on and on. I love that Apple has really opened up the Unix world to me in a painless way. A few years back, I honestly tried to build a Linux box from some old 486 componentry. No dice. Couldn't get the drivers to work with my hodge-podge of hardware. The beauty of the Apple OS X experience is not having to worry about configuration, etc., and getting a secure, locked-down install of Unix that the newbie need not worry about, but is free to exploit as his knowledge grows. Thanks to Steve, I may just have a C++ job at EA one day...

Your own mileage may vary.

Working...